The Need to Speak in Tongues at Home

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟253,347.00
Faith
Christian
What we have are eight conditional statements where each one is being governed by our attitude toward the key ingredient of love. Paul's use of 'and' is nothing more than a feature of grammar, where the and (kai) allows the sentence to flow.

The mistake you are making is to assume the 'and' in the protasis of a conditional clause is introducing a separate condition. It is not. It is separating the condition into 2 sub-conditions.

"If I had time and I had a car, then I would visit you" means both conditions (having time and having a car) must be met before the result occurs.

It doesn't mean "If I had time I would visit you; if I had a car I would visit you."

To be a separate condition there needs to be another 'if'.

This is junior grade grammar.

For that matter, how can prophecy be deemed to be an exaggeration when we all know that Paul regularly prophesied and that he encouraged everyone else to seek to do the same?

The exaggeration occurs in the 2nd sub-condition of the clause "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge". It is having the gift of prophecy to the degree you are omniscient.

Guess what, besides 'mysteries' not being a Manifestation of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts), Paul's giving of his possessions or his surrendering of his body to be burned (or to boast) are not Manifestations of the Spirit either. So Paul's introduction to chapter 13 is not specifically about Manifestations of the Spirit but more to do with our attitude to love, which is something that the cessationist is required to overlook.

No, giving away all your possessions and giving up your own life are hypothetical examples of the gift of giving. Each of the 5 parallel statements is giving us an exaggerated example of each spiritual gift to make the point that even having the gifts to such high degrees would be worthless without love.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟253,347.00
Faith
Christian
What you appear to fail to recognise is that when many (but not all) commentators make reference to Acts 10:47 “They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have”, is that they may not be referring to tongues being necessarily of the same genre but that it was the Holy Spirit who was given to both, irrespective if the tongues of Pentecost and Acts were the same or not.

Unlike those commentators who try and employ a bit of underhand commentary with this text, this is where the Continuist has the advantage in that as with many other similar passages, we can keep to the object of the particular passage and in this case it is with the giving of the Holy Spirit to both the Jews and then the Gentiles, where both have received the Holy Spirit, where the Gentiles later on received the Holy Spirit as the Jews initially had. Sadly for the cessationist, they have to move away from the purpose of Acts 10 where they start to insert unsubstantiated comment.


If the Gentiles received a different manifestation of the Spirit, Peter would NOT have said they "received the Holy Spirit just as we did". In the next chapter he reiterates that point "the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us". If the phenomenon they experienced was something different then Peter would be lying - the Spirit did not come upon the Gentiles just as He did upon the disciples; He came upon them in a different manner. And the hated Gentiles would never have been accepted on equal terms as the Jews.

Luke stresses the point that 'exalting God' was part of the similarity with the tongues of Pentecost. So someone must have known the language spoken to know the words were exalting God.

If the phenomenon was different to that at Pentecost Luke would never have used the exact same terminology to describe it (laleo glossa).

And of course logic dictates that in the absence of any re-description of the phenomenon, it must be presumed to be the same as that previously described. To claim it is something different is to commit the fallacy of eisegesis - reading something into the text that isn't there - something which the Continuist is regularly prone to do. Not just with scripture but even with the words of commentators.

In fact, Bruce cautiously advises his readers that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Romans “was not so much a second Pentecost . . .” where Bruce does not state that the tongues the Romans spoke were either in human or a heavenly tongue.

You have disingenuously taken Bruce's words out of context. His full comment is "The event was not so much a second Pentecost, standing alongside the first, as the participation of Gentile believers in the experience of the first Pentecost". Bruce makes it absolutely clear he views the Gentile experience as being exactly the same as Pentecost.

Here again, Dunn makes absolutely no reference to the tongues the Romans spoke as being either known human languages or of the language of heaven.

Read it again.

James Dunn - Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham,
Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making

The particular evidence mentioned is their speaking in tongues and extolling God. The double echo of the experience and event of Pentecost is obviosuly deliberate. What happened to Cornelius and his companions was manifestly no different from what had happened to the first disciples on the day of Pentecost. How could 'the faithful from circumcision' affirm the one and deny the other? They couldn't.

Crouch makes the common mistake, or maybe he chooses to go along this particular pathway, where the cessationist position detracts from the object of Luke’s account where the key factor is the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles (10:47 “They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have”) to the supposed view that the Romans also spoke in known human languages, which is something that Luke has not

I have already explained the error in your thinking in my first paragraph.

and if it had of occurred this way then he would have recorded it for us.

No he wouldn't. Luke has already given us a 7 verse description of the gift of tongues. He doesn't need to repeat the description every time he mentions the gift in subsequent chapters. In the absence of a redefinition, it must be presumed to the same. Only if it was a different phenomenon would Luke have given us a fresh description.

Again, Marshall is not saying that their tongues were in known human languages or a heavenly language. Marshall (along with the Pentecostals) both agree that what happened on Day of Pentecost and with the Romans was the same, in that the Spirit of God fell upon those who were present, not that the Jews spoke in known human languages and that the Romans spoke in a heavenly tongues, but that both received the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Read it again.

Marshall says "the experience of the Gentile converts was the same as that of the original recipients of the Spirit at the beginning".

It wasn't just that the fact that both groups received the Spirit, but the way in which they experienced the outpouring was identical - both groups spoke in foreign language tongues. "The Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning", "For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God" - just as the disciples did at Pentecost in recognized foreign languages .

I don’t know why you have quoted Nguyen as he has made no reference to the nature of the tongues the Romans spoke.

You obviously missed "Thus what happened to Cornelius and his household was no different from what happened to the first disciples on the day of Pentecost."
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟253,347.00
Faith
Christian
What Paul is saying is that uninterpreted tongues has an unfortunate negative outcome for the unregenerate visitor and for the cessationist, as neither understand the things of the Spirit, particularly with that of tongues.

Yet again you are fallaciously putting words into Paul's mouth. Paul makes no mention of "cessationist" in that verse or any other. Cessationists weren't around in Paul's time because all the gifts were still in operation.
 
Upvote 0

Deadworm

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2016
1,061
714
76
Colville, WA 99114
✟68,313.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Like so many wannabe Fundamentalist apologists, swordsman creates strawmen to confirm his sheltered perspective. Thus, he would have you believe that Pentecostals typically believe that their glossolalia to be angelic angelic language. Here are just 3 cases that demonstrate swordsman's need to leave his myopic theological Ghetto and just get out more:

(1) When I was 19, I joined YWAM (Youth with a Mission), a Christian organization devoted to witnessing in the streets and door to door all over the world. Its founder, Loren Cunningham, was driving our bus from Winnipeg to Toronto, when he told me this story. He was visiting an Amazon tribe, hoping to find a way to share his faith beyond the usual tracts. No interpreter was yet available. So he just spoke in tongues, and the natives were shocked to hear him witness to Jesus in their language. Just then a woman with cataracts approached him. Loren realized that she wanted him to pray for her. So he laid hands on her and her cataracts vanished! This miracle opened minds to the Gospel in a unique way. Loren's testimony illustrates the frequently close connection between speaking in tongues and divine healing.

(2) In his early 20s, Dennis Balcombe was attending an independent Pentecostal church in Almonte outside Los Angeles, when the wife of the main preacher began delivering a mesage in tongues. A congregational member gave the interpretation aloud: the gist of it was that Dennis was going to be used in a great missionary work in Communist China. An American Jew who spoke Hebrew and just happened to be be present in the meeting confirmed that the message had been given in fluent Hebrew and that the interpretation (translation) was totally accurate.

But Dennis got derailed from his calling for a while. He was drafted and spent a year in Vietnam in 1969. During a week of R & R in Hong Kong, he attended a local Pentecostal church and someone prophesied that God was calling him to stay there after his military service. So he studied Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese there and then pioneered a Chinese church. He told his people to think of him as an egg--white on the outside and yellow on the inside!

Soon Dennis got permission to teach English in Communist China and used that privilege to bring in a hundred thousand Bibles there. Then in the 1980s, several Christian house church leaders wanted him to teach them about Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues. After a year of resistance, the Holy Spirit fell on many and they spoke in tongues. Dennis became the first white missionary in many decades to travel to inland China. It was dangeous work: sometimes he was moved in a coffin on a cart with wheels. Once the police interupted his meeting, but he hid in the coffin, and the cops never opened it. Other times he wore a face mask, a fur hat, and a thick, padded cotten coat. Other times still, he wore women's clothes.

There were regular dramatic healings, including many blind who received their sight. When Dennis laid his hands on people, they sometimes were so intoxicated with the Spirit that they couldn't sleep for days! Once filled with the Spirit, these new Christians couldn't stop themselves from boldly witnessing to others. Within a decade of his ministry there, one half to two thirds of the 80 million strong house church movement became Pentecostal or Charismatic!!! How crucial to Chinese church history was Dennis Balcombe's calling in a mesage in Hebrew tongues back in the late 1960s!

Source: David Aikman, "Jesus in Beijing," pp. 271-275

(3) A young female missionary in a remote village in Uganda became gravely ill, so ill that her parents in Saskatchewan, Canada, received a telegram that she was too sick to be moved the many miles of jungle trails to the nearest doctor and would likely die shortly. This need was brought before a prayer meeting at the parents' Pentecostal church in Saskatchewan. There was a message in tongues. A visiting African student stood up and proclaimed that the message was in Swahili, his native language. The message said that God had given the young woman a healing touch and she would soon be reunited with her parents. There was great rejoicing when this prophecy came true.

Most North American glossolalia is uttered either in private or in monolingual churches which lack the array of foreign-language speakers to verify glossolalia in other human languages. So the number of such cases must be considered indeterminate, despite researchers like Samarin.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,024
993
Melbourne, Australia
✟51,107.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
If the Gentiles received a different manifestation of the Spirit, Peter would NOT have said they "received the Holy Spirit just as we did". In the next chapter he reiterates that point "the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us". If the phenomenon they experienced was something different then Peter would be lying - the Spirit did not come upon the Gentiles just as He did upon the disciples; He came upon them in a different manner. And the hated Gentiles would never have been accepted on equal terms as the Jews.
Luke stresses the point that 'exalting God' was part of the similarity with the tongues of Pentecost. So someone must have known the language spoken to know the words were exalting God.

If the phenomenon was different to that at Pentecost Luke would never have used the exact same terminology to describe it (laleo glossa).
Here's where you keep missing the point of Luke's record when he says "just as we did" as he is saying that the Gentiles have received the Holy Spirit as well, just as the Jews did on the Day of Pentecost. As I said in my previous post, you also failed to understand what the commentators you quoted were saying with their "they received the Holy Spirit just as the Jews did" in that they are right in that the Gentiles did receive the Holy Spirit along with that of the Jews, which is the plain meaning of Luke's language. What you need to do is find out from their commentators what they believe happened on this day, do they also believe that the tongues that were spoken by the Gentiles were in a heavenly tongue or a known human language, this cannot be deduced from most of the quotes you provided.

Luke is not suggesting that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit in the exact same manner (or sequence of events) as the Jews did on the Day of Pentecost as this would not only demand that the Gentiles spoke in known human languages, which is something that Luke did not record, nor did the Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit with the accompanying tongues of fire or with the sound of a rushing wind.

The only account of tongues within the Scriptures where tongues were spoken in a known human language was on the Day of Pentecost and if such a thing were to have occurred in Acts 10:44-46 and 19:6 then Luke certainly would have recorded this for us. As the historian Luke would have been thoroughly conversant with Paul's writings then he would have been well aware that tongues are never spoken in a known human language, at least within the congregational setting and during times of private prayer, which means that if the Romans had in fact spoken in known human languages then he would have made this absolutely clear, just as he did with his record of the Day of Pentecost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deadworm
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,024
993
Melbourne, Australia
✟51,107.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Yet again you are fallaciously putting words into Paul's mouth. Paul makes no mention of "cessationist" in that verse or any other. Cessationists weren't around in Paul's time because all the gifts were still in operation.
As I have told you before on numerous occasions, the ἰδιώτης idiotes
of 1Cor 14:23 speaks of those who are uninitiated into the things of the Spirit, where the NASB rightfully uses the term the ungifted.

As Paul is speaking to those who are Saved, where he speaks of a further two classes of people, one being the unsaved/unregenerate and the others who are the idiotes, then the idiotes can only be those who we know today to be those who are cessationists as they are the only class of Believers who do not understand the things of the Spirit, not that we Pentecostals and charismatics are always able to properly exegete the Pneumatic texts, but we at least understand or grasp the things of the Spirit.
  • NASB: and ungifted men or unbelievers enter
  • Complete Jewish Bible: and uninstructed people or unbelievers come in
  • Holman Bible (2009): people who are uninformed or unbelievers
  • English Revised Version: and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving,
  • NIV (2011): and inquirers or unbelievers come in
  • NIV (1984): some who do not understand or some unbelievers
  • Net: and unbelievers or uninformed people enter (1Co 14:23 NET)
  • ESV: and outsiders or unbelievers enter
  • KJV: those that are unlearned, or unbelievers
  • NJB: and some uninitiated people or unbelievers
  • NKJ: those who are uninformed or unbelievers
  • NLT: if unbelievers or people who don't understand these things come into your church meeting
  • NRSV: and outsiders or unbelievers enter
Even though it would be difficult to imagine any Believer who was a member of a congregation that was established and maintained by one of the Apostles and with Paul in particular who did not fully understand the things of the Spirit, this would not necessarily be the case for those who were a part of a congregation that had been established by someone who knew only a portion of the Gospel, such as with Apollos in his early days. This is understandable as the Scriptures and particularly the Epistles had not been fully completed and compiled until decades after Pentecost.

As much as it would be nice to think that cessationism was a later byproduct of the Dark Ages of the Church centuries later, when we read through Galatians I find it difficult to believe that the Galatian churches had not succumbed to the cessationist worldview which Paul alludes to in Gal 1:6 "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel" and with Gal 3:3 "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?".

Later addition:
Friberg Lexicon:
13974 ἰδιώτης, ου, ὁ strictly, one in private life layman or nonspecialist, with the specific sense taken from contrast in the context; (1) uneducated, unlearned (AC 4.13); (2) nonmember of a community, uninstructed person, inquirer (1C 14.16, 23, 24); (3) unskilled, untrained (2C 11.6)​


Louw-Nida Lexicon:

27.26 ἰδιώτης, ου m: a person who has not acquired systemic information or expertise in some field of knowledge or activity - 'layman, ordinary person, amateur.' εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῇ γνῶσει 'perhaps I am an amateur in speaking, but certainly not in knowledge' 2 Cor 11.6.

In 1 Cor 14.16 ἰδιώτης is used to refer to a class of persons who were neither unbelievers nor fully instructed Christians, but who were inquirers or catechumens. In such a context, ἰδιώτης may be rendered as 'ordinary, uninitiated' επεὶ ἐὰν εὐλογῇς ἐν πνεύματι, ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖ τὸ Ἀμήν ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ 'when you give thanks to God in spirit only, how can an ordinary, uninitiated person taking part in the meeting say ''Amen'' to your prayer of thanksgiving').​

LS Greek Lexicon:

21162 ἰδιώτης
ἰδιώτης
, ου, ὁ, (ἴδιος) a private person, an individual, ξυμφέροντα καὶ πόλεσι καὶ ἰδιώταις Thuc., etc.

II. one in a private station, opp. to one taking part in public affairs, Hdt., Att.; opp. to στρατηγός, a private soldier, Xen.

2. a common man, plebeian, Plut.

3. as Adj., ἰδ. βίος a private station, homely way of life, Plat.

III. one who has no professional knowledge, as we say 'a layman,' ἰατρὸς καὶ ἰδιώτης Thuc.; opp. to ποιητής, a prose-writer, Plat.; to a trained soldier, Thuc.; to a skilled workman, Plat.

2. c. gen. rei, unpractised, unskilled in a thing, Lat. expers, rudis, ἰατρικῆς Id.; also, ἰδ. κατά τι Xen.

3. generally, a raw hand, an ignorant, ill-informed man, Id., Dem.

IV. ἰδιῶται one's own countrymen, opp. to ξένοι, Ar. Hence ἰδιωτικός​


VGNT Dictionary:
1972 ἰδιώτης [pg 299]
ἰδιώτης.
In Syll 84716 (Delphi—B.C. 185) the witnesses to a manumission are the priest, two representatives of the ἄρχοντες, and five ἰδιῶται, “private citizens”: cf. ib. 8468 (B.C. 197) and OGIS 9052 (B.C. 196) where again a distinction is drawn between ἱερεῖς and οἱ ἄλλοι ἰδιῶται. In connexion with the difficult 1 Cor 1416 ,23, Thieme (p. 32) cites Magn 9926 (beg. ii/B.C.) φερόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν @ἰ]διωτῶ@ν, where the word may have some reference to worship at the founding of a sanctuary in honour of Serapis, but the context is far from clear. In P Fay 1912 (ii/A.D.) the Emperor Hadrian refers to his father’s having died at the age of forty—ἰδιώτης, “a private person,” and in P Oxy XII. 140914 (A.D. 278) we read of overseers chosen—ἐξ ἀρχόντων ἢ καὶ ἰδιωτῶν, “from magistrates or private persons”: cf. P Ryl II. III (a)17 (censusreturn—c. A.D. 161) ἰδιώ(της) λαογ(ραφούμενος), “a private person paying polltax.” The adj. ἰδιωτικός is similarly used with reference to a private bank—ἰδιωτικὴ τράπεζα—in P Lond 116821 (A.D. 18) (= III. p. 137), and in ib. 9328 (A.D. 211) (=III. p. 149) with reference to δάνεια ἤτοι ἰδιωτικὰ ἢ ὃημόσια: cf. the Will, P Tebt II. 38118 (A.D. 123) (= Selections, p. 79), where Thaesis bequeaths her property to her daughter on condition that she discharges, her private debts—διευλυτώσει ὧν ἐὰν φανῆι ἡ Θαῆσις ὀφίλουσα ἰδιοτικῶν χρεῶν, and BGU V. 121O196 (c.A.D. 150) Παστοφόρo@ις] evξὸν ἰδιωtikw|u evφίεσθαι τάξεων, “Pastophoren ist es erlaubt, nach Laienstellungen zu streben” (Ed.). See further Preisigke Fackwörter, p. 1011. To the rare use of ἰδιώτης to denote absence of military rank, a private, in P Hib I. 3021 (B.C. 300–271) and ib. 897 (B.C. 239), we can now add P Harnb I.2611 (B.C. 215). In contrast to rhetoricians and philosophers, Epictetus describes himself as ἰδιώτης (iii. 7. 1, al.): cf. 2 Cor 116, and see Epict. iii. 9. 14 οὐδὲν ἦν ὁ Ἐπίκτητος, ἐσολοίκιζεν, ἐβαρβάριζεν (cited by Heinrici Litt. Char. p. 2).​



Edit: Changed 'Scriptures' for things of the Spirit
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟253,347.00
Faith
Christian
Here's where you keep missing the point of Luke's record when he says "just as we did" as he is saying that the Gentiles have received the Holy Spirit as well, just as the Jews did on the Day of Pentecost. As I said in my previous post, you also failed to understand what the commentators you quoted were saying with their "they received the Holy Spirit just as the Jews did" in that they are right in that the Gentiles did receive the Holy Spirit along with that of the Jews, which is the plain meaning of Luke's language. What you need to do is find out from their commentators what they believe happened on this day, do they also believe that the tongues that were spoken by the Gentiles were in a heavenly tongue or a known human language, this cannot be deduced from most of the quotes you provided.

Luke is not suggesting that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit in the exact same manner (or sequence of events) as the Jews did on the Day of Pentecost as this would not only demand that the Gentiles spoke in known human languages, which is something that Luke did not record, nor did the Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit with the accompanying tongues of fire or with the sound of a rushing wind.

Where you keep tripping up is in your failure to notice the reason why Peter said "the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us". Luke tells us - "For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.", the same as they did at Pentecost. Both examples of tongues were recognized to be exalting God because people understood the words.

How else would the Jews know the Gentiles had received the Spirit? As you point out, there was no wind sound or descending fire. The only manifestation of the Spirit present was tongues. And it was on the presence of this phenomenon alone that Peter declares "the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us". If the Gentiles received something different to the the tongues that Peter experienced, he would never had said that and there would have been continued division, not the unanimous verdict that the hated Gentiles were now to be included as equals.

The only account of tongues within the Scriptures where tongues were spoken in a known human language was on the Day of Pentecost and if such a thing were to have occurred in Acts 10:44-46 and 19:6 then Luke certainly would have recorded this for us.

No he wouldn't. Luke has already given us a 7 verse description of the gift of tongues. He doesn't need to repeat the description every time he mentions the gift in subsequent chapters. In the absence of a redefinition, it must be presumed to the same. Only if it was a different phenomenon would Luke have given us a fresh description.


As the historian Luke would have been thoroughly conversant with Paul's writings then he would have been well aware that tongues are never spoken in a known human language, at least within the congregational setting and during times of private prayer, which means that if the Romans had in fact spoken in known human languages then he would have made this absolutely clear, just as he did with his record of the Day of Pentecost.

Quite the opposite. Luke was a close companion of Paul's and used the exact same terminology to describe the foreign language tongues at Pentecost as Paul used in his epistle. If Luke knew they were 2 different phenomena he would never have done so. And Paul himself was present in the Acts 19 narrative so had first hand knowledge of what happened. If it was different from Acts 2, Paul would have instructed Luke to make the distinction clear and not use the same words.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟253,347.00
Faith
Christian
As I have told you before on numerous occasions, the ἰδιώτης idiotes
of 1Cor 14:23 speaks of those who are uninitiated into the things of the Spirit, where the NASB rightfully uses the term the ungifted.

As Paul is speaking to those who are Saved, where he speaks of a further two classes of people, one being the unsaved/unregenerate and the others who are the idiotes, then the idiotes can only be those who we know today to be those who are cessationists as they are the only class of Believers who do not understand the things of the Spirit, not that we Pentecostals and charismatics are always able to properly exegete the Pneumatic texts, but we at least understand or grasp the things of the Spirit.
  • NASB: and ungifted men or unbelievers enter
  • Complete Jewish Bible: and uninstructed people or unbelievers come in
  • Holman Bible (2009): people who are uninformed or unbelievers
  • English Revised Version: and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving,
  • NIV (2011): and inquirers or unbelievers come in
  • NIV (1984): some who do not understand or some unbelievers
  • Net: and unbelievers or uninformed people enter (1Co 14:23 NET)
  • ESV: and outsiders or unbelievers enter
  • KJV: those that are unlearned, or unbelievers
  • NJB: and some uninitiated people or unbelievers
  • NKJ: those who are uninformed or unbelievers
  • NLT: if unbelievers or people who don't understand these things come into your church meeting
  • NRSV: and outsiders or unbelievers enter
Even though it would be difficult to imagine any Believer who was a member of a congregation that was established and maintained by one of the Apostles and with Paul in particular who did not fully understand the things of the Spirit, this would not necessarily be the case for those who were a part of a congregation that had been established by someone who knew only a portion of the Gospel, such as with Apollos in his early days. This is understandable as the Scriptures and particularly the Epistles had not been fully completed and compiled until decades after Pentecost.

As much as it would be nice to think that cessationism was a later byproduct of the Dark Ages of the Church centuries later, when we read through Galatians I find it difficult to believe that the Galatian churches had not succumbed to the cessationist worldview which Paul alludes to in Gal 1:6 "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel" and with Gal 3:3 "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?".

No, I am afraid you are exhibiting ignorance yet again.

BDAG Lexicon
ἰδιώτης, ου, ὁ (s. ἴδιος; Hdt.+; loanw. in rabb.).
② one who is not knowledgeable about some particular group’s experience, one not in the know, outsider. In 1 Cor 14:23f ἰδιῶται and ἄπιστοι together form a contrast to the Christian congregation. The ἰ. are neither similar to the ἄπιστοι (against Ltzm., Hdb. ad loc.), nor are they full-fledged Christians, but stand betw. the two groups, prob. as prospects for membership and are therefore relatively outsiders (ἰδιώτης as a t.t. of religious life e.g. OGI 90, 52 [196

So the idiotes in 1 Cor 14 were people who entered the meeting but were not familiar the gift of tongues and didn't realise that it was a spiritual gift but rather saw the foreign languages as a sign of judgement. Cessationists however are well versed on the things of the Spirit and know exactly what the gift of tongues is, as the Bible gives us a thorough description of the gift. The equivalent of an idiote today then would be someone who is ignorant of that description or willfully dismisses it and comes up with a definition of their own that is totally alien to scripture.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟253,347.00
Faith
Christian
The unpardonable sin where we blaspheme against the Holy Spirit can initially be seen as those who reject the leading of the Holy Spirit or his call to Salvation, which we can either accept or reject.

That's wrong. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is deliberately attributing to Satan the works of Christ when you know they are from the Holy Spirit. Eg the Pharisees had irrefutable evidence that Jesus was the Messiah by his miracles, yet they willfully attributed those miracles to the work of Satan.

When it comes to his Person and Ministry within both the live of the Church and the individual Believer, when we attribute his ministry to Satan or oppose his Ministry through the Believer, such as with 1Cor 12:7-11 wisdom, faith, knowledge, powers, healings, prophecy, discerning of spirit, tongues and interpretation, where they are denied as being for the entirety of the Church Age, then this is also blasphemy, where a long term and aggressive resistance to his Ministry can produce more problems for the individual that goes down this particular pathway, more than what they would ever want to contemplate. As you said, blasphemy can also be a resistance to God's Written Word when it goes beyond an acceptable point.

Ah, the common scare tactic to ward off cessationists. Nonsense. Defending the Holy Spirit against the lies and abuses of things done in His name is not blaspheming Him. What is dishonoring to the Holy Spirit is attributing to Him, things which are clearly not of him.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,024
993
Melbourne, Australia
✟51,107.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
That's wrong. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is deliberately attributing to Satan the works of Christ when you know they are from the Holy Spirit. Eg the Pharisees had irrefutable evidence that Jesus was the Messiah by his miracles, yet they willfully attributed those miracles to the work of Satan.
Huh?? I suppose it can be easy for the hardcore-cessationist to dismiss or minimise the role of the Holy Spirit within the New Covenant, but for those of us who embrace the complete Gospel then we are well aware that a continued aggressive stance against both the Spirit and the Word will often realise only one not so enjoyable eternal outcome [edit: which also applies to the errant Continuist as well, which means we all need to be on our guard].

Ah, the common scare tactic to ward off cessationists. Nonsense. Defending the Holy Spirit against the abuse of things done in His name is not blaspheming Him. What is dishonoring to the Holy Spirit is attributing to Him, things which are clearly not of him.
Hey, this not only applies to the poor old lackluster hardcore-cessationist but to Pentecostals and charismatics as well; of course, when a particular worldview [edit: be it within either cessationism or Continuism] compels its adherents to constantly stand against the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, let alone with that of the Son and the Father, then this undoubtedly becomes a problem for all of us such people.

As for being a scare tactic, where we remind people of their (and our need) to constantly check ourselves against the Scriptures, then you are right, it is certainly a well deserved scare tactic as most Believers who are tacit cessationists often adhere to this particular worldview not so much from a position of confidence and strength but due to things such as denominational pressure or even demands by family and friends to toe the traditional line. This problem has seen the rise of a new component of the Church since the 1970's, where many practicing-cessationists may be content (for whatever reasons) to walk as cessationists, but due to their exposure to the Word of God, at the same time, they are unwilling to promote this particular worldview as they know that it cannot be supported from the Word; these individuals which may even constitute the majority of contemporary Evangelicals are known as those who are "open-but-cautious", where they may be experientially cessationist but theologically Continuist - mankind is indeed an often fickle and inconsistent creation!!

Edit: My poor choice of wording has been corrected
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟253,347.00
Faith
Christian
Huh?? I suppose it can be easy for the hardcore-cessationist to dismiss or minimise the role of the Holy Spirit within the New Covenant, but for those of us who embrace the complete Gospel then we are well aware that a continued aggressive stance against both the Spirit and the Word will often realise only one not so enjoyable eternal outcome.

Isn't saying that people of opposing doctrines are going to Hell against the rules of this forum? Rather a shameful thing to say when cessationist doctrine is based on sound biblical exegesis, as opposed to the eisogesis of continuationism.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,024
993
Melbourne, Australia
✟51,107.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Isn't saying that people of opposing doctrines are going to Hell against the rules of this forum? Rather a shameful thing to say when cessationist doctrine is based on sound biblical exegesis, as opposed to the eisogesis of continuationism.
Having read what I said you are probably right in that my point should have been more carefully worded toward anyone, be they cessationist or Continuist who stands against the Spirit and the Word, and of course Continuists can be prone to the same dilemma themselves, though of course we tend to foolishly think at times that we are immune from such things.

But as many cessationists on CF regularly attribute the work of the Spirit within the Continuist to Satan, which in itself would see us being damned to hell, then I am sure that my careless oversight can be forgiven, just as I ignore the many intentional similar comments that are made by cessationists - but your point was still well made.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟253,347.00
Faith
Christian
Having read what I said you are probably right in that my point should have been more carefully worded toward anyone, be they cessationist or Continuist who stands against the Spirit and the Word, and of course Continuists can be prone to the same dilemma themselves, though of course we tend to foolishly think at times that we are immune from such things.

But as many cessationists on CF regularly attribute the work of the Spirit within the Continuist to Satan, which in itself would see us being damned to hell, then I am sure that my careless oversight can be forgiven, just as I ignore the many intentional similar comments that are made by cessationists - but your point was still well made.

Your post is still breaking the forum rules. You have no right to say that any Christian is going to Hell whether they are cessationist or not, certainly not on this forum. Your understanding of the doctrine of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is wrong. Try reading a few commentaries on the issue. And while you would describe cessationism as "a continued aggressive stance against both the Spirit and the Word", I would call it defending the Holy Spirit against the lies and false teaching concerning Him.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,821
10,796
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟836,288.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I agree Paul said he spoke in tongues outside church services. The question is where? He doesn't say. It can either be in private, where it would be contrary to the stated purpose of spiritual gifts, or it could be in public places where it would be in full accord.

According to Pentecostal Theologians, there are two types of tongues. There is the function of tongues that is available to a believer when they get filled with the Holy Spirit (they see that as a subsequent event to conversion, but I am convinced that the Holy Spirit fills a person at conversion and the gifts and fruit develop afterward as the believer grows in grace and experience). There is the other function of tongues that is described as one of the gifts of the Spirit and it is used in public worship in conjunction with the gift of interpretation of tongues. They are two separate functions, although it is the same Spirit who is working in both.

To say that praying in tongues privately to God is contrary to Paul's teaching is actually reading into Paul's teaching that isn't there. To say that the only place for tongues is in public worship is also reading something that isn't there either.

We must be careful never allow our personal experiences to dictate biblical doctrine. Our theology must come only from what scripture says, and not be molded by an experience we have encountered to say something different that aligns better with our experience.

You are correct. That's why it is risky to base interpretations from scripture that read "between the lines" instead of basing them on what is actually written there. If Paul was teaching that tongues always had to be spoken in church followed by an interpretation, then it would seem senseless for him to say "yet in the church", giving the impression that tongues could be spoken away from public meetings and still be rightfully "giving thanks to God well."

Also, Paul says that he speaks in tongues "more than you all". Where did he do that? He taught that tongues messages and interpretations be limited to "two or three", so he could not have spoken in tongues "more than you all" in public meetings. Because Paul was a man of prayer, then the tongues "more than you all" had to be prayed in his private prayer with God.

Also, if you read the Scripture correctly, Paul did not say that people in church services who spoke with tongues without interpretation were actually incorrect. He merely said that prophecy was better because people understood what was being spoken. He says not to forbid the speaking of tongues. So, he probably would not have stopped anyone praying in tongues during a church service, unless they were praying so loud that it was disrupting the service. I would then think that he would counsel the person to pray quietly to God rather than speak it loud enough to confuse it with the tongues that needed an interpretation.

Of course, it is quite different in a prayer meeting where everyone is praying in tongues together. That is not a public meeting because the whole point of a prayer meeting is to direct prayer to God. That would be the context where Paul says that he would pray with the Spirit (tongues) and pray with his understanding (one of the languages in which he was fluent), and he would do the same during his private prayers to God.

Anyone who has and practices tongues both in private and public services knows this anyone and has no problems with it. In my experience (50 years) the only ones who have limited the speaking of tongues to public services are those who have never spoken in tongues and have never spent enough time in a Charismatic church to learn about it fully.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,821
10,796
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟836,288.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Your post is still breaking the forum rules. You have no right to say that any Christian is going to Hell whether they are cessationist or not, certainly not on this forum. Your understanding of the doctrine of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is wrong. Try reading a few commentaries on the issue. And while you would describe cessationism as "a continued aggressive stance against both the Spirit and the Word", I would call it defending the Holy Spirit against the lies and false teaching concerning Him.

I didn't see anything that was said that was condemning anyone to Hell. What the man said was that Cessationists often say that Continuists are operating through the devil and are probably going to Hell. In a nutshell, he is saying that Cessationists are saying that Continuists are going to Hell. So the post is not a violation of the forum rules because he is not condemning anyone to Hell in his post. He is merely describing what a particular group of Christians are saying. He is certainly not saying that Continuists are going to Hell at all!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,821
10,796
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟836,288.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
If the Gentiles received a different manifestation of the Spirit, Peter would NOT have said they "received the Holy Spirit just as we did". In the next chapter he reiterates that point "the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us". If the phenomenon they experienced was something different then Peter would be lying - the Spirit did not come upon the Gentiles just as He did upon the disciples; He came upon them in a different manner. And the hated Gentiles would never have been accepted on equal terms as the Jews.

Peter was making a descriptive statement not a theological one. He was demonstrating that the Gentiles received the same Spirit as the Jewish believers at Pentecost. Tongues was the evidence of it. If the Gentile believers had not received tongues, Peter would not have been able to prove that the Gentiles did actually receive the same Spirit as the Jewish believers.

Luke stresses the point that 'exalting God' was part of the similarity with the tongues of Pentecost. So someone must have known the language spoken to know the words were exalting God.

All tongues is exalting God. The reason why some on the day of Pentecost understood the language was that the languages of people from every region were being spoken. This was the phenomenon of the tongues at Pentecost.

It doesn't necessarily follow that the Gentile believers who spoke in tongues actually spoke understandable languages unless that one of those languages was Hebrew or Aramaic, languages that the Gentile believers would never have known. But Luke is silent about that.

If the phenomenon was different to that at Pentecost Luke would never have used the exact same terminology to describe it (laleo glossa).

There is no argument about that.

And of course logic dictates that in the absence of any re-description of the phenomenon, it must be presumed to be the same as that previously described. To claim it is something different is to commit the fallacy of eisegesis - reading something into the text that isn't there - something which the Continuist is regularly prone to do. Not just with scripture but even with the words of commentators.

There is nothing to prove that Continuists are wrong about their view of tongues.

You have disingenuously taken Bruce's words out of context. His full comment is "The event was not so much a second Pentecost, standing alongside the first, as the participation of Gentile believers in the experience of the first Pentecost". Bruce makes it absolutely clear he views the Gentile experience as being exactly the same as Pentecost.

No argument here.

Luke has already given us a 7 verse description of the gift of tongues. He doesn't need to repeat the description every time he mentions the gift in subsequent chapters. In the absence of a redefinition, it must be presumed to the same. Only if it was a different phenomenon would Luke have given us a fresh description.

Quite right.

It wasn't just that the fact that both groups received the Spirit, but the way in which they experienced the outpouring was identical - both groups spoke in foreign language tongues. "The Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning", "For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God" - just as the disciples did at Pentecost in recognized foreign languages .

You obviously missed "Thus what happened to Cornelius and his household was no different from what happened to the first disciples on the day of Pentecost."

So, you have successfully demonstrated that the filling of the Spirit was the same for the Gentiles as it was for the Jewish believers. But I don't see how you are using this to discount Continuance and support Cessationism.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,024
993
Melbourne, Australia
✟51,107.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Your post is still breaking the forum rules. You have no right to say that any Christian is going to Hell whether they are cessationist or not, certainly not on this forum. Your understanding of the doctrine of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is wrong. Try reading a few commentaries on the issue. And while you would describe cessationism as "a continued aggressive stance against both the Spirit and the Word", I would call it defending the Holy Spirit against the lies and false teaching concerning Him.
With regard to an earlier post of yours, I did not say that "errant doctrines" (or similar) would necessarily lead anyone to hell, for that matter, I am horrified with the Oneness Pentecostal views regarding the Trinity, which are thoroughly heretical, but such views will in my opinion send no one to hell; so doctrine is not really an issue in this context but a wrong heart attitude, by both cessationists and Continuists can certainly place us in a dangerous predicament. But if you hold to the OSAS position then you would understandably believe otherwise.

As for your opinion regarding my understanding of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, well this does not bother me as I know full well that all Pentecostals and charismatics would (or should) agree with me and of course the growing number of Evangelicals who are 'open-but-cautious' to the things of the Spirit would probably agree with me as well, though in their particular case with maybe some additional qualification.

So will my cessationist brothers and sisters go to hell because they are cessationist, of course not, but anyone, be they Pentecostal, charismatic, neo-charismatic, open-but-cautious or Evangelical, if we hold to hardened views either against or about the Holy Spirit then we each need to check our walk in the Spirit and Christ. For the Continuist, even though we understand our freedom in Christ, sadly, there are all too many Pentecostals who have adopted a very free and individualistic approach to the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit where they also need to check their own walk in the Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟253,347.00
Faith
Christian
According to Pentecostal Theologians, there are two types of tongues. There is the function of tongues that is available to a believer when they get filled with the Holy Spirit (they see that as a subsequent event to conversion, but I am convinced that the Holy Spirit fills a person at conversion and the gifts and fruit develop afterward as the believer grows in grace and experience). There is the other function of tongues that is described as one of the gifts of the Spirit and it is used in public worship in conjunction with the gift of interpretation of tongues. They are two separate functions, although it is the same Spirit who is working in both.

To say that praying in tongues privately to God is contrary to Paul's teaching is actually reading into Paul's teaching that isn't there. To say that the only place for tongues is in public worship is also reading something that isn't there either.

I don't see there being two types of tongues in scripture, but there are certainly two purposes of tongues. One was as a confirming sign (Mark 16:17,20) as exemplified by all three accounts in Acts. The other was to edify the church when translated (1 Cor 14:5). No other purpose is given. There is no mention of speaking in tongues in private.

If Paul was teaching that tongues always had to be spoken in church followed by an interpretation, then it would seem senseless for him to say "yet in the church", giving the impression that tongues could be spoken away from public meetings and still be rightfully "giving thanks to God well."

Also, Paul says that he speaks in tongues "more than you all". Where did he do that?

You are quite right, Paul did say he spoke in tongues outside of church. But where? At home where it would be contrary to the stated purpose of spiritual gifts? Or in public places where it would be a useful tool in evangelism just as it was at Pentecost?

"You are giving thanks well enough" was referring to tongues spoken in church "but the other person is not edified."


Also, if you read the Scripture correctly, Paul did not say that people in church services who spoke with tongues without interpretation were actually incorrect. He merely said that prophecy was better because people understood what was being spoken.

I don't think there can be any doubt that Paul disapproved of untranslated tongues in the church:

if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you....

So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken?

you will be speaking into the air.

I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?

For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.

in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

Let all things be done for edification.

To dispel any doubt, Paul then forbids the practice:

If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church

He says not to forbid the speaking of tongues. So, he probably would not have stopped anyone praying in tongues during a church service, unless they were praying so loud that it was disrupting the service.

Only if their tongues was translated.

I would then think that he would counsel the person to pray quietly to God rather than speak it loud enough to confuse it with the tongues that needed an interpretation.

Yes, so quietly in fact that the untranslated tongue was inaudible - "he must keep silent in the church".


Of course, it is quite different in a prayer meeting where everyone is praying in tongues together. That is not a public meeting because the whole point of a prayer meeting is to direct prayer to God. That would be the context where Paul says that he would pray with the Spirit (tongues) and pray with his understanding (one of the languages in which he was fluent), and he would do the same during his private prayers to God.

The context of the whole of chapter 14 is "in the church" not private prayer meetings. In a private prayer meeting untranslated tongues would still not edify others and hence be against the stated purpose of spiritual gifts.

The praying in tongues in 1 Cor 14 took place in church and was to be translated - "Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, 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?"
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟253,347.00
Faith
Christian
I didn't see anything that was said that was condemning anyone to Hell. What the man said was that Cessationists often say that Continuists are operating through the devil and are probably going to Hell. In a nutshell, he is saying that Cessationists are saying that Continuists are going to Hell. So the post is not a violation of the forum rules because he is not condemning anyone to Hell in his post. He is merely describing what a particular group of Christians are saying. He is certainly not saying that Continuists are going to Hell at all!

This is what the man said,

I suppose it can be easy for the hardcore-cessationist to dismiss or minimise the role of the Holy Spirit within the New Covenant, but for those of us who embrace the complete Gospel then we are well aware that a continued aggressive stance against both the Spirit and the Word will often realise only one not so enjoyable eternal outcome

Since he has repeatedly (and wrongly) accused cessationists of taking an aggressive stance against the Spirit, I think the intent of his post was clear.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟253,347.00
Faith
Christian
Peter was making a descriptive statement not a theological one. He was demonstrating that the Gentiles received the same Spirit as the Jewish believers at Pentecost. Tongues was the evidence of it. If the Gentile believers had not received tongues, Peter would not have been able to prove that the Gentiles did actually receive the same Spirit as the Jewish believers.

That's right, the gentiles speaking "in tongues and exalting God" was the only evidence which led Peter to say "the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us". It therefore must have been the same phenomenon as they experienced at Pentecost.

If it was a different phenomenon Luke would have told us, but as he is silent on the specific nature there must be no change from his initial description. Not only that but the Gentiles would never have been accepted as equals if it was different.

The reason why some on the day of Pentecost understood the language was that the languages of people from every region were being spoken. This was the phenomenon of the tongues at Pentecost.

That is true.

It doesn't necessarily follow that the Gentile believers who spoke in tongues actually spoke understandable languages unless that one of those languages was Hebrew or Aramaic, languages that the Gentile believers would never have known. But Luke is silent about that.

That's right, clearly someone in Peter's party recognised the language spoken to know that they were exalting God.

So, you have successfully demonstrated that the filling of the Spirit was the same for the Gentiles as it was for the Jewish believers. But I don't see how you are using this to discount Continuance and support Cessationism.

It doesn't prove that tongues ceased, but it does disprove the oft made claim that only the tongues at Pentecost were foreign languages and everywhere else it was non-human. Nowhere in fact does it say tongues was a non-human language.
 
Upvote 0