Convince me of Continuationism.

[Word and Spirit]

I grew up a Cessationist, but when I was reading the scriptures and found that the verse I held to as proof, actually proved me wrong, I started to BELIEVE. But it took another 6 years for me to receive abundantly. What a difference faith makes.

Many will not receive because they do not believe.

 

[JAL]

It is a bit difficult for me to be an advocate for Robert Thomas when I don't agree with his view, but I am quite sure he is not saying the gifts are immature, nor can it be implied. If I were to ask "By what criteria can we tell if a infant has matured?....Is he still being breastfed, is he still wearing diapers, does he still use a carseat". That doesn't mean any of those things themselves are immature and childish. They are in fact very sensible and essential for the well-being of a child.

Huh? So when Paul says, "When I became a man, I put away baby things", that kind of statement:
(1) Would NOT mean, "I put away diapers, carseats, and breastfeeding. I'm still doing those things as an adult."
(2) Because in fact, those things are NOT markers of immaturity, childhood, childish states.

Huh? You're resorting to gibberish for lack of any cogent rebuttal to my assessment.

Unlike Thomas I do not think 'teleios' should be translated 'maturity' (not do any bible translations).

And as I recall, THAT view is typically understood by some of the maturity-party cessationists to extrapolate to Continuationism. Either way, you're fighting a losing battle. (We can discuss this point in more detail).

Nor do I put undue emphasis on 1 Cor 13:11. That was just an analogy Paul uses, just like the analogy of the dim mirror in the next verse. Paul is not saying the early church was childish, any more that he is saying they were dim. His point with the analogies is that things changed for the better...No it doesn't lead to that conclusion. That is you "extrapolating" (twisting) - putting words into someone's mouth that they never said, nor meant. Actually it is worse than that. In post #505 you said "Thomas was clear" that prophecy was immature and done away. That was an outright lie, he said nothing of the sort. So yes you should apologize for slandering him.

(Sigh) No, YOU are the one proving my extrapolation is correct - by continuing to dodge and evade the SPECIFIC questions and objections about Thomas in those posts. Here they are again: post 483 and post 505, and post 533, and post 565.

Does everyone see this? Here again, I'm literally BEGGING swordsman1 to provide me an alternative extrapolation of Robert Thomas in light of the specific points of question and objection. He DOESN'T HAVE ONE. He just keeps assuming precisely what is in dispute. That's not a reply. That's not an argument. That's not a debate.

In post #505 you said "Thomas was clear" that prophecy was immature and done away. That was an outright lie, he said nothing of the sort

THAT's my extrapolation. And you've had every opportunity to prove me wrong. Until then, I stand by those words. Here's the nature of this conversation:

(Some theologian speaking): "The Trinity has 2 + 2 members"
Jal replying: "That's heresy! He IS CLEARLY INDICATING 4 members!"
Swordsman1 cutting in: "You outright liar! He NEVER said '4'. You slandered him! Go apologize to the man!"

 

[JAL]

Yes. Except that it is essential to the Continuationist argument.

No continuation, no Continuationism. In that case, what's left is "The Holy Spirit gifts whomever he chooses, whenever he chooses" and there is no dispute separating Continuers from Cessationists.

(Sigh). No, the two parties differ because:
(1) The Continuationists claim that the gifts can be fanned into flame via prayer, repentance, faith, righteous living and so on. If we are on track, the gifts can flourish.
(2) Cessationism - mainstream cessationism - is the claim that the gifts ceased irrevocably.

"The Holy Spirit gifts whomever he chooses, whenever he chooses"

But your cessationist reading of that verse (12:11) is vastly different than ours. Suppose I reflect upon a man who SEEMS righteous to me. I might say to myself, "God should anoint that man with prophethood!" Do I get to make that choice? No. The Holy Spirit decides this, because He alone can see the man's heart.

Whereas, you've extrapolated that verse to a Cessationist extent, insinuating that our behavior (our eagerness/zeal) has ZERO INFLUENCE on the Spirit's distribution of the gifts. On the contrary, Paul said:

"In the church God has appointed first apostles, second prophets...Now eagerly desire the greater gifts" (12:28-31).
"Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual things [not 'gifts'], especially the gift of prophecy" (14:1)

Why should I accept an extrapolation that flatly contradicts what Paul said?

 

[JAL]

Let's discuss YOUR view. Along with all the Bible translations, you read 'telion' as 'perfection' instead of 'maturity'.

It is a bit difficult for me to be an advocate for Robert Thomas when I don't agree with his view...Unlike Thomas I do not think 'teleios' should be translated 'maturity' (not do any bible translations). Nor do I put undue emphasis on 1 Cor 13:11. That was just an analogy Paul uses, just like the analogy of the dim mirror in the next verse. Paul is not saying the early church was childish, any more that he is saying they were dim. His point with the analogies is that things changed for the better.

Or should we discuss your view? You seem to be hedging your "view" with disclaimers and obscurities - one wonders if you're willing to take any kind of stance at all. Anyway, earlier you seemed to summarize your view. You tried to slam this one in my face, so to speak:

Let's just summise by observing...How many of the dozens of scholars commenting on 1 Cor 13 agree that the gifts completely cease when "the perfect" comes, never to return? All of them.

In ch 2, Paul characterized the Corinthians as immature "babes" and used that same Greek word for "babes" in 1Cor 13. He also used the same Greek word for maturity (telion) in both chapters. Or does telion indeed mean perfection? In everyday life, transition from infancy to manhood is universally understood to mean maturation rather than perfection. Admittedly one might want to second-guess that reading due to theological presuppositions (theological biases), but nonetheless a consensus on normal usage carries considerable weight in hermeneutics.

Even Christ, in His infancy:

"Spoke like a child, thought like a child, reasoned like a child" (12:11)

Did He gradually become 'perfect'? Or rather 'mature'? His knowledge developed gradually over time without reaching infinitude on earth. He matured. Post-resurrectionally, however, he reassumed His perfection. Instantly! Notice the contrast.
(1) Maturation is a slow, painstaking, gradual development. It is a quantitative growth of the existing state.
(2) Perfection is a qualitative shift - it is an instantaneous abandonment of the existing state.

And the maturity-party cessationists (including Robert Thomas) agree with the above distinctions. Thomas states of the Greek word telion, "This is quantitative, not qualitative, so to teleion must have the same quantitative connotation" (Robert Thomas, "1Cor 13:11 Revisited: An Exegetical Update," Masters Seminary Journal, Vol 4:2 (1993), p. 190).

A qualitative transition (perfection) seems eschatological. If the gifts remain until we become perfect in heaven, Continuationism is correct. As you insisted:

Let's just summise by observing...How many of the dozens of scholars commenting on 1 Cor 13 agree that the gifts completely cease when "the perfect" comes, never to return? All of them.

You have opted for "perfection" instead of "mature". I'm confused. Doesn't that make you a Continuationist? Yes, I'm aware this might be a misextrapolation of you, as I'm still unfamiliar with your views. At this point I am asking it as a QUESTION. Please explain to me how your "perfection" isn't Continuationist.

Robert Thomas (and others like him) advances a pretty solid reason for "maturation" - he argues that the passage uses the quantitative expression "in part". Thus it pictures spiritual development as a slow transition from prophesying "in part" to prophesying "in full". Paul wrote:

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when [maturity] comes, what is in part disappears"

In his view (and others like him), the Greek phrase "in part" (ek merou) is decisively quantitative.

Maturity, then, is a quantitative abundance of prophecy, knowledge, and tongues. Robert Thomas drew that same conclusion, as I cited earlier.

Essentially, the foregoing is my rebuttal of anyone who ascribes "perfection" or "cessation" to this passage.

 

[JAL]

@swordsman1;

You haven't yet clarified your understanding of "the perfect" in ch 13. For the moment, I'll assume you have in mind "the perfect canon". So I will discuss this view. Paul wrote:

"When I became a man, I put away baby things" (13:11).

Allegedly "the perfect canon" eventually arrived as to "put away" the childish/immature forms of Direct Revelation (prophecy, knowledge, and tongues). This view is subject to several objections.

(1) Here too, it smells of heresy. Christ The Prophet walked in a modality of revelation inferior to NT exegesis? Like a babe, He labored under incomplete revelation (incomplete understanding) while the rest of us, as readers of the NT canon, enjoy complete revelation? Thus we have better understanding than both Paul and Christ?

(2) Obviously this is a qualitative shift, not a quantitative one, because Direct Revelation is a radically different epistemology than NT exegesis. And yet "in part" (ek merou) appears to be quantitative.

(3) If the NT canon arrived to "put away" baby things (the previous forms of revelation), then we should discard the OT canon.


(4) The printing press didn't arrive until 1500 AD. Until then, essentially the gifts were replaced with - nothing. Nice job, Lord!

(5) My position is constructed entirely of five components clearly indicated in the immediate context (babes, adulthood, prophecy, knowledge, and tongues). There is no clear mention of a NT canon in ANY of Paul's writings. A while back you took me to task for applying, "You can all prophesy in turn" (14:31) to all believers, even though 14:1 is indeed for all believers. You complained I was decimating the immediate context of 14:31. Therefore I can't imagine that you'd subscribe to "the perfect canon" given its complete lack of explicit contextual support.

(6) It's an unclear stance. Babes babble gibberish. Mature speech isn't a juxtaposition of the old babbling with new content - is in fact an ERADICATION of the old content, never to be revisited. (As I said, this extrapolates to discarding the OT canon). The early church - the Corinthians themselves - were already receiving NT epistles. Hadn't they already received "the perfect", then? No, as "the perfect" canon is understood, in this view, to arrive at 300 AD. Until then, they still only had incomplete revelation. Now, recall what "the perfect" is supposed to accomplish: again it's not supposed to be a juxtaposition of the old with the new but rather an eradication of the old (a putting away). Thus whatever arrived in 300 AD automatically invalidates/eradicates the epistles created before then! I consider this position unclear because it appears to be self-annihilating.

To summarize: Am I to entertain seriously a position rife with opaque propositions and insoluble problems when I can easily embrace a view saddled with - neither?

 

[Guojing]

Do you think miracles are the exception or the rule in scripture from Genesis through Acts ?

besides these few people below over a 4000 year period where are the miracles ?

1-God used Moses to perform the miracles to have His people released from bondage to Pharaoh.

2- God used a few prophets after Moses like Elijah and Elisha to perform miracles.

3- Then a huge gap in miracles until Jesus comes on the scene.

4- Then we see the Apostles performing miracles.

In each of these cases the Miracles validated their message that they were Gods mouthpiece and God uses those miracles, signs and wonders to authenticate the message came from God.

One thing that is often overlooked in discussions about signs and miracles is the timing and placement of them in the Scriptures. Contrary to popular belief, people in Bible times did not see miracles all the time. In fact, the miracles of the Bible are generally grouped around special events in God's dealing with mankind. Israel's deliverance from Egypt and entrance into the Promised Land were accompanied by many miracles, but the miracles faded away soon afterward. During the late kingdom years, when God was about to place the people in exile, He allowed some of His prophets to do miracles. When Jesus came to live among us, He did miracles, and in the early ministry of the apostles, they did miracles, but outside of those times, we see very few miracles or signs in the Bible. The vast majority of people who lived in Bible times never saw signs and wonders with their own eyes. They had to live by faith in what God had already revealed to them.

In the early church, the signs and wonders were primarily centered around the first presentation of the gospel among various people groups. On the day of Pentecost, we read that there were “Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven” gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5). It was to these Jews, who had been raised in other lands, and spoke those foreign languages (v. 6-11), that the sign of tongues was first given. They acknowledged that they were hearing in their native tongues about the wonderful works of God, and Peter told them that the only appropriate response was to repent of their sins (v. 38). When the gospel was first presented among the Samaritans, we read that Philip did signs and wonders (Acts 8:13).

Again, when Peter was sent to Cornelius, a gentile, God gave a miraculous sign to confirm His work. “And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God” (Acts 10:45-46). When Peter was questioned by the other apostles, he gave this as evidence of God's leading, and the others “glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life’” (Acts 11:18).

In every instance, the sign gifts were a confirmation of God's message and messenger, in order that people might hear and believe. Once the message was confirmed, the signs faded away. We typically don't have a need for those signs to be repeated in our lives, but we do need to receive the same gospel message. got ?

hope this helps !!!

Good points, my guess is that you lean towards Mid Acts dispensationalism?

 

[JAL]

@swordsman1;

Going back to the foundation-topic. One purpose of a foundation is to foster maximal teamwork - maximum synergy. We need an organized army. We need to share and combine resources in the most effective ways possible. Instead of weak individualistic efforts - scattered efforts - we need to make an organized, combined, targeted impact upon the world.

And yet when I claimed we still need a foundation today, you alleged that I was taking the building metaphor too far. However, the metaphor must stand for something, right? You said the foundation refers to the apostles and prophets. Who are irrevocably gone? That makes no sense. How can a bunch of dead leaders foster maximal synergy among us today? Seems your only valid response would be to argue that the legacies laid down by the apostles are our foundation today (most notably the NT canon). Thus the moving-target noted earlier:
(1) Cessationists start off by insisting that Eph 2:20 features the apostles and prophets as the foundation.
(2) When pressed, they equate the foundation with the apostolic legacies (e.g. the NT canon).

Thus their de facto position is actually #2. Does it stand up exegetically? As already noted, it flatly contradicts the other passages where Paul:
(1) Regards the foundation as regional. In Rom 15, the apostles lay down a separate foundation to build each local church upon.
(2) Regards the foundation as Christ. 1Cor 3 implies that expert builders (apostles and prophets) must lay down each of these local foundations. Obviously. Who wants to live on top of a foundation laid down by a novice?

As noted, Hoehner eschews Rom 15 and 1Cor 3 - he insinuates that Paul used the term "foundation" differently in those epistles. Yet, given that all these passages refer to erecting God's building/temple on a foundation, I fail to see where he's met his burden of proof. It's like claiming Paul uses the term "sin" equivocally, without meeting the burden of proof.

Even if we grant Hoehner's assumption, another problem arises. Is the NT canon indeed the foundation? That simply cannot be true because, even in Eph 2:20, the Ephesian church was already built upon the apostolic foundation - even before receiving that epistle!!!! At this point I suppose Hoehner would probably reply that the Ephesians already got the same teaching orally. (They already received 'complete revelation' before 300 AD?).

Here again, is a rather serious contextual issue. There is no clear reference to the NT canon ANYWHERE in Paul's writing. Am I to entertain seriously a conclusion devoid of explicit exegetical support, in the face of two clear passages on "foundation" ?

To clarify my own position, the foundation is Christ Himself (1Cor 3). Personally I picture it as a massive regional outpouring granted to an apostle or prophet for the sake of kick-starting a local church in a given locale. Typically, much of the outpouring is released when he lays hands to confer gifts of prophecy, teaching, healing, tongues, and so on. And that's why we need apostles and prophets today - for maximal effectiveness, synergy, and kick-starting.

 

[swordsman1]

(Sigh) No, YOU are the one proving my extrapolation is correct - by continuing to dodge and evade the SPECIFIC questions and objections about Thomas in those posts. Here they are again: post 483 and post 505, and post 533, and post 565.

Does everyone see this? Here again, I'm literally BEGGING swordsman1 to provide me an alternative extrapolation of Robert Thomas in light of the specific points of question and objection. He DOESN'T HAVE ONE. He just keeps assuming precisely what is in dispute. That's not a reply. That's not an argument. That's not a debate.

(Sigh) I've already explained to you why your "extrapolation" of Robert Thomas' view is bogus. Just because the early church matured and stopped needing prophecy to instruct them does not mean prophecy was childish. Any more than a child grows up and stops needing a schoolteacher means schoolteachers are childish.

Or should we discuss your view? You seem to be hedging your "view" with disclaimers and obscurities - one wonders if you're willing to take any kind of stance at all. Anyway, earlier you seemed to summarize your view. You tried to slam this one in my face, so to speak:

I have expressed my own understanding of 1 Cor 13:8-13 many times on this forum. It is essentially the canon view, which has considerable support from scholars as detailed here, including a few links to their expositions.

In ch 2, Paul characterized the Corinthians as immature "babes" and used that same Greek word for "babes" in 1Cor 13. He also used the same Greek word for maturity (telion) in both chapters. Or does telion indeed mean perfection? In everyday life, transition from infancy to manhood is universally understood to mean maturation rather than perfection. Admittedly one might want to second-guess that reading due to theological presuppositions (theological biases), but nonetheless a consensus on normal usage carries considerable weight in hermeneutics.

Even Christ, in His infancy:

"Spoke like a child, thought like a child, reasoned like a child" (12:11)

Did He gradually become 'perfect'? Or rather 'mature'? His knowledge developed gradually over time without reaching infinitude on earth. He matured. Post-resurrectionally, however, he reassumed His perfection. Instantly! Notice the contrast.
(1) Maturation is a slow, painstaking, gradual development. It is a quantitative growth of the existing state.
(2) Perfection is a qualitative shift - it is an instantaneous abandonment of the existing state.

And the maturity-party cessationists (including Robert Thomas) agree with the above distinctions. Thomas states of the Greek word telion, "This is quantitative, not qualitative, so to teleion must have the same quantitative connotation" (Robert Thomas, "1Cor 13:11 Revisited: An Exegetical Update," Masters Seminary Journal, Vol 4:2 (1993), p. 190).

A qualitative transition (perfection) seems eschatological. If the gifts remain until we become perfect in heaven, Continuationism is correct. As you insisted:

Look, I could spend hours exposing your exegetical and logical fallacies but I have better things to do with my life (at least for the time being). Plus it also gets a bit tiring dealing with your rude and dishonest replies.

The simple fact that your unorthodox theories have ZERO scholarly support tells us which end of the heresy scale your views reside.

 

[JAL]

(Sigh) I've already explained to you why your "extrapolation" of Robert Thomas' view is bogus. Just because the early church matured and stopped needing prophecy to instruct them does not mean prophecy was childish.

In that case prophecy wasn't put away, because it was thoroughly adult. Your reading of Thomas, then, is this:

"When I became an adult, I put away adult things, such as prophecy".

(Sigh). Again, you're not meeting the force of my objections. You are not postulating a reading of Thomas that is viable. At what point are you going to do that?

 

[JAL]

I have expressed my own understanding of 1 Cor 13:8-13 many times on this forum. It is essentially the canon view, which has considerable support from scholars as detailed here, including a few links to their expositions.

Thanks for the list of scholars who support the canon view. Now please address the six objections that I raised against it. Otherwise that's like me saying, "You should be a Roman Catholic because, see here, I've got a whole list of scholars that support this view."

Look, I could spend hours exposing your exegetical and logical fallacies but I have better things to do with my life (at least for the time being).

Wow. That's an effective rebuttal. I'm terribly impressed.

The simple fact that your unorthodox theories have ZERO scholarly support tells us which end of the heresy scale your views reside.

Gotcha. Because the Reformists introduced views contrary to mainstream opinion, they should have been dismissed as heretics. Didn't realize that you were opposed to the Reformation and reform in general. But that's your prerogative.

 

[JAL]

The simple fact that your unorthodox theories have ZERO scholarly support tells us which end of the heresy scale your views reside.

And stop telling lies. For example I cited where your cessationist friend Robert Thomas drew the same conclusion on 1Cor 13 as I did. And I linked you to posts where I cited other cessationists scholars who concur with some of my main points.

 

[swordsman1]

In that case prophecy wasn't put away, because it was thoroughly adult. Your reading of Thomas, then, is this:

"When I became an adult, I put away adult things, such as prophecy".

(Sigh). Again, you're not meeting the force of my objections. You are not postulating a reading of Thomas that is viable. At what point are you going to do that?

No, I've already explained this to you. It's not a case of prophecy itself being childish or adult. Prophecy is a tool for God giving people information. It was used in the infant church to instruct people in the absence of scripture.

It's not rocket science.

Thanks for the list of scholars who support the canon view. Now please address the six objections that I raised against it. Otherwise that's like me saying, "You should be a Roman Catholic because, see here, I've got a whole list of scholars that support this view."

But it wasn't just a list of scholars. I also linked to expositions fully explaining the canon view. If you had bothered to read them your objections would be answered.

Wow. That's an effective rebuttal. I'm terribly impressed.

Er...It wasn't intended to be a rebuttal. I said I'll get around to refuting your other arguments some other time because frankly I've wasted enough of my time on them for now. I've already demonstrated to people following this thread how fallacious they are.

Gotcha. Because the Reformists introduced views contrary to mainstream opinion, they should have been dismissed as heretics. Didn't realize that you were opposed to the Reformation and reform in general. But that's your prerogative.

Haha. You think you are a Reformer?! The Reformers' views were quickly established as being true and gained massive scholarly support within months. How many years have you been trying to convince the amateurs on this forum of your theories? And how many converts have you won? If you can't even gain the support of the susceptible folks here, what chance do you have of influencing the minds of professionals. When a few scholars start endorsing your views then we can begin to take them seriously. Until then we can safely consign your theories to the theological scrap heap.

 

[JAL]

No, I've already explained this to you. It's not a case of prophecy itself being childish or adult. Prophecy is a tool for God giving people information. It was used in the infant church to instruct people in the absence of scripture.

No, sir. Prophecy isn't a tool for gaining (direct) revelation. It IS (direct) revelation - otherwise cesstionists would lack cause to debate this chapter! The chapter replaces immature revelation with mature revelation - Thomas is not denying that fact. So what is the immature revelation that gets replaced?
(1) In Thomas' system, prophethood itself is the immature revelation that gets replaced. He's dispensing with the whole concept!
(2) In MY system, immature prophecies are replaced with mature prophecies (because babe's milk-revelation transitions to solid-food revelation, same point Paul made in 1Cor 2 and 3). Prophethood remains.

Nice try, though.

 

[JAL]

Haha. You think you are a Reformer?!

Um..er..every Christian should see himself as a potential reformer. Are you asking me to accept the teachings of Calvin and Luther uncritically? In that case, which one of them, in your opinion, is the pope?

 

[JAL]

It's not rocket science.

It appears to be a ridiculous position. Prophecy offers the potential for infallible revelation. Exegesis lacks that potential. So if God wants to MATURE us in revelation, wouldn't it be His intent to INCREASE the amount of prophecy? You're correct - that chapter is not rocket science. Here's a paraphrase of Paul's argument:

"In my immaturity, I prophesy "in part". In maturity, therefore, I will prophesy in full."

Thank you. No one couldn't possibly have said it any better:

It's not rocket science.

 

[JAL]

But it wasn't just a list of scholars. I also linked to expositions fully explaining the canon view. If you had bothered to read them your objections would be answered..

As I intimated earlier, your cessationist friend Robert Thomas (not to mention Farnell and several others) soundly refuted that position. I guess you're saying that Thomas and Farnell don't do their homework well enough? They don't represent the opposing sides in a fair and fairly exhaustive manner? Having read hundreds of pages from Thomas, Farnell, and others, I'm satisfied I understand that position. That's why I raised six objections against it.

This is supposedly YOUR position. Should be easy for you to defend it here instead of asking me to go read hundreds of more pages.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Linguists can immediately tell if a spoken language is genuine simply by studying the structure of phonemes. The task is made all the easier if there is an interpretation into English. Professional linguists who have studied today's 'tongues' have categorically ruled it out as being a human language or a language of any kind. The most respected study is by Dr. William Samarin of the University of Toronto who did a 10 year study of Pentecostal tongues.

This book intrigued me, but alas it is no longer available. Reviews of it however imply that Samarin was 'sympathetic' which doesn't go along with your quotes.

I went back to one of my former lecturers who has recently published a book on tongues to ask him if he came across Samarin's research. He had, though he did not cover it in his book which was theological in nature not psychological. However he did point out that Samarin's views were that there were two types of tongues, one depicted in Acts and one in 1 Corinthians.

So Samarin is clearly not of the opinion that tongues has ceased.

If the book ever gets transferred to kindle, I'll get myself a copy.

 

[Albion]

However he did point out that Samarin's views were that there were two types of tongues, one depicted in Acts and one in 1 Corinthians.

So Samarin is clearly not of the opinion that tongues has ceased..

Please excuse me for "dropping in" without reviewing all of the previous 600 (!) posts, but isn't that almost a favorite claim made by Continuationists? It's not as though this idea of different tongues is ground-breaking.

In every discussion I've been part of, the Continuationists make claims about speaking in a foreign language although previously having no knowledge of the language.

When that claim falters, they switch to the "Well, there are ecstatic tongues, prayer languages, which are not known to anyone else but the person who is communicating with God."

And when that fails, the claim becomes "There are Angelic languages," and a mistaken interpretation of that Bible verse is duly referred to.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I see you are an anglican - how do you feel about the Archbishop of Canterbury speaking in tongues?

 

[Albion]

I see you are an anglican - how do you feel about the Archbishop of Canterbury speaking in tongues?

I don't feel anything in particular about it. Should I?

He's the head of the Church of England and I am not a resident of England.