Yes

Seeing some response to my statement on @MikhailaFuller's podcast about speaking in tongues. Some potentially helpful clarification: First, I am not a cessationist (though I see myself being accused of it). I state in the interview that I believe that the spiritual sign gifts (tongues, prophesy, healing) still take place today, just not normatively like they were in the Apostolic era. Nonetheless, I hold to the standard exegetical position that biblical tongues refer to known languages. In Acts 2, the foundational instance, foreign speakers understood the disciples in their own native languages, establishing the clearest precedent for interpreting the phenomenon throughout Scripture. Secondly, while bliblical specialists and theologians debate whether tongues encompass human languages alone or include angelic speech, the consensus recognizes that a tongue functions as a language -- either immediately intelligible to hearers or requiring interpretation. The requirement that Paul places on interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that tongues contain objective, propositional meaning subject to translation, and his statement that “every valid instance of tongues contains intrinsic, propositional meaning" reinforces this understanding. A prominent scholarly argument identifies glossolalia as “the miraculous ability to speak unlearned human and (possibly) divine or angelic languages,” with the most common usage of “tongues” referring to ordinary human languages. The term γλῶσσα throughout the NT carries two primary meanings: the human organ or a human language, and careful word studies demonstrate that it never denotes non-cognitive utterance. However, scholarly consensus isn’t absolute the core agreement across interpretations centers on cognitive content: tongues communicate meaningful, intelligible information rather than incoherent utterance. Third, the early church evidence after the Apostolic era is virtually unanimous: the Early Church Fathers consistently interpreted the gift of tongues as the capacity to speak the many languages used across the earth. Their writings indicate the gift served an evangelistic purpose enabling communication with non-Christian populations. The Patristics universally understood “tongues” in Acts and 1 Corinthians to refer to human languages, and ancient Christians understood the biblical gift of tongues as a miracle involving intelligible human languages. When the fathers described the phenomenon, they used concrete language: John Chrysostom wrote that believers “would suddenly speak in Persian, another in Latin, another in the language of the Indians or of some other people” (Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 35), and Augustine stated that disciples “spoke in the languages of all the nations” (Sermon 269, Sermo CCLXIX. The most significant, and almost exclusive, early figure associated with ecstatic speech for tongues was Montanus, a 2nd-century prophet whose followers emphasized speaking in tongues; he was actually excommunicated (not necessarily for his position on tongues) around AD 177. By the late 2nd century, ecstatic interpretations of tongues were present but only in context of ecclesiastical concern. One interesting nuance appears with Philastrius in the 4th century, who understood angels as capable of conversing in all languages and believed the apostles received this same ability at Pentecost. However, this doesn’t represent a departure from the “knowable language” framework rather, the Early Church Fathers understood the gift of tongues as the ability to speak all languages spoken by people. The Church Fathers agreed the gift was the ability to speak all languages known to humankind, an ability they ascribed to angels, suggesting the “languages of angels” would not refer to a distinct heavenly language but rather to the capacity to communicate with anyone encountered. The historical record shows no discussion among the fathers of ecstatic utterances, unknown languages, or supernatural unintelligible speech. The gift remained firmly anchored to practical, learnable human languages throughout Patristic interpretation. So if you've stuck around this long, I think my position is both exegetically and historically sound.

Great balance of showing compassion while sharing truth as Wes Huff responds to the question of why a good God would allow evil: "Well, that is arguably the hardest and most pressing apologetic question there is, because ultimately, the very tidy philosophical and theological answer isn't the right answer sometimes. You know, sometimes the right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer, because I've encountered situations where someone has brought up a variation of the problem of evil to me, and I've just felt uneasy about maybe the tenor that they're coming at with the question...and asking them, 'You know, that's a great question. Why are you asking that question in particular?' and finding out once again (like the previous question related to it), they're personally hurting. And so, in that sense, I could give a tidy answer about if you're positing that something is good, you're positing that there's an objective good and evil, and if there's an objective good and evil, then you're positing an objective law, and objective law needs an objective lawgiver. So where do we find the groundwork for an objective lawgiver to begin with? Otherwise, you may not like certain things, but to say they ought not to happen is actually an ethical leap to an objective reality that you may or may not have groundwork for. But if that person is struggling because a family member of theirs has cancer, then that particular, maybe tidy, tied-up-in-a-nice-bow answer is not going to speak to them whatsoever. And so that's why that's the hardest question because there are actually very good answers to it, but often it doesn't speak to the person in front of you, because questions have questioners that sit behind them. And one of the pitfalls of my chosen field of ministry apologetics is that sometimes we give answers where we talk at people rather than with people. And there's a danger to that because the Christian faith isn't just an intellectual assent, right? It's a personal relationship. And that should also be played out in the answers that we give..."

How does God speak to Christians? Dr. Sinclair Ferguson explains how God does and does not speak to Christians. ligm.in/4slfm2X

We believe the PCA can be confessionally faithful and big-tent confident...We believe we can honor our Constitution without weaponizing it. We believe we can take doctrine seriously and take mission seriously."

Why can’t I get enough of this?

Ben Sasse is facing death and reveling in the glory of grace. This is what life is about.

An atheist Chinese surgeon didn't believe in Jesus until this happened Video: CBN

💥Can't believe he got the voice ...still...nothing had changed. For all those years, he really got that voice...wonderful Johnny Mathis ...Brilliant voice .

If Proverbs 15:1 were a video. WOW! God bless this brother in Christ !

Scott Adams says his final days will be guided by Christian faith as he announces his conversion. Pray for Scott 🙏🏻✝️

FREEDOM RINGS: 104-year-old World War II veteran Dominick Critelli, who fought at Normandy and in the Battle of the Bulge, wowed the crowd by performing the National Anthem on his saxophone at a New York Islanders game. Critelli, a staff sergeant who immigrated to the U.S. from Italy when he was a child, spent 151 days in combat during World War II, earning three Bronze Stars.

One time, a family visited our church. They had a new baby. I was cutting up with the dad during the fellowship time, saying how cute the baby was. Then, I asked him, “Are you sure he’s yours?” I meant, the kid is so cute and you’re not. It was too late. I already said it. I kept talking. He didn’t even notice though cause he worked in a body shop with a bunch of men. He probably heard that joke often, and worse. Men cut up with each other. Yet, I thought what a stupid thing to say. They came back, nevertheless, often.

Show this video to your kids…Wow😳

What Christmas is all about. Sinclair Ferguson on the staggering wonder of the incarnation.

The ideological rift runs deep. I’m not interested in asking white people to repent & pay attention to my black skin. Also, not interested in wading through Beelzebub-ian race realism sewage from the other side. Pray for the PCA. pcaprayerandlament.com/?fbcl…

The historic Reformed Catholic churches rejected medieval holy days, but retained freedom to celebrate “evangelical feast days”—Xmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, & Pentecost. These days weren’t holy but helpful ways to commemorate Christ. #Advent 🔗 danielrhyde.com/articles/not…

Stop it.