Some reasons why cessationism has become a dead worldview

[Biblicist]

This thread is a follow-on from the current thread titled The Gift of Tongues from post #320. Index on post 3

As my reply to one particular post become quite complicated and lengthy I did not want to see it lost amongst hundreds of others so I decided to start this thread so that it might be easier to find in the future.

The thread should show why cessationism was pushed off its pinnacle as being a serious form of theology sometime in the early 80's, where it should be shown (at least from this small sample of questions) why cessationism is no longer a serious theological concern. Since the early 1980's most prudent salaried church staffer's began to discover that the only real 'defence' against Continuism was to remain quiet. Where if they do not talk about the spiritual matters of 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 then hopefully the issue might not come up within their church ranks.

As the questions that have been addressed were typical of the time period in the 1980's then I thought that it would be helpful for many to see how frail the cessationist position actually is.
. . . . . . .
Part-1

Biblicist said:
If tongues were ever meant to be in a human language then why would we need to have someone interpret the tongue and obviously there was no need for interpretations on the Day of Pentecost.

[Your initial responses to my questions are in blue and preceeded by ►]

►No translators were needed at Pentecost because Jerusalem was jam packed with foreigners from around the world celebrating the Feast of Pentecost, whereas the Corinthian church was just a regular Greek church. ​

My Reply: Now, if you were to pick up any book that addresses Corinth, be it a Commentary or even a secular article on the life of those who lived in this particular region, you will quickly discover some interesting things about Corinth and its citizens.​

What you will discover is that Corinth was a major Roman colony, where Latin was the language of government, this means that it was more of a Latin city than it was Greek, where some archaeologists and other scholars will state that “Corinth was more Roman than Rome itself”, though there were undoubtedly numerous Greek citizens along with many Greek speaking slaves who were a part of the Corinthian church.

This meant that there would have been a number of languages in use, at least within the homes of the church adherents. As Corinth was at the centre of the Roman Empire, where many had to cross the isthmus that dissects Greece from the Peloponnese that Corinth is situated on, then it would have been a hub of cultures and dialects which would have been reflected within the various Corinthian congregations.

When the Corinthians received Paul’s letter, where he said in 1Cor 14:2 “that no man can understand” what the Spirit is saying through tongues, then they would have well understood that “no man” means absolutely “no man”. At this stage, no one knows if the Corinthian congregations would have employed Latin or Greek within their meetings, though this may have varied depending on the makeup of each local congregation.​

Biblicist said:
And you never will as tongues are never spoken in a human language . . . simplezzzz!

►Quite the opposite is true. The only description of tongues in the bible is Acts 2 and it is very clearly human languages. Where in scripture is it redefined as angel language or any other kind of language?​

Reply: How can this be a serious statement as it is absolutely impossible to ignore Paul’s detailed explanation of the nature, operation and purpose of tongues within 1Cor 12 and particularly with chapters 13 & 14, it simply cannot be ignored; unless of course, it could be as the result of a decision to ignore the primary material that we have on tongues – there we go, I’ve obviously answered my own question!

In Acts 2 (unlike with the other occurrences in Acts), where the 120 spoke in human languages, which still confused the massive crowd who heard what was going on, we at least know the content of what was being said where they were words about the greatness of God; Craig Keener remarks, ‘The Crowd heard the Disciples worshipping God’ (see Keener, Acts p.832). Here we have a direct correlation with the congregational tongues that Paul speaks of in 1Cor 14 with that of Acts 2.​

Biblicist said:
But this was only with the Day of Pentecost where this event was never repeated in Acts and of course in First Corinthians

►Please provide proof that the tongues in Acts 10 & 19 and in 1 Corinthians is not the same as Acts 2.​

My reply: There is no need to, as every occurrence of tongues within the Scriptures are the same.

The only difference between congregational tongues, which Paul speaks of in detail in First Corinthians with the accounts in Acts 2, is that the Holy Spirit chose to speak through the 120 in human languages about “the greatness of God”, whereas in congregational tongues we speak in un-intelligible in-articulate words about “the greatness of God”. As the Day of Pentecost was a unique and unrepeatable event, where he was now announcing that the Old Covenant had closed and that a New Covenant was now being inaugurated, then what better way to announce to the House of Israel that Joel 2 has now been and is still being fulfilled.

What is often missed by the cessationist is with how Paul states in 1Cor 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. If congregational tongues were to be given in a human language, and particularly with the language that an unsaved visitor might understand, we are would then be forced to challenge Paul’s statement as the Holy Spirit would then be addressing either God or God + man or if as some cessationists suggest, that tongues are intended to reach the unsaved, then the words that the Holy Spirit speaks are then to man and not God, which would be a major issue for the integrity of the Scriptures.

In Acts 10 with Cornelius and his family and friends, all we know is that they in all probability were speaking within inarticulate words along with the declarations that they gave probably in Aramaic as they “praised God”.

If the Holy Spirit had of chosen to speak through the Romans (and whoever else) in a known language, then Luke would have undoubtedly recorded this as Peter would be required to convey this to the Elders and Apostles. As Peter was only accompanied by six friends, where we do not know if they were only less sophisticated Galileans or where one or two may be been better educated Jews from Jerusalem who may have known at least Greek and/or Latin, it could be hard to empirically prove to the Jerusalem Council if any of them did as they probably wouldn’t even know if they did. The converted Pharisees who were a part of the Elders could have also easily responded with, “Well, where were the tongues of fire and the sounds of a rushing wind” as it occurred on the Day of Pentecost?

With Acts 19 we have no evidence that what occurred with the Ephesians where they both spoke in tongues and prophesied was any different to that of congregational and private tongues; if something more dramatic had occurred then Luke would have recorded it.

Even the (cessationist) Anglican Bishop Paul Barnet said in his book 1 Corinthians (2004) p.243 has said;

“The first ‘gift’ is ‘speaking with the tongues of men and angels’ (verse 1). It must be admitted immediately that we can only speculate as to the meaning here. Most likely such ‘speech’ was ecstatic, and believed to be the dialect of the angels in heaven”.
​

Barnet’s choice of wording may be quite deliberate as it relates to “ecstatic” along with “and believed”. His particular home base here in Australia is known to be a hotbed of cessationism so he could be trying to present more of a neutral stance, where his use of the problematic term “ecstatic” could suggest either an un-intelligible utterance by the Holy Spirit or even that they were speaking within the flesh as a result of some form of collective exuberance. His choice of “and believed” could be referring to what scholarship believes or even with what the Corinthians may have either correctly or incorrectly believed.

In my opinion, it seems that Barnet with years of exposure to the Pentecostal position on these particular passages, that even though he will desire to comment faithfully on the text, at the same time he may be attempting to allow for a bit of manoeuvring room to accommodate some within his ecclesiastical system.

When cessationists try to say “all we know about tongues is to be found in Acts 2”, this is much the same as a cessationist such as “D. Thomas” who reports on how two of his neighbours bought the same 2015 model car. The first neighbour “Peter” who lives at No.2 Acts Street might have told Thomas, “I bought a particular model car”, where the other neighbour “Paul” who lives around the corner at No. 14 Corinth Street told Thomas that he also bought the same model car, but Paul was able to provide a detailed summary of the car and where it should be driven and not be driven. Of course the cessationist might tell one of his other very envious neighbours, “Sorry, all I know about the particular model car is with what Peter at No. 2 Acts Street has told me” and that’s not a real lot. After all this, Thomas, who doubted that cars really exist then hopped and on his horse and rode off home.

►In fact Peter explicitly says the gift of tongues in Acts 10 was the same as Acts 2. "the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning....So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ...." Acts 11:15-17
​

Reply: That’s right to a point, where the Holy Spirit certainly fell upon the Romans (and possibly others) with the evidence of speaking in tongues, but only the 120 experienced the ‘tongues of fire’ and the ‘sounds of a rushing wind” and they were the only ones to speak in human languages. Peter was not attempting to say that what happened within the home of the Roman was a repeat of the set of events that occurred on the Day of Pentecost (as they certainly didn’t) but that the Holy Spirit came upon the Romans as he did with the Jews previously. The object of Peter’s defence was to point to the common agent who filled the Jews first and then the Gentile Roman’s second.​

Biblicist said: Paul absolutely rejects the notion that praying in the Spirit (tongues) is spoken in anything else but within in-articulate (angelic) utterances - that's Bible 101!

►Does he? We have already established that the idea of tongues being angelic is a complete misinterpretation of 1 Cor 13:1 that ignores the context of the subsequent 4 parallel statements. Tongues of angels is clearly something hypothetical, not something that Paul literally did. Despite 2 attempts you have been unable to refute that.
​

Reply: Your “we have already established” is little more than a desperate plea as you are coming from within a cessationist worldview where you obviously want to believe that something is true simply because you need it to be true.

Does Paul;

1. Speak in human tongues (i.e., Aramaic, Greek, Latin etc) – Yes
2. Speak in an inarticulate angelic tongue – Yes
3. Have the ability to prophesy – Yes
4. Understand all (knowable) mysteries as it relates to the Gospel – Yes [see 1Cor 2:7; 4:1]
5. Have all (knowable) knowledge as it relates to the Gospel – Yes
6. Have a faith that can move all mountains (insurmountable obstacles) – most likely Yes
7. Given away his worldly possessions; as he had to work to survive then - Yes
8. Emotionally given over his body either to ‘hardship’ or ‘to be burned’ – Yes
9. Would the mortal and finite creature Paul also lack love at times - Yes
​

As the above nine points have all been answered in the affirmative, then your use of ‘clearly something hypothetical” seems to fall a bit short in my view. Except for the second point, I would definitely expect that the vast majority of cessationist scholars (incl. that of John McArthur, who is not deemed to be a scholar but a commentator) would agree with or that they would at least come very close to agreeing with the thrust of my summations; if not, then I would like to know why!

The only reason that the cessationist (one of the “have nots”) is forced to view 1Cor 13:1 as a work of hyperbole is because they are unable to pray in the Spirit along with an attitude of envy where these “have-nots” will often decry what the “haves have” simply because they are unwilling to obey some very simple instructions and admonitions.​

 

[Biblicist]

Part 2


Biblicist said:

As my special interest is with Pnuematology and where I currently own 14 contemporary commentaries on First Corinthians, it would be a very brave (and probably a very foolish) theologian who would ever dare say that praying in the Spirit has any connection is only directly connected with human languages.

►Then the 14 commentaries you own must be very poor quality if they say praying in the Spirit is exclusively praying in tongues.​

Reply: Having now taken a look at my comment, it does seem that it could have been the result of a Freudian slip up as I should have said “is directly connected”. I have certainly seen the odd (a very appropriate choice of word) commentary that refers to tongues as being given in a known human language but when I come across them in a bookshop I will quickly put them down, where I will dismiss the author as being an outsider who is speaking on a subject that he knows either little or nothing about – these particular chappies in my view are really a disappointment as they are reflecting the entirety of the Christian academy.

►How could they fail to notice Eph 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests".​

Reply: I can’t really see what the problem is here or at least with the point that you are objecting to. But suffice to say, whenever we need to pray (as per “on all occasions”) then we are to not only pray and request things in our native language but we are to also pray in the Spirit (tongues) as well. I appreciate that this is something that the cessationist, by choice alone, is unable to do but as this is their choice then it is their responsibility to do something about it.

►How can you make requests in a language you don't understand?​

Reply: For that matter, how can Paul say that when someone prays quietly to themselves in the Spirit that they are in fact edifying themselves when the person who is praying does not understand what he is saying to the Father in prayer?

►Also this commandment is to all believers, whereas not everybody has the gift of tongues (1 Cor 12:30). Hence praying in the Spirit in Eph 6:18 cannot be referring to tongues. ​

Reply: This is of course problematic for the cessationist as you are of course unable (or maybe as you are unwilling) to pray in the Spirit as per Paul’s admonition in Eph 6:18, which he also speaks of in 1Cor 14:15 “So what shall I do? I will pray with my s/Spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding”.

With reference to Paul’s comment in 1Cor 12:30 Do all speak in tongues or interpret then the obvious answer is certainly no. The reason for this is found back in 12:28 where Paul says, “And in the church God has appointed eight Offices . . . which include tongues (& articulation-interpretation). Even if the entire adult population of a congregation have chosen to be able to pray in the Spirit, probably only a few will choose to both regularly speak out a word of praise and thanks to the Father in their meetings where they will also need to provide an articulation-interpretation.

The same goes for prophecy as well where both may be prepared to speak within a smaller church setting; but when it comes to the larger mega-church meeting some will be more than content to allow others to go through what can often be a hoopla of procedures before they can speak.

►In fact tongues is never even mentioned in the book of Ephesians.​

Reply: As Eph 6:18 contains an admonition to pray in the Spirit and that Paul has already spoken of tongues as praying in the Spirit in 1Cor 14:15 then this is now signed, sealed and delivered. As the cessationist is one of the “have nots” where the Continuist is one of “the haves”, then we are not being compelled to change whatever Paul says from book to book, from chapter to chapter and even verse to adjacent verse.​

Biblicist said:
As our ability to pray in the Spirit (tongues) is a vital ability that the Holy Spirit works through us, where it is certainly applicable during times of private devotions, it has little benefit within the corporate meeting as the Spirit will always direct his words of praise to the Father.

►Where in the bible does it say tongues are for private devotions? ​

Reply: To begin with, why would Paul say in 1Cor 14:18 “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all. But in the church I would rather speak . . .” where Paul contrasts speaking in tongues both within the congregational meeting and outside of such meetings.

If we go back to the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:11 we see that the 120 were speaking/praying about “the wonders of God” which is equivalent to how we praise God during our times of personal devotions. This type of praise also has a direct correlation with the Lord’s Prayer which also includes aspects of praise where we are to speak of the wonders of God.

In Eph 6:10-18 Paul speaks of our Spiritual Armour where in verse 18 he says, And pray in the Spir on all occasions...” which of course is connected to his use of ‘pray in the Spirit’ with 1Cor 14:15.

Jude also tells us in Jude 20 to again “build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit” which again connects with 1Cor 14:15 and Eph 6:18.

► Doesn't Paul say that prayers in tongues ought to be interpreted so that others can say "Amen"? How can it be done in private if it must be interpreted for the benefit of others?​

Reply: This question is covered in my following replies.

► How can tongues spoken in private be a "sign to unbelievers”?​

Reply: Pauls use of ‘sign to unbelievers or with those who do not understand (i.e., cessationists)’ in 1Cor 14:22,23 his reference is to the negative sign value that un-interpreted tongues will have upon the two groups that I just mentioned. So providing that there are no more than three tongues given per meeting, where each is subsequently articulated-interpreted, then all is well, as this should not unduly upset those who are unfamiliar with the things of the Spirit.

Paul goes to some pains to further develop this point with 1Cor 14:20,21 where he forcefully connects the confusion that can occur for those who are un-initiated into the things of the Spirit, with the residents of Jerusalem, who were being overpowered by the invading Syrians who were giving commands that they could neither understand, nor where they could respond to quickly enough without being cut down by a Syrian sword.

As for tongues being spoken in private, then providing that there is no-one from the above two groups present, then someone who through the Holy Spirit is either petitioning the Lord or where they are praising him, they can either speak softly or if the situation allows they can shout to the rooftops.

► How can tongues be for private use if the gifts of the spirit are only to be used for the benefit of others (1 Peter 4:10, 1 Cor 12:7).​

Reply: This is a common fallacy that even many Pentecostals and charismatics can succumb to but the Scriptures do not say that they are for the “benefit of others”. What the Greek does say in 1Cor 12:7 is better reflected with;

ἑκάστῳ . . δὲ δίδοται ἡ . φανέρωσις . .τοῦ . Πνεύματος πρὸς τὸ . . συμφέρον (GK5237/SC4851)

to each one But is given the manifestation of the Spirit . . . . . . .for . the [mutual] benefit [of the one and all].

• The Southern Baptist theologian David E. Garland in his commentary First Corinthians (2003) on page 578 wisely notes that the above phrase “leaves indefinite who is to benefit”.

• The Reformed (Calvinist) theologian Simon K. Kistemaker in his commentary First Corinthians (1993) on page 420 states “Paul does not rule out that the gift itself may benefit the individual, but God confers his gifts on his people so that all may be edified (14:26)”.

• The British Anglican theologian Anthony C. Thiselton in his commentary The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2000) on page 936 states “. . . the Spirit is at work where the public manifestation serves the common advantage of others, and not merely self-affirmation, self-fulfillment, or individual status. The Spirit produces visible effects for the profit of all, not for self-glorification”. [Bold emphasis by Thiselton]

• Gordon D. Fee who is a Pentecostal (AoG) exegetical scholar in his The First Epistle to the Corinthians (1987) says on page 589 “that the gifts are for the building up of the community as a whole, not primarily for the benefit of the individual believer”. In his footnote he goes on to say, “This is not to say that the building up of the individual believer is no concern of his. To the contrary (see on 14:4). But the concern throughout this entire argument is on the effect of gifts in building up the community”.

• What Thiselton and Fee have rightly pointed out is that Paul is speaking of the community setting or where the Saints meet as the local people of God, where Thiselton went to the trouble of placing this aspect in bold print. This means that when we pray in the Spirit (tongues) within the congregational setting, that it will always need to benefit the congregation, which is why EVERY instance where tongues is applied within the congregational setting that each must be subsequently articulated-interpreted.

1Pet 4:10

v9. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.
v10. Each of you should use whatever gift (charisma) you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace (charitos) in its various forms.​

This passage is not speaking only about the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) as the giver of the charisma, be it either the Holy Spirit, the Son or the Father is not mentioned, so it can also be referring to the gift of life (Rom 5:15), the gift of God is eternal life in Christ (Rom 6:23). Now I seriously doubt that even the most austere hard-core cessationist would decry our right to use our Salvation, Redemption and Regeneration that we have received as a result of the work of Christ on the cross to our individual benefit.

In verse 9 Peter tells us to be hospitable, where I would imagine that he would have absolutely no problem with us being hospitable to ourselves, where we are to look after our own spiritual, bodily and emotional needs. And most importantly, I doubt if Paul would be all that upset if we heeded his advice in Php 2:12 to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling”, where I think that he would be pleased to see us concentrating on OUR walk on a daily basis; so obviously it can be prudent to work on “ourselves” at times.

. . . . . . .

Of all my posts and replies on this forum over the years, this particular post has definitely been the most rewarding and enjoyable reply that I have had the privilege of providing.

​

 

[Biblicist]

Index of key Themes:

1. How many Manifestations of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) are there? 6, 8
   
2. What is the meaning of the Greek word glossa (English, tongue) 9
   
3. The Multicultural aspects of the City of Corinth 33
   
4. 12 commentaries address the Greek word pneumatikon which Paul uses in 1Cor 12:1 74
   
5. The use of italics with "Spiritual gifts" in 1 Cor 12:1 118
   
6. 1 Corinthians 13:10 “The Eschaton” 131
   
7. MAP - The Location of Corinth on the Peloponnese 147
   
8. Rom 16:22-23 ξένος (xenos) – host 156
   
9. Does Tongues + interpretation = prophecy in 1 Cor 14:5 163
   
10. 1Co 14:6-11 (Greek word phone for our English sound) 167
    
11. 1Co 14:6-11 (Greek word phone for our English sound) Charts 171
    
12. The mockers on the Day of Pentecost 178
    
13. The Apostle – do the Scriptures refer to them as being “those who are sent”? 186
14. Signs & Wonders 209
15. .
16. .
17. .
18. .
19. .
20. .

 

[swordsman1]

Unfortunately most if not all your arguments here are flawed:

What you will discover is that Corinth was a major Roman colony, where Latin was the language of government, this means that it was more of a Latin city than it was Greek, where some archaeologists and other scholars will state that “Corinth was more Roman than Rome itself”, though there were undoubtedly numerous Greek citizens along with many Greek speaking slaves who were a part of the Corinthian church.

This meant that there would have been a number of languages in use, at least within the homes of the church adherents. As Corinth was at the centre of the Roman Empire, where many had to cross the isthmus that dissects Greece from the Peloponnese that Corinth is situated on, then it would have been a hub of cultures and dialects which would have been reflected within the various Corinthian congregations.

When the Corinthians received Paul’s letter, where he said in 1Cor 14:2 “that no man can understand” what the Spirit is saying through tongues, then they would have well understood that “no man” means absolutely “no man”. At this stage, no one knows if the Corinthian congregations would have employed Latin or Greek within their meetings, though this may have varied depending on the makeup of each local congregation.

Corinth was indeed a cosmopolitan city but that doesn't mean the church there was packed with foreigners like Jerusalem was when pilgrims from all over the world gathered for the Feast of Pentecost. At the church in Corinth, as in Corinth today or any other cosmopolitan city, there may well be a small percentage of immigrants but the congregation would mostly consist of local Corinthians who spoke the local common language.

Anyone who reads 1 Cor 14 cannot fail to see that the problem in the Corinthian church was untranslated tongues which nobody understood:

"unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified."

"if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you..."

"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. "

"If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me."

"the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say"

"how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?"

"I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."

"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?"

"If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God."

Untranslated tongues which nobody understood is clearly the problem in Corinth. Which is why Paul says "no one understands them" (NIV). None of the major translations say “that no man can understand” as you quote. That is a word you have inserted yourself to change the meaning of the phrase.

How can this be a serious statement as it is absolutely impossible to ignore Paul’s detailed explanation of the nature, operation and purpose of tongues within 1Cor 12 and particularly with chapters 13 & 14, it simply cannot be ignored; unless of course, it could be as the result of a decision to ignore the primary material that we have on tongues – there we go, I’ve obviously answered my own question!

1 Cor 12-14 says nothing to describe what tongues actually is. Only Acts 2 gives a description of the gift (and very detailed it is too). If there is no further description regarding the nature of the gift then it follows that subsequent uses of the word tongues is the same as Acts 2. It is poor biblical exegesis to assume that tongues is something else entirely without irrefutable evidence to backup that claim.

every occurrence of tongues within the Scriptures are the same.

Correct.

The only difference between congregational tongues, which Paul speaks of in detail in First Corinthians with the accounts in Acts 2, is that the Holy Spirit chose to speak through the 120 in human languages about “the greatness of God”, whereas in congregational tongues we speak in un-intelligible in-articulate words about “the greatness of God”.

And the reason for that is obvious. In Acts 2 Jerusalem was packed with foreigners who understood the tongues. Whereas in the Corinthian church Paul says no one understood the tongues and it ought to have been translated.

What is often missed by the cessationist is with how Paul states in 1Cor 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. If congregational tongues were to be given in a human language, and particularly with the language that an unsaved visitor might understand, we are would then be forced to challenge Paul’s statement as the Holy Spirit would then be addressing either God or God + man or if as some cessationists suggest, that tongues are intended to reach the unsaved, then the words that the Holy Spirit speaks are then to man and not God, which would be a major issue for the integrity of the Scriptures.

And the very next sentence explains why the languages they spoke were only speaking to God and not men:
"For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands"

Nobody understood the language they were speaking. Only God, who knows all languages, understood what they were saying.

In Acts 10 with Cornelius and his family and friends, all we know is that they in all probability were speaking within inarticulate words along with the declarations that they gave probably in Aramaic as they “praised God”.

Where does Acts 10 does it state they were speaking in inarticulate languages?

If anything this verse proves that the tongues that Cornelius household spoke must have been human languages. How would the apostles know that they were praising God if what they spoke was unintelligible?

This is born out by Peter's report to the Jerusalem council in the next chapter. He said what happened to the Gentiles was exactly the same as what happened to us Jews at Pentecost. If the tongues they spoke was any different the gentiles would never have been accepted by the Jewish christians.

That’s right to a point, where the Holy Spirit certainly fell upon the Romans (and possibly others) with the evidence of speaking in tongues, but only the 120 experienced the ‘tongues of fire’ and the ‘sounds of a rushing wind” and they were the only ones to speak in human languages.

Exactly. So that only leaves tongues for Peter to compare what happened to the Jews at Pentecost with the Gentiles at Caesarea. And Peter says it was exactly the same.

The fact that they witnessed the Gentiles speaking in the same tongues as they had at Pentecost was the evidence they needed to conclude Holy Spirit had come upon the gentiles also and they should be accepted as fellow believers.

Does Paul;

1. Speak in human tongues (i.e., Aramaic, Greek, Latin etc) – Yes

Paul cannot be referring to his normal speech since the context of 1 Cor 13:1-3 is exclusively spiritual gifts (tongues, faith, prophecy, giving) not natural learned abilities. Tongues of man can only be referring to speech by the gift of tongues which he then exaggerates to the hypothetical tongues of angels.

So this is even more proof that 1 Corinthians tongues were human languages!

3. Have the ability to prophesy – Yes
4. Understand all (knowable) mysteries as it relates to the Gospel – Yes [see 1Cor 2:7; 4:1]
5. Have all (knowable) knowledge as it relates to the Gospel – Yes

It doesn't say "knowable". It says " If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge". Ie was he literally omniscient? Or was Paul speaking figuratively?

6. Have a faith that can move all mountains (insurmountable obstacles) – most likely Yes

Did Paul really move mountains? Or was he speaking figuratively?

7. Given away his worldly possessions; as he had to work to survive then - Yes

It says "If I give ALL I possess to the poor". That would include his clothes. Did Paul walk around naked? Or was he speaking figuratively?

8. Emotionally given over his body either to ‘hardship’ or ‘to be burned’ – Yes

It doesn't say 'emotionally'. Did Paul literally give his body to be burned? Or was he speaking figuratively?

In all of those parallel statements Paul was of course speaking figuratively, not literally. And the same is true of the 1st statement where he says that even if he could speak the language of angels.....

And yet Pentecostals base their whole doctrine of tongues being a heavenly language on this one verse. There is no other verse that mentions the language of heaven.

Apart from this one of course:
2 Cor 12:2-4:
"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak."

When Paul was caught up in the third heaven he heard the language spoken there, and he says man is expressly forbidden from speaking it!

I can’t really see what the problem is here or at least with the point that you are objecting to. But suffice to say, whenever we need to pray (as per “on all occasions”) then we are to not only pray and request things in our native language but we are to also pray in the Spirit (tongues) as well. I appreciate that this is something that the cessationist, by choice alone, is unable to do but as this is their choice then it is their responsibility to do something about it.

You seem to be completely missing the point here. The point I am making is that praying in the Spirit in Eph 6:18 is clearly not unintelligible tongues, since Paul commands the Ephesians to pray in the Spirit with all kinds of prayers and requests. How can you make requests in a language you don't know or understand. Praying in the Spirit here is clearly praying in your native language.

Even if the entire adult population of a congregation have chosen to be able to pray in the Spirit, probably only a few will choose to both regularly speak out a word of praise and thanks to the Father in their meetings where they will also need to provide an articulation-interpretation.

No, you cannot choose your spiritual gift. Spiritual gifts are given only as the Holy Spirit determines. 1 Cor 12:11 "But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills". And Paul plainly states in 1 Cor 12:29-31 that not everyone is given the gift of tongues. Yet in Eph 6:18 praying in the Spirit in is something that all believers are commanded to do. Hence 'praying in the spirit' in Eph 6:18 cannot be tongues.

As Eph 6:18 contains an admonition to pray in the Spirit and that Paul has already spoken of tongues as praying in the Spirit in 1Cor 14:15 then this is now signed, sealed and delivered. As the cessationist is one of the “have nots” where the Continuist is one of “the haves”, then we are not being compelled to change whatever Paul says from book to book, from chapter to chapter and even verse to adjacent verse.

You seem to be very confused about the term 'praying in the Spirit'. Praying in the Spirit is praying according to the will of the Spirit, in the same way as we walk in the Spirit (Gal 5:16-18) as we walk our Christian lives, or worship in the Spirit (John 4:23, Phil 3:3). The term 'praying in the Spirit' on its own is nothing to do with tongues. Tongues in never mentioned in Ephesians or Jude. In fact as we have already seen 'praying in the spirit' in Eph 6:18 can only mean praying in your native tongue. You can pray in the Spirit when you pray in English and you can pray in the Spirit if you prayed in tongues.

And you never answered the question - Where in the bible does it say tongues are for private devotions?

With Acts 19 we have no evidence that what occurred with the Ephesians where they both spoke in tongues and prophesied was any different to that of congregational and private tongues; if something more dramatic had occurred then Luke would have recorded it.

Luke says nothing about the nature of the tongues in Acts 19. Therefore in the absence of any other description, it must have been the same as the tongues he fully described earlier in Acts 2.

And same applies to 1 Corinthians. Luke was a close companion of Pauls and would not have used the same terminology as Paul uses for tongues if he knew it was something completely different. 1 Corinthians and Acts 2 both use the same the word 'glossa' for tongues.

This is a common fallacy that even many Pentecostals and charismatics can succumb to but the Scriptures do not say that they are for the “benefit of others”. What the Greek does say in 1Cor 12:7 is better reflected with;

ἑκάστῳ . . δὲ δίδοται ἡ . φανέρωσις . .τοῦ . Πνεύματος πρὸς τὸ . . συμφέρον (GK5237/SC4851)

to each one But is given the manifestation of the Spirit . . . . . . .for . the [mutual] benefit [of the one and all].

• The Southern Baptist theologian David E. Garland in his commentary First Corinthians (2003) on page 578 wisely notes that the above phrase “leaves indefinite who is to benefit”.

• The Reformed (Calvinist) theologian Simon K. Kistemaker in his commentary First Corinthians (1993) on page 420 states “Paul does not rule out that the gift itself may benefit the individual, but God confers his gifts on his people so that all may be edified (14:26)”.

• The British Anglican theologian Anthony C. Thiselton in his commentary The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2000) on page 936 states “. . . the Spirit is at work where the public manifestation serves the common advantage of others, and not merely self-affirmation, self-fulfillment, or individual status. The Spirit produces visible effects for the profit of all, not for self-glorification”. [Bold emphasis by Thiselton]

• Gordon D. Fee who is a Pentecostal (AoG) exegetical scholar in his The First Epistle to the Corinthians (1987) says on page 589 “that the gifts are for the building up of the community as a whole, not primarily for the benefit of the individual believer”. In his footnote he goes on to say, “This is not to say that the building up of the individual believer is no concern of his. To the contrary (see on 14:4). But the concern throughout this entire argument is on the effect of gifts in building up the community”.

• What Thiselton and Fee have rightly pointed out is that Paul is speaking of the community setting or where the Saints meet as the local people of God, where Thiselton went to the trouble of placing this aspect in bold print. This means that when we pray in the Spirit (tongues) within the congregational setting, that it will always need to benefit the congregation, which is why EVERY instance where tongues is applied within the congregational setting that each must be subsequently articulated-interpreted.

Just because you pluck quotes from commentaries to support your view doesn't make them right. I could equally quote theologians who say the opposite. For example Thiselton doesn't believe Paul literally spoke in the language of angels, but you unsurprisingly didn't quote his writings on that particular point! One thing you cannot have failed to notice about contemporary 'scholars' in their writings is they are always disagreeing with each other.

What you seem to forget is that 1 Corinthians, as well as the other epistles, were not written to theologians, they were written to errant immature Christians. The writers would have expected the plain meaning of the words to be understood, not some baffling convoluted explanation that only a 'scholar' could come up with.

And the plain meaning of:
1 Peter 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others"
1 Cor 12:7 "But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good."
...is that spiritual gifts are for the benefit of others, not for self. Otherwise tongues would stand apart from all the other gifts in serving self rather than serving others.

 

[Job8]

The thread should show why cessationism was pushed off its pinnacle as being a serious form of theology sometime in the early 80's, where it should be shown (at least from this small sample of questions) why cessationism is no longer a serious theological concern.

Cessationism is simply the belief that specific supernatural spiritual gifts ceased with the passaging away of the apostles. It is neither a worldview, nor is it a major theological concern. Pentecostals and Charismatics do not believe that some spiritual gifts ceased. Most other Christians are cessationists.

 

[Biblicist]

Cessationism is simply the belief that specific supernatural spiritual gifts ceased with the passaging away of the apostles. It is neither a worldview, nor is it a major theological concern. Pentecostals and Charismatics do not believe that some spiritual gifts ceased. Most other Christians are cessationists.

Cessationism, or at least with the hard-core variety, which denies that most if not all of the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit are for today, is about as strong a rationalist worldview as one could find. This type of thinking which found its home within the humanist naturalism of the 19th century has reached into the very depths of the Church to the point where the power of the Holy Spirit is almost completely unknown outside of maybe a denominational doxology.

When many cessationists claim that they are not cessationist, which is a development that occurred after the onset of the charismatic movement of the 60’s and 70’s, their understanding of what a cessationist is and is not is somewhat fluid where the Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) are reflected as below:

1. Wisdom - For some wisdom is still available but for others it is no more.
2. Knowledge – As above.
3. Faith – As above.
4. Healings – Gone (Some will acknowledge that God will act sovereignly on an ad-hoc basis, where often prayer has little impact)
5. Deeds of powers – Gone
6. Prophecy – Gone (but some do make a vain attempt to connect with teaching)
7. Discerning of spirits - Gone
8. Tongues – Way gone!
9. Articulation-interpretation – Gone​

So, except for the first two or three Manifestations of the Spirit very little is left. Of course quite a few cessationists would probably accept someone's claim to having a 'gift' of origamy and candlestick making.

 

[swordsman1]

Those aren't all the spiritual gifts. The list of spiritual gifts is:

Apostle, prophet, teacher, miracles, healings, helps, administration, wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, mercy, giving, pastors, leadership, spiritual discernment, administration,tongues, interpretation of tongues.

In 1 Cor 12:28 Paul puts a lot of those in order of importance with apostle at the top, and tongues and interpretation of tongues at the bottom.

The only ones a 'cessationist' would question are still valid today are the sign gifts (healing, miracles, tongues) and the revelatory gifts (prophecy & knowledge - although it depends on whether you define those as new revelation or simply declaring Gods word). The sign gifts were necessary for the new gospel ministry to be authenticated and prophecy (new revelation) was necessary in the early church because they didn't have a New Testament to guide them in the faith.

The matter of cessation is not big issue for me. The bible doesn't say a whole about which gifts will cease and when. It says prophecy and knowledge will cease when 'completeness' or 'perfection' comes. Tongues it just says would cease without saying when (although history demonstrates they did cease after the apostolic age). What is more concerning to me is that the gifts that some people claim to have (tongues, healing, miracles, new revelations) don't match the biblical description of gift.

Most of them ignore the biblical objections and plough on regardless. Others eisogetically jump through theological hoops to try to get scripture to accommodate them.

 

[Biblicist]

Those aren't all the spiritual gifts. The list of spiritual gifts is:

Apostle, prophet, teacher, miracles, healings, helps, administration, wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, mercy, giving, pastors, leadership, spiritual discernment, administration,tongues, interpretation of tongues.

When I ask most people (be they cessationist or Continuist) if they could give me a definition of what they think is a 'spiritual gift' or even particularly with how the Scriptures speak of such things, then I tend to get a bit of a blank look as most people have never sat down and thought about it.

For those who might go to a good quality Concordance they will eventually work out (it can be difficult from a Concordance) that the term might not actually exist. Those who are fortunate to have access to a good quality Lexicon or a Bible Dictionary such as the TDNT then they should very quickly discover that Paul has never employed this particular term. This is why I do not use the term or if I have no other choice but to use it then I will always place this problematic term within quotation marks.

When I perouse through my various commentaries and monographs on First Corinthians, the opinions are almost as varied as there are commentaries. The AoG exegetical scholar Gordon D. Fee stated in 1988 (First Corinthians) that Paul's construction of 1Cor 12 was "ad-hoc" and that the "gifts" are nothing more than a representation of who knows how many; whereas Anthony C. Thiselton in his commentary on First Corinthians (2000) chided those (obviously Fee as well) for referring to chapter 12 as being an "ad-hoc" compilation and rightfully so.

When I look at the various positions of the major commentators on this subject, it does seem to me that many of them are not all that clear on the subject themselves, or maybe they are playing to the political sensitivites of their particular ecclesiastical system where they don't want to upset the apple-cart.

If Gordon Fee had of said that the list in 12:28 is exhaustive, I would imagine that his fellow AoG accredited "pastors" would have had a meltdown as Paul never refers to any such "pastoral" Office anywhere in the Scriptures. If some of the other commentators were to suggest that the Offices of the apostle, healings, deeds of powers etc were for today's church some of them would undoubtedly have to change denominations.

My own position is as follows, with the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) found in 1Cor 12:7-11 I deem them to be the complete list of the Holy Spirit's operations through the Believer.

With 1Cor 12:28-30 I view these as being the 8 Congregational Offices that the Father himself decided to establish within the local congregation (as per 12:28).

The complete list of 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) 1Cor 12:7-11:

1. Wisdom
2. Knowledge
3. Faith
4. Healings
5. Deeds of Powers (aka, miracles)
6. Prophecy
7. Discernment of spirits
8. Tongues
9. Articulation-interpretation of tongues

The 8 Congregational Offices 1Cor 12:28-30:

1. apostle (congregational church planter and missionaries who are involved with church planting)
2. Prophet
3. Teacher
4. Deeds of Powers
   
5. Healings
6. Guidance
7. Helps
8. Tongues (which would also incl. the ability to interpret)

The four Offices that I have placed in bold are in my opinion outworkings of an individuals temperament, character and personality where they are certainly not Manifestations of the Spirit. As for the teacher, they are essentially created/formed this way in the womb.

I will leave Rom 12 and Eph 4 alone for now. If you want to take this point further I am more than happy to do so.

In 1 Cor 12:28 Paul puts a lot of those in order of importance with apostle at the top, and tongues and interpretation of tongues at the bottom.

There is certainly a lot of conjecture on this point, both within the cessationist and Continuist camps but I would tend to agree with you in that Paul has specifically placed both lists in a specific order and for good reason.

The only ones a 'cessationist' would question are still valid today are the sign gifts (healing, miracles, tongues) and the revelatory gifts (prophecy & knowledge - although it depends on whether you define those as new revelation or simply declaring Gods word).

Even from a Pentecostal perspective this is not as easy as it seems even for us. For instance, the US AoG will not recognise the Offices of the apostle and prophet, though they oddly enough will still acknowledge that people are currently serving in these roles within the AoG.

Now the Australian AoG, which is now publicly known as the ACC or the Australian Christian Churches will fully recognise both of these two Offices. The issue for the US AoG has been with the corruption of the Latter-Rain and with the more recent NARzie movements, where both have abused these two particular Offices.

The sign gifts were necessary for the new gospel ministry to be authenticated and prophecy (new revelation) was necessary in the early church because they didn't have a New Testament to guide them in the faith.

As you can undoubtedly appreciate, for a Pentecostal we don't see any need to use the term "sign gifts" as there was no "sign value or purpose" for any of them in that the 8 Congregational Offices (or where most say that there is a "Five-fold" ministry) were established by the Father for ministry.

The matter of cessation is not big issue for me. The bible doesn't say a whole about which gifts will cease and when. It says prophecy and knowledge will cease when 'completeness' or 'perfection' comes. Tongues it just says would cease without saying when (although history demonstrates they did cease after the apostolic age). What is more concerning to me is that the gifts that some people claim to have (tongues, healing, miracles, new revelations) don't match the biblical description of gift.

For a Pentecostal and charismatic, these things are deemed to be critical aspects of the ministry of both the local congregation and with the individual Believer; where the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit are outworked theoretically within all Believers and where the Holy Spirit is empowered to outwork within the Congregation through the 8 Congregational Offices, though my defination would be both challenged and adjusted by each specific Pentecostal denomination.

Most of them ignore the biblical objections and plough on regardless. Others eisogetically jump through theological hoops to try to get scripture to accommodate them.

That's true in my opinion as well. I am fortunate that I am able to source the better materials but most people are stuck with "what they are fed"; where in my opinion the broader Western sphere of the Pentecostal movement has not moved all that far past its beginnings in the 20th century.

. . . . . . .

I had only just jumped on to post my long reply to your last post where I realised that this particular post had only been posted moments before I signed in. So hopefully I will be able to post my reply to your other post sometime tonight.

 

[Biblicist]

This information which relates to a future post addresses the Greek work glossa where its primary function is to refer to the physical organ of the human tongue.

Friberg Lexicon:

5515 γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ tongue; (1) literally, the organ of speech and taste tongue (MK 7.33); figuratively, as a means of verbal communication tongue, language (AC 2.11); (2) by metonymy tribe, people, or nation that speaks a common language (RV 5.9); (3) as a religious technical term for glossalalia tongues(-speaking), understood variously to be unintelligible ecstatic utterance (1C 14.2), heavenly language (1C 13.1), or foreign languages not learned through natural means by the speaker (AC 2.4); (4) as the shape of fire forked flames (AC 2.3)


Louw-Nida Lexicon:

8.21 γλῶσσα, ης f - 'tongue.' ἡ γλῶσσα μικρὸν μέλος ἐστίν 'the tongue is a small member of the body' Jas 3.5. Though in Jas 3.5 the tongue is referred to as a part of the body, it is used essentially as a symbol for speech, and since in some languages the tongue is not regarded as an organ of speech, but simply as a part of the mouth, it may be necessary to change the expression to read 'the mouth is a small member of the body' or 'speaking is only a small part of one's life.' It is obviously not the tongue as an organ which corrupts the whole person, but the capacity for speech which has such a corrupting effect.

Gingrich Lexicon:

1361 γλῶσσα
γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ tongue—1. lit as an organ of speech Mk 7:33, 35; Lk 16:24; 1 Cor 14:9; Js 1:26; Rv 16:10.—2. language Ac 2:11; Phil 2:11 ; Rv 5:9. The expressions γλῶσσαι, γένη γλωσσῶν, ἐν γ. λαλεῖν etc. refer to the ecstatic speech of those overcome by strong emotion in a cultic context. The latter expression is usually rendered speak in tongues. Ac 19:6; 1 Cor 12:10; 13:1, 8; 14 passim, [glosso-, as prefix in numerous words] [pg 40]


In the NASB/NIV the Greek word glossa GK1185/SC1100 is used 50 times.
[GK = Goodrich/Kohlenberger numbering system. SC = Strong's]

NASB

1. Mk. 7:33 physical organ
2. Mk. 7:35 physical organ
3. Mk. 16:17 physical organ
4. Lk. 1:64 physical organ
5. Lk. 16:24 physical organ with no connection with speech
6. Acts 2:3 tongues of fire
7. Acts 2:4 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
8. Acts 2:11 articulate language
9. Acts 2:26 articulate language
10. Acts 10:46 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
11. Acts 19:6 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
12. Rom. 3:13 physical organ
13. Rom. 14:11 articulate language
14. 1 Co. 12:10 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
15. 1 Co. 12:28 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
16. 1 Co. 12:30 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
17. 1 Co. 13:1 language (both articulate and inarticulate)
18. 1 Co. 13:8 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
19. 1 Co. 14:2 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
20. 1 Co. 14:4 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
21. 1 Co. 14:5 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
22. 1 Co. 14:5 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
23. 1 Co. 14:6 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
24. 1 Co. 14:9 physical organ as it relates to speech
25. 1 Co. 14:13 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
26. 1 Co. 14:14 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
27. 1 Co. 14:18 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
28. 1 Co. 14:19 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
29. 1 Co. 14:22 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
30. 1 Co. 14:23 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
31. 1 Co. 14:26 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
32. 1 Co. 14:27 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
33. 1 Co. 14:39 speaking in tongues (inarticulate language)
34. Phil. 2:11 articulate language
35. Jas. 1:26 physical organ as it relates to speech
36. Jas. 3:5 physical organ as it relates to speech
37. Jas. 3:6 physical organ as it relates to speech
38. Jas. 3:8 physical organ as it relates to speech
39. 1 Pet. 3:10 physical organ as it relates to speech
40. 1 Jn. 3:18 physical organ as it relates to speech
41. Rev. 5:9 physical organ as it relates to speech
42. Rev. 7:9 physical organ as it relates to speech
43. Rev. 10:11 physical organ as it relates to speech
44. Rev. 11:9 physical organ as it relates to speech
45. Rev. 13:7 physical organ as it relates to speech
46. Rev. 14:6 physical organ as it relates to speech
47. Rev. 16:10 physical organ
48. Rev. 17:15 physical organ as it relates to speech

Edit: Inserted line numbers.

 

[swordsman1]

The argument put forward regarding the definitions of the greek word 'glossa' is a red herring.

The Greek word 'glossa' literally means tongue. Often in the bible it is used to mean exactly that, the speech organ. The only other common usage of the word is 'language'. This meaning is also often used in the bible. The other 2 usages of the word are derivative of these - tongue shaped, or nation (as a language unit). To determine which meaning to use you need to look at the context and it is usually immediately obvious. The other meanings that are cited, eg ecstatic speech, are 'technical terms' and are not common usage of the word at all. They are very rarely, if at all, used in classical Greek and certainly not in scripture.

For example in the Septuagint (The OT translated into Greek) glossa in used 114 times. In all cases it either means the speech organ, language or sometimes nation (as a language unit). It is never used to mean inarticulate gobbledegook. And the same applies to the New Testament. You can look at the context of each occurrence of the word 'glossa' and easily determine which meaning it is. Again it is either speech organ, language, tongue shaped or nation (as a language unit). Throughout the Septuagint or the NT there is no justification from the contexts for translating glossa as ecstatic gobbledegook.

In relation to the gift of tongues glossa is used in Mark 16:17, Acts 2:4, Acts 2:26, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6, and 1 Cor 12-14. In each one it clearly means language. I don't think even Biblicist would deny that. The question is - is it a foreign language or is it an inarticulate gobbledegook language.

Importantly 'glossa' is used in the only passage that describes exactly what the gift of tongues (Acts 2). And here glossa clearly means foreign language. With there being no other description of tongues in scripture we must conclude it is the same throughout the NT. The bible wouldn't give us such a detailed description of the gift of tongues if this was to be the exception rather than the rule. Acts was written 5 years after 1 Corinthians and Luke, being a close associate of Paul, would have known if it was a different phenomenon and would have made it clear to avoid confusion, yet the terminology is exactly the same in both books.

Is there any example in the other verses that clearly demonstrates glossa is gobbledegook or something other than foreign languages? None whatsoever. Does foreign language fit 1 Cor 12-14? Absolutely. Substitute 'tongues' with 'foreign languages' throughout 1 Cor 12-14 and you will see it makes perfect sense. Try it. In the footnotes of the NIV each occurrence of 'tongues' is footnoted 'or other languages' to notify the reader of the true meaning of the word. There is no indication that the First Corinthian use of the word glossa should be taken any other way than its Acts 2 definition. One of the basic rules in interpretation is that a word must be interpreted according to it's normal usage unless the context demands otherwise.

 

[Biblicist]

The argument put forward regarding the definitions of the greek word 'glossa' is a red herring.

That's a rather strange way to refer to a lexical analysis of a Greek word; particularly as you have agreed with the lexical evidence that the primary application of glossa is with that of the human organ of the tongue - certainly odd indeed!

The Greek word 'glossa' literally means tongue. Often in the bible it is used to mean exactly that, the speech organ. The only other common usage of the word is 'language'. This meaning is also often used in the bible. The other 2 usages of the word are derivative of these - tongue shaped, or nation (as a language unit). To determine which meaning to use you need to look at the context and it is usually immediately obvious. The other meanings that are cited, eg ecstatic speech, are 'technical terms' and are not common usage of the word at all. They are very rarely, if at all, used in classical Greek and certainly not in scripture.

With reference to where I have marked part of your paragraph in bold; then all that I can say is - very good! The purpose of this lexical analysis is to demonstrate that glossa in the Greek means glossa and nothing else. It is only when the word (or any word) is placed within the context of a sentence or a paragraph that it has any meaning.

For example in the Septuagint (The OT translated into Greek) glossa in used 114 times. In all cases it either means the speech organ, language or sometimes nation (as a language unit). It is never used to mean inarticulate gobbledegook. And the same applies to the New Testament. You can look at the context of each occurrence of the word 'glossa' and easily determine which meaning it is. Again it is either speech organ, language, tongue shaped or nation (as a language unit). Throughout the Septuagint or the NT there is no justification from the contexts for translating glossa as ecstatic gobbledegook.

Again, very good! Of course we would never dare refer to the "tongues of fire" that appeared on the Day of Pentecost as being "hot words".

In relation to the gift of tongues glossa is used in Mark 16:17, Acts 2:4, Acts 2:26, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6, and 1 Cor 12-14. In each one it clearly means language. I don't think even Biblicist would deny that. The question is - is it a foreign language or is it an inarticulate gobbledegook language.

I'm not all that sure as to why you would refer to my name yet you totally ignore my constant references to both articulate and in-articulate communications; especially where tongues is deemed to be not so much lanuage, but where it is language-like. If you wish to maintain a sense of integrity when you engage with someone, you need to refer to their material and not simply use their name as if they do not exist.

Importantly 'glossa' is used in the only passage that describes exactly what the gift of tongues (Acts 2). And here glossa clearly means foreign language. With there being no other description of tongues in scripture we must conclude it is the same throughout the NT. The bible wouldn't give us such a detailed description of the gift of tongues if this was to be the exception rather than the rule. Acts was written 5 years after 1 Corinthians and Luke, being a close associate of Paul, would have known if it was a different phenomenon and would have made it clear to avoid confusion, yet the terminology is exactly the same in both books.

You seem to be in a state of denial where I could almost ask you if you have ever turned to First Corinthians, your position that Acts 2 both speaks of the nature of tongues and that it is the only explanation of tongues found within the Scriptures could very well be one of the strangest things that I have heard on this forum.

Is there any example in the other verses that clearly demonstrates glossa is gobbledegook or something other than foreign languages? None whatsoever. Does foreign language fit 1 Cor 12-14? Absolutely. Substitute 'tongues' with 'foreign languages' throughout 1 Cor 12-14 and you will see it makes perfect sense. Try it. In the footnotes of the NIV each occurrence of 'tongues' is footnoted 'or other languages' to notify the reader of the true meaning of the word. There is no indication that the First Corinthian use of the word glossa should be taken any other way than its Acts 2 definition. One of the basic rules in interpretation is that a word must be interpreted according to it's normal usage unless the context demands otherwise.

With your remark that I have placed in bold text,this point was one of the final nails in the cessationist worldview back in the 1980's, where most prudent cessationists were compelled to acknowledge (even if only to themselves) that it was a tall ask, and even a fruitless task to try and impose "human language" onto the Greek word glossa within its every reference throughout 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14.

As for what I have placed in red, as you have been completely unable to engage with the source material that I have provided, such as with the commentaries and the lexicons, where I suspect that you may never have even opened up a commentary that addresses this subject; then you are probably better off not refering to the "rules of interpretation" as this is something that I am quite well versed with. When people make reference to the supposed "rules of interpretation" they are usually referring to their own opinions and nothing else.

. . . . . . .
As I said in my previous post, I will endeavour to post my 9 page reply to your earlier post within a couple of hours.

Edit: Typo.

 

[swordsman1]

I'm not all that sure as to why you would refer to my name yet you totally ignore my constant references to both articulate and in-articulate communications; especially where tongues is deemed to be not so much lanuage, but where it is language-like. If you wish to maintain a sense of integrity when you engage with someone, you need to refer to their material and not simply use their name as if they do not exist.

Erm... I am referring to your material. In your previous post here you specifically referred to tongues being an 'inarticulate language'. And in previous posts you have insisted that tongues is an angelic language. Therefore, unless you wish to backtrack on the statements you made, you have made it clear you believe that tongues is a language.

You seem to be in a state of denial where I could almost ask you if you have ever turned to First Corinthians, your position that Acts 2 both speaks of the nature of tongues and that it is the only explanation of tongues found within the Scriptures could very well be one of the strangest things that I have heard on this forum.

Then show us where else, apart from Acts 2, do we find a description of the gift of tongues. Unlike Acts 2, 1 Corinthians never explicitly describes what tongues actually is. The arguments for it being the an ecstatic or angelic language are based solely on implication derived from a couple of ambiguous verses in 1 Corinthians which are easy to refute and you have been unable to counter. On the other hand there is a wealth of evidence, in addition the proper exegetical procedures one ought to be following, to demonstrate that tongues in 1 Cor 12-14 are foreign human languages.

 

[Biblicist]

Erm... I am referring to your material. In your previous post here you specifically referred to tongues being an 'inarticulate language'. And in previous posts you have insisted that tongues is an angelic language. Therefore, unless you wish to backtrack on the statements you made, you have made it clear you believe that tongues is a language.

When I saw your objection I did go and reconsider my position but as I always use the terms "articulate language" or in-articulate language", as against the generic language (hopefully there are no typos in my posts); this means that for those who are not well versed in this type of discussion it would imply that I was referring to a human language.

Then show us where else, apart from Acts 2, do we find a description of the gift of tongues. Unlike Acts 2, 1 Corinthians never explicitly describes what tongues actually is. The arguments for it being the an ecstatic or angelic language are based solely on implication derived from a couple of ambiguous verses in 1 Corinthians which are easy to refute and you have been unable to counter. On the other hand there is a wealth of evidence, in addition the proper exegetical procedures one ought to be following, to demonstrate that tongues in 1 Cor 12-14 are foreign human languages.

As this is not really a serious question then I can move on.

 

[Biblicist]

Unfortunately most if not all your arguments here are flawed:

That’s okay . . . as I sit here wearing a broad smile!

Corinth was indeed a cosmopolitan city but that doesn't mean the church there was packed with foreigners like Jerusalem was when pilgrims from all over the world gathered for the Feast of Pentecost. At the church in Corinth, as in Corinth today or any other cosmopolitan city, there may well be a small percentage of immigrants but the congregation would mostly consist of local Corinthians who spoke the local common language.

I'm impressed that you decided to reply to such a long . . . very long post.

When you said "spoke the local common language", would this be Latin which was the language of government throughout the entire Empire and with the majority of those who would have been Roman citizens within Corinth? Even though Greek was certainly the language of Greece (of which Corinth was appointed by Rome as the capital of modern day Greece) and that most if not all of the Empire would have had its commercial classes being conversant with Greek, then would the Church of the Latin city of Corinth be speaking in the official language which was Latin or Greek which was the language of the non-Roman citizen who would have held a lower status within the Latin community of Corinth.

As Corinth was connected to the Port of Lechaion to its north which was situated on the Ionian Sea and that to its east there was the Diolkos which was a manmade overland (“railway”) passage between the Ionian and Aegean Seas; this would have meant that unlike Jerusalem who only had visitors from the Empire visiting maybe once a year, Corinth would be constantly encountering all the various people groups from at least the Eastern part of the Empire as they regularly used the safer option of travelling with their boats via the Diolkos overland passage. Now we don’t know what percentage of those who travelled via this overland passage would have called into Corinth, but Corinth would still have many trade representatives who were agents of their parent companies throughout the Empire, which meant that any organisation, be it religious or secular, that every aspect of Corinthian life would have those who were or had been effected to some degree by the various languages of the Empire.

Then we have the question of the slaves where most would have come from conquered people groups, where each would have had their own unique languages. If these slaves belonged to a Roman citizen of Corinth, then they would have probably been compelled to at least understand the rudiments of Latin. If they belonged to a Greek master, who would have been of a lower status in Corinth, then they probably would have learnt Greek; but irrespective of their allegiances, those slaves who were able to attend a congregational meeting would have also added their unique language to the plethora of known languages within the Christian community of Corinth.

Dr. Christopher Forbes is currently specialising in the field of relationship between religion and philosophy in Graeco-Roman thought:

Prophecy and inspired speech in early Christianity and its Hellenistic environment, Christopher Forbes. - Tubingen: Mohr, 1995

“The differences are minimised by R H Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?*, J.Th.S., vol. 17, part 2, 1966, p. 303, who says. ’At Corinth interpretation was necessary because the audiences were local. On the Day of Pentecost interpretation was unnecessary because the audience was cosmopolitan" But Corinth, as a port city, is likely to have been just as cosmopolitan as Jerusalem, and Gundrys comment does not take into account the other differences which do exist between Luke and Paul”.​

Forbes who would be deemed to be a cessationist (at least experientially, though maybe not so much theologically), has criticised the cessationist Gundry (1966) for incorrectly presuming that the Corinthian congregation(s) were in some way fairly mono-syllabic.

Other References:

• Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ben Witherington III (1995)
• Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society, Steven J. Friesen, Daniel N. Schowalter, James C. Walters (2010)

Anyone who reads 1 Cor 14 cannot fail to see that the problem in the Corinthian church was untranslated tongues which nobody understood:
"unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified."
"if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you..."
"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. "
"If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me."
"the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say"
"how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?"
"I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."
"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?"
"If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God."
Untranslated tongues which nobody understood is clearly the problem in Corinth. Which is why Paul says "no one understands them" (NIV). None of the major translations say “that no man can understand” as you quote. That is a word you have inserted yourself to change the meaning of the phrase.

This is what I have been saying all along. The Scriptures absolutely forbid the uninterpreted use of tongues within the congregational setting and as you said, “which nobody understood”.

1 Cor 12-14 says nothing to describe what tongues actually is. Only Acts 2 gives a description of the gift (and very detailed it is too).

Tell me, when you typed this last sentence, were you maybe feeling a bit uncomfortable as you typed what you did?

If there is no further description regarding the nature of the gift then it follows that subsequent uses of the word tongues is the same as Acts 2. It is poor biblical exegesis to assume that tongues is something else entirely without irrefutable evidence to backup that claim.

This particular paragraph in my opinion has now moved way outside of the norms of discussion, it really is a bit over the top don’t you think?

And the reason for that is obvious. In Acts 2 Jerusalem was packed with foreigners who understood the tongues. Whereas in the Corinthian church Paul says no one understood the tongues and it ought to have been translated.

As I covered this point in some detail at the beginning of this post, I only need to re-iterate that of any metropolis within the Roman Empire, the congregation(s) within Corinth would have been be the more likely to encounter people who spoke most (if not all) the languages of the Empire, along with those that resided outside of its boundaries. If tongues were to be spoken in a human language then it would most likely be understood by someone within Corinth.

Question: As the only people who can articulate-interpret what the Spirit is saying through someone speaking in tongues are those who the Holy Spirit provides a translation to, why should the Spirit have to do this when someone is already able to speak the language in the first place?

Question:As we are told that we can only speak to the Father in tongues within the congregational meeting when we know that someone is present who can articulate-interpret a tongue; does this mean that if tongues are to be given in a human language that we are to call out “Hey, who speaks in a tongue other than English”, where if someone says that they speak ‘Ubuntu’ then we are to maybe tell them to get ready as the Holy Spirit is about to speak to the Father and that they are to get ready to provide an articulation-translation . . . this sounds really odd to me.

Question: If we were to follow the above point where we know that someone (maybe even a visitor) can speak in ‘Ubuntu’ or another language, what would happen if the unknown visitor were to falsely claim that what the congregation member said in ‘tongues’ were words of cursing toward Jesus. At least with Biblical tongues this is not an issue as they are not given in human languages!

And the very next sentence explains why the languages they spoke were only speaking to God and not men: "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands"

Sorry, I cannot see any point here.

[quoteNobody understood the language they were speaking. Only God, who knows all languages, understood what they were saying.

Where does Acts 10 does it state they were speaking in inarticulate languages?

If anything this verse proves that the tongues that Cornelius household spoke must have been human languages. How would the apostles know that they were praising God if what they spoke was unintelligible?

This is born out by Peter's report to the Jerusalem council in the next chapter. He said what happened to the Gentiles was exactly the same as what happened to us Jews at Pentecost. If the tongues they spoke was any different the gentiles would never have been accepted by the Jewish christians.[/quote]
As there is no new material here and that it was covered in my previous posts then I can leave it alone for now.

Exactly. So that only leaves tongues for Peter to compare what happened to the Jews at Pentecost with the Gentiles at Caesarea. And Peter says it was exactly the same.

The fact that they witnessed the Gentiles speaking in the same tongues as they had at Pentecost was the evidence they needed to conclude Holy Spirit had come upon the gentiles also and they should be accepted as fellow believers.

If the Holy Spirit had of decided to speak through the Romans in human languages as a symbol of the giving of the Holy Spirit to the gentiles then I would have been more than happy with this.

For over a century Pentecostals have been acknowledging that someone has been Born Again of the Spirit of God through their ability to speak in tongues . . . so what’s your point?

Biblicist said:

Does Paul;

1. Speak in human tongues (i.e., Aramaic, Greek, Latin etc) – Yes
2. Speak in an inarticulate angelic tongue – Yes
3. Have the ability to prophesy – Yes
4. Understand all (knowable) mysteries as it relates to the Gospel – Yes [see 1Cor 2:7; 4:1]
5. Have all (knowable) knowledge as it relates to the Gospel – Yes
6. Have a faith that can move all mountains (insurmountable obstacles) – most likely Yes
7. Given away his worldly possessions; as he had to work to survive then - Yes
8. Emotionally given over his body either to ‘hardship’ or ‘to be burned’ – Yes
9. Would the mortal and finite creature Paul also lack love at times - Yes​

​

Paul cannot be referring to his normal speech since the context of 1 Cor 13:1-3 is exclusively spiritual gifts (tongues, faith, prophecy, giving) not natural learned abilities. Tongues of man can only be referring to speech by the gift of tongues which he then exaggerates to the hypothetical tongues of angels.

So this is even more proof that 1 Corinthians tongues were human languages!

As I have demonstrated with the above nine points that Paul was highly unlikely to be employing hyperbole then this point can now rest.

I should point out that ‘giving’ is not a Manifestation of the Holy Spirit (aka, spiritual gift) where it is an outworking of the fruit of the Spirit. You would be right with prophecy (and with faith if it needed to be spoken) as these are definitely connected with the “tongues of men”; but our ability to speak in tongues is connected with the “tongues of angels”.

It doesn't say "knowable". It says " If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge". Ie was he literally omniscient? Or was Paul speaking figuratively?

As there is no new material here and that it was covered in my previous posts then I can leave it alone for now.

You might need to look into “what is knowable and what is not” and how the word is being used. If you are unsure I can probably expand on the term further, though my earlier remarks should have been enough.

Did Paul really move mountains? Or was he speaking figuratively?

As I clearly stated, there is no question that Paul is referring to anything other than with “insurmountable obstacles”, so is this speech hyperbole or a colloquialism? Where I would say that it is definitely a well known colloquialism.

It says "If I give ALL I possess to the poor". That would include his clothes. Did Paul walk around naked? Or was he speaking figuratively?

Now that is simply a silly remark and nothing else. This is either the third or fourth time that I’ve asked you about the young rich man who Jesus told to go away and sell all that he owned, does that mean that Jesus was also telling him to run around naked – please, be real!

It doesn't say 'emotionally'. Did Paul literally give his body to be burned? Or was he speaking figuratively?

As there is no new material here and that it was covered in my previous posts then I can leave it alone for now.

In all of those parallel statements Paul was of course speaking figuratively, not literally. And the same is true of the 1st statement where he says that even if he could speak the language of angels.....

And yet Pentecostals base their whole doctrine of tongues being a heavenly language on this one verse. There is no other verse that mentions the language of heaven.

Apart from this one of course:
2 Cor 12:2-4:
"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak."

When Paul was caught up in the third heaven he heard the language spoken there, and he says man is expressly forbidden from speaking it!

Umm . . . you should have realised that Paul was not speaking about people trying to repeat the “heavenly tongue”, but with the words or things that Paul heard that were being spoken of in those tongues. This should be plain to all.

With your comment “Pentecostals base our understanding of the ‘heavenly language’ on one verse” then this can be summarily dismissed. By the way, you could be confusing ‘angelic tongues’ with the broader subject of ‘heavenly languages’.

You seem to be completely missing the point here. The point I am making is that praying in the Spirit in Eph 6:18 is clearly not unintelligible tongues, since Paul commands the Ephesians to pray in the Spirit with all kinds of prayers and requests. How can you make requests in a language you don't know or understand. Praying in the Spirit here is clearly praying in your native language.

Oh, I am far from missing your point where you claim that Eph 6:18 is not speaking about un-intelligible tongues.

This point was again addressed in my earlier post where it would only be worthwhile taking it further if you can add in some new material.

No, you cannot choose your spiritual gift. Spiritual gifts are given only as the Holy Spirit determines. 1 Cor 12:11 "But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills". And Paul plainly states in 1 Cor 12:29-31 that not everyone is given the gift of tongues. Yet in Eph 6:18 praying in the Spirit in is something that all believers are commanded to do. Hence 'praying in the spirit' in Eph 6:18 cannot be tongues.

As there is no new material here and that it was covered in my previous posts then I can leave it alone for now.

You seem to be very confused about the term 'praying in the Spirit'. Praying in the Spirit is praying according to the will of the Spirit, in the same way as we walk in the Spirit (Gal 5:16-18) as we walk our Christian lives, or worship in the Spirit (John 4:23, Phil 3:3). The term 'praying in the Spirit' on its own is nothing to do with tongues. Tongues in never mentioned in Ephesians or Jude. In fact as we have already seen 'praying in the spirit' in Eph 6:18 can only mean praying in your native tongue. You can pray in the Spirit when you pray in English and you can pray in the Spirit if you prayed in tongues.

How interesting! How I should envy those who cannot pray in tongues; it must be wonderful to be able to pray in line with the perfect will of the Fathers heart, where obviously your prayers follow that of Rom 8:26,27 “because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will”. As for me, I’m not so comfortable with your obvious belief that you can “pray perfect prayers”; where maybe this fragile Believer will be content with allowing the Holy Spirit to speak through me to the father in words (maybe groans) that are un-intelligible to man.

Quest. As you can apparently 'pray perfect prayers', you might want to start a new ministry based on this!!

And you never answered the question - Where in the bible does it say tongues are for private devotions?

Well I certainly did where maybe you missed it.

Luke says nothing about the nature of the tongues in Acts 19. Therefore in the absence of any other description, it must have been the same as the tongues he fully described earlier in Acts 2.

Interesting! How did Luke “fully describe tongues”? All that I can see is where he tells us that the 120 were speaking about the “greatness of God” in human languages; I don’t know about you but I think that I would take Paul’s indepth treatment on the source, nature and operation of tongues in 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 over that of a single sentence any day.

Quest. By the way, who exactly did Luke (Peter) connect tongues with Joel's prophecy?

And same applies to 1 Corinthians. Luke was a close companion of Pauls and would not have used the same terminology as Paul uses for tongues if he knew it was something completely different. 1 Corinthians and Acts 2 both use the same the word 'glossa' for tongues.

I was surprised to see your reference to the Greek word glossa as its primary application is with the physical organ of the tongue, which is something that every Greek lexicon will tell you. As the physical organ of the tongue was the means whereby the 120 were enabled to speak in human languages to the Father in Acts 2, it is the same physical organ that Paul speaks of in First Corinthians where the tongue is used to express un-intelligible sounds to the Father!

Being the nice chap that I of course provided a few lexical entries on glossa in my earlier post #9.

Just because you pluck quotes from commentaries to support your view doesn't make them right. I could equally quote theologians who say the opposite. For example Thiselton doesn't believe Paul literally spoke in the language of angels, but you unsurprisingly didn't quote his writings on that particular point! One thing you cannot have failed to notice about contemporary 'scholars' in their writings is they are always disagreeing with each other.

Even though in an ideal world it would be wonderful to see all the members of the Christian academy being in agreement, but as we live in a less than ideal world then this will not occur. Even in spite of their diversity of opinions on some issues, this gives us the advantage of being able to refer to the better commentaries where we can avail ourselves of a wide range of opinions that will help to provide answers to those things that we do not yet understand, or most importantly, that this type of material will provide well needed checks on our own opinions, where they will either confirm our views or help us to alter them where required, or that we simply ditch those views that are unsustainable.

With reference to the commentaries that I own and access on First Corinthians, I have never said that they all agree with me where there are some certainly some interesting points of view with regard to the nature of tongues. What I did say was “it would be a very brave (and probably a very foolish) theologian who would ever dare say that praying in the Spirit is only directly connected with human languages”. For that matter, I also stated that there were some commentaries that I will pick up and put down due to their humanist cessationist leanings.

This does not necessarily mean that those (cessationist) scholars and commentators who view tongues as being an un-intelligible form of communication, that they will acknowledge that they are available to us today but this is another question.

With regard to Thiselton, I was planning to add in his comprehensive views regarding tongues in a separate post. As Thiselton’s perspectives on tongues are important I will briefly address them here but expand on them in a subsequent post. What you will discover is that Thiselton does not connect tongues with human language, where I even adjusted my own position on the nature of tongues which in part accommodated Thiselton’s position; I have also replaced the word interpretation with articulation as I agree with his position on this as well.

Besides any shorter articles and lectures, his formal material can be found in:

1. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (2000) 1446 pages
2. 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical & Pastoral Commentary, (2006) 325 pages
3. The Holy Spirit – in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today, (2013) 565 pages

Now, let’s go and find out what Thiselton says about tongues!

• The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (2000)

Thiselton address tongues within pages 970-989.

Pg.974

“ . . . How, then, can modern writers speak of the miraculous power to speak unlearned languagesas the widespread or “main” patristic exegesis? The answer can only depend on their lumping together the comments of the Fathers on έρμηνεία γλωσσών, intelligible articulation of what is spoken in tongues.​

Pg.975

Forbes, as we have noted, rejects the application of “ecstasy” as “one of the most misused terms in the vocabulary of NT scholarship.” While Turner attacks NT specialists who have not studied the sociology and psychology of ecstasy,[1]Forbes rejects the “angelic speech” view of Ellis and Dautzenberg, together with the notion that tonguesdenotes a poetic medium embodying idiosyncratic or archaic language (see below).232 He then considers in detail my own earlier arguments that έρμηνεία γλωσσών and more especially ϊνα διερμηνεύη in 14:13 denote the power to put something into articulate speech, not to interpretor to translate, in the context of 1 Cor 12:10-14:40.233​

Pg.976

Edwards declares: “It is evident that the Corinthians did not use their gift of tongues to evangelize the heathen world.They spoke with tongues in their Church assemblies, and not once does the Apostle urge them to apply the power to the purpose for which it would be so eminently serviceable” (my italics).237​

Pgs.977-78

[Thiselton quotes L.T. Johnson:]
(1) . . .
(2) Paul, moreover, “could hardly make clearer his conviction that tongues are an intrinsically noncommunicative form of utterance (1 Cor. 13:1; 14:2, 4, 7-9, 16-17, 23) ”[2]
(3) The use of έρμενεύω and its cognate forms to mean to bring to articulate expression or to put into wordsfits the context better and has lexicographical justification.
(4) If we may compare modern phenomena without hermeneutical anachronisms, the linguistic research of W. J. Samarin demonstrates that recordings of modernglossolalia are “language-like” but not “linguistic”in structure.[3] All that Turner seems able to reply to Samarin is that “this verdict perhaps oversimplifies” and offers anecdotal evidence from the late twentieth century which may or may not relate to what Paul discusses with Corinth.[4]​

Pg.980

iii. Tongues as “Ecstatic” Speech​

We have discussed at length the objections of R. H. Gundry, M. Turner, and C. Forbes to this understanding of tongues.[5] However, what Forbes proves conclusively and beyond doubt is not that this approach has no relevance whatever as one species of tongues but that (a) if this theory rests on history-of-religions appeals to supposedly parallel phenomena in the Graeco-Roman world, it must fall; (b) that this approach cannot account for everytype of instantiation of tongues in 1 Cor 12:10-14:40; and (c) that the term ecstasyis empty and misleading unless or until it is explained in precise terms that can receive exegetical and contextual justification in the NT.​

Pg.984

iv. Proposed Modification from Theissen: Conscious,

Unconscious, and a Release (Cf. Rom 8:26)
Gerd Theissen has produced one of the most incisive and innovative treatments of tongues available in any language in his major study Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology.He argues that tongues are “the language of the unconscious which becomes capable of consciousness through interpretation.”[6]​

Pg.988

Tongues may then be viewed as “the language of the unconscious” because it is unintelligible (unless it is “interpreted”) not only to others but also to the speaker.[7] In 14:11 “foreign language” is unintelligible to the listener but intelligible to the speaker. But this represents “a logical jump.” Paul prepares to urge “the speaker, not the listener” (my italics) “to pray for the power to interpret,” i.e., to articulate what he or she utters, bringing it up from levels of unconscious depths to those of cognitive consciousness.[8] This is precisely the understanding of 14:13 which I proposed in 1979, drawing both on exegesis and on lexicographical explorations of διερμηνεύειν in Philo and in Josephus.[9] Paul does not say that the glossolalist does understand his or her utterances, but that he wishes that they would, and urges them to pray for this further gift.[10] Usually the gift of tongues is given “to one,” and intelligible articulation of tongues-speech “to another” (12:10). But ideally “one and the same person can possess both gifts,” as 14:27-28 probably presupposes, and as I argued in my 1979 article.[11] Theissen convincingly concludes that “glossolalia is language of the unconscious — language capable of consciousness.”[12]​

• 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical & Pastoral Commentary, (2006)

Thiselton address tongues within pages 203-205.
Pg.203

“Two key contrasts help to explain Paul’s definition of “tongues” here. Whereas prophetic discourse is articulate and understandable, “tongues” remain inarticulate and unintelligible unless this utterance is transposed into articulate speech. Second, tongues are addressed by or through human persons to God (14:2); prophecy is addressed to human persons from God (14:3).

At least five distinct views about speaking in tongues find a place in scholarly literature. These include tongues as:

(1) Angelic speech
(2) Miraculous power to speak foreign languages
(3) Liturgical or archaic utterances
(4) Ecstatic speech
(5) Mechanisms of release, especially in releasing longings or praise (On 5, see Thiselton, First Epistle, pp.970-88.)"​

• The Holy Spirit – in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today, (2013)

Pg.117

“In complete contrast, Cyril G. Williams asserts, “That the Corinthian phenomenon is not xenoglossia seems clear from 1 Cor. 14:10-11. Paul states in 1 Cor. 14:11: “If I do not know the meaning of the sound, I will be a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker a foreigner to me.” Glossolalia does not denote cognitive communicative speech between people. Paul’s analogy between tongues and a language that conveys nothing to the hearer leaves no room for doubt. According to Williams, it “clears away any vestige of doubt that he [Paul] thinks of the gift of tongues as miraculous speaking in unlearned tongues. Cheryl Bridges and the Pentecostal writer Frank Macchia observe, “That Paul understood tongues-speaking as xenolalia seems unlikely, since in 1 Corinthians 14 he nowhere assumes that a natural understanding of the gift is possible. Some insist that this applies only to uninterpreted tongues”.​

[1] Ibid., 53; cf. Turner, Holy Spirit, 237-38.
[2] Johnson, “Tongues, Gift of,” in ABD, 6:597; cf. 596-600.
[3] Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism, 74128.
[4] Turner, The Holy Spirit, 307-10, 312-14. His allusion to Macchia (312, n. 42) is entirely positive and helpful.
[5] Forbes, Prophecy, 103-181 and throughout; Gundry, ‘“Ecstatic Utterance’ (NEB)?”; Turner, Holy Spirit, 221-39.
[6] Theissen, Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology, 79; cf. 59-114, and esp. 276341.
[7] Ibid., 304; also 79.
[8] Ibid., 305.
[9] Thiselton, “The ‘Interpretation’ of Tongues? A New Suggestion in the Light of Greek Usage in Philo and Josephus,” 15-36.
[10] Theissen, Psychological Aspects, 305.
[11] Ibid.; and Thiselton, “Interpretation,” 33-36. Many VSS intrude a Greek τις into 14:13 which is not in the text.
[12] Theissen, Psychological Aspects, 306.​

What you seem to forget is that 1 Corinthians, as well as the other epistles, were not written to theologians, they were written to errant immature Christians. The writers would have expected the plain meaning of the words to be understood, not some baffling convoluted explanation that only a 'scholar' could come up with.

“I forgot” – hardly, but your following remark is true to a degree, the Scriptures were certainly intended not so much for scholars but they were to be read by people such as you and me. Though Peter did make a valid point in 2 Pet 3:16 “He [being Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand . . .” One of the “limitations” of Paul’s style is that even though his letters were being directed to various people groups, who each had their own particular language, he still wrote from within a theologians perspective which is no surprise as he was originally a Jewish theologian who then became the first Christian theologian.

Where scholarship comes into play is that without it we could never have the Scriptures being translated from the original languages into our own language for a start.

As for your “the plain meaning of the words to be understood”, as the various Biblical writers utilised Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words which we are either unfamiliar or where some words are only found within the Scriptures, this means that we need the skills of not only the theologian but with the exegetical scholar, the lexicographer and the social-rhetorician along with the archaeologist and historian as well before we can fully understand “the plain meaning” of the words that they employed. So we are not only in debt to those scholars who translated the Scriptures for us, but we are also greatly in debt to those who endeavour to further expound on these translations.

And the plain meaning of:
1 Peter 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others"
1 Cor 12:7 "But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good."
...is that spiritual gifts are for the benefit of others, not for self. Otherwise tongues would stand apart from all the other gifts in serving self rather than serving others.

I understand that this is something that you have to believe otherwise it will undoubtedly upset your worldview. Thankfully the commentaries, which I quoted in part, have effectively demonstrated the fallacy of your view, where as I have provided some empirical evidence I am not fully convinced that it could be what you now really believe. In my opinion, it is a good move to know when to give on a specific position particularly when it is completely unsupportable!

It’s interesting that you have not yet addressed Paul’s statement in 1Cor 14:4 which says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself”. Most importantly how can times of personal devotion, which involves supplication, praise and worship not ever be considered as benefiting the individual – your position is absolutely lost on me, as I imagine it would with most other Pentecostals and Evangelicals.

 

[swordsman1]

I'm impressed that you decided to reply to such a long . . . very long post.

When you said "spoke the local common language", would this be Latin which was the language of government throughout the entire Empire and with the majority of those who would have been Roman citizens within Corinth? Even though Greek was certainly the language of Greece (of which Corinth was appointed by Rome as the capital of modern day Greece) and that most if not all of the Empire would have had its commercial classes being conversant with Greek, then would the Church of the Latin city of Corinth be speaking in the official language which was Latin or Greek which was the language of the non-Roman citizen who would have held a lower status within the Latin community of Corinth.

As Corinth was connected to the Port of Lechaion to its north which was situated on the Ionian Sea and that to its east there was the Diolkos which was a manmade overland (“railway”) passage between the Ionian and Aegean Seas; this would have meant that unlike Jerusalem who only had visitors from the Empire visiting maybe once a year, Corinth would be constantly encountering all the various people groups from at least the Eastern part of the Empire as they regularly used the safer option of travelling with their boats via the Diolkos overland passage. Now we don’t know what percentage of those who travelled via this overland passage would have called into Corinth, but Corinth would still have many trade representatives who were agents of their parent companies throughout the Empire, which meant that any organisation, be it religious or secular, that every aspect of Corinthian life would have those who were or had been effected to some degree by the various languages of the Empire.

Then we have the question of the slaves where most would have come from conquered people groups, where each would have had their own unique languages. If these slaves belonged to a Roman citizen of Corinth, then they would have probably been compelled to at least understand the rudiments of Latin. If they belonged to a Greek master, who would have been of a lower status in Corinth, then they probably would have learnt Greek; but irrespective of their allegiances, those slaves who were able to attend a congregational meeting would have also added their unique language to the plethora of known languages within the Christian community of Corinth.

Dr. Christopher Forbes is currently specialising in the field of relationship between religion and philosophy in Graeco-Roman thought:

Prophecy and inspired speech in early Christianity and its Hellenistic environment, Christopher Forbes. - Tubingen: Mohr, 1995

“The differences are minimised by R H Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?*, J.Th.S., vol. 17, part 2, 1966, p. 303, who says. ’At Corinth interpretation was necessary because the audiences were local. On the Day of Pentecost interpretation was unnecessary because the audience was cosmopolitan" But Corinth, as a port city, is likely to have been just as cosmopolitan as Jerusalem, and Gundrys comment does not take into account the other differences which do exist between Luke and Paul”.
Forbes who would be deemed to be a cessationist (at least experientially, though maybe not so much theologically), has criticised the cessationist Gundry (1966) for incorrectly presuming that the Corinthian congregation(s) were in some way fairly mono-syllabic.

Other References:

• Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ben Witherington III (1995)
• Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society, Steven J. Friesen, Daniel N. Schowalter, James C. Walters (2010)

Again this is all conjecture. Just because Corinth was close to a port and a main road doesn't mean the city (let alone the church there) was packed with foreigners from all corners of the world as Jerusalem was at the Feast of Pentecost.

If tongues were to be spoken in a human language then it would most likely be understood by someone within Corinth.

Not at all. See above.

Question: As the only people who can articulate-interpret what the Spirit is saying through someone speaking in tongues are those who the Holy Spirit provides a translation to, why should the Spirit have to do this when someone is already able to speak the language in the first place?

Because there was nobody there who knew the language spoken. Paul makes that clear - "For no one understands them".

Question:As we are told that we can only speak to the Father in tongues within the congregational meeting when we know that someone is present who can articulate-interpret a tongue; does this mean that if tongues are to be given in a human language that we are to call out “Hey, who speaks in a tongue other than English”, where if someone says that they speak ‘Ubuntu’ then we are to maybe tell them to get ready as the Holy Spirit is about to speak to the Father and that they are to get ready to provide an articulation-translation . . . this sounds really odd to me.

We have little information about what exactly happened when somebody spoke in tongues at Corinth, because nobody has practiced it for nearly 2000 years. All we have to go on is what scripture tells us and it doesn't go into that level of detail.

Question: If we were to follow the above point where we know that someone (maybe even a visitor) can speak in ‘Ubuntu’ or another language, what would happen if the unknown visitor were to falsely claim that what the congregation member said in ‘tongues’ were words of cursing toward Jesus. At least with Biblical tongues this is not an issue as they are not given in human languages!

The possibility of someone making up a false translation is even worse with Pentecostal/charismatic tongues. What is easier, someone miraculously speaking a recognizable foreign language and making up a false translation, or someone saying "laladomagagagoogoo" and making up a false translation?

For over a century Pentecostals have been acknowledging that someone has been Born Again of the Spirit of God through their ability to speak in tongues . . . so what’s your point?

Because traditionally Jews hated Gentiles. They wanted nothing to do with them. For Gentiles to be accepted by the Jewish believers they would have to have exactly same experience. Anything different would be an excuse for the Jews not to accept them. But seeing it was the exact same manifestation of the Holy Spirit they could now willingly embrace them as fellow Christains. Indeed that is the whole point Peter makes in his address.

As I have demonstrated with the above nine points that Paul was highly unlikely to be employing hyperbole then this point can now rest.

You have already admitted Paul was speaking figuratively in the other parallel statements. Therefore "tongue of angels" must also be figurative, not literal.

I should point out that ‘giving’ is not a Manifestation of the Holy Spirit (aka, spiritual gift) where it is an outworking of the fruit of the Spirit.

Giving too is a spiritual gift (Rom 12:6-8). All 5 parallel statements are referring to spiritual gifts - tongues (1 Cor 12), prophecy (Rom 8), faith (1 Cor 12), giving (Rom 8).

but our ability to speak in tongues is connected with the “tongues of angels”.

No, that is Paul speaking figuratively, the normal use of the gift is "tongues of men". Remember the context of 1 Cor 13:1-3 is exclusively spiritual gifts, not natural or learned abilities.

As I clearly stated, there is no question that Paul is referring to anything other than with “insurmountable obstacles”, so is this speech hyperbole or a colloquialism? Where I would say that it is definitely a well known colloquialism.

Was Paul speaking literally when he said he could move mountains, or figuratively? It must be one or the other.

Now that is simply a silly remark and nothing else. This is either the third or fourth time that I’ve asked you about the young rich man who Jesus told to go away and sell all that he owned, does that mean that Jesus was also telling him to run around naked – please, be real!

So was Paul speaking literally when he said "If I give ALL I possess to the poor", or figuratively? It's a simple question.

How interesting! How I should envy those who cannot pray in tongues; it must be wonderful to be able to pray in line with the perfect will of the Fathers heart, where obviously your prayers follow that of Rom 8:26,27 “because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will”. As for me, I’m not so comfortable with your obvious belief that you can “pray perfect prayers”; where maybe this fragile Believer will be content with allowing the Holy Spirit to speak through me to the father in words (maybe groans) that are un-intelligible to man.

Don't tell me you think Rom 8:26-27 is speaking in tongues as well?

Interesting! How did Luke “fully describe tongues”? All that I can see is where he tells us that the 120 were speaking about the “greatness of God” in human languages; I don’t know about you but I think that I would take Paul’s indepth treatment on the source, nature and operation of tongues in 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 over that of a single sentence any day.

Luke goes to great pains, over 5 verses, to describe exactly what tongues is - foreign languages. You know, to avoid any doubt. Just in case somebody might think that tongues was something else. Not that it did much good, obviously. Some people still refuse to accept the only description of tongues in scripture.

it is the same physical organ that Paul speaks of in First Corinthians where the tongue is used to express un-intelligible sounds to the Father!

You seriously think that 'glossa' in 1 Cor 12-14 means the physical speech organ and not language? Now that is just plain silly:

"to another various kinds of tongues" - Long ones, short ones, pink ones, purple ones?

"if [there are] tongues, they will cease;" - Everyone's tongue will disappear from their mouths?

"So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers" - Poke your tongue out at the unbelievers to persuade them?

With regard to Thiselton, I was planning to add in his comprehensive views regarding tongues in a separate post. As Thiselton’s perspectives on tongues are important I will briefly address them here but expand on them in a subsequent post.
...

But you conveniently omitted Thiselton's views on the language of angels:

"The suggestion is purely speculative, since with the possible exception of xiii:1, there seem to be no traces in these chapters of any explicit claim by the Corinthians that they were actually speaking the language of heaven itself"

"Paul has considered the highest conceivable evaluations of the gift of tongues as either the expression of the yearnings of the human heart or even as part of the praise of heaven, but concluded that even a person so gifted is mere noise without love,"
​

Even your beloved Thiselton disagrees with you on that point. Like I said you conveniently pluck out quotes from other theologians when they agree with your own point of view (as if we should treat their writings like infallible scripture), but keep strangely silent when they don't.

It’s interesting that you have not yet addressed Paul’s statement in 1Cor 14:4 which says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself”. Most importantly how can times of personal devotion, which involves supplication, praise and worship not ever be considered as benefiting the individual – your position is absolutely lost on me, as I imagine it would with most other Pentecostals and Evangelicals.

Paul is not saying that as a exhortation but as a rebuke! How could you miss the whole point that Paul is making throughout 1 Cor 14.... it is the church that ought to be edified, not yourself! That is a selfish use of a spiritual gift which is not what they are meant for.

 

[Hillsage]

Paul is not saying that as a exhortation but as a rebuke! How could you miss the whole point that Paul is making throughout 1 Cor 14.... it is the church that ought to be edified, not yourself!

The point can easily be missed, even as you have proved over and over here. If it was a rebuke as you believe, Paul would have used the rebuking term of 'puffs himself up'. He certainly wouldn't be dumb enough to say "edification". But then he, recognizes when one is availing themselves to the very 'tools/gifts/manifestations' God has given us to "fight the good fight/be of good cheer". But maybe you'd rather give glory to yourself for those abilities...IOW you think you pray perfectly in English!!!! I'm afraid it's pretty easy to side with Bibilicist and Rom 8 on this one.

That is a selfish use of a spiritual gift which is not what they are meant for.

Since your 'gift' is 'Christ in you through which you can do all things and have hope for glory' I hope you aren't serious with this statement.

Since Shane disappeared 'to pray for me'. I'll ask you my unanswered question to him. One he is hopefully also 'praying' about.

QUESTION: Paul addressed THREE groups in Corinth; 'Christians who were gifted', 'Christians who were ungifted', and 'unbelievers who weren't saved'. Now I'll ask you, as I did Shane, prove to me what group you are in and why you belong there and we don't.

 

[Biblicist]

The possibility of someone making up a false translation is even worse with Pentecostal/charismatic tongues. What is easier, someone miraculously speaking a recognizable foreign language and making up a false translation, or someone saying "laladomagagagoogoo" and making up a false translation?

With many of your 'points' it does appear that you might be presenting them simply as they are the opposite of what I am presenting and little more, where I wonder if I were to say that the Sun rises in the East that you might reply with "No, the Sun rises in the West"?

With your above statement, this is a good example of my observation where it should be plain even to an absolute novice that if a visitor came in with the intent to say at the completion of a meeting that someone from within the congregation was cursing the name of Jesus in his native language, then this would undoubtedly cause a degree of chaos; and sadly, there are those who do this type of thing. If a visitor were to provide a false articulation of a tongue where they try and curse Jesus through their false articulation, then they would be very unlikley to be given the chance to finish as they would probably be shown the door.

You have already admitted Paul was speaking figuratively in the other parallel statements. Therefore "tongue of angels" must also be figurative, not literal.

Do you mean with what I said here;

Does Paul;

1. Speak in human tongues (i.e., Aramaic, Greek, Latin etc) – Yes
2. Speak in an inarticulate angelic tongue – Yes
3. Have the ability to prophesy – Yes
4. Understand all (knowable) mysteries as it relates to the Gospel – Yes [see 1Cor 2:7; 4:1]
5. Have all (knowable) knowledge as it relates to the Gospel – Yes
6. Have a faith that can move all mountains (insurmountable obstacles) – most likely Yes
7. Given away his worldly possessions; as he had to work to survive then - Yes
8. Emotionally given over his body either to ‘hardship’ or ‘to be burned’ – Yes
9. Would the mortal and finite creature Paul also lack love at times - Yes​

As these nine points indicate that each of Pauls's point are factual, where I have even upgraded point 6 then his use of "tongues of angels is indeed literal.

Was Paul speaking literally when he said he could move mountains, or figuratively? It must be one or the other.

As per above.

So was Paul speaking literally when he said "If I give ALL I possess to the poor", or figuratively? It's a simple question.

As I have provided detailed replies to this question on a number of occassions, if you can let me know if I can make my "yes" any simpler then please do - this particular point is being laboured to the point where it is way beyond being tedious and ridiculous.

Don't tell me you think Rom 8:26-27 is speaking in tongues as well?

The "groanings" of Rom 8 has been recognised by scholars for several decades as being either a possible or even a probable reference to tongues. As tongues are an in-articulate non-communicative form of utterance, then Paul's use of στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις "wordless groans" is most likely being a reference to how the Holy Spirit intereceds on our behalf in his heavenly language.

Biblicist: Do you seriously think that 'glossa' in 1 Cor 12-14 means the physical speech organ and not language? Now that is just plain silly:

Swordsman1: "to another various kinds of tongues" - Long ones, short ones, pink ones, purple ones?

"if [there are] tongues, they will cease;" - Everyone's tongue will disappear from their mouths?

"So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers" - Poke your tongue out at the unbelievers to persuade them?

It does seem that you are now being a bit overly childish!

But you conveniently omitted Thiselton's views on the language of angels:

"The suggestion is purely speculative, since with the possible exception of xiii:1, there seem to be no traces in these chapters of any explicit claim by the Corinthians that they were actually speaking the language of heaven itself"​

​

Why would I "conveniently omitt" acknowledging Thiselton's remark that it was Paul himself and not merely the Corinthians who referred to tongues as being an angelic language!! With your desperation to try and make a point you have obviously misunderstood Thiselton completely . . . so try, try again!

Biblicist: "Paul has considered the highest conceivable evaluations of the gift of tongues as either the expression of the yearnings of the human heart or even as part of the praise of heaven, but concluded that even a person so gifted is mere noise without love,"

Even your beloved Thiselton disagrees with you on that point. Like I said you conveniently pluck out quotes from other theologians when they agree with your own point of view (as if we should treat their writings like infallible scripture), but keep strangely silent when they don't.

Oh no, not again, you've misquoted and misunderstood Thiselton again, this must be a record! How could you miss what I have posted, let alone with his opening remark:

p.974

"How, then, can modern writers speak of the miraculous power to speak unlearned languages as the widespread or “main” patristic exegesis?"​

I will let you to go back and read, what is really very simple to read!

Paul is not saying that as a exhortation but as a rebuke! How could you miss the whole point that Paul is making throughout 1 Cor 14.... it is the church that ought to be edified, not yourself! That is a selfish use of a spiritual gift which is not what they are meant for.

Oh dear...!

 

[Biblicist]

The point can easily be missed, even as you have proved over and over here. If it was a rebuke as you believe, Paul would have used the rebuking term of 'puffs himself up'. He certainly wouldn't be dumb enough to say "edification". But then he, recognizes when one is availing themselves to the very 'tools/gifts/manifestations' God has given us to "fight the good fight/be of good cheer". But maybe you'd rather give glory to yourself for those abilities...IOW you think you pray perfectly in English!!!! I'm afraid it's pretty easy to side with Bibilicist and Rom 8 on this one.

Since your 'gift' is 'Christ in you through which you can do all things and have hope for glory' I hope you aren't serious with this statement.

Since Shane disappeared 'to pray for me'. I'll ask you my unanswered question to him. One he is hopefully also 'praying' about.

QUESTION: Paul addressed THREE groups in Corinth; 'Christians who were gifted', 'Christians who were ungifted', and 'unbelievers who weren't saved'. Now I'll ask you, as I did Shane, prove to me what group you are in and why you belong there and we don't.

Over the years I have increasingly come to the realisation that hard-core cessationism is nothing more than a "system of unbelief", where sound exegesis is being replaced by desperation and with a need to undermine both the person and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

 

[swordsman1]

Do you mean with what I said here;

Does Paul;
1. Speak in human tongues (i.e., Aramaic, Greek, Latin etc) – Yes
2. Speak in an inarticulate angelic tongue – Yes
3. Have the ability to prophesy – Yes
4. Understand all (knowable) mysteries as it relates to the Gospel – Yes [see 1Cor 2:7; 4:1]
5. Have all (knowable) knowledge as it relates to the Gospel – Yes
6. Have a faith that can move all mountains (insurmountable obstacles) – most likely Yes
7. Given away his worldly possessions; as he had to work to survive then - Yes
8. Emotionally given over his body either to ‘hardship’ or ‘to be burned’ – Yes
9. Would the mortal and finite creature Paul also lack love at times - Yes
As these nine points indicate that each of Pauls's point are factual, where I have even upgraded point 6 then his use of "tongues of angels is indeed literal.

As I have provided detailed replies to this question on a number of occassions, if you can let me know if I can make my "yes" any simpler then please do - this particular point is being laboured to the point where it is way beyond being tedious and ridiculous.

So you really believe Paul was speaking literally when he said -

"If I have the gift of prophecy, and know ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge". You believe he knew literally ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge?

"if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains". You believe he literally removed mountains?

"if I give ALL my possessions to feed the poor". You believe he gave literally ALL his possessions to the poor, including his clothes?

"if I surrender my body to be burned". You believe his body was literally burned?

If yes then you are quite right, it is beyond ridiculous!
If no, and he wasn't speaking literally, then you have just proved that Paul also never literally spoke in the language of angels.

 

[Wgw]

Out of curiosity, why is this being debated here, rather than in General Theology?