Speak in Tongues - essential :

[Goatee]

Actually the opposite is true; someone's lack of experience doesn't mean the scriptures are not true during our entire New Covenant.

“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples."

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

I don't see anybody who supposedly can speak in tongues healing the sick etc?

 

[1stcenturylady]

I don't see anybody who supposedly can speak in tongues healing the sick etc?

Then you hang out with the wrong people.

 

[Waggles]

I don't see anybody who supposedly can speak in tongues healing the sick etc?

Come to my Church and you will.

 

[Waggles]

14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have
committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
James 5:
This is what we do on Sundays and at mid-week meetings.
As with tongues, we go by the Book.

 

[Alithis]

I want my post and questions addressed.

You said Christianity is one of the largest religions..I was pointing out that the affilating of oneself to main stream religion does not equate to being saved.
And even if half the known world were born again ..there would still be 3.5 Billion in need of salvation.
Yet for every 10,000 so called Christians how many disciples are there who obey Jesus..? So very few indeed.
And let's not forget the point I was making.. The abilities of the Holy spirit are both tools to reach the lost and to build up the body of Christ.
Those who have gone before are not here now. And the Holy spirit of God now calls to this generation.
And he has NOT ceased being God as these filth filled unbelieving lies of Satan are trying to promote.
They are faithless unbelievers who need to repent.
Why the c.f. owner and admin even allow thier persistent spreading of opposition to God is a matter of monetry revenue over truth .

 

[Waggles]

@Alithis
The day is coming and really now is when the gospel of truth and the power thereof shall be revealed.
In a recent prophecy spoken out during the voice gifts the Father spoke about mockers and those who
hated the truth. And that their judgement for unbelief would come upon them.
More than once God has spoken that those of us who shall be down on our knees praying in the Holy
Spirit - praying in tongues - shall survive the terrors that are coming upon the whole earth.
More than once the Lord has quoted Psalm 91 as reassurance to his children by adoption.
Read Psalm 91 it is our insurance policy for the truly Spirit-filled.

 

[Biblicist]

I had no idea Paul wrote Matthew 5:48. And all this time I thought it was Matthew who wrote the book of Matthew. Silly me.

Mmm . . . it seems that in this case it is not an instance of silly you but dopey me! It’s one thing to misquote a passage but it’s a worry that I not only incorrectly quoted Matthew but I did so by saying it was Paul’s quote only two words away – that’s what can occur when we reply to a post in too much of a hurry.

With the material that you posted, as each commentator has included a number of points I was only able to reply to a few of the more common mistakes that they have made; though I would certainly encourage any inquisitive cessationist to carefully read through the material that you have posted as they should be able to realise why most Evangelicals no longer actively embrace or support the cessationist worldview.

When Paul uses the word teleios, it overwhelmingly means complete/mature (1 Cor 2:6, 1 Cor 14:20, Eph 4:13, Col 1:28, Col 4:12, Heb 5:14). The only other use in Romans 12 could arguably mean either perfect or complete.

Nobody is denying that teleios can also mean perfect. As any lexicon will tell you the word has 3 meanings: perfect, complete, or mature. When a word has multiple meanings, it is the context that determines which meaning to use. And in the context in 1 Cor 13:8-13 teleios is the antithesis of the 3 ceasing gifts which are "in part". Thus it can only mean "completeness" which is why the NIV, NRSV, ISV and other bible versions have now switched away from the traditional rendering of "the perfect" to "completeness".

As there are no ‘3 ceasing gifts’ then your point becomes moot. It’s one thing to quote the intent of a given author but it simply falls flat whenever someone attempts to unjustifiably insert a worldview into a given passage. Needless to say, all the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (12Cor 12:7-10) are ‘in part’ where they will be replaced by our complete and perfect knowledge of the Godhead when we stand before them in the New Kingdom.

As per the list of multiple lexical entries that I provided for telios, the word can certainly mean a number of things as words only have an inherent context when they are situated within a sentence or paragraph, so when it refers to the Parousia then it can mean a number of things such as, perfect, complete and maturity.

95-99%? Where on earth did you get such a wildly optimistic figure? The condensed paperback commentaries on Corinthians that you have previously cited which can only afford one or two sentences on this passage may do so, but most scholars who have examined the passage in depth reject that idea that teleios can only mean 'perfection' (that includes your citations from Thiselton, Fee and Garland - see below).

One of the frustrations that I have with this forum is that it seems that the majority of its members exist within a bit of a timewarp, where they are unaccustomed to the names that have had a major impact on the Body of Christ over the past 40 or so years; this applies both to the cessationists and to those who are Continuists. When it comes to the incredible amount of peer-reviewed literature that has been produced on the things of the Spirit from around the 80’s, it seems that even many Pentecostals and charismatics and of course the beleaguered cessationists have had their calendars finish somewhere before this time.

With regard to the general understanding of telios, the following remark that was made by Craig Keener back in 2001 would undoubtedly apply to the majority of Evangelical scholars who have ‘accepted’ that tongues are for today and that telios has no connection to the completion of the Scriptures. For many of them even though they will acknowledge that tongues are there for those who want to be able to pray to the Father, they are more than content to acknowledge that this is so for today but where maybe it is not for them, at least not just yet; they are often referred to as being neither cessationist nor Continuist but those who are ‘open-but-cautious’;

Craig C. Keener, Gift & Giver (2001)

[p.173] I will begin the discussion assuming that most readers accept tongues as a valid gift for today. Even most of those who do not affirm that tongues occurs today believe that those who do pray in tongues can be committed Christians, and they are willing to work with these Christians in the cause of Christ. Christians who refuse all fellowship with Pentecostals are, at least in the parts of Christendom I know, usually out of fellowship with most other parts of Christ’s body as well.

[p.176] Tongues comes up rarely in my work as a biblical scholar (it appears clearly in only six chapters in the Bible); further, none of my close friends who do not pray in tongues, including cessationists, have objected to me doing it, giving me little personal reason to make an issue out of it. As mentioned earlier in the book, many or most of my closest ministry colleagues, people I trust minister in the power of God’s Spirit no less than I, do not pray in tongues.​

For those who have kept abreast of developments within the various Evangelical traditions from around the late 70's, they would be well aware that the vast majority of Evangelical scholars would fit somewhere into the 'open-but-cautious' category. As I have said before, this has come around due to argumention that has are based more upon desperation than with solid Biblical exegesis which has made the cessationist worldview to be little more than a relic of a by-gone era within broad portions of Evangelicalism, though those who are liberals or 'liberal-evangelical' will understandably embrace cessationism as it fits well within their humanistic approach to the Scriptures - that's just the way it is.

Well done. You have successfully proved that teleios means 'completeness' or 'maturity'. Every one of those lexicons affirms that. And the verse that Frigerb cites as example of this meaning is.... wait for it.... 1 Cor 13:10!. The only one in your list that doesn't is the Louw-Nida, and the reason for that is you rather conveniently failed to include those entries:

78.47 τέλος, ονς n; εις το παντελής; ὁλοτελής, ές; τέλειος; εις τέλος (an idiom, literally ‘into end’): a degree of completeness, with the possible implication of purpose or result-‘completely, totally, entirely, wholly.’

88.100 τέλειος, α, ον: pertaining to being mature in one’s behavior—‘mature, grown- up.’ εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘to the mature person, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’ Eph 4:13. It is also possible to interpret τέλειος in Eph 4:13 as meaning ‘perfect’ (see 88.36). In Mt 5:48 it is possible that τέλειος also means maturity of behavior, but it is usually interpreted as ‘being perfect,’ since the comparison is made with God (see 88.36).​

Tell me, do you really believe what you have said or did you post what you said as a sort of ‘I need to believe that something is so”?
​

Amazing! Do you actually read the material you post? Thiselton fully agrees with me that teleios ought to be translated complete or mature! He nowhere suggests it should be rendered "the perfect". Read it again for yourself.

As I have stated on numerous occasions, I am never all that sure if you take your replies seriously or that you simply decide to take whatever approach fits your agenda. So, for those cessationists who might be confused by your statements let me reiterate what Thiselton stated.

“The climactic τδ τέλειον includes the double meaning the complete (NRSV) and wholeness (REB). Depending on the specific force required by the context the word may also mean perfection (NIV, NJB) or perfect (AV/KJV, RV)”.​

1 CORINTHIANS 13:8–13 AND THE CESSATION OF MIRACULOUS GIFTS (DBSJ 9, 2004)
by R. Bruce Compton, Professor of Biblical Languages and Exposition at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
...
The Gender and Meaning of “the Perfect”

With the knowledge that we now have regarding the often-improper use of gender as a foundation for a given argument then any such attempt can be put to the aside, even if the proposition is correct. What many cessationists attempt to emphasize is that the neuter cannot refer to a person such as with the return of Jesus, so in their mind (or with their need) they say that this must refer to the Canon; but what they fail to recognise is that Paul is speaking of the Parousia (neuter) and not specifically to Jesus, though both are of course connected.

Compton-"Based on the definitions given above, the common denominator among the gifts is that they all involve direct revelation from God. As such, the expression “in part” simply refers to the fact that the revelation communicated by these gifts is partial or piecemeal".​

As this is an odd statement it can be left alone. How can God be praying to himself in tongues as revelation, that is certainly a very strange notion. Is healing a direct revelation from God or even with that of powers (aka, miracles). All too often, when commentators who have very little understanding of the things of the Holy Spirit attempt to defend their particular worldview from a position which lacks both knowledge of God’s Word and experience of the Holy Spirit, they often end up trying to establish strawman arguments that any or most Continuists will recognise are often eccentric.

The Holy Spirit: Power from on High (2007)
By Jack Cottrell, professor of theology at Cincinnati Christian University from 1967 to 2015

For those who are maybe not so well read on the now dated question as to the meaning of 1 Cor 12:10, Cottrell’s statement below is a good reminder as to why the old-school commentators who are still bound to the cessationist worldview are seemingly so desperate to maintain the illusion that 1Cor 13:10 is supposed to refer to the completion of the Canon.

“The case for the cessationist view of miraculous spiritual gifts rests to a large extent on our ability to identify the teleion to which Paul refers in verse 10. We will now see how this can be done, based on the word itself and the context in which it appears”.​

A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 153. (1996)
by Myron J. Houghton, Chairman of the Department of Systematic Theology, Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, lowa.

Houghton as again repeated the gender fallacy that ‘the perfect’ cannot refer to the return of Jesus (below), which as I said before refers primarily to that of the Parousia which is neuter;


"Several points should be noted about this phrase "the perfect." First, the fact that it is neuter ("that which is perfect") rather than masculine ("he who is perfect") does not rule out the possibility that it refers to Jesus Christ".

The Meaning of the Perfect in 1 Corinthians 13:8–13 (CTS Journal Fall 2004)
by Andrew M. Woods (President of Chafer Theological Seminary)
...
Context of 1 Corinthians 13:8–10
Before explaining the various interpretations of teleion in 1 Corinthians 13:8–10, the overall context in which these verses are found should be considered briefly. Divisions within the Corinthian assembly seem to be Paul’s dominant concern throughout the letter (1 Corinthians 1–4). This theme continues in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, where we learn that the Corinthians’ misuse of gifts was fragmenting the assembly.[/quote]
Even though I come across this type of comment within the various commentaries, there is actually no support that this sort of problem was occurring. What Paul did object to was with how the entire congregation was praising the Father in tongues all at once during their meetings, which served to confuse the unregenerate and cessationist visitors.

Paul explains that, in spite of the diversity of gifts, they all come from the same Lord (12:4–11) and exist for the purpose of serving within the same body (12:12–31). Because of the Corinthians’ preoccupation with the gift of tongues, Paul develops in chapter 14 the thesis that the gifts with a greater capacity to edify, such as prophecy, should be pursued instead of the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 14:1–22). He also lays down rules for using the revelatory gifts in the local church (1 Corinthians 14:23–31).

Paul never suggests that prophecy should be 'pursued' over that of tongues, this is merely a fallacy on the part of Woods.

Sandwiched between the two chapters detailing the proper perspective on spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12 and 14) is chapter 13. Because of its vivid description of true love that can only be sourced in and generated by God, it has been appropriately labeled “the love chapter.” Paul’s purpose in including it between the two chapters on spiritual gifts is obvious. He desires that the gifts be exercised in an attitude of love rather than self-serving haughtiness that produced the divisions within the Corinthian assembly (1 Corinthians 4:6, 18). Experts divide 1 Corinthians 13 into the following three parts: verses 1–3 speak of “the necessity of love”; verses 4–7, of “the nature of love”; and verses 8–13, of “the endurance of love.”8

Again, the ministry of the Holy Spirit was certainly not causing any friction amongst the various congregations of the Saints within Achaea, where the frictions were being caused by those things that can be found within any congregation, be they Continuist or cessationist such as with gluttony, an over-realised sense of self worth and class distinctions.

There can be no doubt that love is the dominant theme of the final paragraph (1 Corinthians 13:8–13), since both its very first and very last word is love (vv. 8, 13). The chapter’s final paragraph seeks to encourage the Corinthians to pursue a permanent fruit of the Spirit— love—rather than the transitory gifts of the Spirit with which they had become preoccupied.

What a strange remark, why would Paul ever suggest that our efforts to develop the fruit of the Spirit trump that of the Eight Congregational Offices (12:28). Is he trying to suggest that our ability to live and work in an attitude of love surpasses the ability of the Holy Spirit to heal the sick and where the Spirit speaks to the congregation through prophecy?

Three Arguments for the Cessation of Tongues (Conservative Theological Journal, March 2005)
By Robert Dean, Jr. M.A., Th.M., D.Min.

As Dean has quoted a fair amount of material from Thomas and that he also succumbs to the gender fallacy then his material can be left aside.

“When Will the Gift of Prophecy Cease?” BSac 150 (April–June 1993): 171–202;
David Farnell, professor of New Testament studies at The Master's Seminary

From what I can tell Farnell seems to rely heavily with Thomas as well; Gordon Fee in his footnotes to First Corinthians dismisses the commentary by Thomas on these issues as being not worthy of consideration.

Farnell appears to sum up his own views with that of Thomas (below) which most Evangelicals, be they scholars or lay persons have simply found to be unconvincing;

"‘When the mature comes’ gathers together into one concept both the period of church history after the need for the gifts of direct revelation has ceased to exist (relative maturity illustrated in v. 11) and the period after the return of Christ for the church (absolute maturity illustrated in v. 12). By comparing these gifts to the maturity of the body of Christ Paul shows their temporary character (in contrast with love). A certain level of maturity has been reached once the N.T. canon has been completed and is in hand, and so the result is almost the same as that of [the completion of the New Testament canon view]. Yet Paul expected an imminent return of Christ and could not know, humanly speaking, that there ever would be a complete N.T. canon of 27 books before Christ returned. Hence, he was guided by the Spirit to use the more general language of maturity to allow for this.

Thus the gift of prophecy, along with tongues and knowledge, was a temporary gift which is no longer operative today".​

 

[Alithis]

@Alithis
The day is coming and really now is when the gospel of truth and the power thereof shall be revealed.
In a recent prophecy spoken out during the voice gifts the Father spoke about mockers and those who
hated the truth. And that their judgement for unbelief would come upon them.
More than once God has spoken that those of us who shall be down on our knees praying in the Holy
Spirit - praying in tongues - shall survive the terrors that are coming upon the whole earth.
More than once the Lord has quoted Psalm 91 as reassurance to his children by adoption.
Read Psalm 91 it is our insurance policy for the truly Spirit-filled.

Nice ..the trouble is this is false prophecy typical of the type of the golddust and goosebump crowd.
Who think they will be heard of God for thier many prayers..but they do not GO and Do..his will.

He is indeed love.. and those who love him obey him .
“Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.For you have need of endurance, ..so that when you have done the will of God ..you may receive what is promised.(done ..the action you have performed that he told you to do)
For, “Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay;but my righteous one shall live by faith( .faith is an action), and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.”But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith (obedient action) and preserve their souls. -

Not those who gather in prayer clubs and hide from the responsibility of obedience. The Lord Wil say to them you wicked and lazy servant..and even what you had will be taken away and given to another.

 

[swordsman1]

Needless to say, all the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (12Cor 12:7-10) are ‘in part’ where they will be replaced by our complete and perfect knowledge of the Godhead when we stand before them in the New Kingdom.

Well done. You have just proved that completeness cannot be the Parousia. All those gifts do indeed cease at the Parousia. Yet our passage says only 3 gifts cease when 'completeness' comes. So the 3 gifts must cease before the Parousia. Unless of course you are committing the classic pentecostal/charismatic fallacy of reading your own ideas into scripture and saying what Paul really meant to say was that all the gifts cease, when he in fact only mentions 3.

With regard to the general understanding of telios, the following remark that was made by Craig Keener back in 2001 would undoubtedly apply to the majority of Evangelical scholars who have ‘accepted’ that tongues are for today and that telios has no connection to the completion of the Scriptures. For many of them even though they will acknowledge that tongues are there for those who want to be able to pray to the Father, they are more than content to acknowledge that this is so for today but where maybe it is not for them, at least not just yet; they are often referred to as being neither cessationist nor Continuist but those who are ‘open-but-cautious’;

Craig C. Keener, Gift & Giver (2001)

[p.173] I will begin the discussion assuming that most readers accept tongues as a valid gift for today. Even most of those who do not affirm that tongues occurs today believe that those who do pray in tongues can be committed Christians, and they are willing to work with these Christians in the cause of Christ. Christians who refuse all fellowship with Pentecostals are, at least in the parts of Christendom I know, usually out of fellowship with most other parts of Christ’s body as well.

[p.176] Tongues comes up rarely in my work as a biblical scholar (it appears clearly in only six chapters in the Bible); further, none of my close friends who do not pray in tongues, including cessationists, have objected to me doing it, giving me little personal reason to make an issue out of it. As mentioned earlier in the book, many or most of my closest ministry colleagues, people I trust minister in the power of God’s Spirit no less than I, do not pray in tongues.

Your quote from Keener in no way supports your outlandish claim that 95-99% of scholarship agree that teleios means perfect in this passage. All he says is that the majority of his readers and ministry colleagues may believe that tongues is for today - unsurprising seeing that he is a charismatic.

It is interesting to note that although Keener is a self confessed glossalalist and may go to a charismatic church and speak glossolalia with the rest of them, yet in his day job when he puts on his academic hat, he is forced to admit that the tongues of 1 Corinthians was not an angelic or heavenly language, but rather the exact the same phenomenon as occurred in Acts - foreign human languages.

1-2 Corinthians by Craig S. Keener

“Against many interpreters today, Paul seems to believe that the gift employs genuine languages: he uses a term that normally means ‘languages’; speaks of ‘interpretation’ (12:10, 30; 14:5, 13, 26–28); and compares human and angelic languages (13:1)”
...
Some have argued that Paul or the Corinthians believed their tongues-speech angelic (cf. T. Job 48-50), hence perhaps a sign of realized eschatology, or of participation in the heavenly liturgy (cf. 2 Cor 12:4; Col 2:18; Rev. 4:2-3,8;7:11; 4Q403 frg. 1, 1.1-6). But would angelic tongues pass away at Jesus's return (13:8-12; indeed, some, at least, expected angels to speak Hebrew among themselves)? More likely, angelic speech merely reinforces the hyperbole of one able to speak “all” tongues (like one who knows everything or removes mountains, 13:2)


Acts: An Exegetical Commentary : Volume 1: Introduction and 1:1-247, Volume 1 by Craig S. Keener

Paul's theological emphasis on "tongues" is quite different from Luke's, but it is likely (against many) that he is interpreting the same phenomenon; it is virtually inconceivable that the two writers would independently coin the same obscure phrase for two entirely different phenomena.
…
The idea that Luke and Paul depict unrelated phenomena requires too many random coincidences to be deemed plausible.
…
Some scholars think that for Paul, at least, tongues are merely ecstatic gibberish lacking genuine linguistic content, rather than genuine languages. This is what many writers mean by "glossolalia," which some also suggest early Christians construed as angelic languages; but this modern usage can easily prejudice the discussion of what Paul and Luke meant by the Greek terms from which the compound is derived. As argued below, this practice may represent one form of modern glossolalia, but it is not clear that this represents what Paul understood by the phenomenon (or how all modern tongues speakers understand or experience some other forms of modern glossolalia).​

As I have said before, this has come around due to argumention that has are based more upon desperation than with solid Biblical exegesis which has made the cessationist worldview to be little more than a relic of a by-gone era within broad portions of Evangelicalism, though those who are liberals or 'liberal-evangelical' will understandably embrace cessationism as it fits well within their humanistic approach to the Scriptures - that's just the way it is.

So yet again, rather than supplying proof to backup your outlandish claim, you have to resort to another outpouring of ad hominem nonsense from your own biased opinion. Maybe you think if you keep repeating the same old anti-cessationist mantra over and over again it will somehow make it true.

Tell me, do you really believe what you have said or did you post what you said as a sort of ‘I need to believe that something is so”?

No, everyone can see for themselves that the lexicon material you yourself posted contradicts your own claims.

So, for those cessationists who might be confused by your statements let me reiterate what Thiselton stated.

“The climactic τδ τέλειον includes the double meaning the complete (NRSV) and wholeness (REB). Depending on the specific force required by the context the word may also mean perfection (NIV, NJB) or perfect (AV/KJV, RV)”.

Yes but that is not the meaning that Thiselton thinks should apply to 1 Cor 13:10, is it. You are trying to twist Thiselton's words. Thiselton rightly says that depending on the context the word teleios may also mean perfection, but that is not the case here. He goes on to tell us what he thinks the word means in this context:

On the lexicography of the word, see above on 2:6, where it clearly carries the different sense of mature (usually of persons), as it does in its one remaining use in this epistle, ταῖς δὲ φρεσὶν τέλειοι γίνεσθε (14:20). However, here there is also a further hint of τέλειος as denoting a goal. For just as in 2:6 the wisdom for the mature is not for those who exhibit childish self-centeredness and immediacy, even so here Paul is about to draw the same contrast with being infantile or childish or childlike in v. 11a and the goal of mature adulthood. Hence it combines the two related notions of fulfillment or goal and the completed whole. No English word alone can fully convey the meaning in this context. To translate solely as the end (Collins) is barely adequate.198”​

Clearly he thinks it means completion. And if you are in any doubt you only have to look at his own translation of the passage that he gave earlier in his commentary:

8Love never falls apart. Whether there are prophecies, these will be brought to an end; or if it be tongues, these will stop; if it be "knowledge," this will be rendered obsolete. 9 For we know in fragmentary ways, and we prophesy part by part. 10 But when the completed whole comes, what is piece by piece shall be done away. ​

With the knowledge that we now have regarding the often-improper use of gender as a foundation for a given argument then any such attempt can be put to the aside, even if the proposition is correct. What many cessationists attempt to emphasize is that the neuter cannot refer to a person such as with the return of Jesus, so in their mind (or with their need) they say that this must refer to the Canon; but what they fail to recognise is that Paul is speaking of the Parousia (neuter) and not specifically to Jesus, though both are of course connected.

Yet many continuists still cling to the idea that 'the perfect' is referring to Jesus himself, which is why it is important to dispel that idea right off the bat. The Parousia would indeed be neuter, but as Compton rightly points out:

The term “the perfect” represents an articular neuter adjective functioning as a substantive and translated “the perfect” or “that which is perfect.”71 Much has been said about the neuter gender of the adjective and what that indicates in terms of the adjective’s antecedent.72 The best explanation is that the adjective gets its gender from the neuter noun forming the expression “in part” in 13:9–10. In other words, by using the neuter form of the adjective in this context, Paul signifies that whatever the “in part” refers to, “the perfect” refers to its counterpart or its antithesis.73 Having the adjective in the neuter gender thus links “the perfect” and the “in part” as having ultimately the same referent. Whatever the “in part” refers to, the “perfect” refers to as well. The only difference between the two expressions is the difference over the relative dimension or extent of the referent.​

We know that "in part" is referring to revelation. Hence 'the perfect' or 'completeness' must also refer to revelation.

Compton-"Based on the definitions given above, the common denominator among the gifts is that they all involve direct revelation from God. As such, the expression “in part” simply refers to the fact that the revelation communicated by these gifts is partial or piecemeal".
As this is an odd statement it can be left alone. How can God be praying to himself in tongues as revelation, that is certainly a very strange notion. Is healing a direct revelation from God or even with that of powers (aka, miracles). All too often, when commentators who have very little understanding of the things of the Holy Spirit attempt to defend their particular worldview from a position which lacks both knowledge of God’s Word and experience of the Holy Spirit, they often end up trying to establish strawman arguments that any or most Continuists will recognise are often eccentric.

You have made a rather obvious schoolboy error. Anyone who has read this passage could tell you that the gifts that are "in part" are the revelatory gifts of prophecy and knowledge. Tongues are not said to be "in part", but are included in passage as they cease at the same time. And despite what you might wish Paul had said, there is no mention of healing or miracles or any other gift in this passage ceasing.

Instead of managing to engage the subject matter, I see you finished that paragraph with one of your usual ad hominem anti-cessationist rants.

For those who are maybe not so well read on the now dated question as to the meaning of 1 Cor 12:10, Cottrell’s statement below is a good reminder as to why the old-school commentators who are still bound to the cessationist worldview are seemingly so desperate to maintain the illusion that 1Cor 13:10 is supposed to refer to the completion of the Canon.

Is that the most you can do to refute Cottrell's piece? I am impressed.

Houghton as again repeated the gender fallacy that ‘the perfect’ cannot refer to the return of Jesus (below), which as I said before refers primarily to that of the Parousia which is neuter;

"Several points should be noted about this phrase "the perfect." First, the fact that it is neuter ("that which is perfect") rather than masculine ("he who is perfect") does not rule out the possibility that it refers to Jesus Christ".

How can it be a fallacy to point out that the noun is neuter and therefore cannot be referring to Christ himself as many continuists still try to assert?

And that is all you can manage in response to Houghton also? You're doing well.

Even though I come across this type of comment within the various commentaries, there is actually no support that this sort of problem was occurring. What Paul did object to was with how the entire congregation was praising the Father in tongues all at once during their meetings, which served to confuse the unregenerate and cessationist visitors.

No, the reason the Corinthians were abusing the gift of tongues was because it was left untranslated and thus not edifying the assembly - "You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified." The whole purpose of spiritual gifts is to serve others (1 Cor 12:7, 1 Peter 4:10).

How could there be cessationists in Corinth? All the gifts were still in operation during the apostolic age. Doh.

Paul never suggests that prophecy should be 'pursued' over that of tongues, this is merely a fallacy on the part of Woods.

Maybe the following verses are missing from your bible:

1 Cor 14:5 "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy."

1 Cor 14:1-4 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.

1 Cor 14:19 "But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."​

And after Paul ranks the gifts in numerical order in 1 Cor 12:28-30 with prophecy 2nd from the top after apostles, and tongues right at the bottom, he then says in v31: "Now eagerly desire the greater gifts."

What a strange remark, why would Paul ever suggest that our efforts to develop the fruit of the Spirit trump that of the Eight Congregational Offices (12:28). Is he trying to suggest that our ability to live and work in an attitude of love surpasses the ability of the Holy Spirit to heal the sick and where the Spirit speaks to the congregation through prophecy?

That is not what Wood wrote. He said Paul encouraged the Corinthians to pursue love.... which is true (see 1 Cor 14:1) ....rather than the transitory gifts with which they had become preoccupied ie tongues, which Paul ranks as the least of the gifts (see above).

As Dean has quoted a fair amount of material from Thomas and that he also succumbs to the gender fallacy then his material can be left aside.

In other words you cannot refute any of it.

From what I can tell Farnell seems to rely heavily with Thomas as well; Gordon Fee in his footnotes to First Corinthians dismisses the commentary by Thomas on these issues as being not worthy of consideration.

Of course Fee as a pentecostal is unlikely to endorse Thomas's view. But rather disappointingly Fee doesn't explain why he rejects it. Maybe like yourself, he cannot refute Thomas's arguments so without reason he simply poo-poo's them with a broad stroke of his pen and a few ad hominem remarks added in for good measure.

Farnell appears to sum up his own views with that of Thomas (below) which most Evangelicals, be they scholars or lay persons have simply found to be unconvincing;

So not a word of rebuttal against Farnell's piece either, just an unsubstantiated statement that others have found it unconvincing.

So, all told you have failed pretty miserably in your attempts at refuting the cessationist scholars. In fact the only areas you attempted to tackle them were on secondary issues. Their main arguments for tongues and prophecy ceasing before the Parousia you left untouched. Clearly you were unable to refute them.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You said Christianity is one of the largest religions..I was pointing out that the affilating of oneself to main stream religion does not equate to being saved.
And even if half the known world were born again ..there would still be 3.5 Billion in need of salvation.

You said MOST of the world has not heard the gospel (go back and read our thread). I stated that I disagree most have heard some form of the gospel BECAUSE Christianity is one of the worlds major religions.

I DID NOT say that affiliating oneself to mainstream religion means that anyone is saved. I also DID NOT say what percentage of the world is born again, because again our correspondece has been about the gospel and your stating that most of the world has not heard the gospel.

So are you now going back on your statements or what? I don't know if you are not focusing on our conversation or maybe you are not reading what I write carefully enough, but I don't like to have to keep correcting your wrong perceptions instead of talking about the subject we are discussing.

So please concentrate. I shouldn't have to keep clarifying what I am saying because you are on some other thought.

 

[Alithis]

You said MOST of the world has not heard the gospel (go back and read our thread). I stated that I disagree most have heard some form of the gospel BECAUSE Christianity is one of the worlds major religions.

I DID NOT say that affiliating oneself to mainstream religion means that anyone is saved. I also DID NOT say what percentage of the world is born again, because again our correspondece has been about the gospel and your stating that most of the world has not heard the gospel.

So are you now going back on your statements or what? I don't know if you are not focusing on our conversation or maybe you are not reading what I write carefully enough, but I don't like to have to keep correcting your wrong perceptions instead of talking about the subject we are discussing.

So please concentrate. I shouldn't have to keep clarifying what I am saying because you are on some other thought.

No not at all.
Most of the world has not yet heard the GOSPEL

The mistake people make is thinking the world is static.
But of course it's not.
There are about 360,000 births per day.
And about 151,600 people die each day.
Per day!

Thats about 131.4 million births per year.
And 55.3 million people die each year.
This means in the last 5 years about 650MILLION children were born who have not yet heard the GOSPEL...
And as they grown to be teens and adults they are being added to by the same number with about 50MILLION dying per year..
How many did you share the full GOSPEL with this year?

100million Christians would need to speak the full GOSPEL to 6.5 people a year just to reach those ones .. And we know for every church of 500 people it's unlikely that more then 20 activly and consistently do outreach and even less speak the full GOSPEL..

For these naysayers to suggest we do not need the power of the gifts of the holy spirit to preach the gospel is utter foolishness.

 

[ToBeLoved]

No not at all.
Most of the world has not yet heard the GOSPEL

The mistake people make is thinking the world is static.
But of course it's not.
There are about 360,000 births per day.
And about 151,600 people die each day.
Per day!

Thats about 131.4 million births per year.
And 55.3 million people die each year.
This means in the last 5 years about 650MILLION children were born who have not yet heard the GOSPEL...
And as they grown to be teens and adults they are being added to by the same number with about 50MILLION dying per year..
How many did you share the full GOSPEL with this year?

100million Christians would need to speak the full GOSPEL to 6.5 people a year just to reach those ones .. And we know for every church of 500 people it's unlikely that more then 20 activly and consistently do outreach and even less speak the full GOSPEL..

For these naysayers to suggest we do not need the power of the gifts of the holy spirit to preach the gospel is utter foolishness.

Now this is so desperate. You are including newborn babies in your statistics!

I think you need some stats from Pew Internet or some source that has some substance rather than your made up numbers and algorithms. If what you state is true, there will be the studies out there to prove that.

Now, proof that most of the world has not heard the gospel. Let's try to keep it to people over 12 years old since you want to bring newborns into your desperate statistics.

You should have had the sources for your numbers before ever writing the words in a post.

 

[Alithis]

Awesome guy I met today.. He speaks in tongues also he shared with us about missionary work in indo... Said he was praying in tongues and a guy approached him and told him he was speaking a language from his home village.
Then he share how on a number of occasion they baptised local indo people..and they got baptised in the Holy spirit..and began praising God in English...problem is ..they don't speak English. They were speeaking in tongues..

 

[swordsman1]

Awesome guy I met today.. He speaks in tongues also he shared with us about missionary work in indo... Said he was praying in tongues and a guy approached him and told him he was speaking a language from his home village.
Then he share how on a number of occasion they baptised local indo people..and they got baptised in the Holy spirit..and began praising God in English...problem is ..they don't speak English. They were speeaking in tongues..

Don't tell Biblicist that. He would tell you that nobody has spoken in foreign languages in tongues since the Day of Pentecost. And anyone who claims otherwise is deluded.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Awesome guy I met today.. He speaks in tongues also he shared with us about missionary work in indo... Said he was praying in tongues and a guy approached him and told him he was speaking a language from his home village.
Then he share how on a number of occasion they baptised local indo people..and they got baptised in the Holy spirit..and began praising God in English...problem is ..they don't speak English. They were speeaking in tongues..

That is awesome. However, the Holy Spirit does not contradict the Word of God. 1 Corinthians 14:2. But we do. This sounds like the same thing that happened on the Day of Pentecost. Not only were people speaking in tongues, but the hearing was ALSO supernatural. Those being saved were hearing by the gift of interpretation of tongues. It is the only conclusion that does not contradict the Word of God. Besides, if you read Acts 2 again, you can see that the hearing was also supernatural.

The same thing happened in Arizona at the church I went to. A girl got convicted by hearing tongues. She didn't hear tongues, she only heard English.

 

[swordsman1]

That is awesome. However, the Holy Spirit does not contradict the Word of God. 1 Corinthians 14:2. But we do. This sounds like the same thing that happened on the Day of Pentecost. Not only were people speaking in tongues, but the hearing was ALSO supernatural. Those being saved were hearing by the gift of interpretation of tongues. It is the only conclusion that does not contradict the Word of God. Besides, if you read Acts 2 again, you can see that the hearing was also supernatural.

The same thing happened in Arizona at the church I went to. A girl got convicted by hearing tongues. She didn't hear tongues, she only heard English.

Some of you say tongues can sometimes be foreign languages.
Some of you say tongues has never been foreign languages.
Some of you say tongues was foreign languages only on the Day of Pentecost.
Some of you say tongues is always foreign languages.

It just goes to show that charismatics/pentecostals cannot even agree amongst themselves exactly what tongues is. Confusion reigns.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Some of you say tongues can sometimes be foreign languages.
Some of you say tongues has never been foreign languages.
Some of you say tongues was foreign languages only on the Day of Pentecost.
Some of you say tongues is always foreign languages.

It just goes to show that charismatics/pentecostals cannot even agree amongst themselves exactly what tongues is. Confusion reigns.

I have to agree. But if we read the Word of God and know it so well that contradictions jump out at us like a jack-in-the-box, we can be a Berean and find the truth. And the key verse is 1 Corinthians 14:2. It squashes all other erroneous contradictory teachings, no matter from what denomination. The re-telling of the story of Pentecost with the writing of Acts was almost 20 years after the writing of 1 Corinthians. Besides the fact that the people reading those letters for the first time were experts, and could readily recognize what happened in the story of Acts. They were being taught by the apostles, themselves, and some were actually there. They all had faith and operated in the gifts. There were no chains of unbelief from teachers spreading human reasoning, especially on either the key verse or their own reasoning on Acts 2, rather than what the Word of God is clearly saying.

 

[Hillsage]

It just goes to show that charismatics/pentecostals cannot even agree amongst themselves exactly what tongues is. Confusion reigns.

But one thing we all agree on is that God's gift of tongues is for all who believe.

 

[1stcenturylady]

But one thing we all agree on is that God's gift of tongues is for all who believe.

Absolutely. The same with baptism. It is for all believers too.

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

 

[Alithis]

That is awesome. However, the Holy Spirit does not contradict the Word of God. 1 Corinthians 14:2. But we do. This sounds like the same thing that happened on the Day of Pentecost. Not only were people speaking in tongues, but the hearing was ALSO supernatural. Those being saved were hearing by the gift of interpretation of tongues. It is the only conclusion that does not contradict the Word of God. Besides, if you read Acts 2 again, you can see that the hearing was also supernatural.

The same thing happened in Arizona at the church I went to. A girl got convicted by hearing tongues. She didn't hear tongues, she only heard English.

There is no contradiction .
Tongue. Means language. Of course you don't hear it as a foreign tongue when the tongue being spoken is your own language spoken by some one who has never spoken it ever.