Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

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
That's okay, we can easily agree to disagree but at least we understand the others position.


Have you had the opportunity to notice that I never use the term 'sign of tongues'; in fact I do not go to the new forum under this same name as the term irks me beyond belief. I find that the term gives the impression that tongues were intended to be a sign and incorrectly a sign to the Jews, which comes from the faulty reasoning of cessationism - but that's just me I suppose.

The word edification in verse 6 is where we Pentecostals went astray with tongues in that we (including myself for many years) presumed that the Greek word oikodome was referring to how tongues could be used to teach, instruct, give comfort or a prophecy to the congregation, but this is not what the verse is saying nor does it provide even the slightest hint that it means this.

All that Paul is saying is that when someone speaks a word of praise to the Father (tongues) in the congregational setting that each tongue must be interpreted so that the others can be edified by knowing approximately what the Spirit was saying to the Father.

The "slightest hint" would be the Semitic style of writing.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟43,594.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you UNLESS I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?
There would have been a least a few occasions in the past on this forum where I have used this passage myself to explain the purpose of tongues as being revelation, knowledge etc (so please don't tell anyone that I did!)

What I failed to notice was that Paul was not equating tongues + interpretation as being prophecy but that he was contrasting the obvious benefits of these things against the unintelligibility of tongues and that unlike tongues, which are always directed to the Father in praise, our ability to praise God in tongues does not provide the congregation with either revelation, knowledge, prophecy or teaching.

The context of both these conjoining verses is about tongues and interpretation. This is a parallelism - one of the Hebrew styles of writing. The second verse in the parallel illuminates the first.

You may disagree, and that's okay, because granted it is difficult to see unless you are acquainted with Semitic writing styles, and their purpose.
The problem here is that Paul did not write in Hebrew nor did even use Hebraisms in this chapter as he (or his scribe) communicated his words using a carefully constructed Greek style of writing and argumentation. Since about the 1980's most of the commentaries will spend some time focusing on the socio-rhetorical nature of Paul's writings, it has become quite a popular field of study.
Edit: I just noticed the material that you posted on Semitic language after I pasted this particular post.

I see 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 22 as the sign of tongues. Because it does not require interpretation, if unbelievers or the uninformed come in and all are praising God in tongues, they will think you are crazy.
I hold to the very strong view that each and every occurrence of tongues within the congregational meeting has to be interpreted even before the next is offered.

It is a NEGATIVE sign to an unbeliever, confirming them in their unbelief. It is the interpretation that will convict them. I also believe that Paul is using the word "prophecy" sometimes instead of the word "interpretation" but is the same. The whole chapter is about the difference and comparison of tongues alone, and tongues with interpretation. The first is our prayer language and edifies only ourselves; the other edifies the congregation.
Even though tongues is certainly a negative sign, both to the unbeliever and to the untrained cessationist, I would not so much say that it 'confirms them in their unbelief' but more that it hardens them to the things of the Spirit (which is also the Gospel) as they will be repelled by the Spirit's ministry due to their ignorance of Spiritual matters.

This is not to say that our prayer language cannot be interpreted. It can by the same gift of interpretation of tongues, but it is just not required. However, even with someone gifted with interpretation of tongues present, the interpretation is not always revealed to them in regards to our prayer language - only the gift of diverse kinds of tongues.

The gift of diverse kinds of tongues is limited to 2 or 3, with 1 interpreting. The sign of tongues as praise can be like a choir, as long as it is first explained to the uninformed. Especially today, as tongues is generally heard about. So as a choir the whole congregation can lift of holy praise in song. Singing in the Spirit. This happened on the Day of Pentecost where 120 were praising God together, however as we have debated, some of the devout Jews heard the interpretation and were amazed.
In chapter 14 Paul goes to some length to hammer away at the improper practice where the Corinthians were apparently allowing the uninterpreted use of tongues within their meetings; as for how many Pentecostal congregations still allow the entire congregation to sing in the Holy Spirit all at once, this is a practice that he strictly forbids.

The confusion and misjudging comes when one believes there is only one type of tongues. But there are two. Mark 16:17 is prayer and praise language, unlimited, and does not always need interpretation. 1 Corinthian 12 is God's messages to US which must always be supernaturally interpreted and are limited to 2-3.
Hey . . . that's me as well! When it comes to tongues I only see a single form which can be used for four things;
  1. As evidence of our having received the Holy Spirit
  2. Our ability to pray in the Spirit
  3. Our ability to offer words of praise and adoration to the Father during times of personal prayer, which does not involve interpretation.
  4. Our ability to offer words of praise and worship to the Father that is accompanied by an interpretation within the congregational meeting.
  5. I should add in a fifth application which is with the Day of Pentecost where the 120 were empowered by the Spirit to speak in known human languages, which is in contrast to the normal use of tongues. This may or may not have an application for the Church post-Pentecost.

I enjoyed compiling this post!
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
There is no such "gift" as apostle. It is one of the five-fold ministries to build up and strengthen the Church. Unfortunately, because the structural Church is no longer a unified "one", but a divided mishmash of denominations all in disunity with each other, the criteria for an apostle ministry in our modern church cannot be met, and therefore there are no truly Biblical apostles existent these days. There has to be a lot of work by the Holy Spirit to bring our Church into the unity required to enable anything approaching an apostleship ministry.

If there is no gift of apostle, then neither is there a gift of prophecy, gift of teaching, gift of miracles, gift of helps, gift of administrations, gift of tongues, etc. Apostleship is listed right alongside those others in 1 Cor 12:28. Paul says the roles listed here are gifts: right after listing them in order of importance "1st apostle, 2nd prophet, 3rd teacher...." he says "But earnestly desire the greater gifts." The church is to desire the greater gifts such as prophecy - a theme he echos throughout Chapter 14.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
What I see in Acts, are the 12 Apostles that were appointed directly by Jesus. Matthias wasn't one of those. He was appointed by the eleven.

It was the Lord who chose Matthias, not the eleven:

Acts 1:24 "And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”....."and the lot fell to Matthias"


However, when the regional Bishops started to take overall control of the Church (and incidentally they were not appointed by The Holy Spirit to take over that controlling role) the Holy Ghost apostles were hindered in their role because their acceptance dependent on the acceptance of every single church, and if the regional Bishop didn't accept an apostle, the role failed. As the Church evolved into the central authority taken over by the Bishop of Rome, the role of apostle ceased because the criteria could no longer be met. By that time, The Holy Spirit was no longer the guiding factor in the Church and therefore no more Holy Ghost apostles emerged.

Apostles ceased, not because they were hindered by the bishops, but because one of the qualifications could no longer be met. They had to be eyewitnesses of the risen Lord Jesus in the flesh. Before drawing up the shortlist for Judas's replacement, Peter said "one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection" (Acts 1:22). Paul stated this condition in defending his apostleship "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor 9:1). And in 1 Cor 15:5-8 Paul says he was the last person to see the risen Christ. So there cannot be any more apostles after Paul. Notice when James died in Acts 12 he wasn't replaced like Judas was. No instructions were given to appoint further apostles, only to appoint elders and deacons.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Quite often when I make the statement that Paul never uses a Greek word for our English term 'spiritual gift' I will make reference to Rom 1:11 as being about as close as he gets. The problem here is that he has used two words and this word combination cannot be used for the 9 Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) as Paul cannot impart these Operations of the Spirit to anyone as the Holy Spirit is the agent and not Paul.

Paul is not saying he can impart spiritual gifts to others. As you say spiritual gifts are sovereignly granted to believers only by God himself via the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 12:11). No, the answer lays in the Greek word for 'impart' (μεταδίδωμι) which is to do with sharing rather than granting. This is confirmed by the other 4 usages of the word (Luke 3:11; Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 2:8; Rom 12:8).

BDAG lexicon:
μεταδίδωμι 2 aor. μετέδωκα LXX, subj. μεταδῶ; impv. μεταδότω, inf. μεταδοῦναι (Theognis, Hdt.+; ins, pap, LXX, EpArist; TestSol 10:53 C; TestJob 4:1; Test12Patr, Philo; Jos., Ant. 4, 237; 6, 255; Just., A I, 66, 3; Mel., P. 47, 334; Ath. 30, 2) give (a part of), impart, share τινί τι (Hdt. 9, 34; X., An. 4, 5, 5; Tob 7:10 BA; EpArist 43; Mel., P. 47, 334) someth. to or with someone (B-D-F §169, 1; Rob. 510) ἵνα τι μεταδῶ χάρισμα ὑμῖν πνευματικόν in order that I might impart some spiritual gift to you Ro 1:11. ὑμῖν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ share God’s gospel with you 1 Th 2:8 (cp. Wsd 7:13 sagacious instruction; TestJob 4:1 divine precepts). W. omission of the acc., which is supplied fr. the context Lk 3:11; of alms-giving to the needy Eph 4:28; cp. Hv 3, 9, 2; 4. Without the dat., which is to be supplied fr. the context 1:5. Abs. ὁ μεταδιδοὺς ἐν ἁπλότητι one who gives, (let the pers. do it) with liberality, or in all sincerity,i.e., without grudging Ro 12:8.—M-M.—S. εὐεργετέω.​

In other words it is Paul's own spiritual gifts that he wishes to share with the Romans in order to help them (his gifts of prophecy, faith, teaching, leadership, exhortation etc). Not grant them new gifts.

So Radagast is correct. Paul does refer to such gifts as "spiritual gifts".
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Did I mention 'prophecy'? In fact I very carefully chose the term 'words of encouragement' which are not words of prophecy.

No, but most Pentecostals think interpretation of tongues is prophecy (as we can see from this forum). Prophecy is a message from God to the people. And in Pentecostal services it is invariably given as such. Someone will speak in tongues and then an interpreter will get up and give the interpretation eg "I am the Lord your God and I will bless you and keep you....." etc. Go on Youtube and search "tongues with interpretation" - there are thousands of such examples. If, as you say, interpreted tongues is not prophecy then they all are making false interpretations and false prophecies - thousands upon thousands of them.
 
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
There would have been a least a few occasions in the past on this forum where I have used this passage myself to explain the purpose of tongues as being revelation, knowledge etc (so please don't tell anyone that I did!)

What I failed to notice was that Paul was not equating tongues + interpretation as being prophecy but that he was contrasting the obvious benefits of these things against the unintelligibility of tongues and that unlike tongues, which are always directed to the Father in praise, our ability to praise God in tongues does not provide the congregation with either revelation, knowledge, prophecy or teaching.


The problem here is that Paul did not write in Hebrew nor did even use Hebraisms in this chapter as he (or his scribe) communicated his words using a carefully constructed Greek style of writing and argumentation. Since about the 1980's most of the commentaries will spend some time focusing on the socio-rhetorical nature of Paul's writings, it has become quite a popular field of study.
Edit: I just noticed the material that you posted on Semitic language after I pasted this particular post.


I hold to the very strong view that each and every occurrence of tongues within the congregational meeting has to be interpreted even before the next is offered.


Even though tongues is certainly a negative sign, both to the unbeliever and to the untrained cessationist, I would not so much say that it 'confirms them in their unbelief' but more that it hardens them to the things of the Spirit (which is also the Gospel) as they will be repelled by the Spirit's ministry due to their ignorance of Spiritual matters.


In chapter 14 Paul goes to some length to hammer away at the improper practice where the Corinthians were apparently allowing the uninterpreted use of tongues within their meetings; as for how many Pentecostal congregations still allow the entire congregation to sing in the Holy Spirit all at once, this is a practice that he strictly forbids.


Hey . . . that's me as well! When it comes to tongues I only see a single form which can be used for four things;
  1. As evidence of our having received the Holy Spirit
  2. Our ability to pray in the Spirit
  3. Our ability to offer words of praise and adoration to the Father during times of personal prayer, which does not involve interpretation.
  4. Our ability to offer words of praise and worship to the Father that is accompanied by an interpretation within the congregational meeting.
  5. I should add in a fifth application which is with the Day of Pentecost where the 120 were empowered by the Spirit to speak in known human languages, which is in contrast to the normal use of tongues. This may or may not have an application for the Church post-Pentecost.

I enjoyed compiling this post!

As you understand what I believe for the most part about two types of tongues, I don't need to repeat myself, I just have one clarification. I too believe that each tongue of the 2-3 must each be interpreted before the next is spoken and interpreted.

I also have a couple comments about Semitic styles. It is known that even if something is written in Greek, Hebrew styles can be interspersed when the person writing is a Jew. That was a common practice. 1 Corinthians 14:5-6 is a perfect example. 1 John 1 and 1 John 3 are also written in Greek, but use the Semitic style of contrasts. In those cases chapter 1 is a contrast of light/truth vs. darkness/unsaved deception. And chapter 3 is "of Jesus" vs. "of the devil." Both chapters having to do with sin.

You are a scholar and I think you would be greatly benefited by adding Semitic styles of writing and Hebrew idioms to your arsenal. Just reading the Bible with a Western mindset leaves one in the dark and a misunderstanding as to what the author is actually saying. For instance, good eye and bad eye actually means generous and selfish.
 
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
Barnabas was also called an apostle.

I also believe Silas held that office even if it wasn't "written." Also Mark could eventually have been given that "office" too.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
A good example of a local apostle is with Barnabas who was used to support the church planting endeavours of the early Church. Now Barnabas certainly did not carry the authority and prestige that Paul and the Twelve had due to their having been commissioned by Christ, but he (and others) were sent out with a degree of limited authority which was put in place not by Christ but by an Apostle such as Paul. The same goes for many missionaries (apostles) who have been commissioned by either their local congregation or missions organisation where they have been given a limited commission to undertake a specific task, where their commissioning and authority is limited to one specific region/task.

Barnabas was the same type of apostle as Paul. The only place where he is referred to as an apostle is in Acts 14 where it says:

Acts 14:14 “But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul....” and
Acts 14:4 "But the people of the city were divided; and some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles"
(referring to Paul and Barnabas).​

His apostleship is directly equated with that of Paul's. He is not given an inferior distinction. In fact he is listed first in v14. So if Barnabas was an apostle (and it seems he was) then he is the same type of apostle as Paul.

Barnabas was not commissioned by the church or an apostle, he was commissioned by God:
Acts 13:2 "the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Just because he was less prominent than the others doesn't mean he was a lesser type of apostle. Thaddeus, Bartholomew, Simon, and Matthias were also low key apostles.

As I said there is nowhere in scripture where the word 'apostle' is used to describe a congregational apostle or church planter. It is always refers to a special, divinely commissioned, eye-witness of Christ's resurrection, apostle.

Dividing up apostles into 2 different types (one that ceased and one that continued) is a typical pentecostal/charismatic ploy to avoid the difficulties posed in scripture. The same goes with their invention of different types of prophet (the OT type, the foundational NT type, the congregational type); and their invention of different types of tongues (foreign language tongues, heavenly language tongues, the gift of tongues, the sign of tongues, tongues from God, tongues to God, etc). When one of their gifts doesn't fit with scripture it is explained away with..."Oh, that is a different type".

Most importantly, what people fail to realise is that the Greek words that are associated with who we refer to as missionaries have a complicated relationship when moved from the Greek to English, which are;
  • ἀποστέλλω, apostello [to send out]
  • πέμπω, pempo) [to send]
  • ἐξαποστέλλω, exapostello [to send out]
  • ἀπόστολος, apostolos [apostle]
  • ψευδαπόστολος, pseudapostolos [false apostle]
  • ἀποστολή, apostole [apostleship].
These words were in regular use in Paul's day, so there is nothing spiritual about these words and all that I can suggest is that those who want to take the subject of the differences between an Apostle-of-Christ and an ordinary everyday apostle will need to go to a good dictionary such as the TDNT.

Despite your boasting about all the resources you own, you obviously haven't done your homework on this. You might want to see the BDAG Lexicon entry for the Greek word apostolos:

BDAG Lexicon - apostolos
ἀπόστολος, ου, ὁ
(s. ἀποστέλλω).
...
of messengers without extraordinary status delegate, envoy, messenger (opp. ὁ πέμψας) J 13:16. Of Epaphroditus, messenger of the Philippians Phil 2:25.—2 Cor 8:23.

of messengers with extraordinary status, esp. of God’s messenger, envoy (cp. Epict. 3, 22, 23 of Cynic wise men: ἄγγελος ἀπὸ τ. Διὸς ἀπέσταλται).
of prophets Lk 11:49; Rv 18:20; cp. 2:2; Eph 3:5.
of Christ (w. ἀρχιερεύς) Hb 3:1 (cp. ApcEsdr 2:1 p. 25, 29 T.; Just., A I, 12, 9; the extra-Christian firman Sb 7240, 4f οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς εἰ μὴ ὁ θεὸς μόνος. Μααμετ ἀπόστολος θεοῦ). GWetter, ‘D. Sohn Gottes’ 1916, 26ff.
but predominately in the NT (of the apologists, only Just.) of a group of highly honored believers w. a special function as God’s envoys. Also Judaism had a figure known as apostle (שָׁלִיחַ; Schürer III 124f w. sources and lit.; Billerb. III 1926, 2–4; JTruron, Theology 51, ’48, 166–70; 341–43; GDix, ibid. 249–56; 385f; JBühner, art. ἄ. in EDNT I 142–46). In Christian circles, at first ἀ. denoted one who proclaimed the gospel, and was not strictly limited: Paul freq. calls himself an ἀ.: Ro 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1f; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Ti 1:1; 2:7; 2 Ti 1:1; Tit 1:1.—1 Cl 47:1. Of Barnabas Ac 14:14; 15:2. Of Andronicus and Junia (less prob. Junias, s. Ἰουνία) Ro 16:7. Of James, the Lord’s brother Gal 1:19. Of Peter 1 Pt 1:1; 2 Pt 1:1. Then esp. of the 12 apostles οἱ δώδεκα ἀ. (cp. ParJer 9:20; AscIs 3:21; 4:3) Mt 10:2; Mk 3:14; Lk 22:14 (v.l. οἱ δώδεκα); cp. 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; Ac 1:26 (P-HMenoud, RHPR 37 ’57, 71–80); Rv 21:14; PtK 3 p. 15, 18. Peter and the apostles Ac 2:37; 5:29. Paul and apostles Pol 9:1 (cp. AcPlTh Aa I, 235 app. of Thecla). Gener. the apostles Mk 6:30; Lk 24:10; 1 Cor 4:9; 9:5; 15:7; 2 Cor 11:13; 1 Th 2:7; Ac 1:2; 2:42f; 4:33, 35, 37; 5:2,12, 18, 34 v.l., 40; 6:6; 8:1, 14, 18; 9:27; 11:1; 14:4; 2 Pt 3:2; Jd 17; IEph 11:2; IMg 7:1; 13:2; ITr 2:2; 3:1; 7:1; IPhld 5:1; ISm 8:1; D ins; 11:3, 6. As a governing board, w. the elders Ac 15:2, 4, 6, 22f; 16:4. As possessors of the most important spiritual gift 1 Cor 12:28f.Proclaimers of the gospel 1 Cl 42:1f; B 5:9; Hs 9, 17, 1. Prophesying strife 1 Cl 44:1. Working miracles 2 Cor 12:12. W. overseers, teachers and attendants Hv 3, 5, 1; Hs 9, 15, 4; w. teachers Hs 9, 25, 2; w. teachers, preaching to those who had fallen asleep Hs 9, 16, 5; w. var. Christian officials IMg 6:1; w. prophets Eph 2:20; D 11:3; Pol 6:3. Christ and the apostles as the foundation of the church IMg 13:1; ITr 12; 2; cp. Eph 2:20. οἱ ἀ. and ἡ ἐκκλησία w. the three patriarchs and the prophets IPhld 9:1. The Holy Scriptures named w. the ap. 2 Cl 14:2 (sim. ApcSed 14:10 p. 136, 17 Ja.). Paul ironically refers to his opponents (or the original apostles; s. s.v. ὑπερλίαν) as οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀ. the super-apostles 2 Cor 11:5; 12:11. The orig. apostles he calls οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀ. Gal 1:17; ...​

As you can see the word has two meaning. One is a general messenger (translated delegate, envoy, messenger - not apostle); the other is a special divinely commissioned messenger (translated apostle) ie the twelve, Paul, Barnabas etc. The only places the first type is referred to is John 13:16, Phil 2:25 and 2 Cor 8:23 and virtually all bible versions translate these verses as 'messenger' or 'representative'. All other references to apostolos (including 1 Cor 12:28) are referring to the 2nd type ie the 1st century divinely commissioned apostles.

Are you trying to tell us that the churches/congregations down through the ages have been both pure in thought and practice - maybe you need to get out a bit more!

But that doesn't mean 1 Corinthians was addressed to the worldwide church does it?

As you asked a question that I did not know the answer to, other with only reading a few commentaries over the years on 1 Cor 1:2, 7, I was therefore more than just a little interested with finding out what they had to say.

I even opened with Hodge (1856) who I said in my summary did not agree with me, but I pointed out that Hodge himself disagreed with his peers, which is something that you failed to pick up, or maybe you simply chose to ignore it. Then you rambled on without taking note of my brief summaries where most did not agree with me but some certainly did.

As you post was, as I said, very disappointing and certainly immature on your part I will leave any further comment aside.

Well, now that we have established that no commentary says 1 Corinthians was addressed to the worldwide church, perhaps you could answer my original question. Is there a single commentary that claims 1 Cor 1:7-8 is saying all spiritual gifts would continue throughout the church age until the Lord's return?

I will ignore your closing insult.
 
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
Barnabas was the same type of apostle as Paul. The only place where he is referred to as an apostle is in Luke 14 where it says:

Luke 14:14 “But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul....” and
Luke 14:4 "But the people of the city were divided; and some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles"
(referring to Paul and Barnabas).​

His apostleship is directly equated with that of Paul's. He is not given an inferior distinction. In fact he is listed first in v14. So if Barnabas was an apostle (and it seems he was) then he is the same type of apostle as Paul.

Barnabas was not commissioned by the church or an apostle, he was commissioned by God:
Acts 13:2 "the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Just because he was less prominent than the others doesn't mean he was a lesser type of apostle. Thaddeus, Bartholomew, Simon, and Matthias were also low key apostles.

As I said there is nowhere in scripture where the word 'apostle' is used to describe a congregational apostle or church planter. It is always refers to a special, divinely commissioned, eye-witness of Christ's resurrection, apostle.

Dividing up apostles into 2 different types is a typical pentecostal/charismatic ploy to avoid the difficulties posed in scripture. The same goes with their invention of different types of prophet (the OT type, the foundational NT type, the congregational type); and their invention of different types of tongues (foreign languages, heavenly language, the gift of tongues, the sign of tongues, tongues from God, tongues to God, etc). When one of their gifts doesn't fit with scripture it is explained away with..."Oh, that is a different type".



Despite your boasting about all the resources you own, you obviously haven't done your homework on this. You might want to see the BDAG Lexicon entry for the Greek word apostolos:

BDAG Lexicon - apostolos
ἀπόστολος, ου, ὁ
(s. ἀποστέλλω).
...
of messengers without extraordinary status delegate, envoy, messenger (opp. ὁ πέμψας) J 13:16. Of Epaphroditus, messenger of the Philippians Phil 2:25.—2 Cor 8:23.

of messengers with extraordinary status, esp. of God’s messenger, envoy (cp. Epict. 3, 22, 23 of Cynic wise men: ἄγγελος ἀπὸ τ. Διὸς ἀπέσταλται).
of prophets Lk 11:49; Rv 18:20; cp. 2:2; Eph 3:5.
of Christ (w. ἀρχιερεύς) Hb 3:1 (cp. ApcEsdr 2:1 p. 25, 29 T.; Just., A I, 12, 9; the extra-Christian firman Sb 7240, 4f οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς εἰ μὴ ὁ θεὸς μόνος. Μααμετ ἀπόστολος θεοῦ). GWetter, ‘D. Sohn Gottes’ 1916, 26ff.
but predominately in the NT (of the apologists, only Just.) of a group of highly honored believers w. a special function as God’s envoys. Also Judaism had a figure known as apostle (שָׁלִיחַ; Schürer III 124f w. sources and lit.; Billerb. III 1926, 2–4; JTruron, Theology 51, ’48, 166–70; 341–43; GDix, ibid. 249–56; 385f; JBühner, art. ἄ. in EDNT I 142–46). In Christian circles, at first ἀ. denoted one who proclaimed the gospel, and was not strictly limited: Paul freq. calls himself an ἀ.: Ro 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1f; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Ti 1:1; 2:7; 2 Ti 1:1; Tit 1:1.—1 Cl 47:1. Of Barnabas Ac 14:14; 15:2. Of Andronicus and Junia (less prob. Junias, s. Ἰουνία) Ro 16:7. Of James, the Lord’s brother Gal 1:19. Of Peter 1 Pt 1:1; 2 Pt 1:1. Then esp. of the 12 apostles οἱ δώδεκα ἀ. (cp. ParJer 9:20; AscIs 3:21; 4:3) Mt 10:2; Mk 3:14; Lk 22:14 (v.l. οἱ δώδεκα); cp. 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; Ac 1:26 (P-HMenoud, RHPR 37 ’57, 71–80); Rv 21:14; PtK 3 p. 15, 18. Peter and the apostles Ac 2:37; 5:29. Paul and apostles Pol 9:1 (cp. AcPlTh Aa I, 235 app. of Thecla). Gener. the apostles Mk 6:30; Lk 24:10; 1 Cor 4:9; 9:5; 15:7; 2 Cor 11:13; 1 Th 2:7; Ac 1:2; 2:42f; 4:33, 35, 37; 5:2,12, 18, 34 v.l., 40; 6:6; 8:1, 14, 18; 9:27; 11:1; 14:4; 2 Pt 3:2; Jd 17; IEph 11:2; IMg 7:1; 13:2; ITr 2:2; 3:1; 7:1; IPhld 5:1; ISm 8:1; D ins; 11:3, 6. As a governing board, w. the elders Ac 15:2, 4, 6, 22f; 16:4. As possessors of the most important spiritual gift 1 Cor 12:28f.Proclaimers of the gospel 1 Cl 42:1f; B 5:9; Hs 9, 17, 1. Prophesying strife 1 Cl 44:1. Working miracles 2 Cor 12:12. W. overseers, teachers and attendants Hv 3, 5, 1; Hs 9, 15, 4; w. teachers Hs 9, 25, 2; w. teachers, preaching to those who had fallen asleep Hs 9, 16, 5; w. var. Christian officials IMg 6:1; w. prophets Eph 2:20; D 11:3; Pol 6:3. Christ and the apostles as the foundation of the church IMg 13:1; ITr 12; 2; cp. Eph 2:20. οἱ ἀ. and ἡ ἐκκλησία w. the three patriarchs and the prophets IPhld 9:1. The Holy Scriptures named w. the ap. 2 Cl 14:2 (sim. ApcSed 14:10 p. 136, 17 Ja.). Paul ironically refers to his opponents (or the original apostles; s. s.v. ὑπερλίαν) as οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀ. the super-apostles 2 Cor 11:5; 12:11. The orig. apostles he calls οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀ. Gal 1:17; ...​

As you can see the word has two meaning. One is a general messenger (translated delegate, envoy, messenger - not apostle); the other is a special divinely commissioned messenger (translated apostle) ie the twelve, Paul, Barnabas etc.

The only places the first type is referred to is John 13:16, Phil 2:25 and 2 Cor 8:23 and virtually all bible versions translate these verses as 'messenger' or 'representative'. All other references to apostolos (including 1 Cor 12:28) are referring to the 2nd type ie the 1st century divinely commissioned apostles.



But that doesn't mean 1 Corinthians was addressed to the worldwide church does it?



Well, now that we have established that no commentary says 1 Corinthians was addressed to the worldwide church, perhaps you could answer my original question. Is there a single commentary that claims 1 Cor 1:7-8 is saying all spiritual gifts would continue throughout the church age until the Lord's return?

I will ignore your closing insult.

You've got a typo. Barnabas and Paul weren't mentioned in Luke. Too early. Try Acts.
 
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

PittBullMom

Active Member
Supporter
Sep 6, 2017
337
312
USA
✟86,106.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
This topic stood out and reminded me of something that happened to me in childhood. My mother had started attending a Pentecostal church with a neighbor. She insisted I be baptised at 12. I took 3 Full body dunks in ice cold water. After the third dunk the pastor said Im sorry, you cannot receive the holy ghost at this time. I later asked why. I was told because I didn't get the ghost... I didn't speak in tongues and run and jump around the church. I then thought God didn't want me.
 
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
This topic stood out and reminded me of something that happened to me in childhood. My mother had started attending a Pentecostal church with a neighbor. She insisted I be baptised at 12. I took 3 Full body dunks in ice cold water. After the third dunk the pastor said Im sorry, you cannot receive the holy ghost at this time. I later asked why. I was told because I didn't get the ghost... I didn't speak in tongues and run and jump around the church. I then thought God didn't want me.

First problem is no one can decide for you to be baptized.

And baptism is the outward symbol of your repentance of all sin, and making Jesus the Lord of your life. Baptism doesn't kill you, you don't bury the living, you are buried in baptism AFTER you have already died to sin. It symbolizes your crucifixion with Christ. Your "resurrection" is receiving the Holy Spirit who is the one who gives you a new nature that is dead to sin. Sin no longer has a stranglehold on your life. You can now make right choices and follow after the Spirit. This power over sin is the true evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit. Tongues is given to all who repent and accept Jesus, but seeing as it is up to us to speak or not, it cannot be the evidence. Some who have this power over sin, are still uninformed they even have the ability to speak in tongues and never do.

I was baptized three different times, but it wasn't until 30 years later that I finally REPENTED of committing sin, that I was filled to overflowing with His Spirit. Belief in Jesus is not enough, because even the demons believe and tremble. But making Jesus the Lord of your life makes all the difference, and He said, "if you love me, keep my commandments." But you don't have to keep His commandments in your own puny strength, but through the overwhelming power of the Spirit that destroys the desire to sin. And what ARE His commandments. 1 John 3:23 tells us that they are to believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ and to love your neighbor as yourself.
 
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
Then we also have the curious greeting in Romans 16 -

7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Were these two men also apostles?

No, not in my opinion.

These two were "Well Known to the apostles" and were held in high regards to them but the Scriptures does not say that they were in fact Apostles.
 
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
Barnabas was also called an apostle.

Through and correct Bible study tells us that Luke described Barnabas as someone distinct from the Twelve. He was sent with Paul to proclaim the gospel, and in this sense, he was an apostle.

He cannot be used an example of someone who received an apostleship that was the same as the Twelve or Paul and thus be used as precedent for anyone to claim a similar apostleship today.

The only reason one would try to say Barnabus was an apostle would be to teach the continuation of the sign gifts so as to allow them to be in operation today.
 
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

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 title of Apostle was given to the initial twelve. There is some doubt whether Matthias was the Holy Spirit's choice or whether they chose him because they needed to replace Judas. This was before the Day of Pentecost, so this brings a reasonable doubt as to whether they were actually led by the Spirit to choose Matthias. Paul is the obvious Holy Spirit choice because he was chosen to be an Apostle through the prophetic word at Antioch.

There is no such "gift" as apostle. It is one of the five-fold ministries to build up and strengthen the Church. Unfortunately, because the structural Church is no longer a unified "one", but a divided mishmash of denominations all in disunity with each other, the criteria for an apostle ministry in our modern church cannot be met, and therefore there are no truly Biblical apostles existent these days. There has to be a lot of work by the Holy Spirit to bring our Church into the unity required to enable anything approaching an apostleship ministry.

I know that there are some who claim to have an apostle's ministry, but because they are not accepted by the WHOLE church, they can call themselves an apostle, but only for the churches that recognise and accept them. But they cannot claim the role of a Biblical apostle appointed by the Holy Spirit.

Agreed. See, we just keep on agreeing!
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
It was the Lord who chose Matthias, not the eleven:

Acts 1:24 "And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”....."and the lot fell to Matthias"




Apostles ceased, not because they were hindered by the bishops, but because one of the qualifications could no longer be met. They had to be eyewitnesses of the risen Lord Jesus in the flesh. Before drawing up the shortlist for Judas's replacement, Peter said "one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection" (Acts 1:22). Paul stated this condition in defending his apostleship "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor 9:1). And in 1 Cor 15:5-8 Paul says he was the last person to see the risen Christ. So there cannot be any more apostles after Paul. Notice when James died in Acts 12 he wasn't replaced like Judas was. No instructions were given to appoint further apostles, only to appoint elders and deacons.
We know from our own experience that just because we pray and ask the Lord to do something, doesn't mean that He actually does what we ask for. Those men are not different to what we are today. They did not have a special sense of what Jesus was going to do any more than what we have today. Casting lots to decide something is like asking God to give us a truckload of money and then taking a Lotto ticket to decide whether we are going to get it or not. If the numbers come up then we conclude that it is the will of God - or is it?

The qualifications for an Apostle is really a mute point because the 12 pioneer Apostles and their unique role in the Church are no longer with us. And if there were other apostles (part of the five-fold ministry to the Church) in Acts, there are none today because of the reasons I have already given. So, I agree generally with you that there are no apostleship roles in today's churches (not I did not say Church, because in the structural sense that unified Church doesn't exist), but for slightly different reasons than the ones you state.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Paul is not saying he can impart spiritual gifts to others. As you say spiritual gifts are sovereignly granted to believers only by God himself via the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 12:11). No, the answer lays in the Greek word for 'impart' (μεταδίδωμι) which is to do with sharing rather than granting. This is confirmed by the other 4 usages of the word (Luke 3:11; Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 2:8; Rom 12:8).

BDAG lexicon:
μεταδίδωμι 2 aor. μετέδωκα LXX, subj. μεταδῶ; impv. μεταδότω, inf. μεταδοῦναι (Theognis, Hdt.+; ins, pap, LXX, EpArist; TestSol 10:53 C; TestJob 4:1; Test12Patr, Philo; Jos., Ant. 4, 237; 6, 255; Just., A I, 66, 3; Mel., P. 47, 334; Ath. 30, 2) give (a part of), impart, share τινί τι (Hdt. 9, 34; X., An. 4, 5, 5; Tob 7:10 BA; EpArist 43; Mel., P. 47, 334) someth. to or with someone (B-D-F §169, 1; Rob. 510) ἵνα τι μεταδῶ χάρισμα ὑμῖν πνευματικόν in order that I might impart some spiritual gift to you Ro 1:11. ὑμῖν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ share God’s gospel with you 1 Th 2:8 (cp. Wsd 7:13 sagacious instruction; TestJob 4:1 divine precepts). W. omission of the acc., which is supplied fr. the context Lk 3:11; of alms-giving to the needy Eph 4:28; cp. Hv 3, 9, 2; 4. Without the dat., which is to be supplied fr. the context 1:5. Abs. ὁ μεταδιδοὺς ἐν ἁπλότητι one who gives, (let the pers. do it) with liberality, or in all sincerity,i.e., without grudging Ro 12:8.—M-M.—S. εὐεργετέω.​

In other words it is Paul's own spiritual gifts that he wishes to share with the Romans in order to help them (his gifts of prophecy, faith, teaching, leadership, exhortation etc). Not grant them new gifts.

So Radagast is correct. Paul does refer to such gifts as "spiritual gifts".
Can't argue with the Greek in this case.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Agreed. See, we just keep on agreeing!
It has all to do with reading posts carefully and not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think that because of how we were taught, whom we respected as mentors during our spiritual formative periods and the theology that we choose because we believe it works best for us, we will have points of disagreements. This forum would be boring and unsuccessful otherwise.

My theology works for me and I am happy with it. Like Spurgeon said once: If when he got to eternity he found out that he was entirely mistaken in the way he viewed and practised his faith and ministry and that there was nothing there, he concluded that his eventful and satisfying life of faith was worth every minute of it.

If I got to eternity and found out that my praying in tongues was meaningless and that my belief in the spiritual gifts was mistaken, I would have the same response - that the years of pleasure and fun I have had believing in these things was worth every minute of it, and I would say to the Lord, "Oh well, now we are in a totally different place, and those things are now history anyway, so onward and upward!"

I choose to be reasonable and respectful over these things, although, as you know, I do inject my wacky sense of humour into discussions sometimes, it is because what we are discussing are not hindrances to our salvation and unity in Christ. These things are not so important to our faith that we need to be rude and "flame" each other.

I know that you, Swordsman, and the other brother who has been debating with me over the spiritual gifts and ministries, are genuine, sincere believers in Christ, and that is what unites us, and in glory will bond us together even tighter as we all stand around the throne of God rejoicing and praising our Lord and Saviour. If it were otherwise, you and I would not take the time to post on the forum and to advocate our views.

I think we learn more from those who oppose and debate with us than those who agree with us, because it makes us think more deeply about what we believe and judge the importance of it to our faith in Christ. My view about spiritual gifts is that if it works for a person, why not believe in them? If it doesn't work for another person, there is no skin off anyone's nose by not believing in them. No one is going to lose their salvation or close fellowship with Christ over whether they believe or not believe in the spiritual gifts for today.

Except for those groups that believe that you can't be saved unless you can speak in tongues! They may think they are the true Church and the rest of us are down the tubes! ^_^^_^^_^ Reminds me of my parrot's quote of Mark Anthony's speech. I will adapt it. "They say that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation, and they are all honorable men. They may be blaspheming the blood of Christ, but they are, without a doubt, all honorable men!" I'm not breaking the goading rule because I am just quoting Shakespeare from the mouth of my parrot, am I not?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
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

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
We know from our own experience that just because we pray and ask the Lord to do something, doesn't mean that He actually does what we ask for. Those men are not different to what we are today. They did not have a special sense of what Jesus was going to do any more than what we have today. Casting lots to decide something is like asking God to give us a truckload of money and then taking a Lotto ticket to decide whether we are going to get it or not. If the numbers come up then we conclude that it is the will of God - or is it?

The qualifications for an Apostle is really a mute point because the 12 pioneer Apostles and their unique role in the Church are no longer with us. And if there were other apostles (part of the five-fold ministry to the Church) in Acts, there are none today because of the reasons I have already given. So, I agree generally with you that there are no apostleship roles in today's churches (not I did not say Church, because in the structural sense that unified Church doesn't exist), but for slightly different reasons than the ones you state.

You have a very low view of the Lord's appointed apostles if you say they are no different to us, and accuse them of gambling for casting lots. Basically you are saying they were at fault in selecting Judas's replacement, and that God did not answer their prayer and choose Matthias, but rather he became an apostle by nothing more than gambler's luck. Darn those selfish sinful apostles. :swoon:
 
Upvote 0