B. B. Warfield's Book "Counterfeit Miracles"

[earl40]

What in the text though specified that we are no longer to follow that procedure for today with the church Elders?

Because the promise that the sick will be made well does not happen today after one receives oil.

 

[Grant]

Because the promise that the sick will be made well does not happen today after one receives oil.

What about essential oils?

 

[earl40]

1 Cor 14:4. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

If tongues in this case were a sign to confirm Jesus, it's hard to see how they only edify the tongue-speaker.

So you think Paul spoke tongues all by his lonesome self sometimes? Or do you believe he practiced speaking in tongues in the company of people?

 

[RamistThomist]

So you think Paul spoke tongues all by his lonesome self sometimes? Or do you believe he practiced speaking in tongues in the company of people?

The evidence isn't conclusive. That he spoke in tongues is a given, since he told the Corinthians "I speak in tongues more than all of you."

 

[Taylor]

What about essential oils?

 

[earl40]

The evidence isn't conclusive. That he spoke in tongues is a given, since he told the Corinthians "I speak in tongues more than all of you."

The point of my question was for you to see that Paul did not practice speaking in tongues by himself. In other words, I know he was not speaking in tongues to "edify" himself.

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.

 

[RamistThomist]

The point of my question was for you to see that Paul did not practice speaking in tongues by himself.

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (1 Cor. 14:18).

Was it private or in public? Doesn't matter, since he is clear that tongues only edifies the speaker, which makes it odd for tongues to confirm the apostolic ministry.

 

[Dachaser]

So you think Paul spoke tongues all by his lonesome self sometimes? Or do you believe he practiced speaking in tongues in the company of people?

I do not think that the scriptures support the concept of a personal prayer tongue languages though.

 

[Dachaser]

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (1 Cor. 14:18).

Was it private or in public? Doesn't matter, since he is clear that tongues only edifies the speaker, which makes it odd for tongues to confirm the apostolic ministry.

The gift of tongues was by the will of the Holy Spirit though back then, as not all saved had them, correct?

 

[RamistThomist]

The gift of tongues was by the will of the Holy Spirit though back then, as not all saved had them, correct?

That's true of almost every gift. Not everyone has the gift of pastoring, teaching, administrating, etc.

 

[earl40]

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (1 Cor. 14:18).

Was it private or in public? Doesn't matter, since he is clear that tongues only edifies the speaker, which makes it odd for tongues to confirm the apostolic ministry.

I think you need to read 1 Cor 14 again and understand that Paul is clearly commanding one is not to speak in tongues by himself, and I know he did not disobey his own command.

If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think you need to read 1 Cor 14 again and understand that Paul is clearly commanding one is not to speak in tongues by himself, and I know he did not disobey his own command.

If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

D.A. Carson writes,

“Paul thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all of his readers. . . If Paul speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians, yet in the church prefers to speak five intelligible words rather than ten thousand words in a tongue . . ., then where does he speak them? . . . The only possible conclusion is that Paul exercised his remarkable tongues gift in private” (p. 105)

Showing the Spirit.

I'm actually undecided on the issue. My initial point was pushing back against the ubiquitous "everything miraculous is a sign that confirmed apostolic ministry." There is no evidence that every miracle was only a confirmation of apostolic message. Further, there is no logical warrant to move from that dubious premise to the conclusion "It doesn't happen today."

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

1 Cor 14:4. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

If tongues in this case were a sign to confirm Jesus, it's hard to see how they only edify the tongue-speaker.

They didn't only edify the tongue-speaker - if you read the context Paul is telling the Corinthians not to use the gift of tongues in the church when it would not edify the hearers. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles spoke in tongues and it clearly did edify the hearers - it was a sign verifying the truth of what they were saying.

 

[Dachaser]

D.A. Carson writes,

“Paul thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all of his readers. . . If Paul speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians, yet in the church prefers to speak five intelligible words rather than ten thousand words in a tongue . . ., then where does he speak them? . . . The only possible conclusion is that Paul exercised his remarkable tongues gift in private” (p. 105)

Showing the Spirit.

I'm actually undecided on the issue. My initial point was pushing back against the ubiquitous "everything miraculous is a sign that confirmed apostolic ministry." There is no evidence that every miracle was only a confirmation of apostolic message. Further, there is no logical warrant to move from that dubious premise to the conclusion "It doesn't happen today."

There is no scripture though to support that the same supernatural gifts given by Jesus to His own Apostles are being distributed by God among the Church body today.

 

[Dachaser]

They didn't only edify the tongue-speaker - if you read the context Paul is telling the Corinthians not to use the gift of tongues in the church when it would not edify the hearers. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles spoke in tongues and it clearly did edify the hearers - it was a sign verifying the truth of what they were saying.

Those tongues were actually real earthly languages, not unknown Heavenly tongue as many claim for today.

 

[Dachaser]

I think you need to read 1 Cor 14 again and understand that Paul is clearly commanding one is not to speak in tongues by himself, and I know he did not disobey his own command.

If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

He would probably see a difference between the tongue God gives to edify the local assembly, and the one used in private prayers to God.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Those tongues were actually real earthly languages, not unknown Heavenly tongue as many claim for today.

Indeed. The inane babble uttered by those today who claim to have the gift of tongues is not at all the same thing, and to suggest it comes from the Holy Ghost is bordering on blasphemous.

 

[Dachaser]

Indeed. The inane babble uttered by those today who claim to have the gift of tongues is not at all the same thing, and to suggest it comes from the Holy Ghost is bordering on blasphemous.

IF there were any gift of tongues being given and used by God for today, would seem to be say on the missions field to get the Gospel message out among those never hearing of Jesus, but surely not speaking in gibberish.

 

[RamistThomist]

There is no scripture though to support that the same supernatural gifts given by Jesus to His own Apostles are being distributed by God among the Church body today.

There is no Scripture to support, by that reasoning, that any of the gifts are continuing today. It's not good to build positions on logical fallacies (argument from silence).

 

[RamistThomist]

IF there were any gift of tongues being given and used by God for today, would seem to be say on the missions field to get the Gospel message out among those never hearing of Jesus, but surely not speaking in gibberish.

Your sentence isn't clear on who or what the actual subject is, but I'll take a guess. How do you know that this isn't happening? Missional reports an bck this up. I already refuted your "No medical testimonies have been found" earlier in this thread.

 

[earl40]

D.A. Carson writes,

“Paul thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all of his readers. . . If Paul speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians, yet in the church prefers to speak five intelligible words rather than ten thousand words in a tongue . . ., then where does he speak them? . . . The only possible conclusion is that Paul exercised his remarkable tongues gift in private” (p. 105)

Showing the Spirit.

I'm actually undecided on the issue. My initial point was pushing back against the ubiquitous "everything miraculous is a sign that confirmed apostolic ministry." There is no evidence that every miracle was only a confirmation of apostolic message. Further, there is no logical warrant to move from that dubious premise to the conclusion "It doesn't happen today."

Just trying to point you in the right direction in that you should decide exactly what speaking in tongues is. If it is speaking in a language, each and every time, Paul would not do it all by himself against his command. If you believe tongues also includes some type of prayer language then we have another issue to discuss.

 

[RamistThomist]

Just trying to point you in the right direction in that you should decide exactly what speaking in tongues is. If it is speaking in a language, each and every time, Paul would not do it all by himself against his command. If you believe tongues also includes some type of prayer language then we have another issue to discuss.

I don't have a definite position on tongues. For example, when Peter and them spoke in tongues on Pentecost, while their audience understood it, they didn't have a designated interpreter per Paul's command in Corinthians. So I don't think the two situations are entirely identical.

In any case, I personally don't speak in tongues and I don't think I know anyone that does, so it's more of an academic issue to me.

 

[earl40]

I don't have a definite position on tongues. For example, when Peter and them spoke in tongues on Pentecost, while their audience understood it, they didn't have a designated interpreter per Paul's command in Corinthians. So I don't think the two situations are entirely identical.

In any case, I personally don't speak in tongues and I don't think I know anyone that does, so it's more of an academic issue to me.

I hear you, though not having a definite position does lend you to not being able to defend your thoughts very well. Also those that heard and understood at Pentecost were the interpreters.

 

[RamistThomist]

I hear you, though not having a definite position does lend you to not being able to defend your thoughts very well.

Outside observers can be the judge of that (since many have emailed me and are considering continuationism).

Also those that heard and understood at Pentecost were the interpreters.

That's specifically *not* how Paul prescribed the situation, which lends credence to the claim that these two situations are not analogous.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I don't have a definite position on tongues. For example, when Peter and them spoke in tongues on Pentecost, while their audience understood it, they didn't have a designated interpreter per Paul's command in Corinthians. So I don't think the two situations are entirely identical.

In any case, I personally don't speak in tongues and I don't think I know anyone that does, so it's more of an academic issue to me.

This really isn't that hard to reconcile. In Acts 2, an interpreter was not needed since they were speaking the languages of those nations, so of course they understood. In 1 Corinthians, it would seem the foreign language was not known in the congregation, therefore it required interpretation in order to be profitable to them. Paul likely spoke tongues in both contexts, in missionary encounters with those who did not speak his language, and in a corporate worship context when there was an interpreter.

Regarding your earlier question of how the gift of tongues confirmed the apostolic testimony, it was not necessarily the message of any particular tongue that confirmed the testimony, but the new presence of the gift itself (again Hebrew 2:3-4). It was a new sign (along with many others) accompanying and confirming the new revelation of the gospel. But it still had to be used according to God's purpose, not for various recipients to show off.

 

[RamistThomist]

This really isn't that hard to reconcile. In Acts 2, an interpreter was not needed since they were speaking the languages of those nations, so of course they understood.

I can go with that, but that confirms (probably not the best term, given current discussion!) one of my suspicions that there aren't always absolute rules in these situations.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I can go with that, but that confirms (probably not the best term, given current discussion!) one of my suspicions that there aren't always absolute rules in these situations.

I think Paul set out the rule in 1 Cor 14. Either use a language the audience can understand, or interpret it so they can understand, or keep your mouth shut, all for the good of the body.

 

[Dachaser]

There is no Scripture to support, by that reasoning, that any of the gifts are continuing today. It's not good to build positions on logical fallacies (argument from silence).

We know that the Lord Jesus bestowed those sign gifts to His own Apostles for their mission in His name, but we have no reputable documentation supporting that God continued to grant those same gifts after John died.

 

[RamistThomist]

but we have no reputable documentation supporting that God continued to grant those same gifts after John died.

Yes we do. It's called church history. And even if we didn't have church history documentation, that would be irrelevant, since it is an exegetical question.

 

[Dachaser]

Your sentence isn't clear on who or what the actual subject is, but I'll take a guess. How do you know that this isn't happening? Missional reports an bck this up. I already refuted your "No medical testimonies have been found" earlier in this thread.

My position would be that the sign gifts were given to the Apostles in order to validate the Person of Jesus , and the Gospel message as being from God, so if still was in operation, the mission fields shoud be the only place where God might be alllowing those sign gifts to be in operation for the expressed purpose to confirm Jesus as Lord and Gospel as true, but even then they would shortly wane and cease.