Without spending too much time on this (I do get a bit bored sometimes, not your fault), as the 9 Manifestations cease when the Perfect arrives then that is that. Of course it could be said that tongues does not necessarily stop but that it changes who it is both used and understood. The reason for this is that when we are in the heavens that we will certainly be communicating to each other and the Heavenly hosts in Angelic tongues, but unlike now where we cannot understand this tongue, in the future Kingdom we will then understand this heavenly tongue.
If I were to quote, two, five or a dozen or more then such information could hardly be used in a court of Law but when we have one of the Churches pre-eminent theologians telling us that he is more than welcomed within his world, which is a combination of quasi-cessationism and with those who are ‘open-but-cautious’, then it is simply one of many such articles and videos that we come across from time to time which show that even those who choose not to be
experientially Continuist, that they are not prepared to defend the old legacy worldview of cessationism; though in all honesty, there would be quite a few in his circles who would simply be unprepared to take on someone of his stature on this issue.
But again, for those who have kept their eyes and ears open for maybe the past 20-30 years they would know that Keener’s experiences are common right across the Evangelical world.
Keener's views regarding tongues have been confusing for me as he openly prays in tongues (just as the rest of us do) but he holds to a strange view that tongues can in some way be used for evangelism. This has confused me for awhile as he is obviously not only a prudent theologian but he is also extremely intelligent, so his line of thinking has had me confused for awhile now as this old view in absolutely contrary to the Scriptures. Even in his massive four volume work on Acts, where he spends about 700 pages discussing Acts 2, he seems to fail to explain his reasons, or maybe it's that I cannot follow his logic as I probably expect too much of him so his reasoning might be passing me by.
But as his following statement is of interest:
"Dallas Willard remarks that those who doubt that God acts and speaks today as he did in the Bible are a sort of “Bible Deists.” Whereas the original Deists thought that God began the universe and then withdrew from active involvement, some Christians today act as though God withdrew as soon as the Bible was completed.
Most likely the majority of Christians today acknowledge that supematural gifts remain available, although few of us currently witness them with the same magnitude and regularity as in Acts. Yet many of us who acknowledge that miracles of a biblical scale can happen today (including some Pentecostals) would be scared out of our wits if one actually happened to us. So penvasively has Enlightenment culture’s anti-supernaturalism affected the West' em church, especially educated European and North American Christians, that most of us are suspicious of anything supernatural. Is it possible that God has something more to teach his church today about supernatural gifts?"
As I have only just obtained Keener's
Gift & Giver (2001) I will need to spend a bit more time with this important book before I can better understand his views, but for the time being, the following will be of interest to most:
Tongues as a Gift for Worship
The main recorded public function of tongues, like its private function, was prayer and praise (1 Cor. 14:14-17;see also Acts 2:11; 10:46). Whether in a language one did or did not know, Paul regarded prayer as too important to be done without the Spirit’s inspiration and empowerment (see also Eph. 6:18; Jude 20). Biblical evidence for tongues functioning as a message from God, perhaps to an individual (1 Cor. 14:28), is possible yet remains inconclusive. This is not to say that God might not sovereignly use public utterances in tongues differently today than he did in the Bible, even if this meant choosing to accommodate human tradition to communicate his will. Pentecostal scholars still debate the matter among themselves, but I see no reason why God could not at least on occasion do so. The biblical emphasis of tongues, however, is clearly on Spirit-led prayer.
Although Paul thinks that tongues would be good for everyone, he insists that prophecy would be better (14:5). Tongues is valueless except for the per- son whose spirit is praying, unless that person or someone else interprets and makes tongues intelligible for the gathered body (14:13-19). Of course, the principle that Paul applies here extends beyond tongues. In the gathered assembly, we should make sure that any contributions we bring—whether supernatural gifts or a song or a sermon—are worth the time of those who listen to us. If what we bring is for our good alone, we should offer it in private.
Paul does not prohibit interpreted tongues, but he restricts uninterpreted tongues entirely to the context in which his own use of the gift occurs: private prayer (14:28; compare 14:18-19). Perhaps Paul would not have objected to a prayer meeting in which many speak under inspiration simultaneously, similar to the experience described in 1 Samuel 10:5-6 and 19:20, but he objected to anything that would distract the assembly from its chief purposes for gathering: edification, exhortation, and evangelism (14:3, 23-25).
Tongues as Language
In contrast to some Pentecostals, I believe that “tongues” in both Acts and 1 Corinthians refers to genuine languages, albeit languages unknown to the speaker. I believe that biblical tongues should be the same today, though I should qualify my statement before I proceed. Vern Poythress and D. A.Carson may well also be right about the “encoding” of the language in many cases of tongues, and I do not deny that God could work through something on a lesser level than the biblical gift. Nor would I suggest that Pentecostals should supervise one another to make sure the words sound like a genuine language; I have heard real foreign languages that sounded like gibberish to me. We also have to allow those who are young in a gift to mature in their use of it, as with prophecy or teaching or any other gift. The speaker’s focus should be on sincerely praying with his or her spirit to God, allowing the Holy Spirit to make sure the words come out right. . . . . . .
This is only a small portion of what he has to say regarding tongues but from what I have read so far with his rather confusing account is that he acknowledges that other do speak in inarticulate tongues which appears to be covered later in his chapter under
My Experience with Tongues which should help me to better understand his point of view.
I think that you need to maybe quietly sit down and look at the lexical material without desperately trying to find a word or two that you think suits your agenda; it’s one thing to misapply a word in a given paragraph or within a sentence, but you seem to look at words as if they are sitting on their own without any other words being present.
Again, you are trying to find a word or two in a paragraph so that you can make a commentator say what you want them to say; maybe you should consider Thiselton’s ‘However, here there is also a further hint of τέλειος as denoting a goal’.
Your correct in that we should probably refer only to the Parousia and not specifically to Christ himself, but as most Pentecostals and Charismatics hold to a high Christology then it is understandable that they will refer to the Person and not so much to the event. Anyway, it can be a bit of fun to tease the poor lacklustre cessationist who tries to point this out as if they were the first to do so, sometimes it like playing with puppies and kittens, everything seems to be new to them.
Oh, ho-hum, other schoolboy errors would probably be that the earth is flat and the sun rises in the West. The idea that some have that they can pick and choose which ways the Holy Spirit will supposedly decide not to work in is really a bit of a desperate ploy, particularly when there is not even a hint of this being a possibly within the Scriptures; it really is a case of the
have-nots trying to find a way to excuse why they lack certain aspects of the Holy Spirit's Ministry when the
haves do.
Hey, this one has popped up again in the same post. As I’ve said, any argument that is primarily based on
word gender is generally deemed to be poor form; in fact, I would ignore any such form of argument as those who continue to go this way ‘seem’ to be aware that this approach is their best
slight-of-hand where they can hopefully confuse those who are less experienced. To rephrase my earlier reply to this point, it can be difficult or maybe impossible to separate the Person from the Event as the future establishment of the Kingdom of God cannot be divorced from the One who will be leading its implementation.
Even though the Scriptures
absolutely forbid the untranslated use of tongues within the congregational setting, it can still be a wonderful [selfish and self-serving] experience to walk into a meeting where upwards of a thousand or five thousand people are speaking or singing praise to the Father through the Holy Spirit. Even though we must
never allow the uninterpreted use of tongues within the congregational setting, it can still be a wonderful thing to experience, but we need to keep in mind Paul’s admonition that all things must be done for the enrichment and understanding of the entire Assembly which uninterpreted tongues cannot do. The great concern of Paul’s (and it should be ours as well) is when the children of God are improperly worshiping their Father
corporately in tongues is that this can rightfully confuse the unregenerate/unchurched individual just as it can for the poorly instructed cessationist, where both will say “you are mad”.
Are you asking ‘How can there be cessationists travelling through Corinth when it is only the third largest city in the Roman Empire, after that of Rome and Alexandria, where it is also the crossroads between the Western and Eastern portions of the Empire that would see who knows how many thousands of travelers passing through its walls each year –
now I wonder!
Need I point out that it was not exactly possible to give new converts of Paul’s day a copy of the New Testament which had not as yet been written, which means that most new converts may have only heard a portion of the Gospel, for that matter, what was the reply the Ephesians give Paul when he asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit, “We have never even heard of the Holy Spirit”, which sounds very little different from what I hear from many cessationists of our day, though admittedly, they at least know that he is supposed to be a member of the Godhead.
Now you should be aware of how this passage is probably best translated as “Now you are eagerly desiring the higher graces". But of course, as Paul has already told us that he want all of us to speak in tongues (14:2), he would never be so foolish to say anything to the contrary.
As I said, I would encourage every inquisitive cessationist to read through the material by Thomas, just as many have done since he first wrote his book in 1978, where the arguments for his worldview were such an embarrassment to them that many decided to go along the pathway of
do not ask, do not tell.
It's interesting that John MacArthur released a book titled "The Charismatics - A Doctrinal Perspective" in the same year, which he at least had the forsight to pull from the shelves as he undoubtedly received a lot of flack for his flaky arguments, this is something that Thomas should have done as well but at least he has demonstrated to many thoughtful cessationists that their worldview is indeed a sham that is built upon humanist presuppositions - which is why we now have the incredibly large portion of the Evangelical world who are neither cessationist or Continuist who are now a part of a third group of those who are 'Open-but-Cautious'.
I could spend more time dealing with the numerous fine points of the commentators that you provided but boredom can easily fall upon me, so I will leave the more respected commentary that I have provided along with the lexical material for others to read for themselves.
I got this bridge ......
