Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Garland, after all his waffle, spends just one sentence explaining why he thinks teleios is the parousia. You have quoted it here before and I was easily able to refute it. Thiselton if I recall spends most of his time quoting the views of other authors and doesn't really make a judgement himself although he agrees it should be translated 'completeness' . I haven't read ciampa/rosner.
So Garland ‘waffles’ does he! You should undoubtedly go back and take a fresh look at his book (maybe with a friend) where you should both be able to observe that he addresses this particular pericope (being vss.8-13) starting on pg.620 and finishing on pg.626 and of course much of pg.622 covers his views on teleion.

As a hint, before you state that you have ‘refuted’ something, you should probably first understand the material before you go down this particular track. As I have said to you and a number of other cessationists, the best defence for the cessationist worldview is silence.

Tell me, how exactly does their names not appearing in other commentaries constitute refuting their expositions?
As you were the one who raised their names back in post #898 with;

“That is not true. There have been many recent commentaries of this passage that espouse the canon/maturity view . . .”​

If you want to point to reputable sources then these sources need to be peer reviewed and from what I have seen in the major contemporary commentaries on First Corinthians the ones that you referred to have been ignored by the Christian academy. I should say that I found two obscure references to M.J. Houghton and R.L. Thomas within Fitzmyer’s 687 page commentary but they were not referred to in the body of his commentary but as obscure footnotes which says that he is aware of them but has not addressed their material.

For any commentator who has ever had material published on First Corinthians (or any book for that matter), when a sizable commentary by a highly respected author comes on the market then the first thing that these people will do is to go to the author’s list to see if their names have been included; in the case of the four that you mentioned they probably stopped doing this years back.

As I said instead of slandering them why don't you refute their expositions? I'll tell you why. Resorting to the ad-hominum fallacy is typical of people who cannot refute an argument. Instead they attempt to blacken their opponents' reputation, hoping that enough mud will stick so that others won't want to be associated with it. It is a vile and shameful tactic.
We already have in quite a few posts. If you choose to ignore the evidence simply because it undermines your particular worldview then we cannot be responsible if it upsets your agenda, whatever your agenda may be.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
The whole tongues ceased thing is based on 1 verse with an ambiguous subject called "The Perfect." There is no indication that The Perfect is scripture within the context. I always understood it without commentary to mean when Christ returns. That would be "The Perfect" IMO. Revelation affirms this when Christ says I am the Alpha and Omega, meaning the beginning and end, hence "The Perfect" (complete).
Strictly speaking, even though Christ will be leading the Heavenly Army when he returns to establish the New Kingdom of God, Paul is not so much referring to Jesus but to the establishment of the Kingdom of God, though the two are of course closely intertwined.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You do make me laugh.
Just because for a while you attended a congregation that used the title of penticostaliam does not mean In any way that you have experienced Any of Pentecost.
Nor have you become any wiser for it.

For instance you don't even see how you mimick the temptor.

You say


The devil said “ if you are the son of God cast yourself down for it is written his angels will bear you up.......”

You are saying “ If you believe Mark 16 then why don't you go grabbing snakes.

The question is IDENTICAL TO SATANS WORDS.
And the answer is identical to the reply Jesus gave...“ Thou shalt not tempt the Lord your God“ ..

So you sir are directly challenging people to Go and SIN... !
And you think you speak the truth.?
You do not.

I can not agree with your personal comments. It is amazing to me that every single time when someone is challenged to validate what they believe with Scriptures, they always go to the personal attack mode.

You have done the very same thing. With out any mode of Christian conduct you go for the throat. You did not make one single comment based on the Scriptures.

Just so that we are clear, I believe if you read the Scriptures, you will see that when Jesus was temped He responded by saying..........."IT IS WRITTEN".
I am saying exactly the same thing.

What I said and am glad to say yet again is that the Sign gifts seen in Mark 16 were given to the ELEVEN Apostles.

If you had taken the time to do the work you would have seen that Jesus said in Mark 16:14...............
"Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen."

Now where in that verse is YOUR name or the Church for that matter? ELEVEN=Apostles.

Now I did not write that. Mark did not call me for advice. It is what it is and my challenge to you is for you to speak to that verse instead of attacking me for believing what it says.

Now then, the way it is constructed grammatically, If this Scripture means that all believers will be able to speak in tongues then it also means that all believers will be able to cast out devils, take up serpents, and heal the sick by laying hands on them. The problem is when people start to teach that all believers will speak in tongues, and they try to use Mark 16:17-18 to prove it.

Now that is NOT a temptation in any way for anyone to go out and kiss a rattlesnake. It is nothing more than a stated Bible fact which you have wrongly twisted to make it a personal comment.

Can you speek to that question ?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is another of those situations where your comments stagger me.

As I am undoubtedly the most read and resourced person on this forum when it comes to First Corinthians, in that I currently own about 80 commentaries on First Corinthians and upwards of 60 commentaries on Pneumatology, as much as you should be aware of this, I then come across the following nonsensical statement;
“The modern commentaries that claim it is Christ's return are mainly the short paperback commentaries on 1 Corinthians which only devote 2 or 3 sentences to this passage”.​

Of the three commentaries (of many) that I have quoted below, Thiselton has allocated 13 pages, Garland 8 pages and Ciampa/Rosner 15 pages. So maybe it would be wise to check your information before you post comments that are so nonfactual that they do become nonsensical.
- - - -
As for (Compton – 2004, Cottrell - 2007, Houghton – 1996, McDougall 2003, Pettigrew – 2013, Thomas - 1999, Woods – 2004), I am not sure that these particular commenters would be deemed to be peer-reviewed as I could not find any reference to them in the three following major commentaries on First Corinthians. Pettigrew who was apparently published in 2013 should have at least been quoted by Ciama/Rosner as he would have been previously published, but as I said, these three major commentaries do not even seem to deem them as being worthy to quote:
  • The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2000) 870 pages, 18 pages of authors
  • 1 Corinthians, Garland (2003) 1446 pages, 10 pages of authors
  • The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ciampa/Rosner (2010) 922 pages, 7 pages of authors
From what I have observed over the years, any hardcore-cessationist commentator that tries to push views such as 1Cor 13:10 is supposedly speaking of the Canon of Scripture is generally deemed to be someone who is more concerned with agenda than with serious theology, and this view is also held by those who are not themselves Pentecostal or Charismatic.

Edit: I just saw your last post and of course this particular post has obviously addressed your question. In the end, if these individuals are being ignored by the better known authors of our day then what does this say about them?

And of course I loved your "Ah back to the old ad homs and lies I see", but I think that I will leave the lies to you to spread - why do you bother!

What your testimony of having the most commentaries and being the most prolific responder on 1 Corinthians says to me is that it proves all the books in the world can not make one wise if he misses the foundational work needed.

I am glad for you that you feel the need to tell everyone about your library. Personally I do not think that is a wise thing to do and the 2nd reason I do not do that is because my arm is not long enough to pat my own back.

Nonetheless, to me personally and you are welcome to disagree with me, but by simple observation anyone can confirm that the miracle of tongues has ceased. If the gift were still available today, there would be no need for missionaries to attend language school.

Missionaries would be able to travel to any country and speak any language fluently, just as the apostles were able to speak in Acts 2 and we would not be having this lovely conversation.

As for the miracle gift of healing, we see in Scripture that healing was associated with the ministry of Jesus and the apostles in Luke 9:1-2. And, again by simple observation we can see that as the era of the apostles drew to a close, healing, like tongues, became less frequent.

The Apostle Paul, who raised Eutychus from the dead in Acts 20:9-12, did not heal Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25-27, Trophimus in 2 Timothy 4:20), Timothy in 1 Tim. 5:23, or even himself in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9.

The question then must be WHY????

IMO, the reasons for Paul’s “failures to heal” are.........
1) the gift was never intended to make every Christian well, but to authenticate apostleship;
2) the authority of the apostles had been sufficiently proved, making further miracles unnecessary.

Again, IMO and not from a bunch of commentaries, since there are no Apostles today, all of the sign gifts have been replaced with the Completed Word of God.

Everyone in the world can disagree with me! Just do it in a Christian way.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The whole tongues ceased thing is based on 1 verse with an ambiguous subject called "The Perfect." There is no indication that The Perfect is scripture within the context. I always understood it without commentary to mean when Christ returns. That would be "The Perfect" IMO. Revelation affirms this when Christ says I am the Alpha and Omega, meaning the beginning and end, hence "The Perfect" (complete).

Greek:Strongs says that teleios (G5046) is used to refer perfect/mature, thing which has reached an end.

✿ It means Prophecies that have been fulfilled have reached an end.

✿ Tongues and knowledge will be superseded by a more complete knowledge and means of communication.

While I appreciate your thinking, the truth is that the Greek grammar does not allow for the meaning to be a "PERSON". That means the Perfect can not be Jesus in this instance.

Dave Miller, Ph.D, Apologetics Press : "... the exegete is forced to conclude that Paul’s use of “perfect” referred to the completed revelation or totally revealed New Testament Scriptures."

Robert L. Thomas, Understanding the Spiritual Gifts, pg. 130 - "... a completion of the revelatory gifts coincided1 with the completion of the New Testament".

The Greek word τέλειον in 1 Corinthians 13 is and can only mean "finished thing" and is expanded on in the same passage by an analogy of youth versus maturity, but then more concretely by two phrases, both hinging on "now" versus "then":

  • now we look through a mirror, then face to face
  • now I know out of a part, then I will recognize/discover just as I also was recognized/discovered.
I'm not aware of any commentator who suggests that the phrase "face to face" refers to anything but humans seeing God, regardless of their doctrinal presuppositions. It then follows that the "finish" is at least contemporaneous with that event, and the "thing" is most likely the history of the world leading up to that event.
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Strictly speaking, even though Christ will be leading the Heavenly Army when he returns to establish the New Kingdom of God, Paul is not so much referring to Jesus but to the establishment of the Kingdom of God, though the two are of course closely intertwined.

You have said and I quote..........................
"As I am undoubtedly the most read and resourced person on this forum when it comes to First Corinthians, in that I currently own about 80 commentaries on First Corinthians and upwards of 60 commentaries on Pneumatology, as much as you should be aware of this............".

I would in the light of that post an observation to you that maybe you could consider and help me with.

Based on the context of the chapters going back to chapter 12---- rather than the Greek word for perfect "teleion", Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 12:1 he is talking about spiritual gifts and not anything eschatological and obviously he continues that line of reasoning all the way through chapter 14. That being said and understood and all anyone has to do is read those Scriptures and because of that, I would have to discount anything to do with the return of Jesus in the last days as being the "PERFECT".

Now I am not speaking for you or anyone else but IMO that is context of those Scriptures as I read them. Just something to think about..........and I maybe wrong here but when I read chapters 12 through 14 again I found the name of Jesus only two times and no mention whatsoever of the 2nd Coming or the New heaven and New Earth or heaven.

However, the words GIFTS is mentioned or suggested 32 times. Now that leads me to believe that the Context in view is GIFTS.

What then do I believe is Paul's point? Is it not clear that Paul has been telling us of things that will fail in contrast to love that will never fail. He particularly points out knowledge and prophecies and tongues and states that they are in parts but when "that" which is complete comes then the part will be done away.

Now please take notice here and feel free to correct me. Since YOU and others do not accept Cessation of GIFTS and believe that the Coming of Jesus is the context, and some heaven itself.............
then why doesn't Paul say when He comes, or heaven itself comes which is perfect comes but rather when "that" which is perfect comes.

Again, the CONTEXT of chapters 12-14 is NOT Jesus, His coming or heaven.

Paul tells us what is partial in chapter 12 verses 7-10, it is the revelation of God given through the Holy Spirit. It seems clear to me that when the perfect/complete/finished revelation came in the form of the written Scriptures there will be no need for knowledge or prophesy or tongues anymore since all of God's will has been revealed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
So Garland ‘waffles’ does he! You should undoubtedly go back and take a fresh look at his book (maybe with a friend) where you should both be able to observe that he addresses this particular pericope (being vss.8-13) starting on pg.620 and finishing on pg.626 and of course much of pg.622 covers his views on teleion.

As a hint, before you state that you have ‘refuted’ something, you should probably first understand the material before you go down this particular track. As I have said to you and a number of other cessationists, the best defence for the cessationist worldview is silence.

I have a copy Garland's book. The only place he gives reasons for 'completeness' being the 2nd coming over the canon/maturity view is the following sentence:

Here, the battery of future tenses, the disappearance of the partial replaced by the complete, and the reference to knowing as God knows us, all point to the end time.

The "battery of future tenses"? Of course Paul is using future tenses. The canon hadn't been completed when he wrote to the Corinthians! Garland is looking at the passage from our time perspective rather than the perspective of Paul writing to his intended audience. That is simply bad hermeneutics.

"The disappearance of the partial replaced by the complete"- Yes! partial revelation is replaced by complete revelation. Garland is making an excellent case for the canon view.

"The reference to knowing as God knows us"....Yes, when we understand that knowing here is referring the revelatory gift of knowledge, then once the canon has been completed we know God's revelation to man as well as God knows us....fully, intimately, and completely. Garland however is wrongly assuming, like many continuists, that 'knowing' in this referring to a general knowledge. We will never know general knowledge fully, even in the eternal state, as that would make us omniscient.

He cites Robert Thomas (what were you saying about cessationist authors never being cited?) but dismisses the canon/maturity view by saying:

This last argument clearly is wrong. Although these gifts are neither essential for, nor indicative of Christian maturity in an individual, the variety of gifts is necessary for the functioning of the body. Paul's discussion of love is not intended to persuade the Corinthians to abandon their prized spiritual gifts but is meant to convince them to employ the gifts with love.

From this I doubt that Garland has even read Thomas's book. Nowhere does Thomas claim that Paul is urging them to give up prophecy. Paul is saying that prophecy will cease, whether Paul wants it to or not. And why would tongues and prophecy ceasing compromise the functioning of the body when the church has the superior completed canon to replace prophecy, and tongues is the least of the gifts? You will notice, like yourself, he doesn't actually refute the canon/maturity view on exegetical grounds, but merely argues against cessationism in general. That is because the canon/maturity view is irrefutable, at least from what I have seen from it's respondents.

And if I remember this was the most detailed argument against the canon/maturity view among the plethora of 1 or 2 sentence commentaries you quoted earlier. The others were laughable, consisting either offering no evidence at all, or falsely assuming that 'the perfect' and 'face to face' is referring to the 2nd coming when there is no mention of Christ in the passage. They are classic cases of the unwarranted associative fallacy whereby A WORD OR PHRASE TRIGGERS OFF AN ASSOCIATED IDEA, CONCEPT, OR EXPERIENCE THAT BEARS NO CLOSE RELATION TO THE TEXT AT HAND, YET IS USED TO INTERPRET THE TEXT.

The 2nd coming view causes problems elsewhere:
  • In other scriptures teleios is never used to describe heaven, Christ's return, or anything eschalogical. It is however used to describe scripture in James 1:25.
  • In v13 it says that faith hope and love would remain after the 3 gifts had ceased. The greatest is love because love never ceases (v8), but faith and hope cease at the 2nd coming when they become reality: Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."; 2 Cor 5:6-7 "while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord - for we walk by faith, not by sight"; Rom 8:24 "but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?". So if faith and hope cease at the 2nd coming and outlast the 3 gifts then the 3 gifts must cease before the 2nd coming.
  • A problem is caused pitting a qualitative concept (the perfection of heaven) against a quantitative concept ("in part") in the antithesis in v9-10.
  • If Paul was referring to the 2nd coming, then it wouldn't just be prophecy, words of knowledge, and tongues that will cease. All the spiritual gifts will cease. In the eternal state there will be no need for healers, pastors, teachers, evangelists, giving, faith, discernment of spirits, etc. Yet Paul makes no mention of those ceasing. When completeness comes only the revelatory gifts cease, the purpose of which was to provide divine guidance in the faith in the absence of scripture.
  • Nor does the 2nd coming view fit with the other scriptures such as Eph 2:20 where it says the church was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone". Foundations are only built once at the beginning of the structure, not when it is nearly complete. If apostles ceased at the end of the apostolic age, and few people would dispute they did, then so did NT prophecy.

Only in the canon/maturity view fits:
  • Since "in part" refers to the revelatory gifts, it follows that it's replacement "completeness" would also be revelatory in nature.
  • In Paul's other use of the word teleios it invariably means mature or complete. See 1 Cor 2:6, 1 Cor 14:20, Phil 3:15, Eph 4:13, Col 1:28, Col 4:12, Heb 5:14. Only once does it mean perfect (Rom 12:2) and that is referring to the will of God.
  • The analogy of a child maturing into a man in v11 indicates that the process would not be an instantaneous one (as would happen at the 2nd coming) but rather something that occurs over a period of time, as the completed canon is distributed among the churches.
  • It is confirmed by church history, the church fathers affirming that the gifts of tongues had ceased by around 400AD, coinciding perfectly with the completed canon being distributed among the churches. And ceased they remained until around 100 years ago when Pentecostals claimed that tongues had returned. However their version of the gift does not match the biblical definition.
  • At the time of Paul's writing the early church needed prophecy and words of knowledge to guide them in the faith in the absence of a New Testament. However when a church had a completed canon, it would no longer need the gift of prophecy to guide them. Thus, the completed canon would replace the partial prophecies and words of knowledge.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
If you want to point to reputable sources then these sources need to be peer reviewed and from what I have seen in the major contemporary commentaries on First Corinthians the ones that you referred to have been ignored by the Christian academy. I should say that I found two obscure references to M.J. Houghton and R.L. Thomas within Fitzmyer’s 687 page commentary but they were not referred to in the body of his commentary but as obscure footnotes which says that he is aware of them but has not addressed their material.

For any commentator who has ever had material published on First Corinthians (or any book for that matter), when a sizable commentary by a highly respected author comes on the market then the first thing that these people will do is to go to the author’s list to see if their names have been included; in the case of the four that you mentioned they probably stopped doing this years back.

The 23 publications I have cited that support the canon/maturity view are all from reputable sources, the authors nearly all being seminary professors. They are published either with reputable Christian book publishers (such as Kregal) or theological journals (such as Bibliotheca Sacra). Both are peer reviewed each having their own rigorous editorial review processes. Theological journals are peer reviewed equally or even more rigorously than book publishers as they are focused more on exegetical quality rather than profit.

It seems you don't even understand what peer reviewed means. It is not how often they are cited in other books.

We already have in quite a few posts. If you choose to ignore the evidence simply because it undermines your particular worldview then we cannot be responsible if it upsets your agenda, whatever your agenda may be.

Yes I know there are quite a few posts exhibiting the fallacy of ad-hominem, slandering cessationists. But I don't see any refuting the canon/maturity view.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you love me keep my commands..
Tell me ..where is YOUR name in that sentance?

Yes ..that is how utterly ridiculous your arguments are.
And yes..it is tempting God to purposely throw yourself of a high place
And it is tempting God to purposely take up serpents.

However we see the fulfillment of these words when Paul was unexpectedly bitten..and no harm came to him .he did not die or get sick.

I also met a man who through mishap drank half a glass of undiluted weed killer... Rather worried he prayed..and was completely unharmed..

You see your carnal minded theories and arguments are just that. Carnal minded.
You speak ill off that which you do not understand .you speak from unbelief.
You need to repent.

Thanks for your opinion. I do however have to disagree with you.

May the Lord bless you and you continue your studies.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The 23 publications I have cited that support the canon/maturity view are all from reputable sources, the authors nearly all being seminary professors. They are published either with reputable Christian book publishers (such as Kregal) or theological journals (such as Bibliotheca Sacra). Both are peer reviewed each having their own rigorous editorial review processes. Theological journals are peer reviewed equally or even more rigorously than book publishers as they are focused more on exegetical quality rather than profit.

It seems you don't even understand what peer reviewed means. It is not how often they are cited in other books.



Yes I know there are quite a few posts exhibiting the fallacy of ad-hominem, slandering cessationists. But I don't see any refuting the canon/maturity view.

That is IMO because the view of the maturing of the Scriptures can not be refuted. That lead to frustration which always leads to personal attacks and comments which is what is happening now.

My guess is that unfortunately this thread's days are very limited in the eyes of our moderators and maybe that is a good thing.

I actually do not know what else can be said one way or the other and personally I am becoming very uncomfortable with the personal comments.

However, I do hope to get an answer to post #909 from one of those who are so adamant on the Perfect not being the Scriptures and instead is the coming of Jesus or of heaven itself before the thread is ended.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: swordsman1
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

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
979
Houston, TX
✟153,967.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I don't hate you. But I'm not going to be bullied either or manipulated.
Wow, bullied? manipulated? can you explain exactly how you think I've done that? I'd appreciate it if you quoted me on it, rather than just spew judgments as you have before, that way I could take a close look at how my communication might intimidate someone.

However, if you feel intimidated, join the club. Many people feel intimidated by debating with people who know what they are talking about. Even Jesus intimidated people by speaking truth, such that "no one dared ask him another question." However, all this is off topic, so I'll get back to the OP.

I have little doubt that you could do what I ask. I believe that you are a master enroller. This means you could easily enroll other people to do those things that are beyond your skill. And why not, since you believe that your 'tongues' is a real language (at least you say so). If indeed you have a strong belief in what you do, then it seems you would want the world to know about it. Anyone asking for proof of something who might be converted to your cause, if you have that proof, would have an appreciation if you gave that proof. It just seems selfish to withhold information, if you have the proof in hand and refuse to give it.

I realize it will take some effort to undergo such a project, and it will require enrolling others to participate. I certainly don't plan on taking on a project like this alone, as I will need to enroll people to help on my side of the fence, too.

At least think about it, and let me know if you want to go forward on it.
TD:)
 
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 can not agree with your personal comments. It is amazing to me that every single time when someone is challenged to validate what they believe with Scriptures, they always go to the personal attack mode.

You have done the very same thing. With out any mode of Christian conduct you go for the throat. You did not make one single comment based on the Scriptures.

Just so that we are clear, I believe if you read the Scriptures, you will see that when Jesus was temped He responded by saying..........."IT IS WRITTEN".
I am saying exactly the same thing.

What I said and am glad to say yet again is that the Sign gifts seen in Mark 16 were given to the ELEVEN Apostles.

If you had taken the time to do the work you would have seen that Jesus said in Mark 16:14...............
"Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen."

Now where in that verse is YOUR name or the Church for that matter? ELEVEN=Apostles.

Now I did not write that. Mark did not call me for advice. It is what it is and my challenge to you is for you to speak to that verse instead of attacking me for believing what it says.

Now then, the way it is constructed grammatically, If this Scripture means that all believers will be able to speak in tongues then it also means that all believers will be able to cast out devils, take up serpents, and heal the sick by laying hands on them. The problem is when people start to teach that all believers will speak in tongues, and they try to use Mark 16:17-18 to prove it.

Now that is NOT a temptation in any way for anyone to go out and kiss a rattlesnake. It is nothing more than a stated Bible fact which you have wrongly twisted to make it a personal comment.

Can you speek to that question ?

If Mark 16 was only to the apostles, that would follow that all those who spoke in tongues in the 1st century were apostles. Wrong.
 
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
Wow, bullied? manipulated? can you explain exactly how you think I've done that? I'd appreciate it if you quoted me on it, rather than just spew judgments as you have before, that way I could take a close look at how my communication might intimidate someone.

However, if you feel intimidated, join the club. Many people feel intimidated by debating with people who know what they are talking about. Even Jesus intimidated people by speaking truth, such that "no one dared ask him another question." However, all this is off topic, so I'll get back to the OP.



I have little doubt that you could do what I ask. I believe that you are a master enroller. This means you could easily enroll other people to do those things that are beyond your skill. And why not, since you believe that your 'tongues' is a real language (at least you say so). If indeed you have a strong belief in what you do, then it seems you would want the world to know about it. Anyone asking for proof of something who might be converted to your cause, if you have that proof, would have an appreciation if you gave that proof. It just seems selfish to withhold information, if you have the proof in hand and refuse to give it.

I realize it will take some effort to undergo such a project, and it will require enrolling others to participate. I certainly don't plan on taking on a project like this alone, as I will need to enroll people to help on my side of the fence, too.

At least think about it, and let me know if you want to go forward on it.
TD:)
Wow, bullied? manipulated? can you explain exactly how you think I've done that? I'd appreciate it if you quoted me on it, rather than just spew judgments as you have before, that way I could take a close look at how my communication might intimidate someone.

However, if you feel intimidated, join the club. Many people feel intimidated by debating with people who know what they are talking about. Even Jesus intimidated people by speaking truth, such that "no one dared ask him another question." However, all this is off topic, so I'll get back to the OP.

I have little doubt that you could do what I ask. I believe that you are a master enroller. This means you could easily enroll other people to do those things that are beyond your skill. And why not, since you believe that your 'tongues' is a real language (at least you say so). If indeed you have a strong belief in what you do, then it seems you would want the world to know about it. Anyone asking for proof of something who might be converted to your cause, if you have that proof, would have an appreciation if you gave that proof. It just seems selfish to withhold information, if you have the proof in hand and refuse to give it.

I realize it will take some effort to undergo such a project, and it will require enrolling others to participate. I certainly don't plan on taking on a project like this alone, as I will need to enroll people to help on my side of the fence, too.

At least think about it, and let me know if you want to go forward on it.
TD:)

"your hostility"

"you were confusing the issue"

"you are doing right now is calling your "tongue" a real language, because you want to believe that it is, not because you actually believe that it is"

"you are merely repeating the traditional Charismatic dogma about what you do"

"typical slanders for people who are skeptical about your practice"

"Why don't you want to do it? Too much effort? Too afraid to be accountable?"

"Just what I figured"

"You are simply too lazy to do what it takes to love your neighbor. Your exaggerative response is your way of justifying your refusal to be accountable."

"your agenda is to win a debate! It appears to me that your whole purpose here is self-serving."

"If you hate me so much, then excommunicate me."

"spew judgments"

"you are a master enroller"

"you believe that your 'tongues' is a real language (at least you say so)."

"If indeed you have a strong belief in what you do, then it seems you would want the world to know about it."

"if you have that proof"

"seems selfish to withhold information, if you have the proof in hand and refuse to give it."

These are all forms of manipulation, just like Satan said to Jesus in the wilderness.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
979
Houston, TX
✟153,967.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
"your hostility"

"you were confusing the issue"

"you are doing right now is calling your "tongue" a real language, because you want to believe that it is, not because you actually believe that it is"

"you are merely repeating the traditional Charismatic dogma about what you do"

"typical slanders for people who are skeptical about your practice"

"Why don't you want to do it? Too much effort? Too afraid to be accountable?"

"Just what I figured"

"You are simply too lazy to do what it takes to love your neighbor. Your exaggerative response is your way of justifying your refusal to be accountable."

"your agenda is to win a debate! It appears to me that your whole purpose here is self-serving."

"If you hate me so much, then excommunicate me."

"spew judgments"

"you are a master enroller"

"you believe that your 'tongues' is a real language (at least you say so)."

"If indeed you have a strong belief in what you do, then it seems you would want the world to know about it."

"if you have that proof"

"seems selfish to withhold information, if you have the proof in hand and refuse to give it."

These are all forms of manipulation, just like Satan said to Jesus in the wilderness.

All responses to your hostility, evasion, etc. So, blah, blah, blah. Getting nowhere. (except I thought that when I said you were a master enroller, I considered that a complement to you; but apparently you took it the wrong way, as you have on some of the above comments.

And you continue to evade my question. It seems you respond only to what you want to respond to, and in a hostile way. Either meet my challenge (somehow), or answer my simple question about how you are edified, or stop responding. Put up or shut up.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Greek:Strongs says that teleios (G5046) is used to refer perfect/mature, thing which has reached an end.

✿ It means Prophecies that have been fulfilled have reached an end.

✿ Tongues and knowledge will be superseded by a more complete knowledge and means of communication.

While I appreciate your thinking, the truth is that the Greek grammar does not allow for the meaning to be a "PERSON". That means the Perfect can not be Jesus in this instance.

in context the grammar shows the word is an abstract concept not dependant upon a head noun. The grammar may point to a "thing" or "event" but it does not demand it and that logic needs to be abandoned for it to be responsibly interpreted.
 
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
All responses to your hostility, evasion, etc. So, blah, blah, blah. Getting nowhere. (except I thought that when I said you were a master enroller, I considered that a complement to you; but apparently you took it the wrong way, as you have on some of the above comments.

And you continue to evade my question. It seems you respond only to what you want to respond to, and in a hostile way. Either meet my challenge (somehow), or answer my simple question about how you are edified, or stop responding. Put up or shut up.
TD:)

It will take more than your manipulations to make me shut up. Tongues are to God, not to you. So with your unbelief you would certainly mock. That would be a sin, and me tempting you to sin. The Pharisees did the same thing to Jesus you are doing to me. He called them wicked. He didn't, and I won't.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
You are making the mistake of assuming that knowledge in this passage is referring to a knowledge of God. It is not, 'knowing' is referring to the revelatory gift of knowledge, one of the 3 gifts that would cease.
This is an example of where the cessationist is either confused or that their commentators have intentionally inserted some misdirection into this passage with the intent to change Paul’s intended message to one that suits their own agenda; and this is why I refer to cessationism not as a theological construct but as a worldview.

Even though I disagree with D.A. Carson’s following view in his book Showing the Spirit (1987) regarding the nature of knowledge, where he also views knowledge in this situation as being a charisma and not general knowledge (pg.64), he does at least recognise that the Manifestation of knowledge, will, along with the other Manifestations of the Spirit disappear when “the state of affairs brought about by the arrival of the parousia” is in place.

[Carson] When ‘perfection’ comes, the ‘imperfect’ disappears: what is the connection between these two categories?

Some of the details are clear. What passes away, of course, is not knowledge per se, but the charismatic gift of knowledge (for knowledge itself will never pass away; and if it did, no one would know it); not the content of prophecy, but the individual prophesyings; and by extrapolation, Paul doubtless has in mind the entire charismatic panoply”.​

Even though there is a possibility that Paul was referring to the Manifestation of knowledge, as he also includes tongues which is never used to speak to man but to God then I would be more inclined to view Paul’s use of gnosis as being our knowledge of God and spiritual things while we are currently on earth.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
979
Houston, TX
✟153,967.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
It will take more than your manipulations to make me shut up. Tongues are to God, not to you. So with your unbelief you would certainly mock. That would be a sin, and me tempting you to sin. The Pharisees did the same thing to Jesus you are doing to me. He called them wicked. He didn't, and I won't.
Your false accusations don't change my mind, as I continue to hold the challenge out to you or anyone who would agree. Not only am I not mocking, I am actually trying to edify the body of Christ. I think that you are accusing me to justify your own behavior.
TD:)
 
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

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is an example of where the cessationist is either confused or that their commentators have intentionally inserted some misdirection into this passage with the intent to change Paul’s intended message to one that suits their own agenda; and this is why I refer to cessationism not as a theological construct but as a worldview.

Even though I disagree with D.A. Carson’s following view in his book Showing the Spirit (1987) regarding the nature of knowledge, where he also views knowledge in this situation as being a charisma and not general knowledge (pg.64), he does at least recognise that the Manifestation of knowledge, will, along with the other Manifestations of the Spirit disappear when “the state of affairs brought about by the arrival of the parousia” is in place.

[Carson] When ‘perfection’ comes, the ‘imperfect’ disappears: what is the connection between these two categories?

Some of the details are clear. What passes away, of course, is not knowledge per se, but the charismatic gift of knowledge (for knowledge itself will never pass away; and if it did, no one would know it); not the content of prophecy, but the individual prophesyings; and by extrapolation, Paul doubtless has in mind the entire charismatic panoply”.​

Even though there is a possibility that Paul was referring to the Manifestation of knowledge, as he also includes tongues which is never used to speak to man but to God then I would be more inclined to view Paul’s use of gnosis as being our knowledge of God and spiritual things while we are currently on earth.
Ya know bro.... Sometimes the clearest answers are the simplest...
The imperfect has to pass away when the perfect has come.

First we see everyday the imperfect is with us.. ( we read Their posts every other day as evidence) so the perfect certainly has not come.
Plus if the incomplete letters of Paul were perfect..Since when did incomplete equate to perfect?
Its incomplete.

But of course we see through these arguments like a man like through new glass.

I do wonder..how many people have been saved set free healed or other by these unbelieving naysayers.So hard they work to condemn one gift while neither experiencing not operating in ANY..
Barring the way to life and not even having it themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Biblicist
Upvote 0