Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

I am not saying babtism in the holy spirit speaking in tongues makes you more righteous........
Just noting that it exists today as it did in the 1st century..

By the way I grew up in the old conservative Church of Christ Who believe almost everything was secationist....
Including instrumental music......
I began to change my views when I saw africans from the church of Christ cast a demon out of a kid.......
And dancing in the Spirit vefor the Lord

Both tongue speaking churches and non tongue speaking churches existed in the 1st century as it does today......
But most of the Apostles made sure the nontongue speqking churches were tqught the babtism of the Holy Spirit

I have belonged to both churches over the last 30 years
Recently a Bible Church where most are secationist.....
But after years of ministry in missions it is impossible to deny the use of these gifts......

All I am saying is you are gonna have to throw out a lot of strong Christians if you think they are false teachers for speaking in tongues.........

Major1 said:

Is it a "spiritual" drill???

Click to expand...

Only when I "lay hands" on it.

swordsman1 said:

When it says "prophesy in accordance with your faith" it is not saying that prophecy is only accurate if you have enough personal faith, and it certainly doesn't say the recipient also has to have faith to believe it. That verse is saying your prophesying must be in accordance with your Christian faith. ie it must not contradict scripture.

Click to expand...

Paul never said that. What you are doing is to adapt Paul's words to fit your theology.

Major1 said:

With all due respect, you seem to be saying that the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Church of England, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Anabaptists and all the others were all wrong for about 1700 years.

Then 100 years ago the Pentecostal denomination saved us all from our error of theology and understanding.

Could there be another explanation?????????

1 Timothy 4:1.........
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons".

Click to expand...

Well, as the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans and Anabaptists were not in existence 1700 years ago, or even 700 years ago for that matter, then maybe this might be the first clue as to the explanation that you asked for.

Then we have the Roman Catholics and the various Eastern Orthodox who have been intensely Continuist from their very beginning, though as to how we define “their beginnings” can be rightfully argued. Then we have the Anglicans who, to my understanding, have always had orders of service for those who were seeking healing which puts them into a different camp to today’s cessationists.

As the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and up until recent years the Anglicans who also claimed various Apostolic succession for their Bishops then this Office also has them in a different category to today’s cessationists.

What has been a major stumbling block for many denominations such as with the Roman Catholics and the various Eastern Orthodox denominations (and with others), has been with the early insistence by the fledgling Pentecostal movement of the 20th century that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is supposed to be one of subsequence and not one that is soteriological.

With the Roman Catholics, they have been baiting the various Reformation denominations since the Reformation by chiding them with “Show us your miracles and we will show you ours” as the Roman Catholics fully realised that the Reformation denominations could not do this. Of course, the Westminster Confession of faith[-lessness] gave them additional ammunition to bait the Reformers. This was such an issue for these denominations Warfield released his polemic against the claims of healings by the Roman Catholics in 1918 – it was and still is a sore point with the Reformed denominations.

swordsman1 said:

It seems you don't even know what the Gospel is, if that is what you think. Continuationism has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel - the good news of Christ dying to save sinners. It is an affront to the redemptive work of Christ to say the gospel is somehow lacking and you do not have the 'full gospel' unless you subscribe to Pentecostalism.

Click to expand...

Okay, so the infilling of the Holy Spirit which was enabled as a result of the death of Christ on the cross has absolutely no bearing on the Gospel?

The problem that the hardcore-cessationist has with their perception of the Gospel is that it totally removes the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit from our Eschatological Salvific experience; in fact this particular understanding of the New Covenant is not even the Gospel.

So, in your view, the Good News of the Gospel is little more than get Saved and live your life without any interaction with the Spirit or with the Father; how different is this type of experience from those who are confessed liberals within our church ranks or with the average person on the street?

swordsman1 said:

If you had read my post in full you would see that I did indeed make that qualification. Most Pentecostals believe that interpreted tongues = prophecy and those who claim to have that gift invariably give their interpretations in that manner. ie as a direct message from God to the congregation in the first person eg "I am the Lord your God and I will bless you....".

Click to expand...

You seem to be a bit confused with my question, so maybe go back and take another look at it.

And no that is not the rare exception. Go to YouTube and search for "tongues with interpretation" and you will see thousands of such false interpretations given in the form of prophecy.

Click to expand...

By the way, while you were on Youtube did you see the evidence that proves that Big-Foot is real and the the Martians have invaded Washington and taken over the bodies of most politicians (okay, so maybe the second example is maybe half believable). But for goodness sake, as you obviously have no experience with Full Gospel worship then it is obviously a bit desperate of you to try and dredge up material on Youtube - unbelievable!

swordsman1 said:

If anyone wants to see a classic example of the strawman fallacy, this is it. We are not talking about what Calvinists or the broader Christian community think a church office is, we are talking about whether 1 Cor 12:28-31 is referring to "congregational offices" or people with gifts in the universal church. Seeing as "gift" is mentioned 3 times in this section alone, and "office" zero times should give you a clue. And the fact the immediate context is the body of Christ, the universal church, and not congregations (which do not come into view until Chapter 14), then the answer should be obvious to you if only you could set aside your preconceived ideas.

Click to expand...

So obviously 1 Cor 12:28, where Paul says "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles . . ." has been lost on you.

If you had read my post properly you would have seen that I was referring to the whole of 1 Cor 12:28-31 where Fee does indeed call them gifts. Eg

".... as to whether anyone is therefore excluded from any of these gifts is again...."

"... suggest that such gifts are potentially available to all ...."

"... urging them to seek the gifts at the top of the list ...."

"... nor to the preceding listings of gifts"
​

It therefore did come as a bit of a surprise to see him backtrack and subsequently contradict himself by saying elsewhere that one of them was not a gift. But then Pentecostal theology is not exactly renowned for it's consistency, is it. I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised seeing that if he said apostleship was a gift he would have to admit that one the gifts had ceased, and would probably be defrocked as an ordained Pentecostal minister as a result.

Click to expand...

As I said previously, as you have not gained the necessary skill set, nor the experience to address material from scholars such as Fee, which again has been evidenced by your irritatingly and sloppy cut and paste of his material that you did not bother quoting, nor did you bother to refer to his context, then there is little value with proceeding.

You are not simply pushing the boundaries of forum etiquette, you are breaking the rules of this forum which you agreed to abide by when you joined.

Yes, a rebuke is harsh, but it is nothing more than you deserve. And better to get it from me rather than find yourself banned when the moderators see how often you break the forum rules.

Click to expand...

. . . and so said the mouse to the cat.

No it is not just the spelling of BDAG I have to repeatedly correct you on. I had to teach to you how to use the lexicon in the first place when you started quoting it a few months ago and confused their extended definitions with their glosses. You then tried to wriggle your way out of that one by making an even bigger gaff in claiming BDAG had stopped using glosses! I know this will be painful reading for you but let me remind you of the thread:
www.christianforums.com/threads/praying-in-tongues-glossolia.7975495/page-33#post-70506791

Click to expand...

This section was ignored as mere ramblings.

By the way, I know this will come as a bit of an embarressment for you, but I checked over 20 commentaries to see how many agreed with you that apostles in 1 Cor 12:28 are everyday church planters and not 1st Century apostles of Christ. I'll quote them at the end of this post for all to see, but let's just say that it seems you are....how shall I put this politely....continuing to plow a lonely furrow.

Click to expand...

What . . . only 20 that disagree with my position, I'm sure that I could easily add to that number; but lets take a look at a few of the examples that you provided, where you should be able to see [I know, that simply won't happen] that some of the scholars you quoted have said a bit more than you have obviously realised.

Remember, as I have advised you before, you need to move very carefully with the various scholarly material and make sure that you check out Robertson & Plummer!

Commentaries on 'apostle' in 1 Cor 12:28:

Taylor - 1st Corinthians
The "apostles" were a select group, including Paul, the Twelve, and others commissioned by Christ.' The word "apostle" designates one officially commissioned to preach the gospel. Apostles were eyewitnesses of the resurrection (see 1 Cor 9:1-2: 15:5-9), which confines this unique group to the first century.

Click to expand...

Mmm. . . I don't a copy of his book yet so I cannot comment.

Carson - Showing the Spirit
What use of “apostle,” then, do we find in 1 Corinthians 12:28? The revealing word, I think, is “first”: “God has appointed first of all apostles.” If the summary I have just given is cogent, it is hard to imagine why Paul would designate “first” in any sense those who are apostles in some derivative fashion— messengers from the churches, perhaps. It is more likely that he has the narrow scope of “apostles” in mind….This seems the most likely interpretation, but in any case, it is clear that the gift of apostleship that Paul mentions in this text is not transferable to persons living in our day.

Click to expand...

What page is it on, I could not find it within my edition of Showing the Spirit?

Fitzmyer - First Corinthians
12:28
The first place is assigned to apostoloi, "commissioned emissaries," witnesses of the risen Christ, a title already known from 1:1 (see NoTE there); 4:9, 9:1, 2,5; see further 12:29; 15:7,9. Cf. Eph 4:ll-l2, where they similarly head the list of roles "given" by the ascended Christ "for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ." The "apostles" are not, however, to be restricted in the Lucan sense to the Twelve (Luke 6:13; Acts 1:13, 21–22, 26); for they would have included Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14 on this problematic occurrence, see Acts, 526]), possibly Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7 (see Romans 737-39)), possibly "James, the brother of the Lord" (Gall:19 see NBC, art. 47 Sl6, but also the NOTE on 9:5 above), and unnamed individuals (1 Cor 9:5; 15:7; 2 Cor 8:23). In this passage the apostolic role is to be understood as a form of diakonia, "ministry" or "service" (12:5), as are the next two (so Kremer, I Cor, 262).

Click to expand...

Joseph Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (2008) p.482
Why did you choose to quote a Roman Catholic scholar who happens to adhere to Apostolic succession?

For that matter, you obviously should have read the material a bit more closely:


Not only have you completely misread Fitzmyer's material but you have also unwittingly raised material by a Roman Catholic scholar who has not provided any additional information as to what he believes about Apostolic succession - even I don't know what his views are; but if I remember I can ask the Head of the Jesuit college next week here in Melbourne, who also teaches an advanced course on First Corinthians about Fitzmyer's views on Apostolic succession.

Morris - 1 Corinthians
Apostles were originally chosen by Christ to be with him, and that he might send them to teach and to cast out devils (Mark 3:14f) in time there were others than the Twelve, such as Barnabas, James, and Paul himself. They seem always to have been held in high esteem as custodians of the authentic gospel and witnesses to what God has done (see on 9:1f).

Click to expand...

Leon Morris (1958) Check out the lil' squiggles in red.

As Leon Morris was an Anglican scholar (old school) then he may have possibly also adhered to the Anglican understanding of Apostolic succession as well. As I use the college that he was the principle of, I should probably ask for a copy of some of notes on this issue - oh, so much, so much to do!

Thomas - Understanding Spiritual Gifts
The list of eight gifted men and gifts found in verse 28 names four not noticed in the list of verses 8–10 (apostles, teachers, helps, and administrations) and one that is casting a role slightly different from the previous list (prophets; cf. v. 10). This second list includes the following gifts.

“Apostles.” Apostles is the title given to a group of men who lived as a particular stage of history. What might be called "natural prerequisites for holding this office included personal contact with the Lord Jesus while He was on earth, followed by the experience of seeing Him alive after His resurrection (Acts 1:21–22; 1 Cor. 9:1–2). In addition, it was required that an apostle have a direct appointment from the Lord Jesus to this office (Luke 5:8, 6:13; Rom. 1:1). When an individual had all these, he also had the spiritual gift of apostleship.

Most likely the exact number of apostles was undefined. Had there been a specific number of which the church was aware, “false apostles" who could pass themselves off with any degree of credibility could never have arisen (cf. 2 Cor. 11:13; Rev. 2:2). Of coursẻ, there were the twelve who were apostles in a special sense Luke 6:14-16, with Matthias substituted for Judas Iscariot aftệr the Ascension, Acts 1:26). Two others bearing the title were Barnabas and James, the Lord's brother (1 Cor.9:5-6; 15:7; Gal. 1:19). Lesser-known iņdividuals such as Andronicus, Junius, and still others who are not named in the New Testament possibly possessed the gift [Rom. 16:7, 1 Cor. 15:5-7). The last person to be appointed to the apostolic office was Paul, whose induçtion came about under highly unusual circumständes (1 Cor. 15:8-9).

The reason for the absence of apostles from the body of Christ subsequent to Paul is obvious: the various kinds of personal contáct with the incarnate Lord Jesus required for this office restrict the timë for its functioning. Eye witnesses to Jesus Christ's personal life had all but ceased to exist by A.D. 100. The apostle John, one of the twelve, died at about this time, and so far as history records, he was the last living witness of Christ's resurrection. Leadership in the founding and early growth of the Christian church belonged to apostles. For this purpose they were granted special authority as Christ's personal representatives. This meant that when speaking or writing in certain capacities, they were mouthpieces of the Lord Himself. Their jurisdiction pertained to the church is a whole, not just to one local congregation. They were particularly instrumental ín expanding frontiers of the gospel, and thus their connection with one particular locality was never more than temporary.

A person with the gift of apostleship possessed many and perhaps most of the other Spiritual gifts. Sign gifts of healing (Acts 5:12-16), miracles (Acts 13:8-11), prophecy (Acts 27:25), and tongues (Acts 2:4; 1 Cor. 14:18) were given as badges of their apostleship (2 Cor. 12:12). Since they were the vehicles of revelation that eventually composed most of the New Testament books, they also must have been in possession of the gifts of wisdom and knowledge (1 Cor. 2:7, 10, 13, 2 Peter 3:15-16). As spokesmen of this revelation and as prophets of future events, they likewise possessed the gift of prophecy (Rev. 1:1-3). Instances of their special abilities in other areas of gift bestowal could likewise be adduced. One should remember, however, that apostles, thọugh so richly endowed, were not always guarded from error in their speech and actions in the same way they were when they wrote books of the New Testament (cf. Gal.2:11-14).

In light of the wide range of abilities and responsibilities of an apostle, it is no sựrprise that Paul gives this office and the associated gift of prophecy top ranking from the standpoint of benefit derived.

Click to expand...

Check out the lil' squiggles in red.

Dunn - Jesus and the Spirit
Who were the apostles of I Cor. 12.28? A study of Paul's use of the word 'apostle' reveals that he does so in two positive senses. First, as all agree, it can be used in the sense of delegate, envoy or messenger' - II Cor. 8.23; Phil. 2.25. Clearly that is not the sense intended in I Cor. 12.28, since the authority of the delegate is authority to represent his community elsewhere', whereas in I Cor. 12.28 we are talking about apostles set in the church = the local community (see above pp. 262f.).

Second, elsewhere, and leaving aside II Cor. 10-1 3 for the moment, 'apostle' always refers to what we might call apostle in the I Cor. 15.7- 9 sense, apostles of Christ rather than delegates of a church - that is, a limited circle of individuals (though much wider than 'the twelve'), a select circle which was soon closed, though not before Paul had been added to it by the abortion of his conversion (see above §18.3). If we may take Paul as typical, we can slightly elaborate our conclusions of chapter V and hst the key characteristics of apostleship (in the second sense) as follows: (1) they had been commissioned personally by the risen Jesus in a resurrection appearance (I Cor.9.1; 15.7 ; Gal. I.I, i5f; I Thess. 2.6/7 - 'apostles of Christ'); (2) they were missionaries and church founders (Rom. 1.5 ; 11.13 ; 15.20; I Cor.3.5f, 10 ; 9.2; I5.9ff.; Gal. I.i5f.); (3) theirs was a distinctively and decisively eschatological role (Rom. 11.133".; I5.i5f; I Cor.4.9; 15.8 ; Eph.3.5). We should note that all three elements were integral to Paul's understanding of apostleship (in the second sense). Hence the distinction observable between Paul's fellow workers - between Barnabas and Silvanus on the one hand, and such as Timothy and Epaphras on the other. No doubt one or other of the latter group had taken part with Paul, like Barnabas and Silvanus, in the founding of new churches, and perhaps had even founded churches independently of Paul; yet the title 'apostle' is withheld from them (notably in II Cor.1.1; Col.1.1; cf Phil 1.1) - no doubt because they could not trace their commissioning back to an appearance of the risen Jesus.'* Hence too, perhaps, Paul's hesitation about recognizing the apostleship of James, since he was not properly speaking a missionary and founder of new churches.'* Hence too the question of other apostles in the future or of successors to the original apostles was one which never occurred to Paul - there could be, almost by definition, no successor to the eschatological apostles, since their work spanned the interval between resurrection and parousia; they were the last act in the arena before the end (I Cor. 4.9)

There can be little doubt that 'apostles' in I Cor. 12.28 means apostles in the second sense.''' Notice again that he is speaking of the local church - here the church in Corinth. This does not mean that each local community produced its own apostles to exercise authority within the community - Paul never uses 'apostle' in this sense. Nor does the term 'apostle' in I Cor. 12.28 refer to 'all the apostles' of I Cor. 15.7 .

Click to expand...

Check out the lil' squiggles in red. It would be easy to mark more portions in red but for times sake I haven't.

Robertson & Plummer - 1 Corinthians
From this passage, and from Eph. iv. 11 (comp. ii. 20), we learn that Apostles were the first order in the Church; also that St Peter is not an order by himself. Apparently it was essential that an Apostle should have seen the Lord, and especially the risen Lord (ix. 1, 2 ; Luke xxiv. 48; Acts i. 8, 21-23): he must be a 'witness of His resurrection.' This was true of Matthias, James, and Paul; and may easily have been true of Barnabas, Andronicus, and Junias ; but not of Apollos or Timothy. The Apostles were analogous to the Prophets of the O.T., being sent to the new Israel, as the Prophets to the old. They had administrative functions, but no local jurisdiction: they belonged to the whole Church.

Click to expand...

So your playing games again!!!
Why did you choose to omit the following material from the beginning of this quote, being page 279 of their book First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1914) when you should know by now that I have most of the material that you have quoted either as hard copy or digitised:

"πρώτον άποατολους. Not to be restricted to the Twelve. The term included Paul and Barnabas, James the Lord’s brother (xv. 7; Gal. i. ig; comp. ix. 5), apparently Andronicus and Junias (Rom. xvi. 7), and probably others (xv. 5, 7). There could not have been false apostles (2 Cor. xi. 13) unless the number of Apostles had been indefinite".

I was going to address some additional material but the call to the dinner table has taken precedence.

Biblicist said:

Okay, so the infilling of the Holy Spirit which was enabled as a result of the death of Christ on the cross has absolutely no bearing on the Gospel?

Click to expand...

So it seems not only do you not understand what the Gospel is, but neither to you understand what the infilling of the Holy Spirit is. You really need to go back and study the basics of Christianity. Being filled with the Spirit not part of the Gospel, nor is it part of salvation, nor is it something unique to Pentecostalism. Maybe you meant to say 'indwelling of the Spirit' instead? In which case since when has that also been unique to Pentecostalism? Or are you one of those who believe that only Pentecostals/charismatics have received the Holy Spirit?

Biblicist said:

The problem that the hardcore-cessationist has with their perception of the Gospel is that it totally removes the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit from our Eschatological Salvific experience; in fact this particular understanding of the New Covenant is not even the Gospel.

So, in your view, the Good News of the Gospel is little more than get Saved and live your life without any interaction with the Spirit or with the Father; how different is this type of experience from those who are confessed liberals within our church ranks or with the average person on the street?

Click to expand...

That is a lie. Cessationists fully embrace the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit especially his role in salvation. What we do not do is ADD to his work and claim things from Him which are clearly not from Him, unlike Pentecostals and charismatics. Their unbiblical teachings on tongues, prophecies, the Holy Spirit etc are all that set Pentecostals apart from the rest of us. So answer the original criticism - in what way is the gospel of Christ lacking, which Pentecostalism adds to make the "full gospel"?

Biblicist said:

You seem to be a bit confused with my question, so maybe go back and take another look at it.

Click to expand...

What question? You never asked a question. Or was that just a way of avoiding the obvious conclusion of my post - that Pentecostalism is rife with false prophecy.

Biblicist said:

By the way, while you were on Youtube did you see the evidence that proves that Big-Foot is real and the the Martians have invaded Washington and taken over the bodies of most politicians (okay, so maybe the second example is maybe half believable). But for goodness sake, as you obviously have no experience with Full Gospel worship then it is obviously a bit desperate of you to try and dredge up material on Youtube - unbelievable!

Click to expand...

No that's because Big Foot and Martians are myths. But there is no myth to the fact that Pentecostals interpret tongues in the form of prophecies, as the thousands of videos from their services will testify.

Biblicist said:

So obviously 1 Cor 12:28, where Paul says "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles . . ." has been lost on you.

Click to expand...

Maybe there is something wrong with my eyesight because I cannot see where word 'office' appears in that sentence. It says God has placed in the universal church people with those gifts. I've never heard of someone being a church's official tongue speaker.

Biblicist said:

As I said previously, as you have not gained the necessary skill set, nor the experience to address material from scholars such as Fee, which again has been evidenced by your irritatingly and sloppy cut and paste of his material that you did not bother quoting, nor did you bother to refer to his context, then there is little value with proceeding.

Click to expand...

So instead of addressing my point that Fee clearly describes the list in 1 Cor 12:28 as "gifts", you have to spew out another ad-hominem diatribe of insults. I shouldn't have expected anything more I suppose.

Biblicist said:

This section was ignored as mere ramblings.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised you wanted to quickly brush that under the carpet!

Biblicist said:

What . . . only 20 that disagree with my position, I'm sure that I could easily add to that number; but lets take a look at a few of the examples that you provided, where you should be able to see [I know, that simply won't happen] that some of the scholars you quoted have said a bit more than you have obviously realised.

Remember, as I have advised you before, you need to move very carefully with the various scholarly material and make sure that you check out Robertson & Plummer!

Click to expand...

I don't know whether you are having difficulty reading or something, but it seems I am going to have to hold your hand and walk you through these commentaries, none of which agree with your claim that 'apostles' in 1 Cor 12:28 are everyday church planters or messengers of a local church, but rather 1st Century apostles of Christ.

Biblicist said:

Mmm. . . I don't a copy of his book yet so I cannot comment.

Click to expand...

That's strange as you have quoted from his book before without a problem when it suited you. Anyway it's pretty hard to misinterpret:

"Apostles were eyewitnesses of the resurrection (see 1 Cor 9:1-2: 15:5-9), which confines this unique group to the first century."

Biblicist said:

What page is it on, I could not find it within my edition of Showing the Spirit?

Click to expand...

I don't have the page number as I have a digital copy of Carson's book. But it is under the section "Reflections on the Nature of Several of the χαíσµατα (charismata)", in the subsection "Apostles (12:28)" (unsurprisingly).

You will notice he says it is hard to imagine these being messengers from the churches, but rather "it is clear that the gift of apostleship that Paul mentions in this text is not transferable to persons living in our day."

Biblicist said:

Joseph Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (2008) p.482
Why did you choose to quote a Roman Catholic scholar who happens to adhere to Apostolic succession?

For that matter, you obviously should have read the material a bit more closely:

In either case, what is all-important is God’s appointment: those who are apostles in the Christian community have not chosen this task for themselves. . .
The “apostles” are not, however, to be restricted in the Lucan sense to the Twelve (Luke 6:13; Acts 1:13, 21-22, 26); for they would have included;

• Paul
• Barnabas
• possibly Andronicus and Junia
• possibly "James the brother of the Lord"
• and unnamed individuals.

Not only have you completely misread Fitzmyer's material but you have also unwittingly raised material by a Roman Catholic scholar who has not provided any additional information as to what he believes about Apostolic succession - even I don't know what his views are; but if I remember I can ask the Head of the Jesuit college next week here in Melbourne, who also teaches an advanced course on First Corinthians about Fitzmyer's views on Apostolic succession.

Click to expand...

I don't know what Fitzmyers views are on Apostolic succession are (and neither do you), but they are clearly irrelevant here as he recognizes that 'apostles' in this verse are "witnesses of the risen Christ" - something that could not apply to RC popes and bishops, nor to everyday church planters as you claim they are; but only to 1st Century apostles of Christ. Fitzmyer clearly gives examples are this type of apostle - the Twelve, Paul, Barnabas etc.

Not sure what the point of the rest of your reply is. Nobody said that apostles here was restricted to the Twelve. There were other 1st century apostles of Christ as Fitzmyer and everyone else knows.

Biblicist said:

Leon Morris (1958) Check out the lil' squiggles in red.

As Leon Morris was an Anglican scholar (old school) then he may have possibly also adhered to the Anglican understanding of Apostolic succession as well. As I use the college that he was the principle of, I should probably ask for a copy of some of notes on this issue - oh, so much, so much to do!

Click to expand...

Amazing! The parts you highlighted in red disprove your argument! They are all divinely appointed apostles, not apostles of churches. And of course how could you possibly miss this statement - "Apostles were originally chosen by Christ"?

Biblicist said:

Check out the lil' squiggles in red.

Click to expand...

Again, the parts of Thomas commentary you highlighted disagree with your position. Those people were 1st Century apostles of Christ, their only claim to apostleship being their inclusion as apostles with the Twelve/Paul. It is quite remarkable that you are even trying to twist the words of the most cessationist of all those commentators.

Thomas's other comments were obviously lost on you as well, notably:

Biblicist said:

Check out the lil' squiggles in red. It would be easy to mark more portions in red but for times sake I haven't.

Click to expand...

Amazing, you have totally misread Dunn's piece! He describes two options (1) apostles of the church and (2) apostles of Christ. You have highlighted the option that Dunn rejects!


I'm enjoying this.

Biblicist said:

Why did you choose to omit the following material from the beginning of this quote, being page 279 of their book First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1914) when you should know by now that I have most of the material that you have quoted either as hard copy or digitised:

"πρώτον άποατολους. Not to be restricted to the Twelve. The term included Paul and Barnabas, James the Lord’s brother (xv. 7; Gal. i. ig; comp. ix. 5), apparently Andronicus and Junias (Rom. xvi. 7), and probably others (xv. 5, 7). There could not have been false apostles (2 Cor. xi. 13) unless the number of Apostles had been indefinite".

Click to expand...

I am quite happy to include that sentence. Those apostles are the same type as the Twelve. ie divinely appointed.

You obviously missed R & P's clarification..."Apparently it was essential that an Apostle should have seen the Lord, and especially the risen Lord (ix. 1, 2 ; Luke xxiv. 48; Acts i. 8, 21-23): he must be a 'witness of His resurrection.' This was true of Matthias, James, and Paul; and may easily have been true of Barnabas, Andronicus, and Junias ; but not of Apollos or Timothy."


So out of over 20 commentaries not one agrees with your claim that apostles in 12:28 are church planters / apostles of the churches. Instead they all agree with me - they are first century apostles of Christ.

Oscarr said:

Paul never said that. What you are doing is to adapt Paul's words to fit your theology.

Click to expand...

Not at all. It is the prevailing consensus among the commentators on Romans 12:6.

Douglas Moo - The Epistle to the Romans
The majority of interpreters think that faith here is not our act of believing but that which we believe: "Christian teaching.” It would certainly make good sense for Paul to insist that prophets assess what they are saying against the standard of Christian truth. And "faith" can have this objective sense in Paul.
...
On the whole, then, we are inclined to side with Cranfield, who argues that faith refers, as usual, to basic Christian faith and that "the analogia of faith" is essentially the same as the "measure of faith” in v. 3: the standard implied in one's own belief in Christ. Prophets, Paul is saying, are to make sure that their utterances are in right proportion to their faith in Christ.

John Stott - The Message of Romans
It is in the light of these differences that we should understand the regulation which Paul here places on the exercise of the prophetic gift: let him use it in proportion to his faith (6b). Some think that this is a subjective restriction, namely that the prophet should speak only so long as he is sure of his inspiration; he must not add any words of his own. But it is more likely to be an objective restriction. In this case we should note that "faith' has the definite article, and we should translate the phrase 'in agreement with the faith'. That is, 'the prophet is to make sure that his message does not in any way contradict the Christian faith'.

C. E. B. Cranfield - Romans
It may be suggested that the simplest and most satisfactory interpretation-particularly if our explanation of v. 3 is correct-is "according to the standard of faith', 'in agreement with faith’ (i.e., faith = fides qua): the prophets are to prophesy in agreement with the standard which they possess in their apprehension of, and response to, the grace of God in Jesus Christ - they are to be careful not to utter (under the impression that they are inspired) anything which is incompatible with their believing in Christ.

John Murray - Epistle to the Romans
The regulative principle prescribed for a prophet was that he exercise his gift "according to the proportion of faith'. This has been interpreted, as a literal rendering might suggest, 'according to the analogy of the faith", faith being taken in the objective sense as the truth revealed and believed. This view would correspond to the expression, the analogy of Scripture, which means that Scripture is to be interpreted in accord with Scripture, that the infallible rule of the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. Much can be said in support of this interpretation.

l. If the expression means "proportion of faith', it would have the same force as "measure of faith" (vs. 3), and, since every one is to judge himself and exercise his gift in accordance with the measure of faith given, why should this be repeated and directed to the prophet specifically?

2. There is good reason why a prophet should be reminded that the new revelations he has received are never in conflict with existing revelation. This is the mark of a true prophet (cf. Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22; I Cor. 14:37; I John 4:1-6).

3. The criterion by which men are to judge the claims of a prophet is the canon of revelation which they possess (cf. Acts 17:11).

4. There is warrant in classical Greek for the meaning "analogy' in the sense of that which is in agreement or correspondence with something else.'"

swordsman1 said:

Not at all. It is the prevailing consensus among the commentators on Romans 12:6.

Douglas Moo - The Epistle to the Romans
The majority of interpreters think that faith here is not our act of believing but that which we believe: "Christian teaching.” It would certainly make good sense for Paul to insist that prophets assess what they are saying against the standard of Christian truth. And "faith" can have this objective sense in Paul.
...
On the whole, then, we are inclined to side with Cranfield, who argues that faith refers, as usual, to basic Christian faith and that "the analogia of faith" is essentially the same as the "measure of faith” in v. 3: the standard implied in one's own belief in Christ. Prophets, Paul is saying, are to make sure that their utterances are in right proportion to their faith in Christ.

John Stott - The Message of Romans
It is in the light of these differences that we should understand the regulation which Paul here places on the exercise of the prophetic gift: let him use it in proportion to his faith (6b). Some think that this is a subjective restriction, namely that the prophet should speak only so long as he is sure of his inspiration; he must not add any words of his own. But it is more likely to be an objective restriction. In this case we should note that "faith' has the definite article, and we should translate the phrase 'in agreement with the faith'. That is, 'the prophet is to make sure that his message does not in any way contradict the Christian faith'.

C. E. B. Cranfield - Romans
It may be suggested that the simplest and most satisfactory interpretation-particularly if our explanation of v. 3 is correct-is "according to the standard of faith', 'in agreement with faith’ (i.e., faith = fides qua): the prophets are to prophesy in agreement with the standard which they possess in their apprehension of, and response to, the grace of God in Jesus Christ - they are to be careful not to utter (under the impression that they are inspired) anything which is incompatible with their believing in Christ.

John Murray - Epistle to the Romans
The regulative principle prescribed for a prophet was that he exercise his gift "according to the proportion of faith'. This has been interpreted, as a literal rendering might suggest, 'according to the analogy of the faith", faith being taken in the objective sense as the truth revealed and believed. This view would correspond to the expression, the analogy of Scripture, which means that Scripture is to be interpreted in accord with Scripture, that the infallible rule of the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. Much can be said in support of this interpretation.

l. If the expression means "proportion of faith', it would have the same force as "measure of faith" (vs. 3), and, since every one is to judge himself and exercise his gift in accordance with the measure of faith given, why should this be repeated and directed to the prophet specifically?

2. There is good reason why a prophet should be reminded that the new revelations he has received are never in conflict with existing revelation. This is the mark of a true prophet (cf. Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22; I Cor. 14:37; I John 4:1-6).

3. The criterion by which men are to judge the claims of a prophet is the canon of revelation which they possess (cf. Acts 17:11).

4. There is warrant in classical Greek for the meaning "analogy' in the sense of that which is in agreement or correspondence with something else.'"

Click to expand...

I wonder if any of these men have used the gift of prophecy in actual practice, or are they giving just their interpretation of it and the faith that activates it? Are these men involved in churches that actively practice the gift of prophecy, or are they in churches that believe that this is not for today? If prophecy is not a part of their ministry, then how can anything they say about it be reliable? It is like a person telling people everything about playing a violin and never actually getting around to playing it himself.

swordsman1 said:

So out of over 20 commentaries not one agrees with your claim that apostles in 12:28 are church planters / apostles of the churches. Instead they all agree with me - they are first century apostles of Christ.

Click to expand...

As I have said previously, I am never sure if you actually believe most of the things that you say or if your worldview will not allow you to faithfully engage with the Scriptures.

But your intentional decision to remove the first three lines of the commentary by Robertson & Plummer - 1 Corinthians which went against your position tends to indicate that many of your comments are not so much merely the outcome of poor comprehension on your part, but in this particular case, it indicates that it was in fact wilful misdirection on your part.

Oscarr said:

I wonder if any of these men have used the gift of prophecy in actual practice, or are they giving just their interpretation of it and the faith that activates it? Are these men involved in churches that actively practice the gift of prophecy, or are they in churches that believe that this is not for today? If prophecy is not a part of their ministry, then how can anything they say about it be reliable? It is like a person telling people everything about playing a violin and never actually getting around to playing it himself.

Click to expand...

One of the problems with how so many samples of commentary are being posted on the forum is not only that there is no book or page number but the quotes often do not fully reflect the views of the commentator.

I have added the names of the commentaries and their published dates.

• Douglas Moo – The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary: The Epistle to the Romans (1991)

• John Stott - The Message of Romans (1994)

• C. E. B. Cranfield – Romans (1975)

• John Murray - Epistle to the Romans (1965)

Oscarr said:

I wonder if any of these men have used the gift of prophecy in actual practice, or are they giving just their interpretation of it and the faith that activates it? Are these men involved in churches that actively practice the gift of prophecy, or are they in churches that believe that this is not for today? If prophecy is not a part of their ministry, then how can anything they say about it be reliable? It is like a person telling people everything about playing a violin and never actually getting around to playing it himself.

Click to expand...

Those commentators source their theology exclusively from objective and infallible scripture, the only place theology should be drawn from. Not from subjective and fallible experiences. That is the hallmark of Pentecostal hermeneutics - doctrine is invented from peoples experiences and then attempted to be read back into scripture using exegetical fallacies.

Biblicist said:

As I have said previously, I am never sure if you actually believe most of the things that you say or if your worldview will not allow you to faithfully engage with the Scriptures.

But your intentional decision to remove the first three lines of the commentary by Robertson & Plummer - 1 Corinthians which went against your position tends to indicate that many of your comments are not so much merely the outcome of poor comprehension on your part, but in this particular case, it indicates that it was in fact wilful misdirection on your part.

Click to expand...

It doesn't need any input from me. Everyone can see for themselves that virtually all commentators agree that the gift of apostleship in 1 Cor 12:28 was a 1st Century apostle of Christ, not an everyday church planter or messenger from a local church as you claim.

And that includes Robertson & Plummer (the whole of it).

swordsman1 said:

It doesn't need any input from me. Everyone can see for themselves that virtually all commentators agree that the gift of apostleship in 1 Cor 12:28 was a 1st Century apostle of Christ, not an everyday church planter or messenger from a local church as you claim.

And that includes Robertson & Plummer (the whole of it).

Click to expand...

Yes, and you have also proven that the world is flat and that the moon is made of green cheese . . . a very sad response on your part.

swordsman1 said:

Those commentators source their theology exclusively from objective and infallible scripture . . .

Click to expand...

Anyone can source their theology from the Scriptures but the problem is with what they do with the material once they get their hands on it.

Biblicist said:

Yes, and you have also proven that the world is flat and that the moon is made of green cheese . . . a very sad response on your part.

Click to expand...

Oh dear. We can tell when an argument has been successfully proved when the losing party has to resort to such inane remarks.

Biblicist said:

• Douglas Moo – The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary: The Epistle to the Romans (1991)

As Moo believes that prophecy is simply "inspired preaching" we should probably not be all that surprised with his rather unusual understanding of faith.

Click to expand...

How can his understanding of this verse be "rather unusual" when he points out that the majority of commentators agree with him?

Biblicist said:

• John Stott - The Message of Romans (1994)

Stott is a British Anglican who is a hardcore-cessationist who strongly resisted the Charismatic movement within the Anglican church in England during the 60’s.

Click to expand...

Seeing as Stott is commenting on the mode of operation of prophecy, which has no bearing on whether or not it ceased, then your comment is totally irrelevant. And why would a commentary on Romans from one of the most respected Christian authors of the 20th century be rejected simply because he fought against the false teachings of the charismatic movement? By the same token I could say any commentary written by a continuist must be rejected simply because they are continuist. That's just being silly. Commentaries are judged on their exegetical merit, not on a label given to the author.

Biblicist said:

• C. E. B. Cranfield – Romans (1975)

I have no resources for Cranfield so I cannot comment.

Click to expand...

Charles Cranfield (1915-2015) was professor of theology at Durham University for 30 years. Here is a short biography written by James Dunn. https://www.britac.ac.uk/sites/default/files/10-Cranfield.pdf

Biblicist said:

• John Murray - Epistle to the Romans (1965)

Murray’s commentary was written before the onset of the Charismatic Renewal so I doubt if he had ever even met a Pentecostal prior to this time. As I have Andrew Murray’s book on my shelf, what was interestingly omitted by the original poster was the following on page 122:

“Prophecy refers to the function of communicating revelations of truth from God. The prophet was an organ of revelation; he was God’s spokesman. His office was not restricted to prediction of the future although this was likewise his prerogative when God was pleased to unveil future events to him”.

Click to expand...

Why would the onset of the charismatic movement render all previous commentaries on scripture obsolete? Did scripture change during the 1970's? And thank you for quoting Murray's definition of prophecy as it disproves the pentecostal/charismatic version. A prophet was a spokesman for God after receiving direct infallible revelations from Him, not somebody making wild guesses based on fuzzy feelings.