These posts were made originally by John Edwards on the group "Christians against the Pentecostal / Charismatic Movement". What a delightful name for a group.
Paul, writing with Apostolic authority, always treated the gift of tongues as a present reality – not as a thing of the past. He did not mention tongues in a later Epistle. That means everything he'd previously written about tongues was now irrelevant, right? No! It means that what he'd previously written under Divine inspiration still stood – seeing he never, under Divine inspiration, rescinded it! Otherwise water baptism is also now irrelevant – because Paul didn't mention water baptism in later Epistles either.
To deduce that someone who discusses charismatic issues in a Facebook Group that exists for the purpose of discussing charismatic issues is obsessed with charismatic issues, is like complaining while sitting in a baseball stadium watching a game of baseball that all a particular baseball player is doing is playing baseball!
Almost every Post by every member of this Group has been about charismatic issues. Do you also criticize them for that – or is the real reason for your criticism of my Post simply that you disagree?
Besides, the reason I keep Posting, is because no-one yet has successfully defended their cessationist assertion, in this Group. If someone would successfully defend it, that would be the end of my Posting. If you want me to stop Posting, there is a way you can achieve that – prove cessationism!
Now, to answer your above question: I can say that all of the guidelines which Paul wrote regarding tongues are still applicable today. Not only that, but the treatment of the topic of tongues as being a present reality is also still an applicable way to treat the topic today. Nothing which the Apostles wrote has ever been rescinded by Apostolic authority – therefore what they wrote still stands – their stance, their manner of treating the topic – still stands.
Paul did say that a believer may speak with tongues to himself and to God. Whether a believer spoke with tongues publicly or privately didn't change the tongue. The only difference was in whether he addressed the church with the tongue or instead spoke privately. Both were valid uses for tongues – and in both cases, a valid language was being spoken as the Spirit gave utterance.
He did say that there were circumstances in which only two or three should speak with tongues. But there were also different circumstances even in Bible times in which it was okay for 120 people to speak with tongues (Acts 2); circumstances in which it was okay for an entire household to speak with tongues, where many were gathered together (Cornelius' household); circumstances in which it was okay for twelve disciples to speak with tongues on a single occasion (at Ephesus). The circumstances governed what was appropriate. That's Bible.
We know that women prophesied. We also know that there were women present on the day of Pentecost. There would also have been women present in Cornelius' household. So it can't be proven from Scripture that no woman was gifted to speak with tongues. Whether or not women were to address a Church with tongues however may be another question.
There: I've addressed your question above, even though you haven't addressed my question in my Post above. Of the two of us therefore, isn't it you, and not I, to whom it can be said, in your own words: "Don't dance around this sir"?
Calling me a name doesn't prove nor strengthen your argument. And your Comments still don't answer the question in my Post above. It's my Post above that you seem to be 'dancing around' and not responding to. Nevertheless, I'll do you the courtesy which you have not done me, and answer your questions. The answers are: Yes, we can stick strictly to the guidelines in I Cor.14 in the scenario for which those guidelines were intended. Yes, Paul validates a private use for tongues (in verses 2, 15, 17, 18, 28 & 39). No, the Bible does not contradict itself. Now will you address the question in my Post, as I have addressed yours?
The point of my Post is that if Paul didn't mention tongues in his later Epistles, it doesn't prove conclusively that tongues must have already ceased. In fact, if anything, it proves they hadn't yet ceased – because where a testament is not rescinded in writing, the testament still stands.
Exactly! He didn't mention water baptism either – but we know baptism hadn't ceased. So if he doesn't mention something, it doesn't automatically mean it had ceased.
He didn't mention water baptism in the later Epistles – that didn't mean water baptism had ceased. Therefore, if he didn't mention tongues in his later Epistles either – then that doesn't automatically mean tongues must already have ceased too.
"…my understanding is unfruitful…" meant his mind was not engaged, it was not improved by, praying with his spirit.
He said if he prays with an unknown tongue, his spirit prays. He said that if he prays with tongues, he verily giveth thanks well – but the others sitting by are not edified. He said that if no-one interprets, you may speak with tongues to yourself and to God. He said he will pray with his spirit, and he will pray with his understanding also. Both are options – but only one option was appropriate in public.
He didn't say he wouldn't. He only said he wouldn't address a congregation in a tongue unless it was also interpreted.