Cessationism question

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
And I am smiling already. Always good to chat with you too. BTW Bibby, what are "Gids"? I was actually expecting the 'Hilly' accolade from you, and thought I'd come up with a fitting retort.
Oh no . . . how could I have been so silly Hilly! As maybe a weak excuse, while I am replying to a few threads, as is often the case I am doing a bit of other work as well, which can be an issue particularly as I use two and sometimes three screens and over the past couple of days it has been fairly technical - very distracting it is!

I didn't ask because I wanted to argue, I really do wonder myself. Although I have no problem with a subsequence happening. I say that based upon the subsequence of the three feasts of the OT which in my opinion relate to the three salvations of man from spirit to soul to body.
Hey, that's okay and I realise that my writing style can be a bit (actually very) stilted, which means at times that some of my replies can seem a bit engaging; though with our cessationist friends this probably happens by choice.

For me John 20:22 is simply a prophetic verse. How could Jesus give the Holy Spirit which wasn't given until Pentecost? The blowing was simply prophetic of the rushing mighty wind which entered the house/temple where they were celebrating the feast of Pentecost. But the key word is that of "receive". A distinct word which is not used of receiving the word for salvation in scripture. But that point is a 'teaching' in and of itself.
You will have to pardon my lack of competence when it comes to the use of the OT when it comes to the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit; I recognise that within various Pentecostal circles that this can be the way to go.

Whereas I believe our spirit is gennao/regenerated/born anew/born from above'. Upon doing so it is "one spirit with the Lord" IOW the spirit of, Christ our LORD. I do, as of late question whether or not that event means that our old spirit is now 'the holy spirit'...of Christ in us'. Not sure what the scriptures mean when it says "he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit". Maybe you have some biblicist insight on that one Bibby? ;)
As I am a functional-dichotomist this means that my approach to how the Scriptures (particularly with Paul) use the word spirit/Spirit is probably relatively simplistic. For the classic-dichotomist they will view the terms spirit & soul as being essentially interchangeable, whereas dichotomists such as myself reject this idea where we will instead view the word spirit (lower case) as a reference to our emotions, feelings, attitude, thoughts and countenance. So with Scriptures that speak of "one spirit with the Lord" I would see this as being a reference as to how the Born Again believer is at one mind and heart with the Lord.

Oh come on now, you live for this don't you? It helps you to grow when dealing with all God's children. Especially the ones influenced with the retarded teaching contrary to that which we love. :p
What . . . lil' ol me . . . yep! Actually I was thinking about was with what I would refer to as the seeming demise of the Pentecostal and Charismatic forums, though this might be a bit of an exaggeration. Even on this forum I am disappointed that there is a lack of interaction toward the massive amount of contemporary (past 30 years) theological material around Pneumatology. It tends to be a bit frustrating and even tedious addressing material that probably belongs in the Ark.

Ah yes, my 'Partimers'...headed to 'Alzheimers' lightbulb just went on. I forgot you were that 'functional-dichotomist' guy.
With reference to my above "enlightened" thoughts, I know that I struggled with the Dichotomous and Trichotomous arguments where I seemed to move from one to another as both seemed to be right for maybe my first decade as a Christian. So after a lot of struggle, I had one of those moments where genius seemed to come to the forefront where I decided that both sides were wrong, though the position held by the Dichotomost was in my view less wrong. That's why I am a functional-dichotomist in that I function as a Dichotomost but with the further "enlightened" understanding that spirit (lower case) refers not to a human spirit but to our attitudes and thoughts etc.

Of course it would be nice if the rest of the world could catch up on this particular issue but as I am a patient person I can wait!

We for heaven's sake don't be delicate with me. I'm here to get beat like a red headed stepchild...if you can. Hold on to your hat now, here I go with scriptures concerning, first Jesus, then us.

Scriptures pertaining to Jesus.
MAT 12:18 "Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him,
LUK 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove,
LUK 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
JOH 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Scriptures pertaining to us.
JOEL 2:29 Even upon the menservants and maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit.
LUK 2:25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. THIS WAS STILL THE OT AND SPEAKS OF THE SAME PLACEMENT THEN THAT WE HAVE AFTER PENTECOST.....IMO of course.



ACT 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you;
ACT 2:17 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
ACT 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them;
1PE 4:14 If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
Yes, I would agree with you; though if you feel that it disagrees with something that I have said then please let me know.

Actually I haven't come to your realization ever since I heard that taught by a third generation Baptist theologian who'd received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and he was teaching at a Full Gospel conference in Denver back in the 70's. He based it upon;

1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

And I wouldn't say that I haven't been in my prayer tongue mode, when I felt like the interpretation of what I said was dropped into my soul/mind. And subsequently shared with the body.
Ah . . . yes . . . the good ol' 70's, for the Christian they were certainly pretty interesting times as we not only had the massive worldwide Charismatic Renewal as we also had the various Arab/Israeli wars, Kissinger and the rising EU with its lead up to the AntiChrist and the One World Empire; which from what I can see happening with the unwarranted US/European angst against Russia this might very well come around sooner than we all think.

Thankfully the forgiveness of our heavenly Father would have dealt kindly with you, had you done such a spiritually zealous act without knowledge of maturity. I actually think He gets a kick out of us 'kids' trying to wear daddy's shoes and walk around with a big grin on our face. Lord knows it isn't happening enough in my town, or with me. :(

Sorry this was so long, and I know you're busy with others so don't worry about me.
As I am (maybe surprisingly) a bit of an introvert, a sort of backroom person, I tend to be content to leave these things to others; though I do wonder what pathways I would have traveled down if I had decided to provide interpretations.

What, there is "no need to reply", are you serious, it is always a pleasure.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
For me John 20:22 is simply a prophetic verse. How could Jesus give the Holy Spirit which wasn't given until Pentecost? The blowing was simply prophetic of the rushing mighty wind which entered the house/temple where they were celebrating the feast of Pentecost. But the key word is that of "receive". A distinct word which is not used of receiving the word for salvation in scripture. But that point is a 'teaching' in and of itself.

Who does the Holy Spirit come from in the first place? Jesus. He gave the apostles His Spirit before giving it to the whole church to prepare them for the Day of Pentecost. Also to show us there are at least two fillings necessary for ministry. He gave the apostles the first in John 20, but gave the 120 the first on the Day of Pentecost, while the apostles received the second for signs and wonders. Peter prophesied, from the second, thus his revelation of what Joel said. He was also "standing with the eleven." They were off to the side while the 120 were all praising God in tongues. "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:"

The 120 received the second filling for signs and wonders and boldness in ministry in Acts 4. "Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness."

When we repent and come to Christ, He gives us His Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9 says if you don't have His Spirit you are not His. Therefore, we are believers. Mark 16:17 tells us that those who BELIEVE speak in tongues, etc. This is for prayer and praise as the 120 did on the Day of Pentecost. This is an authority as part of the whole armor of God that Jesus gives to all His who believe, whether they operate the sign or not, and whether they believe in this sign or are a cessationist. The second filling is for the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 that are for the profit of all. But the limited signs of Mark 16 are for all. One of the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 is the diverse gift of tongues. That is NOT our prayer language TO God, but messages from God which need interpretation. Not everyone receives this more powerful application of tongues. That is why at the end of 1 Corinthians 12 it says do all speak with tongues? The answer, of course, is no. But that has nothing to do with prayer and praise given to all for our use without the required interpretation.

Many ask, then why didn't the Samaritans speak in tongues when the deacon, Philip, preached to them and baptized them. The answer is the Holy Spirit had not fallen on that area of the country as it did in Jerusalem, setting Jerusalem apart in its importance to prophecy. No, the apostles laid hands on them to impart the Holy Spirit to them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Hey, wait a minute, you’ve used the phrase “conditional IF statements”, which I realise that some commentators have also used to support their understanding that Paul did not supposedly speak in tongues, but if you use this particular expression then you need to understand that Pauls conditional statements relate to the lack or presence of love; if this is not understood then the whole purpose of chapter 13 collapses.

Well done. Not having love is indeed one of the conditions in each IF statement. There are others as well.

What the less astute or experienced reader may also fail to understand is with how we are supposed to use the terms hyperbole and hypothetical, most importantly, we need to be aware that these two terms can be both misused and abused by even commentators, though I suspect that some commentators will be rather free with their use to sort of muddy the waters to possibly placate those cessationist institutions that either support or even employ them. Of course this situation is not just the dilemma of the poor lacklustre cessationist scholar but also for those who are employed as Pentecostal theologians; as the adage goes, “there are ways of saying things – and – there are other ways of saying things”.

I think everyone knows what the words hypothetical and hyperbole mean, scholar and layperson alike. Would you like me to provide you with the dictionary definitions (yet again)?

As for those who use hyperbole to describe Paul’s meaning then this is usually the result of a cessationist mindset or maybe that a commentator has simply not thought things through carefully enough; most importantly, the problem with using hyperbole is that it negates Paul’s thrust that love is the conditional element.

Oh, so you think knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge, moving mountains, giving away EVERYTHING that you own, and giving up your own life are not exaggerations but the normal expected everyday operations of each of those gifts?

If they use the term hypothetical then things should change as conditions that are hypothetical are what we also call ‘what-if’ situations, where something may or may not occur depending on a given pre-condition, which in this case is with the lack or presence of love.

One of the things that I know that I struggle with is knowing what exactly someone means when they use the terms hyperbole or hypothetical as I am well aware that those who are less educated will regularly misuse them as they do not know how they are to be applied; then again, even commentators can at times be sloppy with there use where I will often leave a given commentary not knowing what the commentator meant to say.

It's not rocket science. Hypothetical means an imagined scenario. Hyperbole means an exaggeration. In each of Paul's statements the scenarios he pictures are both hypothetical (they were imagined scenarios, not things he actually did) and contain hyperbole (the imagined scenarios contained exaggerated examples of each gift)


1-cor-13_1_3-if-i-have-not-love-png.195527

You didn't read my post properly. I did not say the gifts were worthless, I said that "having spiritual gifts would be worthless without love".

Here we go again, how can you even consider quoting a Pentecostal scholar such as Gordon Fee and yet you do not have the wherewithal to realise that what you are saying sounds odd, which sould be enough for any prudent person to undertake further investigation; it seems that your need to uphold your worldview has you making numerous mistakes, and oddly enough you keep making the same mistakes over and over.

As you seem to overly rely on Google Books you should probably avoid doing this as you are only quoting portions of what you think that individual scholars believe, which I trust that others would have also noticed if they made the effort to read through, what are often little more, than misquotes on your part.

As for this repeated false claim that Fee believes that tongues are given in a human language is nothing but absurd to say the least, let me help you on this point. As for your other quotes, as they are out of context then it is hard to know what they have said but with some of them (as with Kistemaker) you failed to notice that he did not agree with you.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee (1987) pp.596-599

(12:7) Different kinds of tongues. This is obviously the “controversial gift,” both then and now. If our interpretation of chap. 14 is correct, then the Corinthians’ singular preference for this manifestation is what lies behind this entire argument. Thus, after listing several equally visible and extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit, Paul includes their favorite as well, along with its companion, “interpretation.” As with prophecy, enough is said in chaps. 13-14 to give us a fairly good idea as to how Paul understood it. The following seem certain: (a) It is Spirit-inspired utterance; that is made explicit both in vv. 7 and 11 and in 14:2. (b) The regulations for its use in 14:27-28 make it clear that the speaker is not in “ecstasy” or “out of control.” Quite the opposite; the speakers must speak in turn, and they must remain silent if there is no one to interpret, (c) It is speech essentially unintelligible both to the speaker (14:14) and to other hearers (14:16). (d) It is speech directed basically toward God (14:2, 14-15, 28); one may assume, therefore, that what is “interpreted” is not speech directed toward others, but the “mysteries” spoken to God.

What is less certain is whether Paul also understood the phenomenon to be an actual language. In favor of such a view are (a) the term itself, (b) the need for “interpretation,” and (c) the evidence from Acts 2:5-11. In the final analysis, however, this question seems irrelevant. Paul’s whole argument is predicated on its unintelligibility to both speaker and hearer; he certainly does not envisage someone’s being present who would be able to understand it because it was also an earthly language. Moreover, his use of earthly languages as an analogy in 14:10-12 implies that it is not a known earthly language, since a thing is not usually identical with that to which it is analogous. Most likely, therefore, the key to Paul’s—and their—understanding lies in the term “the language of angels” in 13:1 (q.v.). On its usefulness or lack thereof to the community and the individual, see on 14:1-5 and 13-19.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee (1987) pp.652-61

4. The Need for Intelligibility in the Assembly (14:1-25)

With this section (vv. 1-25) and the next (vv. 26-40) Paul proceeds at last to offer specific correctives to the Corinthians’ apparently unbridled use of tongues in the assembly. He began his argument with them by setting forth the broader theological framework in which these specifics are to be understood. In chap. 12 he argued for diversity, tongues being only one among many manifestations of the Spirit, who gives gifts to each as he wills for “the common good” (vv. 7-11). In chap. 13, reflecting on the theme of “the common good,” he insisted that none of them, himself included, counts for anything, no matter how “spiritual” they are, if they do not likewise manifest love. Now he puts these together by insisting that in the gathered assembly the single goal of their spiritual zeal should be love (v. 1), which, as in 8:1, is expressed in the language of “building up” the church (vv. 3-5, 12, 17, 26). This latter theme is developed in two ways: by insisting on intelligibility in the gathered assembly and by giving guidelines for order.

God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, Gordon Fee (1994) p.164

[12:7] Third, probably to give a proper balance to “each one,” he concludes with the reason for this great diversity: “for the common good.” By so doing he anticipates the concern of chs. 13 and 14, that in community the Spirit manifests himself for the building up of the entire community, not primarily for the benefit of the individual believer.291

Footnote: [291] That is not to say that the building up of the individual believer is no concern of Paul’s. To the contrary (see on 14:4). But the concern throughout this entire argument is with the effect of gifts in building up the community.

Paul, the Spirit and the People of God, Gordon D. Fee (1996) pp. 71

Second, the Spirit is also responsible for maintain a necessary and healthy diversity in the church. This is the basic concern of the arguments in 1 Corinthians 12. The Corinthians’ extraordinary and imbalanced emphasis on tongues as the evidence of a fully developed spirituality requires theological correction (chs. 12 and 13) before the specific abuse is corrected (ch. 14). Thus every paragraph in chapter 12 except for vv. 21-26 has this theme – the need for diversity in order for the community to be built up. The triune God himself illustrates – and serves as the basis for – this diversity-in-unity (vv. 4-6); and the Spirit in particular is responsible for its being shown forth among them, especially in the many manifestations of his presence “given to each one for the common good” (vv. 7-11). A body cannot be only one part (v. 14); that would be a monstrosity (vv. 15-20). The Spirit who is responsible for their being one body is also the basis for the many parts necessary for the body to function at all.

Significantly, the body imagery in Ephesians, with its concern for unity, focuses primarily on relationships within the church. In 1 Corinthians 12, however, the focus is mainly on the church as a community gathered for worship, which is true also of the temple imagery in 2:16-17. This difference in focus is due to the respective errors that were taking place within the gathered community . . . . . . .

1 Corinthians Simon J. Kistemaker
a. “If I speak in the tongues of men, even those of angels.” With this conditional statement, Paul indicates that he himself does not engage in tongue-speaking in public worship (14:19). He appears to be saying, “Suppose that I as the Lord’s apostle have the highest possible gift of tongues, those that men use, and those even that angels use—how you Corinthians would admire, even envy me and desire to have an equal gift!”2
The word tongues can be understood to mean known languages; but in context it appears to mean tongue-speech, which some Corinthians regarded as heavenly speech. We do not know what supernatural language angels speak (compare II Cor. 12:4; Rev. 14:1—3) or whether angels are able to understand human speech.3 Conversely, angels communicate with people in human terms that are frequently recorded in both the Old and New Testaments.

In previous posts I have pointed out how important it is to not only find out what a given commentator has to say on an issue within a merely a select chapter and verse, but that we must attempt to gain an overall understanding of his views which means that their views must be checked across 1Cor 12, 13 & 14. Now I guess that your reliance on Google Books can be a bit problematic as it does not always cover each chapter, which means that you probably failed to notice (in red pp.452-53) where Kistemaker made a very important distinction between known languages and tongue-speech.

As I have a copy of Kistemaker’s 1 Corinthians (1993) I am well aware of his position, which is why I shall point you back to 1Cor 12:10 (p.426) where he qualifies his understanding of tongues – enjoy:
1 Corinthians, Kistemaker (1993)

[p.426] The word tongue can mean either a known language (Acts 2:6, 8, 11) or tongue-speech (1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 28): in the present epistle, the word can signify either – the meaning depends on the context. In the commercial city of Corinth, where international visitors and temporary residents were numerous and where various languages were spoken, translators were in great demand. On the other hand, the Corinthian congregation also experienced the phenomenon of tongue-speaking. Tongue-speech alludes to an act of worship directed to God; but when other believers were present in Corinth, the message had to be interpreted for the benefit of the audience. To promote reverence in the worship service, Paul demanded that tongue-speech be edifying, intelligible, orderly, and controlled.

Notice that Paul writes the expression kinds of tongues. This point to both varieties of known languages (14:9-10) and tongue-speech. He attributes all these tongues and their interpretation to the work of the Holy Spirit (vv. 7, 11). Thus he indicates that the Spirit gives the interpreter of tongue-speech ability to understand and convey the meaning of the spoken message.

So that we can further clarify Kistemaker’s position regarding tongues we need to also go to 1Cor 14:2 (pp.477-78) – enjoy:

2. For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men [and women] but to God. For no one understands him, but in the Spirit he speaks mysteries. 3. But he who prophesies speaks to men [and women] for their edification, encouragement, and consultation.

a. “For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men [and women] but to God,” Of the two gifts, prophecy and tongues, Paul takes the latter first and points out that speaking in a tongue is a private worship directed to God (see v. 4). Speaking to God in a tongue is comparable to personal prayer: The one who prays speaks to himself and to God (v. 28) and does so within the context of love. Accordingly, speaking in a tongue without interpretation does not communicate anything meaningful, because the people are unable to understand the words that are spoken. Granted that God knows every spoken word, his people are unable to understand these words and thus are not edified.

b. “For no one understands him, but in the Spirit he speaks mysteries.” Speaking and hearing are the two sides of the proverbial coin. When language is not understood, people cannot communicate. And a failure to communicate results in alienation for the people involved. According to the account in acts 2:4-11, everyone present in the temple courts was able to understand the messages proclaimed in many known languages by those filled with the Holy Spirit. But in the current text, Paul refrains from writing about interpreters. Instead he notes that the message spoken in a tongue without interpretation is directed not to people but to God.

The Greek word pneuma can be translated either “spirit” or “Spirit,” and translators are divided on this point. The term refers to either the human spirit or the Holy Spirit. In the setting of this chapter, Paul mentions the human spirit twice more: “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays” (v. 14) and “The spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets” (v. 32). This provides support for the interpretation that Paul has in mind the spirit within man.

However, the word spirit, both with and without the capital letter, must be studied in relation to the term mysteries. That term is the content of this last clause in verse 2. We find a parallel in 13:2, where Paul also speaks about mysteries that are closely linked to prophecy. Through the Holy Spirit, God originates both in prophecies and in tongues mysteries that are incomprehensible (compare 2:6-16; 1 Peter 1:10-12). Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit reveals these mysteries and employs his people to express them. The Holy Spirit, then, is the agent who works with a person and relates mysteries. . . . . .

c. But he who prophesies . . . . . .

Again, so that we can further clarify Kistemaker’s position regarding tongues we need to also go to pp.480-81) – enjoy:

4. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself. He who prophesies edifies the church.

a. “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” Paul already indicated that the person who speaks in a tongue addresses not the people but God (v. 2). Now he states that the tongue-speaker edifies himself. . . . . .

How does a person who speaks in a tongue edify himself? Some scholars interpret the verb to edify negatively, because they think that a person ought to use his gifts for the benefit of the church. They suppose that Paul resorts to sarcasm in the first part of this verse and marshal at least two arguments to prove their case. First, Paul teaches that the gifts which the Spirit gives are for the common good of the church (12:7); next, in his letter of love he intimates that gifts should never serve self-centered ambition.

However, Paul seems to speak positively here, for he encourages all his readers to speak in tongues (v. 5). He also notes that private prayer to God, even when spoken in a tongue, is a matter between the believer and God (II Cor. 12:2-4; see also v. 2 and the commentary on it). Hence, no one is free to invade another’s religious privacy; prayer, whether spoken or unspoken, is a two-way street. God receives praise and thanks from the speaker and at the same time grants him or her comfort and encouragement.

In this chapter Paul emphasizes the concept edification, as the repeated use of the verb edify and the noun edification attest. Elsewhere Paul tells the recipients of his letter: “seek to excel in the [work of] edifying the church” (v. 12b).

b. “He who prophesies edifies the church.” Paul once more stresses the fact that with respect to either tongues or prophecy, the latter is greatly preferred. The fundamental principle of loving one’s neighbour as oneself, clarified in Paul’s discourse on love (13), comes to expression in the voice of prophecy. The setting for prophecy is a public worship service where the members have come together for praise, prayer, and instruction. The setting can also be a small gathering of two or three in the mane of the Lord (see Matt. 18:20). Prophecy must always be spoken against the backdrop of love for one’s neighbour.

Paul notes that the person who prophesies edifies the church. In this text, he means not the universal church but the local congregation. When someone speaks to God in a tongue, the worshipper follows a vertical path; but when this person prophesies to the members of the church, he or she reaches out to fellow believers on a horizontal level.

5. Now I wish . . . . . . (pp.481-82)
6. But now, brothers, suppose I come to you speaking in tongues . . . . . . . (pp.483-84)
7. In the same way, lifeless things, whether flute or harp . . . . . . . (p.485)
8. For if the trumpet produces an indistinct sound . . . . . . (p.485)
9. So also you, unless you utter a distinct message . . . . . . . (p.485) Kistemaker finishes ch.14 on p.519

I see you are again using the strawman fallacy to change the argument to something different entirely. The point I was making is what Fee had to say about the 'tongues of men' in 1 Cor 13:1, not what he says in his commentary about other verses (where incidentally he makes a number of exegetical errors which I will address in a subsequent post).

This is what Fee writes about the 'tongues of men':

“Tongues of men” would then refer to human speech, inspired by the Spirit but unknown to the speaker;
That is miraculously speaking human languages you haven't learned. He rejects your idea that 'tongues of men' are learned languages.

And no I am not relying on Google Book for my quote. I have my own electronic copy of the relevant chapters of Fees commentary in full.

Incidentally Fee is nowhere near convinced that today's Pentecostal glossolalia is the New Testament gift. The most he is prepared to say is it is something analogous to the NT gift. A shocking statement from Pentecostalism's leading theologian, but nonetheless an inevitable conclusion for anyone who has studied the scriptures to make.

Gordon Fee - God’s Empowering Presence
The question as to whether the “speaking in tongues” in contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic communities is the same in kind as that in the Pauline churches is moot – and probably somewhat irrelevant. There is simply no way to know. As an experienced phenomenon, it is analogous to theirs, meaning that it is understood to be a supernatural activity of the Spirit, which function in many of the same ways, and for many of its practitioners has similar value to that described by Paul.

As to Kistemaker's commentary you have obviously failed to notice the words I have bolded:

He appears to be saying, “Suppose that I as the Lord’s apostle have the highest possible gift of tongues, those that men use, and those even that angels use—how you Corinthians would admire, even envy me and desire to have an equal gift!”

Kistermaker fully acknowledges that Paul is describing a hypothetical case where he imagines himself having the gift of tongues to the highest conceivable degree - those even of angels. Kistemaker also rejects your idea of the 'tongues of men' here being learned languages.

As to the other snippets from Kistemakers commentary you quoted, I suggest you read them again...carefully. Wisely he nowhere makes the explicit claim that Corinthian tongues are an angelic or non-human language. That is because there is no such description in 1 Corinthians. He simply notes they were unintelligible, which they were in Corinth because there was no one in the small congregation who understood the foreign language spoken.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
As I am a functional-dichotomist this means that my approach to how the Scriptures (particularly with Paul) use the word spirit/Spirit is probably relatively simplistic. For the classic-dichotomist they will view the terms spirit & soul as being essentially interchangeable, whereas dichotomists such as myself reject this idea where we will instead view the word spirit (lower case) as a reference to our emotions, feelings, attitude, thoughts and countenance. So with Scriptures that speak of "one spirit with the Lord" I would see this as being a reference as to how the Born Again believer is at one mind and heart with the Lord.

I still don't know what a 'Gids' is. Some sort of Aussie name for chicken gizzards or something??? :scratch:

I've read the Ss emotion definition before, and I think they came from a POV based upon definitions derived from non Spirit baptized believers long ago. They were defining spirit poorly based upon what they'd experienced poorly also IMO. So, with your definition, how do you view the emotional fruits of the Spirit eg. love, joy? Do you just 'Capitalize' them to make it Spirit consistent eg. Love, Joy....:idea: How do you separate your human spirit/emotion definition from those emotions of the Holy Spirit of God? Doesn't the Holy Spirit transcend your small s emotion definition? For me it does. I say the Holy Spirit has emotion plus cognitive "knowledge, wisdom" attributes, and I say my human spirit adds more than an emotional contribution to my triune being.

What . . . lil' ol me . . . yep! Actually I was thinking about was with what I would refer to as the seeming demise of the Pentecostal and Charismatic forums, though this might be a bit of an exaggeration. Even on this forum I am disappointed that there is a lack of interaction toward the massive amount of contemporary (past 30 years) theological material around Pneumatology. It tends to be a bit frustrating and even tedious addressing material that probably belongs in the Ark.
Just spent time last weekend visiting a friend's church in Dodge City 50 miles away....Yep, 'sheriff Matt Dillon' and 'Gunsmoke', country (I hope those terms made the oceanic skip). Anyway they had a prophetic guy come up from Dallas Texas to do a weekend seminar for 'prophetic activation'. What I heard in testimony as well as what I saw 'happening', in spite of their theological errors in teaching IMHO :rolleyes: actually made me desirous of what they are experiencing in 'walk', all the while I'm analyzing/disagreeing with their 'talk'. I saw him at the coffee shop last Wednesday, for the first time since last weekend's visit. He asked what I thought about my time at their church. I told him I loved the Sspirit (waffle, I know) of their 'almost all' young church, and the excitement of their walk in faith. I also thought to myself, you also don't need me there as a member clogging up what's working with my 'better theology' POV either. ;)

That's why I am a functional-dichotomist in that I function as a Dichotomost but with the further "enlightened" understanding that spirit (lower case) refers not to a human spirit but to our attitudes and thoughts etc. Of course it would be nice if the rest of the world could catch up on this particular issue but as I am a patient person I can wait!
Good luck with patience on this one. I've been holding out just as long for the genius of my POV too. :D


Yes, I would agree with you; though if you feel that it disagrees with something that I have said then please let me know.
That subject, my friend, may just require a sit down over coffee during your road trip across the USA. And you are still welcome to spend a night if that road trip has 'Boot Hill' on the Biblicist agenda. ;)

What, there is "no need to reply", are you serious, it is always a pleasure.
As it is for me. What a joy to have a brother, who's 'security in Christ' isn't rattled to the point of emotional outbursts from "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." The same spirits which I see you responding to more graciously than I, when dealing with others. :oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Who does the Holy Spirit come from in the first place? Jesus.
And before 'Jesus the Christ', who was the Spirit coming from? "In the beginning was the 'Word'."
He gave the apostles His Spirit before giving it to the whole church to prepare them for the Day of Pentecost.
That was my question to Biblicist. He gave an admitted non scriptural opinion. But at least he admitted it was such. Your supporting verse is? EDIT. And when you capitalized Spirit above, I guess I don't know whether you mean the 'Christ spirit' in Jesus or the 'Holy Spirit' of God?

Also to show us there are at least two fillings necessary for ministry. He gave the apostles the first in John 20,
He gave them an appointing, he never gave them the annointing. What did they do immediately after His 'prophetic appointing' until their Pentecostal annointing day? NOTHING...NADA....ZIP. They did play poker to replace an apostle. :doh: So is Poker Spiritual in your POV? It's not in my POV. Not blaming them BTW, just admitting what fact dictates IMO. Though they all may have confessed as Thomas; "My Lord and My God" after His resurrection. Which in my case may qualify as their 'born again' Passover experience...prior to their Pentecostal experience which Jesus told them to go wait for.

but gave the 120 the first on the Day of Pentecost, while the apostles received the second for signs and wonders. Peter prophesied, from the second, thus his revelation of what Joel said. He was also "standing with the eleven." They were off to the side while the 120 were all praising God in tongues. "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:"

The 120 received the second filling for signs and wonders and boldness in ministry in Acts 4. "Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness."
I obviously have a different take on all this, but don't plan on eating an elephant of disagreement in this post. ;)

When we repent and come to Christ, He gives us His Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9 says if you don't have His Spirit you are not His.
And 'His spirit' (little s) is what He surrendered to God on the cross. There was no, 'into thy hand I surrender 'our Spirit' or 'the Holy Spirit'....nope just "my spirit". IOW the Christ spirit.
As far as Rom 8:9 is concerned, there is at least one theologian whose book I have, and which is still in print today, along with his study bible, because truth stands the test of time. In his case, for over a 100 years they've been in print. In his book "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit" it states that 'The Holy Spirit' is not even mentioned in Romans 8, until the 16 verse. But, again, an elephant of a teaching for this forum format.

Therefore, we are believers. Mark 16:17 tells us that those who BELIEVE speak in tongues, etc.
Problem is, believe what? No one just being 'born again' speaks in tongues. That's simply biblical, they are 'ungifted NAS/unlearned KJV' non Charismatics according to Paul who is addressing Charismatics Christians and their actions, when he says there's two other groups out there..

1 Corinthians 14:24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all;

The second filling is for the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 that are for the profit of all. But the limited signs of Mark 16 are for all. One of the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 is the diverse gift of tongues. That is NOT our prayer language TO God, but messages from God which need interpretation. Not everyone receives this more powerful application of tongues. That is why at the end of 1 Corinthians 12 it says do all speak with tongues? The answer, of course, is no. But that has nothing to do with prayer and praise given to all for our use without the required interpretation.
My understanding is that you aren't Filled with the Holy Spirit you are filled with holy spirit power from The Holy Spirit as He manifests His holy spirit power through you individually 'when' and "as He wills". And that chapter 12 'tongue' is not your spirit's tongue. None of those manifestation/giftings are your 'gifts'. If you have received the baptism of power then you have access to THE gift of power from the Holy Spirit and none of His gifts/manifestations are yours. If they were you could manifest them when you willed and not when He willed. I have manifested almost all the manifestations of holy spirit power when He has willed for me to move in them.

But when He manifested any of those 'giftings' they were never mine. They were His and they were given to whoever He used me to manifest them to. Period. I need healing for my ears/hearing.... Never has happened. I've heard of one 'deaf' brother who's prayed for several deaf people who were healed of deafness and he still wasn't. It was never his gift.

Many ask, then why didn't the Samaritans speak in tongues when the deacon, Philip, preached to them and baptized them. The answer is the Holy Spirit had not fallen on that area of the country as it did in Jerusalem, setting Jerusalem apart in its importance to prophecy. No, the apostles laid hands on them to impart the Holy Spirit to them.
More 'elephant', and as I said earlier, you apparently have not studied the difference between the Greek words 'decomai' and 'lambano' when used for "receive". Acts 8 makes it clear that Phillip preached like Billy Graham preached. No one got the Holy Spirit or the baptism of holy spirit power from Jesus from Phillip or at a Billy Graham crusade. What they got was their 'born again spirit' which was one with the spirit of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
And before 'Jesus the Christ', who was the Spirit coming from? "In the beginning was the 'Word'."

That was my question to Biblicist. He gave an admitted non scriptural opinion. But at least he admitted it was such. Your supporting verse is? EDIT. And when you capitalized Spirit above, I guess I don't know whether you mean the 'Christ spirit' in Jesus or the 'Holy Spirit' of God?


He gave them an appointing, he never gave them the annointing. What did they do immediately after His 'prophetic appointing' until their Pentecostal annointing day? NOTHING...NADA....ZIP. They did play poker to replace an apostle. :doh: So is Poker Spiritual in your POV? It's not in my POV. Not blaming them BTW, just admitting what fact dictates IMO. Though they all may have confessed as Thomas; "My Lord and My God" after His resurrection. Which in my case may qualify as their 'born again' Passover experience...prior to their Pentecostal experience which Jesus told them to go wait for.

I obviously have a different take on all this, but don't plan on eating an elephant of disagreement in this post. ;)


And 'His spirit' (little s) is what He surrendered to God on the cross. There was no, 'into thy hand I surrender 'our Spirit' or 'the Holy Spirit'....nope just "my spirit". IOW the Christ spirit.
As far as Rom 8:9 is concerned, there is at least one theologian whose book I have, and which is still in print today, along with his study bible, because truth stands the test of time. In his case, for over a 100 years they've been in print. In his book "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit" it states that 'The Holy Spirit' is not even mentioned in Romans 8, until the 16 verse. But, again, an elephant of a teaching for this forum format.


Problem is, believe what? No one just being 'born again' speaks in tongues. That's simply biblical, they are 'ungifted NAS/unlearned KJV' non Charismatics according to Paul who is addressing Charismatics Christians and their actions, when he says there's two other groups out there..

1 Corinthians 14:24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all;


My understanding is that you aren't Filled with the Holy Spirit you are filled with holy spirit power from The Holy Spirit as He manifests His holy spirit power through you individually 'when' and "as He wills". And that chapter 12 'tongue' is not your spirit's tongue. None of those manifestation/giftings are your 'gifts'. If you have received the baptism of power then you have access to THE gift of power from the Holy Spirit and none of His gifts/manifestations are yours. If they were you could manifest them when you willed and not when He willed. I have manifested almost all the manifestations of holy spirit power when He has willed for me to move in them.

But when He manifested any of those 'giftings' they were never mine. They were His and they were given to whoever He used me to manifest them to. Period. I need healing for my ears/hearing.... Never has happened. I've heard of one 'deaf' brother who's prayed for several deaf people who were healed of deafness and he still wasn't. It was never his gift.


More 'elephant', and as I said earlier, you apparently have not studied the difference between the Greek words 'decomai' and 'lambano' when used for "receive". Acts 8 makes it clear that Phillip preached like Billy Graham preached. No one got the Holy Spirit or the baptism of holy spirit power from Jesus from Phillip or at a Billy Graham crusade. What they got was their 'born again spirit' which was one with the spirit of Christ.

Charismatic/Pentecostal is such a huge umbrella of differing understandings. I simply gave you mine based on what I see in Scripture. I simply ask God what He means and He reveals with rhemas. I see you believe the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit are not one. Who is the Spirit of God?

So let me see how much you really know. Is 1 John 1:8 written about Christians, or is 1 John 3:6?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Charismatic/Pentecostal is such a huge umbrella of differing understandings. I simply gave you mine based on what I see in Scripture. I simply ask God what He means and He reveals with rhemas.
As He does for all Christians.

I see you believe the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit are not one. Who is the Spirit of God?
The spirit of Christ is the spirit Jesus was born with. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God.

So let me see how much you really know. Is 1 John 1:8 written about Christians, or is 1 John 3:6?
Both.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
As He does for all Christians.

The spirit of Christ is the spirit Jesus was born with. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God.

Both.

That's what I thought you would say. LOL

Why do you think vs. 10 in 1 John 1 is after vs. 9? Doesn't vs. 9 apply to it also?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
That's what I thought you would say. LOL

Why do you think vs. 10 in 1 John 1 is after vs. 9? Doesn't vs. 9 apply to it also?
I think it is a complicated couple of verses to be sure. But I consider all of them as having to do with our progressive soul salvation. Whereas I think that chapter 5 is talking about the initial salvation of our spirit IMO.

But, also in my paradigm of thinking, chapter one isn't dealing with the 'eternal forgiveness' of sin. I think it is dealing with the 'temporal forgiveness' of the 'temporal consequence' of sins we commit, even after getting born-again or spirit saved.

I think that the eternal consequence was taken care of by Jesus' death on the cross. And upon our initial acceptance of His meritorious sacrifice we accept that forgiveness. But, for instance, if I was in an adulterous relationship upon accepting Jesus, but never quit that sin, I would still be liable to suffer the temporal consequences of such sins. Eg. worsening of my marriage, divorce, sexual diseases, etc. But if I truly repent and confess then I'm seeking the grace to be cleansed from the temporal consequence of that sin. I hope that makes sense. Like I say, it's a difficult passage.

I liken this whole process to what Jesus was doing when He forgave sins in ministry before the cross. For example; "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more less something worse come upon you." If Jesus was giving eternal forgiveness in that verse, then what did He even have to die on the cross for? But, I believe He was showing that Jesus Christ, as "the son of man has authority to forgive sins on earth." (temporal consequence). Whereas it took the Christ Jesus as the 'son of God to forgive sins in heaven (eternal consequence), by dying on the cross.

"He came that we might have life (here) and life abundant (there)."

So what paradigm of thinking do you have with these verses?
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I still don't know what a 'Gids' is. Some sort of Aussie name for chicken gizzards or something??? :scratch:
Okay, now I see, besides referring to you initially as Gids instead of Hilly I should have pointed out in my subsequent qualification that I was referring to Gideon who regularly posted on the Charismatic forum. To add in a bit of humour, for anyone who knows Gideon, that any reference to him that contains the word chicken would hardly be applicable.

I've read the Ss emotion definition before, and I think they came from a POV based upon definitions derived from non Spirit baptized believers long ago. They were defining spirit poorly based upon what they'd experienced poorly also IMO. So, with your definition, how do you view the emotional fruits of the Spirit eg. love, joy? Do you just 'Capitalize' them to make it Spirit consistent eg. Love, Joy....:idea: How do you separate your human spirit/emotion definition from those emotions of the Holy Spirit of God? Doesn't the Holy Spirit transcend your small s emotion definition? For me it does. I say the Holy Spirit has emotion plus cognitive "knowledge, wisdom" attributes, and I say my human spirit adds more than an emotional contribution to my triune being.
To my knowledge (and I could very well be incorrect) it seems that Gordon Fee (1 Corinthians 1987) was the first scholar (Pentecostal/AoG) to address this issue; at least to the degree that his analysis was probably the first to reach the public domain.

One of the advantages of Fee’s material is that he is not a theologian but an exegetical scholar which means that he will focus primarily (but not exclusively) on the linguistic (exegetical) aspects of a given text, whereas a theologian can place more emphasis on the doctrinal aspects.

First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee (1987) pp.669-71
[p.670] As suggested before, in the present context the difficult wording “my spirit prays” seems to mean something like “my S/spirit prays.” On the one hand, both the possessive “my” and the contrast with “my mind” indicate that he is here referring to his own “spirit” at prayer. On the other hand, there can be little question, on the basis of the combined evidence of 12:7-11 and 14:2 and 16, that Paul understood speaking in tongues to be an activity of the Spirit in one’s life; it is prayer and praise directed toward God in the language of Spirit-inspiration. The most viable solution to this ambiguity is that by the language “my spirit prays” Paul means his own spirit is praying as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance. Hence, “my S/spirit” prays.”

As v. 15 makes certain, Paul does not mean that praying in the Spirit is a bad think because it does not benefit his understanding; rather, this states the way things are. What the does go on to say is that he will do two things – one apparently for his own sake, the other for the sake of others.

15. . . . . . . .

[p.671] Although it is not explicitly stated here, this contrast between praying and singing with my S/spirit and my mind ultimately aims at relegating the former to the setting of private praying, while only the latter is to be exercised in the assembly. This is implied both in vv. 16-17, where he allows that the tongues-speaker is praising God all right, but to no one else’s benefit, and especially in v. 19, where this distinction is made explicitly. . . . . . .​

Without knowing for sure, I would presume that Fee is a Dichotomist as are most scholars, which implies that the Holy Spirit who is the agent of tongues is praying to the Father through the faculties of the ‘human soul/spirit’; whereas a Dichotomist would see this as being a “fusion” of the Holy Spirit with the soul/spirit of man, a functional-Dichotomist such as myself would see the Holy Spirit praying to the Father through our spirit which involves our senses; where our desires are taken up by the Holy Spirit (as the agency of tongues) through our verbalisation or through non-verbal communication where we pray silently. As our speech, be it verbal or non-verbal emanates from our thoughts and desires which originate from our secret desires, countenance or attitudes, I would see this as referring to the “S/spirit” where the Holy Spirit (S) speaks to the Father through our senses (s).

But, if I am wrong at least I am being wrong in a consistent and systematic manner!

That subject, my friend, may just require a sit down over coffee during your road trip across the USA. And you are still welcome to spend a night if that road trip has 'Boot Hill' on the Biblicist agenda. ;)
Yes, our six weeks in the USA (and Canada) four years back was certainly a great time but sadly the only part that we saw of Dallas and Texas was from 10,000 metres late at night; to add to this, as Texas below us was slowly moving forward our airplane was travelling westward at high speed. If things work out the way that we hope, my wife and I will be travelling to the UK and I definitely want to travel back through some of the areas that we missed in the US and with the East Coast of Canada – but as to when??

As it is for me. What a joy to have a brother, who's 'security in Christ' isn't rattled to the point of emotional outbursts from "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." The same spirits which I see you responding to more graciously than I, when dealing with others. :oldthumbsup:
Maybe I need to confess that both my delete and backspace keys get a thorough thrashing on a regular basis.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
I think it is a complicated couple of verses to be sure. But I consider all of them as having to do with our progressive soul salvation. Whereas I think that chapter 5 is talking about the initial salvation of our spirit IMO.

But, also in my paradigm of thinking, chapter one isn't dealing with the 'eternal forgiveness' of sin. I think it is dealing with the 'temporal forgiveness' of the 'temporal consequence' of sins we commit, even after getting born-again or spirit saved.

I think that the eternal consequence was taken care of by Jesus' death on the cross. And upon our initial acceptance of His meritorious sacrifice we accept that forgiveness. But, for instance, if I was in an adulterous relationship upon accepting Jesus, but never quit that sin, I would still be liable to suffer the temporal consequences of such sins. Eg. worsening of my marriage, divorce, sexual diseases, etc. But if I truly repent and confess then I'm seeking the grace to be cleansed from the temporal consequence of that sin. I hope that makes sense. Like I say, it's a difficult passage.

I liken this whole process to what Jesus was doing when He forgave sins in ministry before the cross. For example; "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more less something worse come upon you." If Jesus was giving eternal forgiveness in that verse, then what did He even have to die on the cross for? But, I believe He was showing that Jesus Christ, as "the son of man has authority to forgive sins on earth." (temporal consequence). Whereas it took the Christ Jesus as the 'son of God to forgive sins in heaven (eternal consequence), by dying on the cross.

"He came that we might have life (here) and life abundant (there)."

So what paradigm of thinking do you have with these verses?

There are Hebrew styles of writing and John, of course, was Hebrew. One of the styles is opposites or contrasts. Starting with verse 5, there is a contrast between light and darkness. Note verse 6 is also separated from 8 and 10.

5 - God is light
6 - walk in darkness
7 - walk in light
8 - no truth
9 - forgiveness
10 - no truth

We see this again in chapter 3

Chapter 4 shows that John is essentially warning about the Gnostics and their false belief that Jesus did not come in the flesh (only Spirit). Interestingly, they believed that only sins of the spirit were condemned, but sins of the flesh were not sins at all. Now read chapter 1 again. This goes along with the sin of the Nicolaitans who, unlike "scholars" who try to take apart the word, Nicolaitans, was actually speaking of Nicolas, the leader of a group who perverted grace and also believed that sins of the flesh were not sins. He gave his wife to all the men to be raped by them all to show the power of grace. Paul also battled Gnostics and says, so should we sin so grace may abound? God forbid!

There is another Hebrew style of writing called doubling. Saying the same thing to clarify in other words what is being said. For instance, Acts 4:33 says:

33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.

Walking in the Spirit gives us power over sin. If we walk in the Spirit we are not under law.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Okay, now I see, besides referring to you initially as Gids instead of Hilly I should have pointed out in my subsequent qualification that I was referring to Gideon who regularly posted on the Charismatic forum. To add in a bit of humour, for anyone who knows Gideon, that any reference to him that contains the word chicken would hardly be applicable.
Actually I do know something about Gideon, and chicken would very much be applicable concerning where he was when the angel of the lord first found him. He was hiding in a wine press from the Midianites and beating wheat which was considered women's work. Proving once again that doesn't call the qualified. He qualifies the called.

I'm going to have to finish this later. We had a big snowstorm and woke up this morning to no electricity or Internet and still do not have either at four in the afternoon. Not even the smart phone was working on the Internet until about an hour ago.

To my knowledge (and I could very well be incorrect) it seems that Gordon Fee (1 Corinthians 1987) was the first scholar (Pentecostal/AoG) to address this issue; at least to the degree that his analysis was probably the first to reach the public domain.

One of the advantages of Fee’s material is that he is not a theologian but an exegetical scholar which means that he will focus primarily (but not exclusively) on the linguistic (exegetical) aspects of a given text, whereas a theologian can place more emphasis on the doctrinal aspects.

First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee (1987) pp.669-71
[p.670] As suggested before, in the present context the difficult wording “my spirit prays” seems to mean something like “my S/spirit prays.” On the one hand, both the possessive “my” and the contrast with “my mind” indicate that he is here referring to his own “spirit” at prayer. On the other hand, there can be little question, on the basis of the combined evidence of 12:7-11 and 14:2 and 16, that Paul understood speaking in tongues to be an activity of the Spirit in one’s life; it is prayer and praise directed toward God in the language of Spirit-inspiration. The most viable solution to this ambiguity is that by the language “my spirit prays” Paul means his own spirit is praying as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance. Hence, “my S/spirit” prays.”

As v. 15 makes certain, Paul does not mean that praying in the Spirit is a bad think because it does not benefit his understanding; rather, this states the way things are. What the does go on to say is that he will do two things – one apparently for his own sake, the other for the sake of others.

15. . . . . . . .

[p.671] Although it is not explicitly stated here, this contrast between praying and singing with my S/spirit and my mind ultimately aims at relegating the former to the setting of private praying, while only the latter is to be exercised in the assembly. This is implied both in vv. 16-17, where he allows that the tongues-speaker is praising God all right, but to no one else’s benefit, and especially in v. 19, where this distinction is made explicitly. . . . . . .​

Without knowing for sure, I would presume that Fee is a Dichotomist as are most scholars, which implies that the Holy Spirit who is the agent of tongues is praying to the Father through the faculties of the ‘human soul/spirit’; whereas a Dichotomist would see this as being a “fusion” of the Holy Spirit with the soul/spirit of man, a functional-Dichotomist such as myself would see the Holy Spirit praying to the Father through our spirit which involves our senses; where our desires are taken up by the Holy Spirit (as the agency of tongues) through our verbalisation or through non-verbal communication where we pray silently. As our speech, be it verbal or non-verbal emanates from our thoughts and desires which originate from our secret desires, countenance or attitudes, I would see this as referring to the “S/spirit” where the Holy Spirit (S) speaks to the Father through our senses (s).

But, if I am wrong at least I am being wrong in a consistent and systematic manner!


Yes, our six weeks in the USA (and Canada) four years back was certainly a great time but sadly the only part that we saw of Dallas and Texas was from 10,000 metres late at night; to add to this, as Texas below us was slowly moving forward our airplane was travelling westward at high speed. If things work out the way that we hope, my wife and I will be travelling to the UK and I definitely want to travel back through some of the areas that we missed in the US and with the East Coast of Canada –
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee (1987) pp.669-71
[p.670] As suggested before, in the present context the difficult wording “my spirit prays” seems to mean something like “my S/spirit prays.” On the one hand, both the possessive “my” and the contrast with “my mind” indicate that he is here referring to his own “spirit” at prayer. On the other hand, there can be little question, on the basis of the combined evidence of 12:7-11 and 14:2 and 16, that Paul understood speaking in tongues to be an activity of the Spirit in one’s life; it is prayer and praise directed toward God in the language of Spirit-inspiration. The most viable solution to this ambiguity is that by the language “my spirit prays” Paul means his own spirit is praying as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance. Hence, “my S/spirit” prays.”​

YES....the electricity came on just in time to write this, take a bath and go to bed. :clap:

The ambiguity of what I've bolded in Fee's comment, certainly doesn't make me want to jump ship from my belief system yet. :scratch: I don't find the wording as difficult for my POV as I do for Fee's. nor do I find his POV leading to the conclusion he holds. ;)
[p.671] Although it is not explicitly stated here, this contrast between praying and singing with my S/spirit and my mind ultimately aims at relegating the former to the setting of private praying, while only the latter is to be exercised in the assembly. This is implied both in vv. 16-17, where he allows that the tongues-speaker is praising God all right, but to no one else’s benefit, and especially in v. 19, where this distinction is made explicitly. . . . . . .​
The problem here is that in verse 16-17 the "outsider/ungifted/unlearned" who wouldn't know how to say "AMEN" is a believer. So according to what I'm hearing you say, he already has the Holy Spirit. So that doesn't make any sense to me. BTW how do you know when to say the AMEN if someone is praying in tongues? We don't, not based upon understanding their tongue anyway. I believe Paul is saying pray with your mind in company of non Charismatics, and pray with your spirit when you're with Holy Spirit baptized brethren. He clarifies that point in verse 23 where he says the whole church can be praying in tongues and the only people who'd be offended are those who are "ungifted/unlearned" or without the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The whole church certainly wouldn't all be manifesting a 'tongue from the Holy Spirit'. The Holy Spirit just isn't going to do that. But everyone praying in the tongue of their individual holy en-Christed spirit happens with no problem at all, in my experience. I've actually had some people comment on what a blessing it was for them to just listen to me singing in the tongue of my spirit, during worship time, when I felt like doing that.

I really see me 'singing songs with my spirit' in a group setting as a fulfillment of the following verse actually.
Ephesians 5:19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,

Without knowing for sure, I would presume that Fee is a Dichotomist as are most scholars, which implies that the Holy Spirit who is the agent of tongues is praying to the Father through the faculties of the ‘human soul/spirit’; whereas a Dichotomist would see this as being a “fusion” of the Holy Spirit with the soul/spirit of man, a functional-Dichotomist such as myself would see the Holy Spirit praying to the Father through our spirit which involves our senses; where our desires are taken up by the Holy Spirit (as the agency of tongues) through our verbalisation or through non-verbal communication where we pray silently. As our speech, be it verbal or non-verbal emanates from our thoughts and desires which originate from our secret desires, countenance or attitudes, I would see this as referring to the “S/spirit” where the Holy Spirit (S) speaks to the Father through our senses (s).
You know what's funny? As I was reading this very paragraph, I was thinking (take no offense please, just being honest); "No wonder things are so screwed up then, if most scholars are dichotomists." :holy: And then, as I was reading/thinking that very thought, my wife wanted to share something she was just reading in a book. She said; "Scholars are an erudite lot who study this or that and can talk about it in prodigious detail. Very smart and unendingly educated scholars. They can explain almost anything even if it isn't true."
Anyhow, I thought her reading was either a God-incidence at best, and just plain old perfect timing at the least.

Yes, our six weeks in the USA (and Canada) four years back was certainly a great time but sadly the only part that we saw of Dallas and Texas was from 10,000 metres late at night; to add to this, as Texas below us was slowly moving forward our airplane was travelling westward at high speed. If things work out the way that we hope, my wife and I will be travelling to the UK and I definitely want to travel back through some of the areas that we missed in the US and with the East Coast of Canada – but as to when??
Just so you know for sure; we live 500 miles straight north from Dallas Texas. We live in Kansas and are 50 miles west of Dodge City, which I mentioned earlier. I do have a daughter and her family who live in Dallas though.

Maybe I need to confess that both my delete and backspace keys get a thorough thrashing on a regular basis.
I hear you. I just laugh when people act like I'm being 'so mean' to them. They have no idea how exasperating they are to deal with. I don't know how many times I deleted and backspaced just writing this to you. And I didn't do so because of you, but simply because I know 'someone else' might read it. :)
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
YES....the electricity came on just in time to write this, take a bath and go to bed. :clap:

The ambiguity of what I've bolded in Fee's comment, certainly doesn't make me want to jump ship from my belief system yet. :scratch: I don't find the wording as difficult for my POV as I do for Fee's. nor do I find his POV leading to the conclusion he holds. ;)
For someone such as me, who lives in a city of four million and even then I live in a fairly quiet part of town, where strong winds and even snow never seem to bother us (never seen snow in Melbourne), so when we see on the news what you chaps go through it sort of shocks us. In fact the first time that I ever drove through a blizzard was in Utah heading up to Escalante from Bryce NP.

When it comes to Paul's use of "S/spirit" I wish that I had your peace of mind; his often troublesome use of pneuma has given scholars, commentators and students headaches for centuries and particularly so in the past 40 or so years due to the move of the Spirit within what was little more than a very tired and powerless worldwide Church. I'm sure that Paul being able to speak Aramaic, Latin, Greek and Hebrew was a great help to him, but it's too bad that he never thought to learn to write in English.

The problem here is that in verse 16-17 the "outsider/ungifted/unlearned" who wouldn't know how to say "AMEN" is a believer. So according to what I'm hearing you say, he already has the Holy Spirit. So that doesn't make any sense to me. BTW how do you know when to say the AMEN if someone is praying in tongues? We don't, not based upon understanding their tongue anyway. I believe Paul is saying pray with your mind in company of non Charismatics, and pray with your spirit when you're with Holy Spirit baptized brethren. He clarifies that point in verse 23 where he says the whole church can be praying in tongues and the only people who'd be offended are those who are "ungifted/unlearned" or without the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The whole church certainly wouldn't all be manifesting a 'tongue from the Holy Spirit'. The Holy Spirit just isn't going to do that. But everyone praying in the tongue of their individual holy en-Christed spirit happens with no problem at all, in my experience. I've actually had some people comment on what a blessing it was for them to just listen to me singing in the tongue of my spirit, during worship time, when I felt like doing that.

I really see me 'singing songs with my spirit' in a group setting as a fulfillment of the following verse actually.
Ephesians 5:19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,
As you said, when we are assembled together we can certainly all praise the Father in our native language and I would add that we can also praise him in the Spirit if we do so to ourselves or even as a mere whisper when we are in a larger meeting. We also have the ability as you realise to allow the Holy Spirit to speak words of praise to the Father where each one is subsequently interpreted.

Even though it is a joy to be able to praise Him in the Spirit, say within a prayer meeting of switched on people who understand the things of the Spirit, we still need to make sure that we don't all go off on a self-satisfying "me only" time of worship where we essentially separate ourselves from the other brothers and sisters who are in the prayer (or similar) meeting.


You know what's funny? As I was reading this very paragraph, I was thinking (take no offense please, just being honest); "No wonder things are so screwed up then, if most scholars are dichotomists." :holy: And then, as I was reading/thinking that very thought, my wife wanted to share something she was just reading in a book. She said; "Scholars are an erudite lot who study this or that and can talk about it in prodigious detail. Very smart and unendingly educated scholars. They can explain almost anything even if it isn't true."
Anyhow, I thought her reading was either a God-incidence at best, and just plain old perfect timing at the least.
For those of us who were able to have even a few brief years in the Lord during the Charismatic Renewal of the 60's and 70's (I just crept in), we would probably both be well aware that most of us presumed that Bible scholars were not so much raised in Seminaries but in cemeteries. When it came to the things of the Spirit and with the issues that effected the Renewal of the day, these chaps were of little if any use and of course even our Pentecostal leaders were pretty much on the backfoot as well. Once things progressed during the Renewal and within the decade after, we began to see the rise of many extremely switched on Full Gospel scholars who were instrumental with dethroning the humanist worldview of cessationism from its once lofty throne to where it is now little more than a relic of times that have now thankfully gone by.

So, where once our scholars sort of trailed-the-pack so to speak just picking up a few crumbs that get dropped on the side, now they undoubtedly lead-the-pack!

Just so you know for sure; we live 500 miles straight north from Dallas Texas. We live in Kansas and are 50 miles west of Dodge City, which I mentioned earlier. I do have a daughter and her family who live in Dallas though.
Kansas?? Did we get to see Kansas while we were in the US, let's see, now we were sitting on the left hand side of the plane heading West over Texas . . . so I guess that would be a negative. See, being the sharp individual that I am I know that the pointy end of the plane always faces West.

I hear you. I just laugh when people act like I'm being 'so mean' to them. They have no idea how exasperating they are to deal with. I don't know how many times I deleted and backspaced just writing this to you. And I didn't do so because of you, but simply because I know 'someone else' might read it. :)
Chuckle . . . chuckle, I might leave this alone for now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Take your time. I'm off on vacation now for 3 weeks, so I will look forward to refuting it when I get back. :)
Enjoy your break, I had a post ready but I will wait until I see that you are back online, again, enjoy your vacation.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
I think it is a complicated couple of verses to be sure. But I consider all of them as having to do with our progressive soul salvation. Whereas I think that chapter 5 is talking about the initial salvation of our spirit IMO.

But, also in my paradigm of thinking, chapter one isn't dealing with the 'eternal forgiveness' of sin. I think it is dealing with the 'temporal forgiveness' of the 'temporal consequence' of sins we commit, even after getting born-again or spirit saved.

I think that the eternal consequence was taken care of by Jesus' death on the cross. And upon our initial acceptance of His meritorious sacrifice we accept that forgiveness. But, for instance, if I was in an adulterous relationship upon accepting Jesus, but never quit that sin, I would still be liable to suffer the temporal consequences of such sins. Eg. worsening of my marriage, divorce, sexual diseases, etc. But if I truly repent and confess then I'm seeking the grace to be cleansed from the temporal consequence of that sin. I hope that makes sense. Like I say, it's a difficult passage.

I liken this whole process to what Jesus was doing when He forgave sins in ministry before the cross. For example; "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more less something worse come upon you." If Jesus was giving eternal forgiveness in that verse, then what did He even have to die on the cross for? But, I believe He was showing that Jesus Christ, as "the son of man has authority to forgive sins on earth." (temporal consequence). Whereas it took the Christ Jesus as the 'son of God to forgive sins in heaven (eternal consequence), by dying on the cross.

"He came that we might have life (here) and life abundant (there)."

So what paradigm of thinking do you have with these verses?

You asked me a question and I answered it in #252, then never had the courtesy to respond.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
You asked me a question and I answered it in #252, then never had the courtesy to respond.
I didn't think I was being discourteous. I just felt like there was nothing to respond to.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
I didn't think I was being discourteous. I just felt like there was nothing to respond to.

No opinion? Do you know Hebrew writing styles? Do you not think it important to be aware of the author's intent?
 
Upvote 0