Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 7, 2017

tdidymas said:
How is tongues a sign to unbelievers? If an unbeliever hears people talking and can't understand what they are saying, how is this a sign? It's not a sign of anything except they cannot understand what is said. When Paul is using the word "sign," he is talking about pointing the unbeliever to God and telling him that a miracle is happening. How can an unbeliever know it is a miracle, unless that unbeliever understands what is being said (as they did in Acts 2)?

Paul explained it in 1 Corinthians 14. He compares it to the Assyrians who invaded Israel as part of the judgement of God for Israels idolatry. The Assyrian language was a foreign language that sounded like stammering gibberish to them. Israel was God's promised land to them and the presence of foreign invaders with a gibberish language signaled God's judgement on their idolatry and unbelief.

Because the tongues at Acts 2 were understandable languages, they did not fit the "sign for unbelievers" model, because the languages they heard were not foreign to them.

The "sign for unbelievers" description of tongues is not that unbelievers understand what is being spoken, but that they don't understand it because it is foreign to them in the same way as the gospel is foreign to those who are blinded in their unbelief by the god of this world.

Therefore, tongues without interpretation was and is not appropriate in believers' meetings because it is not a sign to believers when a tongues message is spoken followed by an interpretation.

[/quote]If an unbeliever hears tongues and can't understand it, they will say "you're crazy" because from their point of view, you are trying to communicate something to them that makes no sense. [/quote]
True!!

That's no sign at all. It's only a sign if the language spoken is unlearned by the speaker, and it proves to be a miracle (thus, miraculous sign) by either the unbeliever knows the language (like Acts 2), or the language is interpreted so that the unbeliever understands that what was spoken was from God. The point is, it is only a 'sign' if it points to God by being proven a miracle (like Acts 2).

Tongues which are understandable by believers is not a sign at all. This is mere guesswork.

Modern tongues gibberish doesn't do that.

You don't know that, because you have no practical knowledge of the gift of tongues and are influenced by teachers who are prejudiced against it.

With that said, let us examine carefully the context of 14:21-24
This whole context was fulfilled in every way on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. But let us examine it in the context of the Corinthian church:

v. 21: Paul is setting up his statement in v. 22 by quoting the law. Incidentally this is Hebrew law, not gentile law, yet Paul has to have a basis for his teaching, and so he uses the OT.[/quotes]
Proves nothing.

v. 22: He is not teaching the gentile believers in Corinth to speak gibberish to unbelievers as a sign here. His point in saying tongues are a sign for unbelievers is to contrast with prophecy, that prophecy is the greater act. Prophecy is for believers because believers can discern what is real vs. what is false by the words spoken. If God speaks prophecy through a prophet, the words are received by believers. But believers don't need a sign to authenticate the message, because they can discern if a message is from God. Unbelievers need a sign that a message is from God because they don't have the discerning Spirit working in them to confirm that the message is from God, this is why they need the sign.

Click to expand...

You are twisting Paul's words and making nonsense out of them. He never said that at all.

v. 23: If the Corinthian church lets the disorder go on, where people are speaking in tongues without an interpretation, any unbeliever present will say they're crazy, because their tongues isn't hitting home. It's just a bunch of babbling to them, because they don't understand anything. Believers know what's going on, because they already know that what is spoken is a gift of the Spirit (howbeit, they won't be edified because there is no translation, thus Paul's rebuke). But also Paul is rebuking the Corinthians because unbelievers also won't be edified by the truth, but rather they will be turned away by the disorder.

Click to expand...

I can live with that one. Although I wasn't turned away by everyone speaking in tongues when I visited a tongues-speaking church for the first time. I found it exciting and fascinating.

v. 24: That is why Paul concludes with this statement, that the unbeliever will be convicted of his sin and of his unbelief, if there is interpretation or prophecy that he understands what is being said. First the sign of tongues, then the message of truth that convicts the sinner, and the unbeliever will more likely become a believer because of the word of truth that convicts him, authenticated by the sign of miraculous tongues.

Click to expand...

I can live with that one too.

This is how scripture fits perfectly together. But if you interpret it your way (you are trying to claim that v. 23 means that an unbeliever is confirmed in his unbelief by the tongues), this is a contradiction to v. 24 when prophecy (or interpretation) becomes the very thing that conquers the unbeliever's doubt. This makes your modern gibberish tongues to be something that pushes away unbelieving souls, rather than speaks truth to them. These very verses demand that tongues be a human language, so that the message given to the unbeliever has the authenticating miraculous sign that the message is from God.

Click to expand...

These verse do not demand that tongues be a human language. Paul never said that. Your statement about it pushing away unbelievers is historically false because the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches have the highest rate of unbelievers becoming believers than all the traditional churches combined. I think that anti-Pentecostals are motivated more by jealousy because they have more converts and better church growth then they do, and by envy, because Pentecostals and Charismatics have greater love, peace and joy in their worship than any other and they feel gutted that they can't achieve the same life in their services that would attract unbelievers to their Christian "clubs".

The point is, your "negative sign" theory is preposterous. The Jews got the fulfillment of the quote in v. 21 on the day of Pentecost, and some believed and some didn't. So even when the miraculous sign is obvious as it was in Acts 2, some Jews still didn't listen.

Click to expand...

Maybe, and then maybe not.

This principle would stand in a gentile setting as well. If an unbelieving gentile hears his own language spoken (or hears the interpretation of the message) in a miraculous setting, and that message convicts him of sin, he has the authenticating miraculous sign that the message is from God. If he doesn't listen then, he remains a confirmed unbeliever. But God will not let His word fail to accomplish His purpose. The other unbeliever sitting beside him also hears the message and receives it.

Click to expand...

I can live with this one.

[quoteAll this is why the modern tongues movement is not authentic, because there is no power in it. It doesn't authenticate anything, because it is not miraculous.
TD

You don't have the level of knowledge to make that statement. It is just not credible.

1stcenturylady · Sep 7, 2017

tdidymas said:
How is tongues a sign to unbelievers? If an unbeliever hears people talking and can't understand what they are saying, how is this a sign? It's not a sign of anything except they cannot understand what is said. When Paul is using the word "sign," he is talking about pointing the unbeliever to God and telling him that a miracle is happening. How can an unbeliever know it is a miracle, unless that unbeliever understands what is being said (as they did in Acts 2)?

If an unbeliever hears tongues and can't understand it, they will say "you're crazy" because from their point of view, you are trying to communicate something to them that makes no sense. That's no sign at all. It's only a sign if the language spoken is unlearned by the speaker, and it proves to be a miracle (thus, miraculous sign) by either the unbeliever knows the language (like Acts 2), or the language is interpreted so that the unbeliever understands that what was spoken was from God. The point is, it is only a 'sign' if it points to God by being proven a miracle (like Acts 2). Modern tongues gibberish doesn't do that.

With that said, let us examine carefully the context of 14:21-24

This whole context was fulfilled in every way on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. But let us examine it in the context of the Corinthian church:

v. 21: Paul is setting up his statement in v. 22 by quoting the law. Incidentally this is Hebrew law, not gentile law, yet Paul has to have a basis for his teaching, and so he uses the OT.

v. 22: He is not teaching the gentile believers in Corinth to speak gibberish to unbelievers as a sign here. His point in saying tongues are a sign for unbelievers is to contrast with prophecy, that prophecy is the greater act. Prophecy is for believers because believers can discern what is real vs. what is false by the words spoken. If God speaks prophecy through a prophet, the words are received by believers. But believers don't need a sign to authenticate the message, because they can discern if a message is from God. Unbelievers need a sign that a message is from God because they don't have the discerning Spirit working in them to confirm that the message is from God, this is why they need the sign.

v. 23: If the Corinthian church lets the disorder go on, where people are speaking in tongues without an interpretation, any unbeliever present will say they're crazy, because their tongues isn't hitting home. It's just a bunch of babbling to them, because they don't understand anything. Believers know what's going on, because they already know that what is spoken is a gift of the Spirit (howbeit, they won't be edified because there is no translation, thus Paul's rebuke). But also Paul is rebuking the Corinthians because unbelievers also won't be edified by the truth, but rather they will be turned away by the disorder.

v. 24: That is why Paul concludes with this statement, that the unbeliever will be convicted of his sin and of his unbelief, if there is interpretation or prophecy that he understands what is being said. First the sign of tongues, then the message of truth that convicts the sinner, and the unbeliever will more likely become a believer because of the word of truth that convicts him, authenticated by the sign of miraculous tongues.

This is how scripture fits perfectly together. But if you interpret it your way (you are trying to claim that v. 23 means that an unbeliever is confirmed in his unbelief by the tongues), this is a contradiction to v. 24 when prophecy (or interpretation) becomes the very thing that conquers the unbeliever's doubt. This makes your modern gibberish tongues to be something that pushes away unbelieving souls, rather than speaks truth to them. These very verses demand that tongues be a human language, so that the message given to the unbeliever has the authenticating miraculous sign that the message is from God.

The point is, your "negative sign" theory is preposterous. The Jews got the fulfillment of the quote in v. 21 on the day of Pentecost, and some believed and some didn't. So even when the miraculous sign is obvious as it was in Acts 2, some Jews still didn't listen.

This principle would stand in a gentile setting as well. If an unbelieving gentile hears his own language spoken (or hears the interpretation of the message) in a miraculous setting, and that message convicts him of sin, he has the authenticating miraculous sign that the message is from God. If he doesn't listen then, he remains a confirmed unbeliever. But God will not let His word fail to accomplish His purpose. The other unbeliever sitting beside him also hears the message and receives it.

All this is why the modern tongues movement is not authentic, because there is no power in it. It doesn't authenticate anything, because it is not miraculous.
TD

I was replying to what YOU said: "This is what Paul is referring to in 1 Cor. 14:22 when he says "tongues are for a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers". He is referring to the original event of the day of Pentecost. As devout as those Jews were, they were yet unbelievers, therefore none had received the Holy Spirit, and none had any manifestation of the Spirit."

Now you say: "How is tongues a sign to unbelievers? If an unbeliever hears people talking and can't understand what they are saying, how is this a sign? It's not a sign of anything except they cannot understand what is said. When Paul is using the word "sign," he is talking about pointing the unbeliever to God and telling him that a miracle is happening. How can an unbeliever know it is a miracle, unless that unbeliever understands what is being said (as they did in Acts 2)?"

Except that you are wrong. You believe the devout Jews understood naturally what was being said, even though that belief without the gift of supernatural interpretation of tongues is NOT scriptural. NO ONE/MAN UNDERSTANDS.

1stcenturylady · Sep 7, 2017

Oscarr said:
Because the tongues at Acts 2 were understandable languages, they did not fit the "sign for unbelievers" model, because the languages they heard were not foreign to them.

Oscar, on the Day of Pentecost they did not understand naturally, but supernaturally. The disciples were speaking in tongues, not the devout Jews own languages. Each Jew HEARD ALL OF THEM speaking his own individual language. That describes only one thing, the gift of interpretation of tongues. Now the mockers whose hearts were not ready for some reason, thought they were drunk and only heard gibberish, therefore they mocked. Sound familiar? That is the negative sign of tongues to an unbeliever and why Paul questions, if ALL speak in tongues (without interpretation) and an unbeliever or uninformed person comes in, they will think you are crazy and speak against the tongues. They won't know that God is manifesting? Therefore Paul in the congregation limits tongues to be only 2-3 and one interpret them all.

Just as Saul on the Road to Damascus was the only one who heard Jesus' voice, so each Jew heard the interpretation in his own language before they were saved. But God knew their heart. 1 Cor. 14:25 says "the secrets of his heart are revealed." They were DEVOUT Jews with open hearts, unlike the mockers.

Tongues can be both a negative sign to the cold unbeliever, and a positive sign to the open hearted. This is the same with the sign of Jesus. He was for the fall and rise of many in Israel - a "sign which will be spoken against." It is the same two-edged sign. Either judgment or acceptance. To the Pharisees - judgment. To the disciples - acceptance. With the inclusion of 1 Cor. 14:21 about God, and judgment, why put that verse there if tongues was not a negative sign of judgment to the unbeliever? It shows the type of sign Paul is talking about.

Biblicist · Sep 7, 2017

Major1 said:
1 Corinthians 13:12.........
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. "May I point out

May I point out a couple of things to you?

First of all, the word for "see" here means "to behold; perceive."
Then the word "Glass" means "mirror", and is a compound word.
The second part (Strong's #3700) means "to gaze (i.e. with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable.)"

This is in contrast with Strong's #3708, which means "to stare at, i.e. (by implication) to discern clearly (physically or mentally)."

Then the word "Darkly" is from the Greek word that we get "enigma" from. Webster's defines enigma as "A dark saying, in which some known thing is concealed under obscure language; an obscure question; a riddle."

In other words, something that we haven't figured out yet, or that we don't have the whole picture. This corresponds to having only part of the New Testament written at this point in time. Please remember that the Apostle Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, letter he penned.

"Face to face" doesn't necessarily mean that we see someone's face, but that we see the front of an object, i.e. that it is towards our view.

Strong's #4383, "Now" means "just now; this day (hour); present."

The first word for "know" (know in part) is "ginosko" which means "be aware (of), feel, (have) know(-ledge), perceived, can speak, be sure, understand."
In other words, at that point in time the believers only had partial revelation, partial knowledge.

Then secondly, the word for "know" is "epiginosko", and means "to know upon some mark, i.e. recognize; by implication, to become fully acquainted with, to acknowledge." This doesn't have to refer to when we get "full knowledge" in Heaven, but when we get the finished perfect, full canon of Scripture, which was completed when the Apostle John wrote the final book of the Bible: the book of Revelation.

Now that we have the complete Bible we can understand the types and pictures of Christ, prophecies, etc. in the Old Testament which were just enigmas to us before. We need the New Testament to completely understand and properly interpret the Old Testament. Up until the end of the first century, believers were missing part of the picture; they only knew in part. Now we can know fully what the Lord intends to reveal to His children, by interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New.
Therefore, there will not be further revelation beyond the complete (perfect - Psalm 19:7; James 1:25) Bible.

James 1:22-25 is a perfect capstone to this train of logic, and is a parallel passage of Scripture speaking about the same things.
"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed."

One of the great joys of engaging with theology, at least from within either a Pentecostal or a Charismatic framework, is that the best of contemporary Bibliocentric theology reflects the Continuing nature of the Full Gospel.

One of the outcomes of this thread, of which I must thank you for, is that it has directed me toward the earlier commentators who wrote from the 1800’s up until around the 1960’s where to my surprise all of the commentators (at least so far) have acknowledged that το τέλειον refers to the Parousia when the future Kingdom of God will be established on earth.

I’m not all that sure as to what I expected to find but having sourced a number of the better known commentaries from the period prior to the Charismatic Renewal, the fact that the commentators recognised that Paul was referring to the future Kingdom of God was certainly pleasing, but I was intrigued that none of them seemed to be aware that the Canon of Scripture was even on the board for discussion, at least so far that is.

Having viewed a few of the older commentaries that I have not as yet digitised who also support the Parousia, I am wondering if I will encounter an earlier commentator who was aware of the Canon option, but as Warfield, how wrote a polemic against Roman Catholic ‘miracles’ back in 1918 used the term then I suspect that I might begin to see a few who follow on from this, but as I said this is not what I am finding up to this point.

Anyway, as I still have a bit of work to do with digitising the older commentaries it will be awhile before I can release this information as a PDF, so for the time being I have produced a graphic of ten of the older commentaries that all support the historical understanding of το τέλειον as the Parousia or the establishment of the future Kingdom of God.

If the pattern continues as it is, we should discover that the Canon of Scripture option was only around for a few decades up until the mid 70's when the vast majority of Evangelicals discarded as being unworkable.

1 Cor 13_10 (Partial record of Historical commentary).png

Biblicist · Sep 7, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
Oscar, on the Day of Pentecost they did not understand naturally, but supernaturally.

I guess that by now you have undoubtedly realised that you are sort of struggling to push the barrel uphill with this particular viewpoint; though I have to admire your determination to go against the flow.

FenderTL5 · Sep 7, 2017

Biblicist said:
One of the outcomes of this thread, of which I must thank you for, is that it has directed me toward the earlier commentators who wrote from the 1800’s up until around the 1960’s where to my surprise all of the commentators (at least so far) have acknowledged that το τέλειον refers to the Parousia when the future Kingdom of God will be established..

If you go back further.. Chrysostom, Basil etc you'll see agreement as well.

For me, the fact that the Apostle Paul moves immediately from his instruction(s) on the gifts, their use/misuse In 1 Corinthians 12-14 to the Resurrection and Second Coming (Chapter 15) is of no small consequence. I see it as continuity of thought. (ymmv)

Major1 · Sep 7, 2017

Biblicist said:
One of the great joys of engaging with theology, at least from within either a Pentecostal or a Charismatic framework, is that the best of contemporary Bibliocentric theology reflects the Continuing nature of the Full Gospel.

One of the outcomes of this thread, of which I must thank you for, is that it has directed me toward the earlier commentators who wrote from the 1800’s up until around the 1960’s where to my surprise all of the commentators (at least so far) have acknowledged that το τέλειον refers to the Parousia when the future Kingdom of God will be established on earth.

I’m not all that sure as to what I expected to find but having sourced a number of the better known commentaries from the period prior to the Charismatic Renewal, the fact that the commentators recognised that Paul was referring to the future Kingdom of God was certainly pleasing, but I was intrigued that none of them seemed to be aware that the Canon of Scripture was even on the board for discussion, at least so far that is.

Having viewed a few of the older commentaries that I have not as yet digitised who also support the Parousia, I am wondering if I will encounter an earlier commentator who was aware of the Canon option, but as Warfield, how wrote a polemic against Roman Catholic ‘miracles’ back in 1918 used the term then I suspect that I might begin to see a few who follow on from this, but as I said this is not what I am finding up to this point.

Anyway, as I still have a bit of work to do with digitising the older commentaries it will be awhile before I can release this information as a PDF, so for the time being I have produced a graphic of ten of the older commentaries that all support the historical understanding of το τέλειον as the Parousia or the establishment of the future Kingdom of God.

If the pattern continues as it is, we should discover that the Canon of Scripture option was only around for a few decades up until the mid 70's when the vast majority of Evangelicals discarded as being unworkable.

View attachment 207348

"ALL" the commentators reflected your understanding of the "Perfect" to come?

"ALL"..

I know for a fact that that is not the case at all.

I have right here in my hand Dr. J. Vernon Magee's "Through the Bible" and that is NOT what he says. He believes that the "Perfect" is the written Word of God.

I also have Dr. Oliver B. Greens commentaries and he also does not agree with your theology.

Dr. Constable says that the τελειον view is that the perfect refers to the completion of the New Testament canon and the partial to the incomplete canon and the Corinthians" partial knowledge.

Merrill F. Unger, New Testament Teaching on Tongues, p95; Myron J. Houghton, "A Reexamination of1Corinthians13:8-13 ," Bibliotheca Sacra153:611 (July-September1996):344-56. They were incomplete because God had not yet given all the prophecy He would give to complete the New Testament.

Major1 · Sep 7, 2017

Oscarr said:
Nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention at all of any of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit ceasing while we are in the Church Age. It is incompetent hermaneutics to use half a verse to form the foundation of a cessationist doctrine. And the reference is obscure and does not match the threat of New Testament teaching and practice concerning the supernatural gifts of the Spirit.

It is quite true that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit declined after the death of the last Apostle. His death was near the end of the first generation of Christian believers in the Early Church who moved in the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit.

I have now discovered what happened to cause the supernatural component of the Gospel to wither away and die, until it disappeared altogether in the Fourth Century. The death knell for the supernatural gifts of the Spirit was the Edict of Tolerance given by Emperor Constantine. He made Christianity the state religion of Rome and outlawed pagan religions. He shut down the pagan temples and required all to attend Christian churches. Many of the pagan temples were converted to Christian churches.

Up until that time, being Christian was voluntary, and on the basis of accepting Christ as Saviour. Worship was spontaneous and unstructured, and the Lord's Supper was the same. When everyone was compelled to attend Christian churches, there was a great influx of pagans into the church, who did not voluntarily attend, and did not accept Christ as Saviour. They were there because they were forced to. This meant that they could not worship in the same spontaneous way that the voluntary Christians could, so liturgies and ceremonies took the place of spontaneous worship. Because the supernatural gifts operated on through voluntary believers who had accepted Christ and through spontaneous, rather that structure worship, these gifts declined as the number of voluntary believers died out and the remnant of those faithful to Christ became smaller and smaller.

The pagans who were required to attend Christian churches brought their pagan beliefs and ideas with them, and over time, these became part of the structural worship of the churches. Ornate buildings, modelled on the pagan temples were erected, or converted from the old pagan temples. Elders became priests, and start to wear vestments similar to the pagan priests under the old pagan systems.

Because the "nominal" ex-pagan members had no inner perception of Christ, because only those who had voluntarily accepted Christ had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they had to have images to represent Christ, and so icons picturing Christ and the Apostles began to appear. Then statues were constructed to represent Christ and Him on the cross. The pagan mother with a child in her arms is very similar to the Madonna and Child we often see in some churches, and that is because of the pagan influence. There is a pagan god called, "The mother of heaven", and that is similar to how Mary is now venerated in some churches. The pagan festival that was held on 25th December was altered to celebrate the birth of Jesus, and the day the sun was worshipped, became the day when Christian worship was held and a national "Sunday" holiday was set up for that purpose.

Because most Catholic and Protestant churches retain their structured, ceremonial worship and the pagan elements contained in it, there is no place for the supernatural gifts to function. Because there many people who go to church because it is the social "thing to do" and nothing more, these people are not born-again and therefore do not have the Holy Spirit within them, and consequently would be unable to manifest the gifts of the Spirit even if they wanted to. That is, until they voluntarily accepted Christ as their Saviour and put Him first before the structural side of their worship.

The Pentecostal movement brought the voluntariness and spontenaity back into Christian worship and those who joined the movement joined it voluntarily by accepting Jesus as their Saviour and willingly accepted that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit can be manifested through them. Because the flesh always wars against the Spirit. This movement and the subsequent Charismatic movement have been severely persecuted and ridiculed to this day.

So this is why the gifts of the Spirit declined and by 500 AD were no longer evident in the Church. The Church had now become a totally structured organisation where everyone was compelled to attend and to take part in its ceremonies. Those who dissented were cast out of society to live in disgrace and poverty, and those who taught dissent were often imprisoned or burned at the stake. Restoration of the voluntary nature of Christian faith did not emerge until 1000 years later with Martin Luther.

I am not saying these things to flame any particular denomination. What I have written can be verified by any recognised Church historian. All I have given are the facts, to explain why the gifts actually declined, and it was not because of some obsure part-verse in 1 Corinthians 13, devised by some pagan-influenced theologian to try and discount Pentecostalism.

I apologize in advance for this long reply but it seems necessary to respond to yours.

You as well as any other person has the right and ability to believe as you wish according to how the Holt Spirit teaches you the Word of God. I have not and will not condemn you or anyone else on what you thing the Bible teaches on Cessationailism and I believe that we all should be open to the fact that we just might be wrong and someone else might just be correct.

Anyway........Cessationism is the view that the “miracle gifts” of tongues and healing have ceased—that the end of the apostolic age brought about a cessation of the miracles associated with that age. Most cessationists believe that, while God can and still does perform miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform miraculous signs. That is also my understanding as well.

If we go to the Bible we will see that the biblical record shows that miracles occurred during particular periods for the specific purpose of authenticating a new message from God.

1).
Moses was enabled to perform miracles to authenticate his ministry before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:1-8).

2).
Elijah was given miracles to authenticate his ministry before Ahab (1 Kings 17:1; 18:24).

3).
The apostles were given miracles to authenticate their ministry before Israel (Acts 4:10, 16).

4).
Jesus’ ministry was also marked by miracles, which the Apostle John calls “signs” (John 2:11). John’s point is that the miracles were proofs of the authenticity of Jesus’ message.

After Jesus’ resurrection, as the Church was being established and the New Testament was being written, the apostles demonstrated “signs” such as tongues and the power to heal. “Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not” (1 Corinthians 14:22, a verse that plainly says the gift was never intended to edify the church).

The Apostle Paul predicted that the gift of tongues would cease (1 Corinthians 13:8). Here are six proofs that it has already ceased:

1) The apostles, through whom tongues came, were unique in the history of the church. Once their ministry was accomplished, the need for authenticating signs ceased to exist.

2) The miracle (or sign) gifts are only mentioned in the earliest epistles, such as 1 Corinthians. Later books, such as Ephesians and Romans, contain detailed passages on the gifts of the Spirit, but the miracle gifts are not mentioned, although Romans does mention the gift of prophecy. The Greek word translated “prophecy” means “speaking forth” and does not necessarily include prediction of the future.

3) The gift of tongues was a sign to unbelieving Israel that God’s salvation was now available to other nations. See 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 and Isaiah 28:11-12.

4) Tongues was an inferior gift to prophecy (preaching). Preaching the Word of God edifies believers, whereas tongues does not. Believers are told to seek prophesying over speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:1-3).

5) History indicates that tongues did cease. Tongues are not mentioned at all by the Post-Apostolic Fathers. Other writers such as Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine considered tongues something that happened only in the earliest days of the Church.

6) Current observation confirms 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.

As for the miracle gift of healing, we see in Scripture that healing was associated with the ministry of Jesus and the apostles (Luke 9:1-2). And we 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 (Acts 20:9-12), did not heal Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-27), Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:20), Timothy (1 Timothy 5:23), or even himself (2 Corinthians 12:7-9).

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

The reasons stated above are evidence for cessationism. According to 1 Corinthians 13:13-14:1, we would do well to “pursue love,” the greatest gift of all. If we are to desire gifts, we should desire to speak forth the Word of God, that all may be edified.

1stcenturylady · Sep 7, 2017

Biblicist said:
I guess that by now you have undoubtedly realised that you are sort of struggling to push the barrel uphill with this particular viewpoint; though I have to admire your determination to go against the flow.

Hi there. Yes, I know you join that other group on the interpretation of D of P, which confuses me, unless I have you mixed up with another Pentecostal's belief about the language of tongues, but we are on the same page on most other things.

At least you haven't gone so far with the majority to believe the tongues was only for the purpose of preaching and now that we have the Bible, it has lost its value and has ceased.

Major1 · Sep 7, 2017

FenderTL5 said:
If you go back further.. Chrysostom, Basil etc you'll see agreement as well.

For me, the fact that the Apostle Paul moves immediately from his instruction(s) on the gifts, their use/misuse In 1 Corinthians 12-14 to the Resurrection and Second Coming (Chapter 15) is of no small consequence. I see it as continuity of thought. (ymmv)

Without a doubt the church can not be explained apart from the resurrection. We can not be saved with the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Without His resurrection there would be no gospel, no Living Christ and no Saviour. The existence of the body of believers is the second great proof of the resurrection.

That being said I do not understand the thought that chapter 15 is a continuation of chapter 14.

Chapters 12-13-14 were corrective in nature and their context was all about the correct usage and existence of gifts. Chapter 15 then is all about something else, The Resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

The word "Gift" is not mentioned in chapter 15 and neither is the 2nd Coming unless one wants to recognize The Rapture which is of course in focus at the very end of the chapter.

Major1 · Sep 7, 2017

Oscarr said:
Paul explained it in 1 Corinthians 14. He compares it to the Assyrians who invaded Israel as part of the judgement of God for Israels idolatry. The Assyrian language was a foreign language that sounded like stammering gibberish to them. Israel was God's promised land to them and the presence of foreign invaders with a gibberish language signaled God's judgement on their idolatry and unbelief.

Because the tongues at Acts 2 were understandable languages, they did not fit the "sign for unbelievers" model, because the languages they heard were not foreign to them.

The "sign for unbelievers" description of tongues is not that unbelievers understand what is being spoken, but that they don't understand it because it is foreign to them in the same way as the gospel is foreign to those who are blinded in their unbelief by the god of this world.

Therefore, tongues without interpretation was and is not appropriate in believers' meetings because it is not a sign to believers when a tongues message is spoken followed by an interpretation.

If an unbeliever hears tongues and can't understand it, they will say "you're crazy" because from their point of view, you are trying to communicate something to them that makes no sense. [/quote]
True!!

Tongues which are understandable by believers is not a sign at all. This is mere guesswork.

Testimonies are part of the full Gospel

You don't have the level of knowledge to make that statement. It is just not credible.[/QUOTE]

You said................
"You don't have the level of knowledge to make that statement"

Don't you think that is an ambiguous statement????

How do you know the level of this persons knowledge???

How do we know YOUR level of knowledge to allow you to make that comment.

Personally, I am just an old country boy from the great Promised Land, but I do know what I have seen and experienced. By the grace of God I have lived long enough and been blessed by an opportunity to learn and grow in knowledge of the Scriptures and I am sure that my brother has as well and maybe even you.

However, I would not question what or what not the knowledge of someone else is.

I have said from the beginning of this thread, the tongues I HAVE SEEN are not the tongues spoken in the Scriptures. I say that again now.

Here is a link to really good explantion of tongues.............

FenderTL5 · Sep 7, 2017

Major1 said:
That being said I do not understand the thought that chapter 15 is a continuation of chapter 14.
Chapters 12-13-14 were corrective in nature..

and for the life of me, I can't see how you miss it. The corrective nature is established in chapter 1 and continues throughout, it's not merely 12 thru 14.
Why are they being corrected? Chapter 1
I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That he would speak to the day of our Lord Jesus Christ in Chapter 15 is not coincidence nor a new topic. It's the reason for the reproof; that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Major1 · Sep 7, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
Hi there. Yes, I know you join that other group on the interpretation of D of P, which confuses me, unless I have you mixed up with another Pentecostal's belief about the language of tongues, but we are on the same page on most other things. At least you haven't gone so far with the majority to believe the tongues was only for the purpose of preaching and now that we have the Bible, it has lost its value and has ceased.

This may help you.............then again it may not.

Major1 · Sep 7, 2017

FenderTL5 said:
and for the life of me, I can't see how you miss it. The corrective nature is established in chapter 1 and continues throughout, it's not merely 12 thru 14.
Why are they being corrected? Chapter 1
I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That he would speak to the day of our Lord Jesus Christ in Chapter 15 is not coincidence nor a new topic. It's the reason for the reproof; that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Correct! The focus and context of 12-14 is on "Gifts".

The reason they were being corrected was because they were "Carnal".

I can not accept your thinking on a new topic. The problem is that the new topic you mentioned as the 2nd Coiming and that is NOT the context of chapter 15.

That is all I am saying.

1stcenturylady · Sep 7, 2017

Major1 said:
If an unbeliever hears tongues and can't understand it, they will say "you're crazy" because from their point of view, you are trying to communicate something to them that makes no sense.
True!!

Tongues which are understandable by believers is not a sign at all. This is mere guesswork.

Testimonies are part of the full Gospel

You don't have the level of knowledge to make that statement. It is just not credible.

You said................
"You don't have the level of knowledge to make that statement"

Don't you think that is an ambiguous statement????

How do you know the level of this persons knowledge???

How do we know YOUR level of knowledge to allow you to make that comment.

Personally, I am just an old country boy from the great Promised Land, but I do know what I have seen and experienced. By the grace of God I have lived long enough and been blessed by an opportunity to learn and grow in knowledge of the Scriptures and I am sure that my brother has as well and maybe even you.

However, I would not question what or what not the knowledge of someone else is.

I have said from the beginning of this thread, the tongues I HAVE SEEN are not the tongues spoken in the Scriptures. I say that again now.

Here is a link to really good explantion of tongues.............

I watched the video and you'll be surprised to know I agree with most of what he said. I DO NOT believe you must speak in tongues to have the Holy Spirit. I also do not believe that tongues is the "evidence" of having the Holy Spirit. I believe the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is power over sin, as well as supernatural boldness to testify of Jesus, both in word and deed.

I am not your typical Pentecostal. In other words, I am not a denominationalist at all. I believe much differently than the average Pentecostal. And yet I've been accused of parroting Pentecostalism by people on this forum. Such generalizations are not true and unworthy to be spewed.

1stcenturylady · Sep 7, 2017

Major1 said:
This may help you.............then again it may not.

No, it is more of the same unscriptural interpretations. I wasn't raised in a Pentecostal church, so if what he said about his youth is true, I don't agree with what was done. It was gross error. I call myself a Charismatic, because there are too many errors in Pentecostal denominations, just like there are too many errors in cessationism. I seem to be a loner in my beliefs, but that doesn't bother me in the slightest. God knows I only want what He means in His word, not a human reasoning interpretation that contradicts clear rules, and I study until there are no contradictions whatsoever. It took seven years to uncover every question of interpretation I had regarding tongues. And God answered every question. So I'm happy.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 7, 2017

Major1 said:
"ALL" the commentators reflected your understanding of the "Perfect" to come?

"ALL"..

I know for a fact that that is not the case at all.

I have right here in my hand Dr. J. Vernon Magee's "Through the Bible" and that is NOT what he says. He believes that the "Perfect" is the written Word of God.

I also have Dr. Oliver B. Greens commentaries and he also does not agree with your theology.

Dr. Constable says that the τελειον view is that the perfect refers to the completion of the New Testament canon and the partial to the incomplete canon and the Corinthians" partial knowledge.

Merrill F. Unger, New Testament Teaching on Tongues, p95; Myron J. Houghton, "A Reexamination of1Corinthians13:8-13 ," Bibliotheca Sacra153:611 (July-September1996):344-56. They were incomplete because God had not yet given all the prophecy He would give to complete the New Testament.

It is not fact at all. It is the man's opinion based on the faulty hermeneutics of trying to establish a doctrine on part of an obscure verse, when there are many more references in the New Testament that support the continuance of the spiritual gifts right through the Church Age. I have already posted my reasons why the gifts declined. It was because the Church went right away from what it was in the Book of Acts, and many churches are totally different today. That is why we don't see the gifts operating. The Holy Spirit is not having a bar of our formalised churches whose programmes shut Him out.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 7, 2017

Major1 said:
I apologize in advance for this long reply but it seems necessary to respond to yours.

You as well as any other person has the right and ability to believe as you wish according to how the Holt Spirit teaches you the Word of God. I have not and will not condemn you or anyone else on what you thing the Bible teaches on Cessationailism and I believe that we all should be open to the fact that we just might be wrong and someone else might just be correct.

Anyway........Cessationism is the view that the “miracle gifts” of tongues and healing have ceased—that the end of the apostolic age brought about a cessation of the miracles associated with that age. Most cessationists believe that, while God can and still does perform miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform miraculous signs. That is also my understanding as well.

If we go to the Bible we will see that the biblical record shows that miracles occurred during particular periods for the specific purpose of authenticating a new message from God.

1).
Moses was enabled to perform miracles to authenticate his ministry before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:1-8).

2).
Elijah was given miracles to authenticate his ministry before Ahab (1 Kings 17:1; 18:24).

3).
The apostles were given miracles to authenticate their ministry before Israel (Acts 4:10, 16).

4).
Jesus’ ministry was also marked by miracles, which the Apostle John calls “signs” (John 2:11). John’s point is that the miracles were proofs of the authenticity of Jesus’ message.

After Jesus’ resurrection, as the Church was being established and the New Testament was being written, the apostles demonstrated “signs” such as tongues and the power to heal. “Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not” (1 Corinthians 14:22, a verse that plainly says the gift was never intended to edify the church).

The Apostle Paul predicted that the gift of tongues would cease (1 Corinthians 13:8). Here are six proofs that it has already ceased:

1) The apostles, through whom tongues came, were unique in the history of the church. Once their ministry was accomplished, the need for authenticating signs ceased to exist.

2) The miracle (or sign) gifts are only mentioned in the earliest epistles, such as 1 Corinthians. Later books, such as Ephesians and Romans, contain detailed passages on the gifts of the Spirit, but the miracle gifts are not mentioned, although Romans does mention the gift of prophecy. The Greek word translated “prophecy” means “speaking forth” and does not necessarily include prediction of the future.

3) The gift of tongues was a sign to unbelieving Israel that God’s salvation was now available to other nations. See 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 and Isaiah 28:11-12.

4) Tongues was an inferior gift to prophecy (preaching). Preaching the Word of God edifies believers, whereas tongues does not. Believers are told to seek prophesying over speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:1-3).

5) History indicates that tongues did cease. Tongues are not mentioned at all by the Post-Apostolic Fathers. Other writers such as Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine considered tongues something that happened only in the earliest days of the Church.

6) Current observation confirms 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.

As for the miracle gift of healing, we see in Scripture that healing was associated with the ministry of Jesus and the apostles (Luke 9:1-2). And we 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 (Acts 20:9-12), did not heal Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-27), Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:20), Timothy (1 Timothy 5:23), or even himself (2 Corinthians 12:7-9).

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

The reasons stated above are evidence for cessationism. According to 1 Corinthians 13:13-14:1, we would do well to “pursue love,” the greatest gift of all. If we are to desire gifts, we should desire to speak forth the Word of God, that all may be edified.

The real reason why the gifts disappeared from the Church was because the Church became a formalised, ceremony-based, political organisation instead of following the Acts model of what the church should have been. Also, it became, as it is today, riddled with paganism. The Holy Spirit, as a result, got on His bike and rode away from them. Now some Cessationist theologians are trying to excuse the Church's failures by using the scripture to justify it.

swordsman1 · Sep 7, 2017

Biblicist said:
One of the outcomes of this thread, of which I must thank you for, is that it has directed me toward the earlier commentators who wrote from the 1800’s up until around the 1960’s where to my surprise all of the commentators (at least so far) have acknowledged that το τέλειον refers to the Parousia when the future Kingdom of God will be established on earth.

Then you haven't looked very hard.

David Lipscomb - First Corinthians (1935)
10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. - These gifts were to continue in the church to guide and instruct it until the completed will of God was made known. They were to serve a temporary purpose; then when their office was fulfilled, they were to pass away and give place to it. That perfection was completed, so far as God's work of the revealing work of the Spirit is concerned, when the full will of God should be revealed, or made known, and his provisions for saving men should be set in operation, as is set forth in the following: "And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men in craftiness, after the wiles of error; but speaking truth in love, may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, even Christ." (Eph. 4: 11-15.) In this passage Paul explains the whole matter; showing that these miraculous gifts were to serve till the full knowledge was received to make them one in faith and to bring them to the fullness of men and women in Christ. That knowledge is given in the New Testament.

W.E. Vine - Commentary on First Corinthians (1951)
“With the completion of Apostolic testimony and the completion of the Scriptures of truth (‘the faith once for all delivered to the saints,’ Jude 3, R.V.), ‘that which is perfect’ had come, and the temporary gifts were done away. For the Scriptures provided by the Spirit of God were ‘perfect.’ Nothing was to be added to them, nothing taken from them.”

John F. Walvoord - The Holy Spirit (1954)
Temporary character of the prophetic gift. While it may be freely admitted that men today possess the gift of teaching, the gift of exhortation, and the gift of evangelism, it is a safe conclusion that none possess the gift of prophecy. With the completed New Testament, it is evident that there is no further need for additional revelation. It is the purpose of God to reveal Himself through the Word, rather than beyond the Word. There is no more possibility of anyone possessing the prophetic gift in the present dispensation than there is of anyone writing further inspired books to be added to the canon. It is in this light that we may interpret 1 Corinthians 13:8, where in contrast to the abiding character of love, prophecy and special revelation (knowledge) are said to "fail" and "vanish away." The solemn warning of Revelation (Rev. 22:18-19), the last to be written of the New Testament, is that God's judgment will rest upon those who add to the book, a reference specifically to the Book of Revelation, but embodying the principle which underlies the whole canon.

Herman A Hoyt, Speaking in Tongues (1963) BMH Journal
Fourth ,the cessation of this gift very probably took place when the canon of Scripture was finished, just as did the gift of prophecy. Paul declared both of these gifts would cease to be exercised (I Cor. 13:8). The gift of prophecy was necessary in the early church, for this new society of believers had needs that were not met in Old Testament revelation.

When the New Testament writing prophets had completed their work, and the New Testament was finished there was no longer need for prophets. And from the days of the Apostle John after completing the Book of the Revelation, there has never been any new revelation. By the same token, tongues, another type of speaking, likewise finished its purpose, and was therefore no longer needed (Mark 16:17; I Cor. 14:21- 22).

T. R. Applebury, Studies in First Corinthians (1966)
But what is the perfect thing? Commentators suggest that it is Christ or the perfection that will be known when He comes. But there is no reference to the coming of Christ in this context. The word translated “perfect” means “mature” when it refers to persons as in 2:6. Paul says, “We speak wisdom, however, among them that are fullgrown.” When it refers to things, as in this case, it means the end or purpose achieved by the thing, complete. That which was in part must balance with that which is complete. The things that were in part, the spiritual gifts, were used of the Lord to bring the revelation of His will to man. Without the work of the inspired apostles we never would have known the “wisdom of God.” The spiritual gifts given by the Spirit through the laying on of apostolic hands made it possible for others to reveal the same wisdom of God. But when this revelation was committed to writing as it was in the first century, there remained no further purpose to be fulfilled by these gifts. Therefore, when the completed revelation - the Bible - came, the things that were in part were abolished.

By walking in the most excellent way, the Corinthian church should have been able to use the gifts for the benefit of the whoIe church while awaiting the day when the completed revelation would be available for all to use.

When I was a child.-The apostle clearly indicates that the spiritual gifts belonged to the childhood period of the church; their possession and use were not the mark of spiritual maturity.

now that I am become a man.-As the mature man puts away childish things, the church could look to the time when it was to have the completed revelation of the Word and put away the transitory spiritual gifts.

For now we see in a mirror darkly.-The subject is still spiritual gifts. It is not a reference to, time as opposed to eternity. By “now” Paul points to the situation which existed at Corinth. They had the gift of tongues, but it was like seeing an imperfect reflection in a mirror in contrast to the perfect view possible through completed revelation in the Bible.

but then face to face.-This is not a reference to the coming of Christ when we shall see Him as He is. By “then” Paul is indicating the time when the completed revelation would be available for all.

now I know in part.-This was true of the time when the gifts were being used as opposed to the full knowledge that would be possible through the complete revelation in the Bible. It is not a reference to the partial knowledge of this life as opposed to knowledge in heaven. Context does not permit the application to heaven.

as I am fully known.-Just as God knew the needs of all men so He has given complete instruction in His Word for life and godliness (II Pet. 1 :2-4).

Robert Gromacki - The Modern Tongues Movement (1967)
“Logically, to telion must refer to completeness or perfection in the same realm as that referred to by to ek merous. Since to ek merous refers to the transmission of divine truth by revelation, the other term to telion must refer to God’s complete revelation of truth, the entire New Testament (taken of course with its foundational book, the Old Testament).”
...
If the gift of tongues involved the revelation of truth from God to man or about man, then its purpose is no longer needed because God has completed His revelation (Rev. 22:18–19). The need for today is to understand what He has already revealed, not to have new revelation. The silence of church history will confirm the fact that the gift of tongues was not intended to become a permanent part of church life. Otherwise, how could the church of Jesus Christ have functioned in those centuries of silence?
…
Paul’s two illustrations (13:11–12) serve as a third argument. Progressive development from infancy to maturity in Paul’s personal life would best suit the development of the body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12). There may be a subtle inference here to the gifts of tongues (“spake”), knowledge (“understood”), and prophecy (“thought”) which would be “put away” or rendered inoperative by maturity (same word is used: katargethesetai, 13:8; cf. katergeka, 13:11). The second illustration is a little more difficult to understand. Weaver argued that it does not refer to the second coming of Christ: “If the mirror [glass] is metaphorical for something, then the ‘face to face’ experience is also metaphorical. If the mirror represents imperfect knowledge, then the face to face encounter is metaphorical for the complete knowledge.” This is consistent with the context of partiality and completeness. By looking into the partially revealed Word, man got a partial picture of himself; however, when the Word was completed, then man could see himself exactly as God saw him. Why? Because God had completely revealed the purpose of man and the church in the Word.

Biblicist said:
Anyway, as I still have a bit of work to do with digitising the older commentaries it will be awhile before I can release this information as a PDF, so for the time being I have produced a graphic of ten of the older commentaries that all support the historical understanding of το τέλειον as the Parousia or the establishment of the future Kingdom of God.

You will notice however that these are all shallow 1-3 sentence commentaries from books covering the whole of 1st Corinthians and sometimes 2nd, with most of them relying solely on the traditional rendering of telieos as "the perfect" for their reasoning. They are not doing in depth word studies of teleios nor extensive exegesis of this passage which it's undoubted obscurity demands such as. Those who have carried out in-depth studies, such as I have posted previously, conclude that teleios ('completeness' as it should properly be rendered) is not the 2nd coming.

As I have a copy of Godet, I noticed that you carefully cherry picked Godets words, conveniently omitting what he said immediately before and after your quote:

To what epoch does the abolition of prophecy belong ? If history is consulted, it seems to answer : toward the end of the second and during the third century. For the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles shows us the prophets still in full activity in the first half of the second century.
...
The very figure which the apostle uses in ver. 11 easily leads to the idea of a gradual metamorphosis, which will pass over their mode of manifestation. For the speaking of the child, its mode of feeling and thinking, do not give place suddenly to the analogous faculties of the mature man ; the change in these three respects takes place insensibly and progressively. So the spiritual gifts granted to the primitive Church, while accompanying and supporting the Church to the very threshold of the perfect state, need not do so necessarily in the same form as at the beginning. Prophecy may be transformed into animated preaching ; speaking in tongues may appear in the form of religious poetry and music; knowledge continue to accomplish its task by the catechetical and theological teaching of Christian truth (see on chap. xiv. conclusion).

So, although Godet thinks v10 is referring to the 2nd coming, he in no way believes those gifts continue today in the same way as they did in the 1st century. His view is the same as MacArthurs and many puritans in that they believe that tongues has ceased but the gift of prophecy is still active today in the form of preaching.

Same with Roberton & Plummer. You omitted this bit:

"But tongues seem to have ceased first of all the gifts. The plur. προφητεῖαι [prophecies] indicate different kinds of inspired preaching;"

They too believe tongues has ceased, and prophecy is now preaching.

Goudge - Two short sentences. No reason given apart from 'perfect'.

Evans doesn't seem to make any judgement. What he wrote could equally apply to the canon view.

Lenski [p566-7] starts off by making a good case for the canon view! Then disappoints by saying the future tense of "comes" in v10 indicates the parousia. That's his only reason? The completion of canon would also be future tense at the time of Paul's writing!

Campbell Morgan - You have cited his commentary on v13, not on what teleios is in v10. (And hardly an exegesis. Faith & hope remaining forever can be easily refuted from scripture). What does he say about v10?

Neither is Barclay's commentary an exegesis. No reasons are given.

Coleman Luck - Just one sentence? Wow.

Hering - Only reason given is Paul thinking Christ's return was imminent (which is debatable).

Biblicist said:
If the pattern continues as it is, we should discover that the Canon of Scripture option was only around for a few decades up until the mid 70's when the vast majority of Evangelicals discarded as being unworkable.

Why do you keep perpetuating this lie? The canon/maturity view has never been abandoned. There have been numerous expositions espousing this view since the 70's right up to the present time. All of them in-depth studies. I have already cited 15 of them: Unger, Chantry, Judisch, Pettigrew, Thomas, McRay, Dillow, Cottrell, Houghton, Farnell, Compton, McDougall, Edgar, Gentry, and Reymond; nearly all respected seminary professors. And no doubt there are many others I haven't yet found.

swordsman1 · Sep 7, 2017

Oscarr said:
Nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention at all of any of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit ceasing while we are in the Church Age. It is incompetent hermaneutics to use half a verse to form the foundation of a cessationist doctrine. And the reference is obscure and does not match the threat of New Testament teaching and practice concerning the supernatural gifts of the Spirit.

1 Cor 13 says they will cease when 'completeness" comes. It depends on what your interpretation of 'completeness' is - the completion of the canon or Christ's 2nd coming. Exegetically the canon view is the better fit, and history confirms it.

Also there is Eph 2:20 which says that prophecy, along with apostleship, were only foundational gifts. When the foundations of a structure are complete you stop building them. Few people deny the gift of apostleship was foundational and ceased, so why not also prophecy as it says?

Oscarr said:
I have now discovered what happened to cause the supernatural component of the Gospel to wither away and die, until it disappeared altogether in the Fourth Century. The death knell for the supernatural gifts of the Spirit was the Edict of Tolerance given by Emperor Constantine. He made Christianity the state religion of Rome and outlawed pagan religions. He shut down the pagan temples and required all to attend Christian churches. Many of the pagan temples were converted to Christian churches.

Up until that time, being Christian was voluntary, and on the basis of accepting Christ as Saviour. Worship was spontaneous and unstructured, and the Lord's Supper was the same. When everyone was compelled to attend Christian churches, there was a great influx of pagans into the church, who did not voluntarily attend, and did not accept Christ as Saviour. They were there because they were forced to. This meant that they could not worship in the same spontaneous way that the voluntary Christians could, so liturgies and ceremonies took the place of spontaneous worship. Because the supernatural gifts operated on through voluntary believers who had accepted Christ and through spontaneous, rather that structure worship, these gifts declined as the number of voluntary believers died out and the remnant of those faithful to Christ became smaller and smaller.

If that theory was true and tongues was suppressed by Rome then we would expect a resurgence of tongues when the Reformation came and the church was no longer under Rome's control. We see no such thing. We would also expect to see documented evidence that tongues speaking was outlawed (despite it being biblical). Is there any?

Do you really think the Holy Spirit is so impotent that He couldn't give gifts until worship became 'spontaneous'? Nowhere in scripture does it say the giving of certain gifts is dependent upon our being spontaneous, being 'free minded', having enough faith, or whatever. There is only one stated condition for the giving of gifts - if the Holy Spirit sovereignly wills it (1 Cor 12:11). That is why those gifts ceased - the Holy Spirit willed them to ceased.

Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

Senior Veteran

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Full Gospel believer

Full Gospel believer

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads