Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[Francis Drake]

I have no idea as to what God thinks of your tongues, do you?

I'm curious @bbbbbbb, because it sounds to me as if you are just living from a list of rules.
Do you personally have any inkling of your true relationship with the Lord, or are you ticking boxes?

But to answer the question, yes, I actually do know what the Lord thinks of my tongues. I know very well because I enjoy an amazing relationship with the Him and am living in his perfect peace.

Isaiah26v3You wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on you: because he trusts in you.
Anyone who knows me, know I have an inner peace that directs me.

Phil4v7And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
My heart is guarded by His peace!

Col3v15And let the peace of Christ rule (be the umpire) in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body. And be thankful.
I don't fear theologians waving bibles like sledge hammers to berate me about tongues, because the peace of Jesus Christ himself, dwelling within me is my umpire.

And you know what, the more I seek the Lord with the gift of tongues, the more his peace flows.

 

[Biblicist]

Correct!

The ONLY "THING" which is perfect that has come is the Word of God/Bible.

Jesus is perfect but He is not a THING.
Heaven will be perfect but again it is not a THING.

What else can you think of that is Perfect.

That is an easy question to respond to; and of course, you already know what the answer is.

Over the past 7 or so months I have been investigating what the Church has taught down through the ages regarding the τὸ τέλειον (the perfect) of 1 Cor 13:10. Even though I was partially aware that the early churchmen recognised it as referring to the Parousia, which is the return of Christ, it of course speaks more specifically of the state of affairs after his return, with the establishment of the future Kingdom of God.

Now that I have obtained over 250 commentaries on First Corinthians, with another 150 that relate to Pneumatology, the surprising outcome of the commentaries that relate to First Corinthians is that of the 60 commentaries that I have from 1801 to 1900 that only a single commentary has promoted the notion that the perfect refers not to Christ’s return but to the establishment of the Canon. There is another commentary from about 1850 that indirectly alludes to this, but it is not until 1916 that another commentator picks up on this new theme and of course it was popularised in 1918 with Benjamin Warfield’s Counterfeit Miracles. As I obtain more commentaries from the 1800's this information could certainly change.

It is interesting that even though most of the scholars from the 1800’s would by our current standards, be deemed to be cessationist, this has not come about as a result of theological reflection but it seems to more of a pragmatic realisation on their part where they have simply acknowledged that something has ‘gone astray’; but as to what they do not always seem to be sure of.

It seems that this new notion of the 'Canon theory' is little more than a 20th century approach by the more liberal and humanist church figures which came about as a panicky knee-jerk reaction to the new move of the Holy Spirit. Up until now, I probably have only about 15 published commentaries that refer to either the 'Canon theory' or to the supposed 'perfect state of the Church' that they claim occurred at some period of time. Even then, some of these commentaries are at best obscure where maybe only a few copies even exist.

This is why even some cessationist commentators will point out that cessationism as a worldview is not so much the result of theological reflection, but that it has come about more as a philosophical paradigm.

 

[pescador]

Pes, do you have the gift of interpretation of tongues, so as to know what you are saying? I don't. I wish I did.

I can't interpret others' speaking in tongues, but I understand spiritually what I am saying. I'm sure that when you are speaking in tongues you know spiritually what you are saying. Something like Mary describing her state, saying "My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has begun to rejoice in God my Savior..."

 

[pescador]

That is an easy question to respond to; and of course, you already know what the answer is.

Over the past 7 or so months I have been investigating what the Church has taught down through the ages regarding the τὸ τέλειον (the perfect) of 1 Cor 13:10. Even though I was partially aware that the early churchmen recognised it as referring to the Parousia, which is the return of Christ, it of course speaks more specifically of the state of affairs after his return, with the establishment of the future Kingdom of God.

Now that I have obtained over 250 commentaries on First Corinthians, with another 150 that relate to Pneumatology, the surprising outcome of the commentaries that relate to First Corinthians is that of the 60 commentaries that I have from 1801 to 1900 that only a single commentary has promoted the notion that the perfect refers not to Christ’s return but to the establishment of the Canon. There is another commentary from about 1850 that indirectly alludes to this, but it is not until 1916 that another commentator picks up on this new theme and of course it was popularised in 1918 with Benjamin Warfield’s Counterfeit Miracles. As I obtain more commentaries from the 1800's this information could certainly change.

It is interesting that even though most of the scholars from the 1800’s would by our current standards, be deemed to be cessationist, this has not come about as a result of theological reflection but it seems to more of a pragmatic realisation on their part where they have simply acknowledged that something has ‘gone astray’; but as to what they do not always seem to be sure of.

It seems that this new notion of the 'Canon theory' is little more than a 20th century approach by the more liberal and humanist church figures which came about as a panicky knee-jerk reaction to the new move of the Holy Spirit. Up until now, I probably have only about 15 published commentaries that refer to either the 'Canon theory' or to the supposed 'perfect state of the Church' that they claim occurred at some period of time. Even then, some of these commentaries are at best obscure where maybe only a few copies even exist.

This is why even some cessationist commentators will point out that cessationism as a worldview is not so much the result of theological reflection, but that it has come about more as a philosophical paradigm.

You think too much.

 

[Biblicist]

You think too much.

Yes, it's a good habit to get into!

 

[1stcenturylady]

Using your analogy that means, "all" of the Spiritual gifts have ended too, and they no longer are in operation today.

Tell me, which year, month, and day did they suddenly stop? Which year did the Lord suddenly decide to stop using the Spiritual gifts?

So those standing in line waiting to be healed at the hands of an Apostle were suddenly turned away at 1:07pm in the afternoon and told, "Sorry buddy, you're out of luck, Scripture has now been cannozied!"

When did he stop the gift of Prophecy?
Of Serving?
Of Teaching?
Of Exhortation?
Of Giving?
Of Leadership?
Of Mercy?
Of Word Of Wisdom?
Of Word Of Knowledge?
Of Word Of Faith?
Of performing Miracles?
Of Discernment Of Spirits?
Of Interptretation of tongues?
Of Helps?
Of Administrations?

I'm so thankful I have faith to believe. Otherwise, I would have missed out on all the miracles God has done for me. And I mean MIRACLES! One was just like a Jesus turning water into wine type miracle. It blew my mind. He even told me which day He was going to do it, and fifteen months later to the day, it happened.

 

[Biblicist]

Using your analogy that means, "all" of the Spiritual gifts have ended too, and they no longer are in operation today.

Tell me, which year, month, and day did they suddenly stop? Which year did the Lord suddenly decide to stop using the Spiritual gifts?

Interestingly enough, the year that Major1 referred to in his post, being 325 AD, was pretty well the same year that the Church entered into its more than 1000 years of darkness, being that of the Dark Ages.

It amazes me that the cessationist does not make this horrid connection.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Interestingly enough, the year that Major1 referred to in his post, being 325 AD, was pretty well the same year that the Church entered into its more than 1000 years of darkness, being that of the Dark Ages.

It amazes me that the cessationist does not make this horrid connection.

Absolutely, it is obvious. It reminds me of the High Priest Eli, one of the worst in raising his two sons, in 1 Samuel 3:1 Now the boy Samuel ministered to the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no widespread revelation.

It is not that God moves away. It is US. It is also why Cessationists can't speak in tongues, the most common gift given to all believers. Mark 16:17

 

[Francis Drake]

The term the unchurched is a way of referring to people who have not had the opportunity to be instructed in the principles of a system of belief. It is simply a way of describing people who have no discernible ingrained bias one way or the other – other than having a fallen nature of course.

In my situation, as a teenager who was being introduced into the things of the Lord, when I began reading about the role of the Holy Spirit within the Scriptures, particularly within Acts and First Corinthians, I had no prior bias one way or the other. In fact, as I was being nurtured within a somewhat spiritually naive congregation, who knew little if anything of the Ministry of the Holy Spirit, my ‘knowledge’ or lack of understanding with the things of the Spirit kept me on much the same level as my unsaved friends who had not had any opportunity to hear the Gospel.

From memory, I cannot recall ever hearing even part of a Sunday message or a mid-week teaching session that spoke of cessationism or Continuism, so when I came across passages about tongues, even though I understood nothing about these ‘strange things’, I still knew that they were apparently for today and that they were not spoken human languages, other than with the singular event of the Day of Pentecost.

So when I was invited to attend an FGBMFI meeting on a Saturday morning, maybe 2 years after I ‘became churched’ and 18 months after I was Born Again, I was more than ready to accept the invitation as I was looking forward to having a few questions finally resolved.

So, in my opinion, we could obtain about a dozen unchurched individuals, where we provide them with a list of non-leading questions, then have them read Acts 2 and 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 where I have little doubt that they would gain an understanding that would allow them to correctly instruct and correct a number of seasoned hard-core or aggressive cessationist leaders. I am of the strong view that hard-core cessationism is a system of unbelief that is forced upon the unsuspecting church-goer or Believer.

A very close friend of mine here in the UK, as a child in the late 1940s was sent to a church school. Part of his religious education was the series of classes leading up to his confirmation.

The school was linked to the Anglican Cathedral next door, so the actual confirmation service would be done by the local bishop. My friend and his best buddy were quite apprehensive of the whole event and had been secretly talking about it as they tried to work out what it all meant.
Their problem was that the whole service hinged around the children going down the central aisle of the Cathedral in twos and kneeling down in front of the bishop. He would lay hands on them and pray, and as per Anglican doctrine, they would receive the Holy Spirit, whatever that meant.

That was their problem, it was all a mystery to these eleven year old kids. What was the Holy Spirit?
Nevertheless, the day came and these two along with dozens of other kids stood in white gowns, waiting their turn for the bishop. Eventually, full of apprehension of something, they marched down the aisle and knelt before the man with the pointy hat.
As with the others before them, the bishop prayed and laid hands on them, and suddenly, unlike the others, these two kids were filled with the Holy Spirit and praising God in tongues.

The reaction of the clergy was furious and overwhelming. The two kids were set upon by shouting and screaming adults, yelling at them to stop their devilish noises, then swiftly dragged out the side door.
Needless to say this first experience of the Holy Spirit was turned by the Anglican clergy into a traumatic experience. Everything was forcibly shut down by the school staff with a pretence that it never happened.

From that moment onwards, church was an issue to be avoided like the plague for my friend, and that continued through adult life.

It wasn't till later in life, after alcoholism had almost destroyed his marriage and family, that my friend was persuaded into a local Christian Fellowship.
Once again, he encountered the same Holy Spirit that had been violently suppressed as a child.
As he witnessed the congregation praising the Lord in tongues, he knew he had come home.
This time he embraced the Holy Spirit, including the gift of tongues that first came on him as an unlearned child. He was totally delivered of alcoholism and his marriage was healed.

Probably the most significant point is that these two children had actually received the gift of the Holy Spirit along with speaking in tongues, despite the utter unbelief and opposition of the Anglican clergy.
ie. Tongues is not knowledge based, as in being taught. It is a spontaneous gift of the Holy Spirit working through willing hearts.

 

[Explorer55]

Ok.

 

[tdidymas]

Francis Drake said:
If you insist on interpreting scripture like that, then your rules should work everywhere, including in the words of Jesus, like when he spoke to the apostles about ALL TRUTH.
John16v13But when He the, Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth. For He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He may hear, He will speak. And He will declare to you the things coming.
Did all apostles get ALL God's truth.

So are you suggesting that wherever the word "all" appears in scripture, it doesn't really mean "all"?

In every language, words are partially defined by the context in which they are used, even in scripture. In this case, "all" does not mean any "all" you can imagine. In the context of John 16:13, it means all that pertains to our relationship with Christ. In the context of 1 Cor. 13:2, it is a hyperbole, so it means knowing far more than anyone else who ever lived; not omniscience, but might look like it in comparison to the average person. In the same context, he says "all faith" which also means faith greater than anyone who ever lived (save Christ Himself, perhaps) - this is exaggerative language, whereas John 16:13 is not.
TD

 

[1stcenturylady]

So what you are saying above is that it was only the Apostles who were, "those who believe" and that, "baptism" is no longer for today.
Do you see how absurd that sounds???

Ex-Pentecostals cannot be turned back. Guess who is an ex-Pentecostal.

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

 

[Major1]

So what you are saying above is that it was only the Apostles who were, "those who believe" and that, "baptism" is no longer for today.
Do you see how absurd that sounds???

NO. That is not what I said at all and neither do I mean that.

As usual our context will not leave us wondering if we stay with it.

Verse 20 says, "And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word. with signs following."

Verse 17 says signs shall follow. Verse 20 says signs followed.

We must conclude that verse 20 is a fulfillment of verse 17.

But YOUR question is then raised because verse 17 says, "Signs shall follow them that believe," while verse 20 refers directly to those to whom the Lord spoke in verse 19, and not all believers.

Can they then be the same people as the "believers" of verse 17? I am very sure that they are the same people, exactly and exclusively! In other words, the believers of verse 17, who were to be followed by signs, were not all recipients of the Gospel, but those particular persons to whom the message of verse 15 was committed.

Simply moving back to verse 14 will help to solidify this idea. We read in verse 14, "Afterward he appeared to the eleven". What was the occasion of His appearance? It was twofold. First, He rebuked them for their unbelief concerning His resurrection. His words to Thomas on this subject were as follows:
"And be not faithless, but believing" (John 20:27).

It was in direct relationship to the enjoined faith of verse 14 that the commission of verse 15 was given, and that the miracles of verses 1 7 and 18 were promised.
Who Are The Believers Followed By Signs in Mark 16?

Or you can choose to ignore this and do what ever you want to do as most do.

 

[Francis Drake]

Correct!

The ONLY "THING" which is perfect that has come is the Word of God/Bible.

Jesus is perfect but He is not a THING.
Heaven will be perfect but again it is not a THING.

What else can you think of that is Perfect.

The notion, that "perfect" is meant to represent the bible, may well be a nice tradition Major, but its provably false.

Paul's that which is "perfect" can only refer to the fulfilment of Christ's personal reign on earth, because that's when the "perfect" will be here in our midst.

The following shows the correct meaning of the Greek word usually translated "perfect".-
Strong's online Concordance.
5046. teleios
teleios: having reached its end, i.e. complete, by ext. perfect
Original Word: τέλειος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: teleios
Phonetic Spelling: (tel'-i-os)
Short Definition: perfect, full-grown
Definition: perfect, (a) complete in all its parts, (b) full grown, of full age, (c) specially of the completeness of Christian character.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 5046 téleios (an adjective, derived from 5056 /télos, "consummated goal") – mature (consummated) from going through the necessary stages to reach the end-goal, i.e. developed into a consummating completion by fulfilling the necessary process (spiritual journey). See 5056 (telos).

[This root (tel-) means "reaching the end (aim)." It is well-illustrated with the old pirate's telescope, unfolding (extending out) one stage at a time to function at full-strength (capacity effectiveness).]

Therefore until the second coming and the reign of Jesus Christ, nothing is fit to be called completed, fulfilled or perfect.

Until that fulfilment or completion, the ministry and gifts will continue, despite the charlatans who insist otherwise.

And of course, that also explains why the gifts of the Holy Spirit will cease when that future kingdom fully comes. Who needs prophecy, visions or healing etc. when you are actually living in the presence of the great King.

The gifts of the spirit are just partial glimpses of our future kingdom life, as experienced on earth.

As Paul said, "today we see (the things of Christ) through a glass obscurely, but then face to face".

It can only be face to face when Jesus comes again.
That's why "that which is perfect" could never possibly mean the bible.

And that's why the gifts and ministry of the Holy Spirit absolutely must continue until the King comes.

 

[Francis Drake]

That is an easy question to respond to; and of course, you already know what the answer is.

Over the past 7 or so months I have been investigating what the Church has taught down through the ages regarding the τὸ τέλειον (the perfect) of 1 Cor 13:10. Even though I was partially aware that the early churchmen recognised it as referring to the Parousia, which is the return of Christ, it of course speaks more specifically of the state of affairs after his return, with the establishment of the future Kingdom of God.

Now that I have obtained over 250 commentaries on First Corinthians, with another 150 that relate to Pneumatology, the surprising outcome of the commentaries that relate to First Corinthians is that of the 60 commentaries that I have from 1801 to 1900 that only a single commentary has promoted the notion that the perfect refers not to Christ’s return but to the establishment of the Canon. There is another commentary from about 1850 that indirectly alludes to this, but it is not until 1916 that another commentator picks up on this new theme and of course it was popularised in 1918 with Benjamin Warfield’s Counterfeit Miracles. As I obtain more commentaries from the 1800's this information could certainly change.

It is interesting that even though most of the scholars from the 1800’s would by our current standards, be deemed to be cessationist, this has not come about as a result of theological reflection but it seems to more of a pragmatic realisation on their part where they have simply acknowledged that something has ‘gone astray’; but as to what they do not always seem to be sure of.

It seems that this new notion of the 'Canon theory' is little more than a 20th century approach by the more liberal and humanist church figures which came about as a panicky knee-jerk reaction to the new move of the Holy Spirit. Up until now, I probably have only about 15 published commentaries that refer to either the 'Canon theory' or to the supposed 'perfect state of the Church' that they claim occurred at some period of time. Even then, some of these commentaries are at best obscure where maybe only a few copies even exist.

This is why even some cessationist commentators will point out that cessationism as a worldview is not so much the result of theological reflection, but that it has come about more as a philosophical paradigm.

How annoying, but thanks.
It took me ages to do my above post from first principles and then find you have beaten me to it.

 

[Explorer55]

Ok.

 

[Francis Drake]

Verse 20 says, "And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word. with signs following."

Verse 17 says signs shall follow. Verse 20 says signs followed.

We must conclude that verse 20 is a fulfillment of verse 17.

But YOUR question is then raised because verse 17 says, "Signs shall follow them that believe," while verse 20 refers directly to those to whom the Lord spoke in verse 19, and not all believers.

Can they then be the same people as the "believers" of verse 17? I am very sure that they are the same people, exactly and exclusively! In other words, the believers of verse 17, who were to be followed by signs, were not all recipients of the Gospel, but those particular persons to whom the message of verse 15 was committed.

Simply moving back to verse 14 will help to solidify this idea. We read in verse 14, "Afterward he appeared to the eleven". What was the occasion of His appearance? It was twofold. First, He rebuked them for their unbelief concerning His resurrection. His words to Thomas on this subject were as follows:

It was in direct relationship to the enjoined faith of verse 14 that the commission of verse 15 was given, and that the miracles of verses 1 7 and 18 were promised.

If this nonsense is true, and the signs following was limited to the eleven apostles that Jesus addressed that day, then not just signs following, but the actual preaching of the gospel was limited solely to the eleven apostles present.

ie. Your interpretation means Jesus evangelising the world with eleven men and no more, but equipped with signs and wonders.

Of course, the various miracles in Paul's ministry proves you completely wrong. I don't recall Paul being among the eleven that Jesus addressed that day.

 

[Explorer55]

Ok.

 

[pescador]

Yes, it's a good habit to get into!

Re: thinking is a good habit to get into. Here is what Paul had to say, "For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.” Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

 

[swordsman1]

The notion, that "perfect" is meant to represent the bible, may well be a nice tradition Major, but its provably false.

Paul's that which is "perfect" can only refer to the fulfilment of Christ's personal reign on earth, because that's when the "perfect" will be here in our midst.

The following shows the correct meaning of the Greek word usually translated "perfect".-
Strong's online Concordance.
5046. teleios
teleios: having reached its end, i.e. complete, by ext. perfect
Original Word: τέλειος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: teleios
Phonetic Spelling: (tel'-i-os)
Short Definition: perfect, full-grown
Definition: perfect, (a) complete in all its parts, (b) full grown, of full age, (c) specially of the completeness of Christian character.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 5046 téleios (an adjective, derived from 5056 /télos, "consummated goal") – mature (consummated) from going through the necessary stages to reach the end-goal, i.e. developed into a consummating completion by fulfilling the necessary process (spiritual journey). See 5056 (telos).

[This root (tel-) means "reaching the end (aim)." It is well-illustrated with the old pirate's telescope, unfolding (extending out) one stage at a time to function at full-strength (capacity effectiveness).]

Therefore until the second coming and the reign of Jesus Christ, nothing is fit to be called completed, fulfilled or perfect.

Until that fulfilment or completion, the ministry and gifts will continue, despite the charlatans who insist otherwise.

And of course, that also explains why the gifts of the Holy Spirit will cease when that future kingdom fully comes. Who needs prophecy, visions or healing etc. when you are actually living in the presence of the great King.

The gifts of the spirit are just partial glimpses of our future kingdom life, as experienced on earth.

As Paul said, "today we see (the things of Christ) through a glass obscurely, but then face to face".

It can only be face to face when Jesus comes again.
That's why "that which is perfect" could never possibly mean the bible.

And that's why the gifts and ministry of the Holy Spirit absolutely must continue until the King comes.

The lexicon you quoted, as do all modern lexicons, says that teleios can mean perfect, complete or mature. The old King James bible that predominated western Christianity for three centuries opted for "the perfect" which, along with a lack of decent lexicographical resources, is why so many pre-20th century commentators interpreted this passage as referring to Christ’s return.

However when a word has multiple meanings we need to look at the context to decide which is the correct translation. And it becomes obvious ‘completeness’ is the better word for the following reasons:

• It is clear ‘ek merous’ (in part) and ‘teleios’ (completeness or the perfect) are in antithesis with each other. If it is translated as ‘the perfect’ you are awkwardly pitting a quantitative concept (in part) against a qualitative concept (perfect). If it is translated ‘completeness’ there is no such tension.
  
  
• The equivalent antithesis pair in v12 (‘in part’ and ‘fully’) are both quantitative.
  
  
• It makes far better grammatical sense - the incomplete will be replaced by the complete.
  
  
• Paul's other use of the word teleios in his epistles overwhelmingly relate to completing/developing/maturing rather than perfecting (1 Cor 2:6, 1 Cor 14:20, Phil 3:15, Eph 4:13, Col 1:28, Col 4:12, Heb 5:14), making it more likely that the same applies here.
  
  
• Throughout scripture and Greek literature when teleios is used in proximity to nēpiois (child), as in v14, it invariably means developing into an adult. See 1 Cor 14:20, Eph. 4:13-14, Heb. 5:13

Many bible versions such as the NIV have realised this and have changed their translations from "the perfect" to "completeness". About a third of bibles now have ‘completeness’ (or similar wording) in their translations and I suspect more and more translation committees will likewise follow suit in their future editions.

But what is this completeness? Is it the completed NT canon or the return of Christ? I would say the canon for the following reasons:

• “Completeness” is the antithesis of “in part”, so it is obvious these two quantitative expressions are related. Whatever ‘in part’ is referring to, almost certainly applies to ‘completeness’. That which is ‘in part’ is the practice of the gifts of prophecy and words of knowledge (v9), both of which are revelations from God. It follows therefore that ‘completeness’ would also involve revelation. “In part” refers to the fact that the revelation communicated by these gifts was partial or piecemeal. The corresponding “completeness”, as the counterpart to “in part” must then refer to a full or complete revelation from God. This can only be seen as the completed revelation God as preserved in the New Testament

• At the time of Paul's writing the early church needed prophecy and words of knowledge to guide them in the faith in the absence of a New Testament. However when a church had a completed canon, it would no longer need the gift of prophecy to guide them. Thus, the completed canon would replace the partial prophecies and words of knowledge.

• In other scriptures teleios is never used to describe heaven, Christ's return, or anything eschatological. It is however used to describe scripture in James 1:25

• 'Face to face' in v12 is not referring to seeing Christ as continuationists suppose. There is no mention of Christ in this passage. 'Face to face' is referring to the analogy of a mirror. At the time of Paul's writing, when church had to rely on piecemeal prophecies for guidance in the faith in the absence of the NT, it was like seeing dimly in a poor mirror (mirrors were poor quality in those days). But when 'completeness' came, it would be like looking at someone 'face to face'. Prophecies would cease and we would have God's revelation to man presented in a far superior way.

• The analogy of a child maturing into a man in v11 indicates that the process would not be an instantaneous one (as would happen at the 2nd coming) but rather something that occurs over a period of time, as the completed canon is distributed among the churches. This ties in perfectly with church history where the early church fathers (100-200AD) said tongues were still active, the middle fathers (200-300 AD) saying they are rare, and the late fathers (300-400AD) saying the gifts have ceased.

• In v13 it says that faith hope and love would remain after the 3 gifts had ceased. The greatest is love because love never ceases (v8), but faith and hope cease at the 2nd coming when they become reality (Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."; 2 Cor 5:6-7 "while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord - for we walk by faith, not by sight"; Rom 8:24 "but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?"). So if faith and hope cease at the 2nd coming and outlast the 3 gifts then the 3 gifts must cease before the 2nd coming.

• If Paul was referring to the 2nd coming, then it wouldn't just be prophecy, words of knowledge, and tongues that will cease. All the spiritual gifts will cease. In the eternal state there will be no need for healers, pastors, teachers, evangelists, giving, faith, discernment of spirits, etc. Yet Paul makes no mention of those ceasing. When completeness comes (the completed canon) only the revelatory gifts cease, the purpose of which was to provide divine guidance in the faith in the absence of scripture.
  
  
• This interpretation is corroborated elsewhere in scripture, notably in Eph 2:20 which says that apostles and prophets were only for the foundation of the church. Few people deny that apostles ceased after the founding the church and this verse undeniably says the same applies to prophets.
  
  
• And of course history confirms this interpretation. Tongues etc did indeed cease shortly after the apostolic age.