Assembly of God and Tongues

[swordsman1]

Even though 1 Cor 13:10 is specifically pointing to the establishment of the future Kingdom of God here on earth, we cannot seperate this event from the return of Jesus, as he will be the one who will be leading the heavenly armies as he establishes God Kingdom. Once he returns with his Kingdom we will then "know face to face".

The text is clear. Seeing "Face to face" is to do with the analogy of the mirror. There is no mention of Christ, or his return, or anything eschatological in this passage.

If you shoot down to the reference to Danial Wallace's entry (#13), who is of course an avid cessationist, even this cessationist Greek specialist acknowledges that 1Cor 13:10 is referring to the future Kingdom of God that Jesus will one day establish here on earth.

Danial Wallace is mistaken in his critique of the completed canon interpretation:

for this view presupposes that (1) both Paul and the Corinthians knew that he was writing scripture,

Paul certainly did know he was writing scripture. As an Apostle of Christ he would have been well aware of the Apostles' responsibility as authorized messengers of Christ to write down and distribute their God-breathed words to the churches via the epistles.

1 Cor 14:37 "what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command."

2 Peter 3:1-3 "I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles."

Col 4:16 "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea."

2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
​

Peter says that Paul's writings are to be regarded as Scripture:

2 Peter 3:14-16 "our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
​

and (2) the apostle foresaw the completion of the NT before the Lord's return.

Paul knew that only the Apostles of Christ were authorized to write scripture and soon the last of them would die at which point the NT canon would be closed. That is why near the end of his life he told Timothy not to expect new divine revelations but to preserve and pass on the ones received.

2 Tim 1:13-14 "What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

2 Tim 2:2 "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others."

Jude 3 "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints"
​

Paul also points out that the church was "built on the foundations of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20) and foundations are not something that are left incomplete. Wallace then makes the common mistake of assuming 'face to face' refers to seeing Christ face to face.​

-----------------------

1 Corinthians 13:10 “The Eschaton”

1. First Corinthians, David E. Garland (2010) p.622-23
“The perfect” refers to the state of affairs brought about by the Parousia (Robertson and Plummer 1914: 287, 299-300; Lietzmann 1949: 66, 189; Fee 1987: 646; Schrage 1999:307-8). Paul uses the verb ἐλθεῖν (elthein) in Gal 4:4 to refer to the coming of the fullness of time. Here, the battery of future tenses, the disappearance of the partial replaced by the complete, and the reference to knowing as God knows us, all point to the end time. He contrasts the present age with the age to come. The “perfect” is shorthand for the consummation of all things.
2. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee (1987) pp. 944-46
The nature of the eschatological language in v. 12 further implies that the term “the perfect” has to with the Eschaton itself, not some form of “perfection” in the present age.
3. First Corinthians, Collins, Harrington (1999) p.486
It is clearly a reference to the eschaton.
4. First Corinthians, Richard Oster (1995) p.312
. . . One approach interprets this as a temporal phrase, keeping it in the same “now-then” eschatological framework as we have seen in the preceding verses . . . [this] has appealed to the greatest number of interpreters and correctly so. The eschatological interpretation more fully appreciates the radical nature of the coming perfection and consummation when “faith will become sight and hope will be fulfilled” and love will “bridge this age and the eschatological reality.
5. Conflict and Community in Corinth, Ben Witherington (1995) p.271-72
Verses 11f. should probably not be understood as saying that it is childish to speak in tongues or to prophesy, since Paul himself still does such things. He is saying that there is an age appropriate to such things and that now is that age. When the completion of the age finally comes, then it will be time to set aside what was appropriate and needful in that age. Only later will one know as one is known by God. . . Paul speaks of faith and hope as being completed in the next age to come. . . But love is the greatest because it will carry on into the next life.
6. The Message of 1 Corinthians, David Prior (1985) p.233
Each of these will either become irrelevant or else be swallowed up in the perfection of eternity: for when the perfect come, the imperfect will pass away.
7. 1 Corinthians, Marion L. Soards (1999) p.274
Now Paul further promotes love by establishing the temporal quality of the gifts and the enduring, eternal, eschatological nature of love. . . This turn of thinking should cause alert readers to recall 1 Corinthians 7:31, where Paul said “the present form of this world is passing away,” so that now one encountering Paul’s statements may infer that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge belong to this world, not to God’s new creation. . . Finally Paul promises the survival of that which is perfect and declares the eschatological end of imperfection. Again, the statements in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 concerning what kinds of things will survive God’s scrutiny on the Day of final judgment.
8. 1 Corinthians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, Mark Taylor (2014) p.315
The remainder of the unit (13:9-12) focuses on the incomplete character of knowledge and prophecy along with two illustrations that distinguish the present age and the age to come in order to emphasize the eschatological character of love, which remains forever (13:13).
9. 1 Corinthians, Simon J. Kistemaker (1995) p.467-68
When believers depart from the earthly life, they leave everything behind that is imperfect and incomplete. They enter heaven and experience the joy and peace of a sinless state. But their perfection will not be complete until Christ’s return, the resurrection, and the final judgement day. At the end of the cosmic time, the spiritual gifts which believers now possess in part will cease. Their imperfect spiritual gifts on earth will be superseded by their perfect state of knowledge at the consummation.
10. 1 Corinthians, Leon Morris (1958/85) p.180
Perfection (to teleion) conveys the idea of the destined end or aim. It is partial disappears (katargeo again; see on v.8).
11. The First Letter to the Corinthians, Roy E. Ciampa & Brian S. Rosner (2010) p.656 922 pages
The context (esp. v. 12) makes is abundantly clear, however, that the point at which Paul expects the gifts to pass away or disappear is when we see the Lord “face to face” and “know [him] fully, even as [we are] fully known.” It is unlikely that Paul has in mind some particular perfect or complete thing or person.
12. The Resurrection of the Son of God, N.T. Wright 2012
“The point of 13:8-13 is that the church must be working in the present on the things that will last into God’s future. Faith, hope and love will do this; prophecy, tongues and knowledge, so highly prized in Corinth, will not. They are merely signposts to the future; when you arrive, you no longer need signposts. Love, however, is not just a signpost. It is a foretaste of the ultimate reality. Love is not merely the Christian duty; it is the Christian destiny. To hold the Corinthian church together, Paul needs to teach them love; but to teach them love he needs to teach them eschatology”.
13. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace (1996)

1 Cor 13:10 όταν δε ελθη τό τέλειον, τό έκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται whenever the perfect comes, the partial will be done away

Although there can be no objection to the τέλειον referring to the completion of the canon grammatically (for the adj. would naturally be neuter if it referred to a thing, even if the inferred noun were feminine, such as γραοή), it is difficult to see such a notion in this passage, for this view presupposes that (1) both Paul and the Corinthians knew that he was writing scripture, and (2) the apostle foresaw the completion of the NT before the Lord's return.6 A more likely view is that "the perfect" refers to the coming of Christ7 (note the terminus given in v 12 (τότε) as "face to face," a personal reference that does not easily comport with the canon view).8

Cf. also Matt 19:17; 27:29; Mark 1:4; Acts 5:31; Rom 8:34; 12:9, 21; 1 Cor 1:20, 25-28; Gal 4:27; Eph 1:20; 2:14,16; 1 Tim 5:16; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 4:18; 1 John 2:20; Rev 3:7.
Footnotes:
6 G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) 645, n. 23, remarks that this "is an impossible view, of course, since Paul himself could not have articulated it."
7 One cannot object that the reference is not to the coming of Christ because the adj. is neuter, since the neuter adj. is sometimes used for persons for masons of rhetoric, aphoristic principle, suspense, etc. Cf. Matt 12:6,41; 1 Cor 1:27-28; Heb 7:7.
8 This is not necessarily to say that the sign gifts would continue until the Second Coming, for in Paul's mind he would be alive when Christ returned (cf. 1 Thess 4:15). Such an anticipation summarily removes this text from supporting either the charismatic or cessationist position on sign gifts.
14. The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective, John MacArthur (1978) p.165
Many suggestions have been made as to the identity of “the perfect thing.” Some believe it is the canon; others say the maturing of the church; some hold out for the rapture and still more for the second coming. But it seems that “the perfect thing” has to be the eternal state—the new heaven and new earth created after the kingdom as the following two points show:
1. In the millennial kingdom there will be prophesying and teaching resulting in knowledge . . .
2. It also seems to me that “face to face” in 1 Corinthians 13:12 can only be explained as being with God in the new creation.
15. Calvin's Commentary, Jean Cauvin (John Calvin) Link
10. When that which is perfect is come "When the goal has been reached, then the helps in the race will be done away." He retains, however, the form of expression that he had already made use of, when he contrasts perfection with what is in part "Perfection," says he, "when it will arrive, will put an end to everything that aids imperfection." But when will that perfection come? It begins, indeed, at death, for then we put off, along with the body, many infirmities; but it will not be completely manifested until the day of judgment, as we shall hear presently. Hence we infer, that the whole of this discussion is ignorantly applied to the time that is intermediate.
16. Martin Luther: Sermon for the Sunday before Lent; 1 Corinthians 13 link
31 “We know in part”; that is, in this life we know imperfectly, for it is of faith and not of sight. And we “prophesy in part”; that is, imperfectly, for the substance of our prophecy is the Word and preaching. Both knowledge and prophecy, however, reveal nothing short of what the angels see--the one God. V.10. “But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.”

He proves this by way of illustration and contrasts the child with the man. To children, who are yet weak, play is a necessity; it is a substitute for office and work. Similarly, we in the present life are far too frail to behold God. Until we are able, it is necessary that we should use the medium of Word and faith, which are adapted to our limitations.

Is that the best you can do in presenting the continuationist case of this passage? The commentators you quote give hardly any exegetical evidence for their conclusion. Most are no more than one sentence long!

But lets look at them again:

Garland does the best with 3 pieces of evidence. "The battery of future tenses" - of course Paul is using future tenses. The canon hadn't been completed when he wrote to the Corinthians! "The disappearance of the partial replaced by the complete"- Yes, partial prophecy is replaced by the complete canon. "The reference to knowing as God knows us"....Yes, now the canon has been completed we know God's revelation to man as well as God knows us....fully, intimately, and completely. As I have already explained 'knowing' in this passage is referring to knowing God's revelation to man, not general knowledge.

Fee's only evidence is the "The nature of the escatological language in v12"... What escatological language? He is clearly mistaking 'face to face' with seeing Christ.

Oster:....ditto.

Witherington makes the same mistake as Garland regarding 'knowing'. As for 'faith and hope' Paul says those virtues will remain after the revelatory gifts have ceased. How can faith & hope remain after the eschaton?

Prior doesn't provide any evidence for it being the eschation. He simply assumes it is.

Soards - ditto.

Taylor - ditto.

Kistemaker claims that what will be perfect will be ourselves. But there is absolutely no warrant for that in the passage. The perfect is something that comes, not something we become.

Morris - No evidence given.

Calvin believes that perfection starts when the believer dies, not at the eschaton!

Luther in his sermon says prophecy is the preaching the God's word which will only cease at the 2nd coming. Same view as MacArthur's I believe. However most theologians believe as I do that prophecy and teaching are separate spiritual gifts as they are listed separately.

 

[Major1]

GOOD - since I never said anything even remotely Like that.

I SAID that the "Enduement of POWER" is for ministry, and illustrated one way in which that has worked in MY experience. I Won't even get into the Musical, and Deliverance from fear aspects of it. "Tongues" has never been a significant issue. They're Just There, and speaking to Him in tongues brings peace.

I HAVE been burdened to Interpret tongues spoken by others, and to occasionally give prophetic utterance in the context of a CHurch service. There has never been ANY emotional content to Manifesting the Gifts.

I Said the "Tongues" appear to just "Come along" as part of the "Package". I've NEVER been burdened to SPEAK in Tongues to the Church in "Message format". I COULD just stand and "rip off" a tongue - but then I'd be acting like the Corinthians that Paul had to correct (note that he NEVER SAYS that their tongues are "phony" - just that they're using them improperly).



I've never been burdened to Deliver a Message in a Tongue to a congregation - so NO.



Actually it's "SPEAK IN" there's no "Past tense" to it. And I wouldn't know what it is. I know a lot of languages/Language groups that it's not. No Gutterals, and nothing that sounds remotely "Romantic". It Varies over the years, sometimes suddenly changing significantly.



This is the "minority opinion" (Miracle of HEARING) on Acts 2 - i.e. that the Disciples:
a) Spoke in the common tongue, and were HEARD in the "Common tongue" of the listeners.
b) Spoke in an ANGELIC Tongue, and were HEARD in the "Common tongue" of the listeners.
c) Blabbed in Gibberish, and were HEARD in the "Common tongue" of the listeners.

The "MAJORITY OPINION" (Miracle of Utterance) is that the disciples "Spoke in other tongues (specific, and listed language groups) that they DID NOT KNOW, as the Holy SPirit gave them utterance."[/QUOTE]

Opinions can be dangerous.

Shall we read exactly what the Bible says to us?

Acts 2:6.....
"And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language."

Acts 2:8.....
" And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?"

 

[Major1]

The text is clear. Seeing "Face to face" is to do with the analogy of the mirror. There is no mention of Christ, or his return, or anything eschatological in this passage.



Danial Wallace is mistaken in his critique of the completed canon interpretation:

Paul certainly did know he was writing scripture. As an Apostle of Christ he would have been well aware of the Apostles' responsibility as authorized messengers of Christ to write down and distribute their God-breathed words to the churches via the epistles.

1 Cor 14:37 "what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command."

2 Peter 3:1-3 "I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles."

Col 4:16 "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea."

2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
​

Peter says that Paul's writings are to be regarded as Scripture:

2 Peter 3:14-16 "our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
​

Paul knew that only the Apostles of Christ were authorized to write scripture and soon the last of them would die at which point the NT canon would be closed. That is why near the end of his life he told Timothy not to expect new divine revelations but to preserve and pass on the ones received.

2 Tim 1:13-14 "What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

2 Tim 2:2 "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others."

Jude 3 "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints"
​

Paul also points out that the church was "built on the foundations of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20) and foundations are not something that are left incomplete. Wallace then makes the common mistake of assuming 'face to face' refers to seeing Christ face to face.​

Is that the best you can do in presenting the continuationist case of this passage? The commentators you quote give hardly any exegetical evidence for their conclusion. Most are no more than one sentence long!

But lets look at them again:

Garland does the best with 3 pieces of evidence. "The battery of future tenses" - of course Paul is using future tenses. The canon hadn't been completed when he wrote to the Corinthians! "The disappearance of the partial replaced by the complete"- Yes, partial prophecy is replaced by the complete canon. "The reference to knowing as God knows us"....Yes, now the canon has been completed we know God's revelation to man as well as God knows us....fully, intimately, and completely. As I have already explained 'knowing' in this passage is referring to knowing God's revelation to man, not general knowledge.

Fee's only evidence is the "The nature of the escatological language in v12"... What escatological language? He is clearly mistaking 'face to face' with seeing Christ.

Oster:....ditto.

Witherington makes the same mistake as Garland regarding 'knowing'. As for 'faith and hope' Paul says those virtues will remain after the revelatory gifts have ceased. How can faith & hope remain after the eschaton?

Prior doesn't provide any evidence for it being the eschation. He simply assumes it is.

Soards - ditto.

Taylor - ditto.

Kistemaker claims that what will be perfect will be ourselves. But there is absolutely no warrant for that in the passage. The perfect is something that comes, not something we become.

Morris - No evidence given.

Calvin believes that perfection starts when the believer dies, not at the eschaton!

Luther in his sermon says prophecy is the preaching the God's word which will only cease at the 2nd coming. Same view as MacArthur's I believe. However most theologians believe as I do that prophecy and teaching are separate spiritual gifts as they are listed separately.

Excellent response. I am glad that you have the ability to speak to such long posts.

 

[Major1]

Acts 2:6.....
"And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language."

 

[Major1]

GOOD - since I never said anything even remotely Like that.

I SAID that the "Enduement of POWER" is for ministry, and illustrated one way in which that has worked in MY experience. I Won't even get into the Musical, and Deliverance from fear aspects of it. "Tongues" has never been a significant issue. They're Just There, and speaking to Him in tongues brings peace.

I HAVE been burdened to Interpret tongues spoken by others, and to occasionally give prophetic utterance in the context of a CHurch service. There has never been ANY emotional content to Manifesting the Gifts.

I Said the "Tongues" appear to just "Come along" as part of the "Package". I've NEVER been burdened to SPEAK in Tongues to the Church in "Message format". I COULD just stand and "rip off" a tongue - but then I'd be acting like the Corinthians that Paul had to correct (note that he NEVER SAYS that their tongues are "phony" - just that they're using them improperly).



I've never been burdened to Deliver a Message in a Tongue to a congregation - so NO.



Actually it's "SPEAK IN" there's no "Past tense" to it. And I wouldn't know what it is. I know a lot of languages/Language groups that it's not. No Gutterals, and nothing that sounds remotely "Romantic". It Varies over the years, sometimes suddenly changing significantly.



This is the "minority opinion" (Miracle of HEARING) on Acts 2 - i.e. that the Disciples:
a) Spoke in the common tongue, and were HEARD in the "Common tongue" of the listeners.
b) Spoke in an ANGELIC Tongue, and were HEARD in the "Common tongue" of the listeners.
c) Blabbed in Gibberish, and were HEARD in the "Common tongue" of the listeners.

The "MAJORITY OPINION" (Miracle of Utterance) is that the disciples "Spoke in other tongues (specific, and listed language groups) that they DID NOT KNOW, as the Holy SPirit gave them utterance."

My apologies to you.

Your post said....
"However the REAL evidence of the "Enduement of Power" would be (drum roll) POWER IN MINISTRY!!!!!

That to me seemed to be saying that tongues were for the ministry. It still says that to me by the way.

If that is not the case and offened you, I am sorry.

 

[Biblicist]

Is that the best you can do in presenting the continuationist case of this passage? The commentators you quote give hardly any exegetical evidence for their conclusion. Most are no more than one sentence long!

Let me give you a hint. Whenever you come across a post such as this where someone provides numerous sources to a given perspective, for those who are serious about looking into the subject being addressed, over time, you are expected to go the various sources (which is why page numbers are provided) so that you can compare what may be a single line quote from the quoted work which may cover several pages.

You should have realised that my post was not a theological treatise but one which was intended to demonstrate that within the Christian academy, the vast majority view is that 1Cor 13:10 speaks of the return of the Lord with his future Kingdom.

I did a quick check of your comments but as they were merely a knee-jerk reaction which were based not so much on theology but through an agenda, then I need not reply. As I have said to you before, the best way to defend cessationism is through silence, as any 'argument' for the cessationist worldview is generally counterproductive.

 

[Biblicist]

My apologies to you.

Your post said....
"However the REAL evidence of the "Enduement of Power" would be (drum roll) POWER IN MINISTRY!!!!!

That to me seemed to be saying that tongues were for the ministry. It still says that to me by the way.

If that is not the case and offened you, I am sorry.

Even though I have sympathy for Bob's classic-Pentecostal position with regard to subsequence, where the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is supposed to follow our initial conversion experience; this particular perspective is receiving less and less support over the past 20 years where many AoG ministers no longer believe in it. I can understand how it developed and without going into any detail, it came about not so much from theological reflection but as a result of an accident of history.

I used to hold to this view up until a few years back until I realised that Paul never provided any hint that the BHS was to be subsequent to our salvation experience. The major theological proponents of subsequence developed an argument that pitted Luke against Paul where they promote the view that Luke has a better understanding of how we are to receive the Spirit, but even here they are misreading Luke's material in Acts. It has had the unfortunate outcome of producing a canon-within-a-canon where Paul becomes an incomptetent theologian when compared to Luke; this is why within academic circles it is common to hear classic-Pentecostals refer to their perspective as being based on Lukan and not Pauline-theology.

The classic-Pentecostals (I'm a Pentecostal but not a classic-Pentecostal) developed this approach during the 90's; once they were confronted by other Pentecostals, charismatics and evangelicals on this point, they realised that they could not support it from within Paul's writings. This supposed Lukan approach is not taken all that seriously outside of classic-Pentecostal circles.

 

[Major1]

Even though I have sympathy for Bob's classic-Pentecostal position with regard to subsequence, where the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is supposed to follow our initial conversion experience; this particular perspective is receiving less and less support over the past 20 years where many AoG ministers no longer believe in it. I can understand how it developed and without going into any detail, it came about not so much from theological reflection but as a result of an accident of history.

I used to hold to this view up until a few years back until I realised that Paul never provided any hint that the BHS was to be subsequent to our salvation experience. The major theological proponents of subsequence developed an argument that pitted Luke against Paul where they promote the view that Luke has a better understanding of how we are to receive the Spirit, but even here they are misreading Luke's material in Acts. It has had the unfortunate outcome of producing a canon-within-a-canon where Paul becomes an incomptetent theologian when compared to Luke; this is why within academic circles it is common to hear classic-Pentecostals refer to their perspective as being based on Lukan and not Pauline-theology.

The classic-Pentecostals (I'm a Pentecostal but not a classic-Pentecostal) developed this approach during the 90's; once they were confronted by other Pentecostals, charismatics and evangelicals on this point, they realised that they could not support it from within Paul's writings. This supposed Lukan approach is not taken all that seriously outside of classic-Pentecostal circles.

You seem to be a logical person and I compliment you on that.

Don't you find that Pentecostalism emerged in the early twentieth-century when a new generation departed from orthodox Bible doctrines and taking steps away from an understanding of the gospel based in the historic events of the Old Testament.

 

[Major1]

Let me give you a hint. Whenever you come across a post such as this where someone provides numerous sources to a given perspective, for those who are serious about looking into the subject being addressed, over time, you are expected to go the various sources (which is why page numbers are provided) so that you can compare what may be a single line quote from the quoted work which may cover several pages.

You should have realised that my post was not a theological treatise but one which was intended to demonstrate that within the Christian academy, the vast majority view is that 1Cor 13:10 speaks of the return of the Lord with his future Kingdom.

I did a quick check of your comments but as they were merely a knee-jerk reaction which were based not so much on theology but through an agenda, then I need not reply. As I have said to you before, the best way to defend cessationism is through silence, as any 'argument' for the cessationist worldview is generally counterproductive.

I find your comment very questionable concerning that cessationaism is counterproductive. It is certainly different than what you believe but not counter productive.

I would say that the opposite is true. IMO, continuation only speaks to the Pentecostal religion as it is the only one that relies upon men speaking in tongues, miracles, word of knowledge etc. Pentecostalism’s central basis of an experience of Spirit-baptism that produces tongues speaking and emotional experiences is a charismatic sacramentalism.

Since you are an admitted Pentecostal I am sure what I am saying is not new to you at all. The speaking in tongues we see in today's churches is not what was practiced in the early New Testament Church. What I see today is not Biblical in anyway. If you or anyone else wants to speak in tongues, then do it. However IMO you can not rely on the Bible as your souse of authority.

While speaking in tongues was a gift of the Spirit, the Bible clearly says that it is the least of all the gifts. Furthermore, Paul said it would be done away in 1 Corth. 13:8. Now you can continue to post comments and information from internet commentaries but the Bible says without question that "Tongues will cease".

In every case in the New Testament when the gift of languages was manifested, peoples of differing languages were present. The purpose of this gift was to give understanding to what was being spoken which was the gospel. The emphasis on prophesy would certainly inspire the members to qualify for the office of inspired speaking. Research shows that what is spoken today represents no known language, and that the speaker gives over control of his body and emotions. Often in Pentecostal services that I have attended and charismatic meetings, no sermon is given to edify the congregation and the gospel is not given since there is no interpretation of the language being spoken.

ONE time in my 50 years experience I observed the gift of tongues. During a meeting, a man stood up and began to speak in a language that no one understood. After a couple of seconds a person sitting in front of me said......
"I know what he is saying!!!!!.. He is speaking in Portuguese and is saying that Jesus is the Christ and was dead, buried and has risen from the dead".

As that man kept on speaking, the person in front of me interpreted his language so that every one in the room was edified and Jesus as lifted up.

 

[Biblicist]

You seem to be a logical person and I compliment you on that.

Thankyou.

Don't you find that Pentecostalism emerged in the early twentieth-century when a new generation departed from orthodox Bible doctrines and taking steps away from an understanding of the gospel based in the historic events of the Old Testament.

The history of the early or primitive Pentecostal denominations is an interesting study, where even many Pentecostals can fall into the trap of over simplifying its beginnings. At the risk of falling into the same trap, the majority of the early Pentecostal denominations came out of the Evangelical Holiness Movement(s), where they adopted what many within these movements referred to as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which they saw as being a baptism of perfection, whereas many of the new Pentecostals saw it as a baptism of power for ministry, this is what we refer as the classic-Pentecostal position.

The early Pentecostal movement has been seen as a continuation of Wesleyan holiness theology which stood in contrast to the horrid liberalism and humanism of the church of the middle to late 19th century. Over the decades many non-Pentecostal commentators have seen the early Pentecostal movement as being the natural outworking of those who rejected the humanism of the 19th century church, which in most part was in a really poor state.

 

[Biblicist]

I find your comment very questionable concerning that cessationaism is counterproductive. It is certainly different than what you believe but not counter productive.

Way back in the 70's, wow . . . that time period is getting further and further away, we quickly realised that many cessationist church leaders preferred to remain silent, where they hoped that their congregational members would not ask about these new Charismatics. Having personally heard countless testimonies about this, be it from church members or even with church leaders who later embraced the Full Gospel, it has now become a part of history which many Pentecostals and charismatics from this time period are well aware of.

This situation certainly applied to what I referred to earlier as the "Final Golden Nail", where many cessationist church leaders were well aware that once their members understood that 1Cor 13:10 was referring to the future return of the Lord with his Kingdom, that for many of them (possibly millions during the 60's and 70's) when this unhelpful encumbrance was dismissed that it would allow them to embrace the Full Gospel.

While speaking in tongues was a gift of the Spirit, the Bible clearly says that it is the least of all the gifts. Furthermore, Paul said it would be done away in 1 Corth. 13:8. Now you can continue to post comments and information from internet commentaries but the Bible says without question that "Tongues will cease".

So would you refuse a container of gold simply because it has less financial value than platinum? For that matter, would you prefer to forsake our ability to allow the Holy Spirit to pray and intercede on our behalf (tongues) or would you prefer to rely on our very imperfect human prayers; for me, as I can acknowledge my frail and imperfect humanity, I greatly appreciate the Holy Spirit's ability to intercede to the Father on my behalf in accordance with the will of the Father. For that matter, I would have thought that the "least" things of the Holy Spirit would be greater than the best accomplishments of man!

In every case in the New Testament when the gift of languages was manifested, peoples of differing languages were present. The purpose of this gift was to give understanding to what was being spoken which was the gospel.

As we have no examples of where anyone ever preached an evangelistic message in tongues, then your point is moot. Even on the Day of Pentecost the crowd were confused by what the 120 were saying, which were words of praise about the mighty works of God which has nothing to do with evanglism. If Peter had not stood up and provided the churches first evangelistic message then the crowd would have dispersped being none the wiser.

The emphasis on prophesy would certainly inspire the members to qualify for the office of inspired speaking. Research shows that what is spoken today represents no known language, and that the speaker gives over control of his body and emotions. Often in Pentecostal services that I have attended and charismatic meetings, no sermon is given to edify the congregation and the gospel is not given since there is no interpretation of the language being spoken.

Prophecy is always given in the language of each local congregation.

ONE time in my 50 years experience I observed the gift of tongues. During a meeting, a man stood up and began to speak in a language that no one understood. After a couple of seconds a person sitting in front of me said......
"I know what he is saying!!!!!.. He is speaking in Portuguese and is saying that Jesus is the Christ and was dead, buried and has risen from the dead".

As that man kept on speaking, the person in front of me interpreted his language so that every one in the room was edified and Jesus as lifted up.

As Paul has told us in 1Cor 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries", this means that any claim that someone is speaking in a known human language can be dismissed. Years back I was speaking to someone whose native language was Spanish, where he told me that as he was embarrassed that he could not as yet speak in tongues that during times of corporate praise and worship that he would speak words of praise to the Father in Spanish so that he would not be embarrassed. I wonder how many people have told the story since this time that they once heard someone speaking Spanish in tongues.

 

[swordsman1]

Let me give you a hint. Whenever you come across a post such as this where someone provides numerous sources to a given perspective, for those who are serious about looking into the subject being addressed, over time, you are expected to go the various sources (which is why page numbers are provided) so that you can compare what may be a single line quote from the quoted work which may cover several pages.

So, the way to discover the continuationist case for this passage is to spend a fortune buying those books?

Why can't you provide an exegetical summary of your preferred exposition for us to evaluate, then we can judge for ourselves whether the case for this passage being the Parousia holds water? So far I haven't seen a single argument that cannot be easily refuted.

You should have realised that my post was not a theological treatise but one which was intended to demonstrate that within the Christian academy, the vast majority view is that 1Cor 13:10 speaks of the return of the Lord with his future Kingdom.

Ah, so your defense is based on how many continuationist 'scholars' you can find that support your view, rather than providing the proof yourself for us all to judge. Are you familiar with the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum?

As I have said to you before, the best way to defend cessationism is through silence, as any 'argument' for the cessationist worldview is generally counterproductive.

The arguments for cessationism are far from counterproductive, they are compelling. The most obvious being the fact that the versions of the gifts practiced in the charismatic/pentecostal movement do not match the description of those gifts in the New Testament.

 

[swordsman1]

As Paul has told us in 1Cor 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries", this means that any claim that someone is speaking in a known human language can be dismissed.

That verse doesn't say that the tongues spoken in Corinth was non-human. Remembering that the context for the whole chapter is the local church, all it says is that no one in the congregation understood the language that was spoken. If someone was speaking say Persian in a small Greek church it is not surprising that no one understood. What was said would have been a mystery to them. Only God, who knows all languages, would have understood what was said.

As the only description we have of tongues is in Acts 2, which clearly states it to be foreign human languages, there is no reason to assume the tongues in Corinth was anything different.

 

[Major1]

Way back in the 70's, wow . . . that time period is getting further and further away, we quickly realised that many cessationist church leaders preferred to remain silent, where they hoped that their congregational members would not ask about these new Charismatics. Having personally heard countless testimonies about this, be it from church members or even with church leaders who later embraced the Full Gospel, it has now become a part of history which many Pentecostals and charismatics from this time period are well aware of.

This situation certainly applied to what I referred to earlier as the "Final Golden Nail", where many cessationist church leaders were well aware that once their members understood that 1Cor 13:10 was referring to the future return of the Lord with his Kingdom, that for many of them (possibly millions during the 60's and 70's) when this unhelpful encumbrance was dismissed that it would allow them to embrace the Full Gospel.


So would you refuse a container of gold simply because it has less financial value than platinum? For that matter, would you prefer to forsake our ability to allow the Holy Spirit to pray and intercede on our behalf (tongues) or would you prefer to rely on our very imperfect human prayers; for me, as I can acknowledge my frail and imperfect humanity, I greatly appreciate the Holy Spirit's ability to intercede to the Father on my behalf in accordance with the will of the Father. For that matter, I would have thought that the "least" things of the Holy Spirit would be greater than the best accomplishments of man!


As we have no examples of where anyone ever preached an evangelistic message in tongues, then your point is moot. Even on the Day of Pentecost the crowd were confused by what the 120 were saying, which were words of praise about the mighty works of God which has nothing to do with evanglism. If Peter had not stood up and provided the churches first evangelistic message then the crowd would have dispersped being none the wiser.


Prophecy is always given in the language of each local congregation.


As Paul has told us in 1Cor 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries", this means that any claim that someone is speaking in a known human language can be dismissed. Years back I was speaking to someone whose native language was Spanish, where he told me that as he was embarrassed that he could not as yet speak in tongues that during times of corporate praise and worship that he would speak words of praise to the Father in Spanish so that he would not be embarrassed. I wonder how many people have told the story since this time that they once heard someone speaking Spanish in tongues.

Our back and forth on this issue is classic. I noticed also that others are saying the same thing with the same result.

You are coming at this from what you believe to be Biblically correct and I am doing the same thing. You are not going to change your thinking and neither am I. You believe that your are correct in your understanding and I believe that flawed in your understanding.

We can do this over and over but nothing is going to change.

 

[Ron Coates]

Whenever I hear cessationists, I wonder why my Christian experience is so different from theirs. In 1975 and when I was 16, I was baptized. They insisted I speak in tongues, but I was unable to. I was given my prayer language in 2000. I didn't ask for it, at least not then. I was at a 5 day retreat and alone in my room when it happened. Receiving it was a small part of what God did with me that day. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad He gave it to me. I ministered with music for years and was known to be anointed, which I was, but I didn't have my prayer language for years. This tells me that when one is initially baptized with the Holy Spirit, tongues is not proof of it. It may be much of the time, but not in my case. I had one scripture only guy tell me online that I didn't want the glamour of tongues. I'm not sure what he meant by that, but when I received it I was at a low point in my life. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I don't try to change anyone's mind about this; I'll leave that up to God. I just hate to think of all the people who are missing out on Spiritual gifts. I would suggest that these people seek God about it. Or is hearing from God outside of the bible something you don't believe? Anyway, have a good one. Peace.

 

[swordsman1]

Whenever I hear cessationists, I wonder why my Christian experience is so different from theirs. In 1975 and when I was 16, I was baptized. They insisted I speak in tongues, but I was unable to. I was given my prayer language in 2000. I didn't ask for it, at least not then. I was at a 5 day retreat and alone in my room when it happened. Receiving it was a small part of what God did with me that day. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad He gave it to me. I ministered with music for years and was known to be anointed, which I was, but I didn't have my prayer language for years. This tells me that when one is initially baptized with the Holy Spirit, tongues is not proof of it. It may be much of the time, but not in my case. I had one scripture only guy tell me online that I didn't want the glamour of tongues. I'm not sure what he meant by that, but when I received it I was at a low point in my life. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I don't try to change anyone's mind about this; I'll leave that up to God. I just hate to think of all the people who are missing out on Spiritual gifts. I would suggest that these people seek God about it. Or is hearing from God outside of the bible something you don't believe? Anyway, have a good one. Peace.

The problem is Ron that the phenomenon experienced today is not the tongues of the New Testament. The only description of the gift is in Acts 2, and it is clearly the ability to speak foreign human languages without learning them. I can see nowhere in scripture where it is redefined as something else.

Now I am sure there is a genuine physiological phenomenon whereby the human tongue goes into autopilot. Professional linguists and anthropologists have known about it and studied it for years. Their conclusions are that it is not a language as it has none of the linguistic properties of a language that make it a mode of communication (nouns, verbs, etc). The phenomenon is not unique to Christianity, it has been observed in other religions as well as among atheists. Prof. William Samarin writes:

"There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same things: strings of syllables made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like or sentence-like units."

"When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia this turns out to be only a facade of language, although at times a very good one indeed."

"And it has already been established that no special power needs to take over a person's vocal organs; all of us are equipped with everything we need to produce glossolalia"

"Glossolalia is not a supernatural phenomenon....It is similar to many other kinds of speech humans produce in more or less normal circumstances, in more or less normal psychological states. In fact, anybody can produce glossolalia if he is uninhibited and if he discovers what the "trick" is.."​

Although many Christians believe it to be the biblical gift of tongues my extensive study of scripture on the matter has convinced me otherwise. The bible says that tongues would cease, and cease it did, at the end of the apostolic age. The Church Fathers writing shortly after attest to that fact. And apart from the odd spurious claim from heretical groups such the Montanists, it has remained so. There is no evidence to say that the gift would reappear 1800 years later when the Pentecostal movement started in the 1900's.

 

[Ron Coates]

Hi. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You believe what a book tells you. I believe what God did with me and the scripture He later led me to in order to confirm to me that it was in line with scripture. Like He has always done. This is how I see it. I know it's not what you believe. I accept that. I hope you can do the same for me. Peace.

 

[Major1]

Whenever I hear cessationists, I wonder why my Christian experience is so different from theirs. In 1975 and when I was 16, I was baptized. They insisted I speak in tongues, but I was unable to. I was given my prayer language in 2000. I didn't ask for it, at least not then. I was at a 5 day retreat and alone in my room when it happened. Receiving it was a small part of what God did with me that day. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad He gave it to me. I ministered with music for years and was known to be anointed, which I was, but I didn't have my prayer language for years. This tells me that when one is initially baptized with the Holy Spirit, tongues is not proof of it. It may be much of the time, but not in my case. I had one scripture only guy tell me online that I didn't want the glamour of tongues. I'm not sure what he meant by that, but when I received it I was at a low point in my life. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I don't try to change anyone's mind about this; I'll leave that up to God. I just hate to think of all the people who are missing out on Spiritual gifts. I would suggest that these people seek God about it. Or is hearing from God outside of the bible something you don't believe? Anyway, have a good one. Peace.

Ron. My dear brother. I know what you are saying. I was raised in the Pentecostal religion. I know the jargon. I know the the way it is presented to you. I have been there and I have done that.

If that is the way you want to worship......do it!
But please do not think that those of us who choose not to are in some way missing something. We (I) am not.

What is happening in the Pentecostal denomination Ron, is not Biblical tongues. It is well meaning people doing what they want to do regardless of what the Bible says.

Ron, the people who choose to speak in a strange tongue identify this phenomenon as a special gift of God and believe that they are practicing biblical tongues, but the truth is that most times they are coached by other tongue speakers in how to perform this action. In every case they are told that tongues speaking is a valid gift of the Holy Spirit today and should be sought. It should be clear to all that modern tongues speakers that to be biblical tongue must follow the New Testament example. If it does not then God's word establishes the phenomenon does not come from God.

In my experience over the years has been that tongues speakers have explained that they know their experience came from God and refuse to compare it with the New Testament. No matter how intensely someone feels about their experience, and claiming that it came from God, it must be verifiable and authenticated by the Scriptures. It is not enough simply to accept a modern concept or definition of tongues or what is popularly thought to be tongues.

Tongues, to be biblical, must confront to the biblical example. God's word is the only standard. This means that every modern tongues speaker must ask the question, "Is what I am doing and believing to be the sign gift of tongues, really what the Bible teaches is the gift from God." The Bible will authenticate the experience as biblical or expose it as unbiblical and not of God.

One of the problems comes from misinterpreting 1 Corinthians 14:14-15, practice praying in tongues. The verses are actually an admonishment against such a practice. The passage says:

1 Corth. 14:15-16.........
"What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?".

So when we read that we see that in the Corinthian church people were praying in tongues. Paul points out that praying in tongues was fruitless because one did not understand what they were praying. Nowhere in God's word is there an example of one praying and not understanding what they praying.

 

[Major1]

The problem is Ron that the phenomenon experienced today is not the tongues of the New Testament. The only description of the gift is in Acts 2, and it is clearly the ability to speak foreign human languages without learning them. I can see nowhere in scripture where it is redefined as something else.

Now I am sure there is a genuine physiological phenomenon whereby the human tongue goes into autopilot. Professional linguists and anthropologists have known about it and studied it for years. Their conclusions are that it is not a language as it has none of the linguistic properties of a language that make it a mode of communication (nouns, verbs, etc). The phenomenon is not unique to Christianity, it has been observed in other religions as well as among atheists. Prof. William Samarin writes:

"There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same things: strings of syllables made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like or sentence-like units."

"When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia this turns out to be only a facade of language, although at times a very good one indeed."

"And it has already been established that no special power needs to take over a person's vocal organs; all of us are equipped with everything we need to produce glossolalia"

"Glossolalia is not a supernatural phenomenon....It is similar to many other kinds of speech humans produce in more or less normal circumstances, in more or less normal psychological states. In fact, anybody can produce glossolalia if he is uninhibited and if he discovers what the "trick" is.."​

Although many Christians believe it to be the biblical gift of tongues my extensive study of scripture on the matter has convinced me otherwise. The bible says that tongues would cease, and cease it did, at the end of the apostolic age. The Church Fathers writing shortly after attest to that fact. And apart from the odd spurious claim from heretical groups such the Montanists, it has remained so. There is no evidence to say that the gift would reappear 1800 years later when the Pentecostal movement started in the 1900's.

YOu are correct and I agree with you. Tongues is another example of people doing what they want to do no matter what the Word of God says.

 

[Major1]

Whenever I hear cessationists, I wonder why my Christian experience is so different from theirs. In 1975 and when I was 16, I was baptized. They insisted I speak in tongues, but I was unable to. I was given my prayer language in 2000. I didn't ask for it, at least not then. I was at a 5 day retreat and alone in my room when it happened. Receiving it was a small part of what God did with me that day. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad He gave it to me. I ministered with music for years and was known to be anointed, which I was, but I didn't have my prayer language for years. This tells me that when one is initially baptized with the Holy Spirit, tongues is not proof of it. It may be much of the time, but not in my case. I had one scripture only guy tell me online that I didn't want the glamour of tongues. I'm not sure what he meant by that, but when I received it I was at a low point in my life. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I don't try to change anyone's mind about this; I'll leave that up to God. I just hate to think of all the people who are missing out on Spiritual gifts. I would suggest that these people seek God about it. Or is hearing from God outside of the bible something you don't believe? Anyway, have a good one. Peace.

Ron. Have you done any study on "Cessations" comparing it to "Continuations" or are you basing everything on your emotions and experiences???

We are quick to condemn those who are Cessationialists but in the same breath we say that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Biblical Christians. They are not Christians at all but they are continualists.

They promote the office of the apostle but just call it, Elder or Prophet. So when you say you believe in continuation of the tongues you are supporting those religions which are admittedly a cult and are not Christians.

I encourage you to do some study on this so that you may be approved, a workman of God.