Speaking in Tongues a Cessationists’ View

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
"You said "At the time of Paul's writing, when church had to rely on piecemeal prophecies for guidance in the faith in the absence of the NT, it was like seeing dimly in a poor mirror (mirrors were poor quality in those days)"

Right, they were polished steel and none too good.

To the Corinthians, Paul seemed to be zeroing in on misuse of Tongues, Prophecies and Word of Knowledge -- everybody had one, all at the same time causing confusion. The fact that the "other gifts" besides those three would pass away also was not the main point in Corinthians.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟251,947.00
Faith
Christian
your #3 of seven...

"In v13 it says that faith hope and love would remain after the 3 gifts had ceased."

No it doesn't. It just says faith hope and agape-love are abiding now - and that agape-love is the greatest - no mention of gifts ceasing:

1Co 13:13
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

The “But now” (nuni de) at the beginning of verse 13 is not the same “now” (arti) at the beginning of verse 12. 'nuni de' is a logical marker. It means 'as a logical consequence', not 'right at this present time'.

It is the same phrase that appears in:

Romans 3:21 "But now apart from the Law.."
Romans 6:22 "But now having been freed from sin"
Romans 7:17 "So now, no longer am I the one doing"
Colossians 1:22 "He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death"
2 Cor 8:11 "But now finish doing it also, so that just as there was the readiness to desire it"
and many other verses.
It says the 3 virtues will 'remain'. Remain after what? Remain after the cessation of the 3 gifts of course.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
In your 5th part of the 7, you say

"At the time of Paul's writing the early church needed prophecy and words of knowledge to guide them in the faith in the absence of a New Testament."

They had eye-witnesses of Christ and those who had been with Jesus since His ministry began. Your statement makes it look like "Oh, the poor early church without a New Testament - how did they ever get by?"
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟251,947.00
Faith
Christian
1Co 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

prosopon pros prosopon

face to face

one face to another face

not rocket science to figure out whose face

Yes, that is what it would be like when we have the scriptures compared to piecemeal prophecies. It is still analogy.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Of the de nuni construction:

νυνί
Transliteration
nyni
Pronunciation
nü-nē' (Key)


The KJV translates Strong's G3570 in the following manner:
now (21x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
now, at this very moment
 
Upvote 0

JESUS=G.O.A.T

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2016
2,681
659
27
Houston
✟68,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
“Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.” (1 Corinthians 13:8)
So is Paul
Knowledge of the scriptures won't cease at the 2nd coming (Ps 119:89, Matt 24:35, Is 40:8). The knowledge Paul is referring to is the spiritual gift of 'words of knowledge' (1 Cor 12:8), a revelatory gift. There is no other kind of knowledge listed as a spiritual gift.



That's because Paul was writing at a time when those gifts were still active in the church.



Paul does not say he will see God or anyone else "face to face". Seeing 'face to face' is the contrasting antithesis in the analogy of seeing dimly in a poor mirror. It is not referring to seeing anyone in particular.


1. I never disputed that knowledge refers a higher knowledge...but it's like the gift of faith vs the measure of faith is what i'm getting at. One can have a higher knowledge of God and the scriptures becuase of this gift...just as one can have higher faith cause of the gift of faith.

The gift of knowledge/gift of faith/gift of tounques is just a higher level of something that exist already.

I can have knowledge/faith without the gifts is what i'm saying just not the Gift which is a whole other level.


2. I think the problem is you're ignoring verse 9-10...look at verse 9-10 and compare it with verse 12

1 Corinthians 13:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.


1 Corinthians 13:10 English Standard Version (ESV)
10 when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.


John 3:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.


Comment: Unless you want to argue we are perfect now....this is clearly referring to the perfect state we will achieve.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You say for your point 6:

"in Eph 2:20 which says that apostles and prophets were only for the foundation of the church."


2:20 says nothing of the kind!!


Eph 2:19
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Eph 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Eph 2:21
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Eph 2:22
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

In the analogy of a building, apostles and prophets are a foundation, atop chief cornerstone of Christ, and the "ye" is the Ephesian Christians themselves -- there is not the slightest whiff of a saying that apostles and prophets are LIMITED TO A CERTAIN TIME-FRAME!

This building anology is concerned with position in the structure, not "the church going forth through time", where does all this eisogesis come from?

I just don't get you, Swordsman -- NOW does not really mean NOW -- face to face doesn't really mean face to face...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JESUS=G.O.A.T
Upvote 0

JESUS=G.O.A.T

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2016
2,681
659
27
Houston
✟68,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yes, that is what it would be like when we have the scriptures compared to piecemeal prophecies. It is still analogy.
But again I asked the other individual this question...and i'll ask you it...why would God randomly change his covenant like that? We are told in the Grace period...we have access to the HOly SPirit on the inside....and Paul elebarotes how this Spirit brings gifts....

There was an indication that JESUS would come....and an indication that the outpouring of the holy SPirit would come in prophecy in the OT....but there is no prophecy for then another change happening...when the Gifts would cease here on Earth. I just don't see how one could go with that interpretation.

Not to mention we see unexplainable today...i knew someone who couldn't walk..went to a church...got prayer....and walked. I've seen too much to suggest to the contrary that this stuff is dead.

IF we see stuff...we can't deny it.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
For your point 7 --

"And of course history confirms this interpretation. Tongues etc did indeed cease shortly after the apostolic age."

Says you. You know good and well people speak in tongues every sunday in Assembly of God churches, other denominations, house-groups, charismatic groups within all denominations and non-denominational churches.

You just say it's fake, or not real, or dopaminergic genes, or stress release, or pleasure seeking and it feels like sex and other silly things, I never heard so many crazy things that the blind men say about the elephant til this thread here. Sheer nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟251,947.00
Faith
Christian
Of the de nuni construction:

νυνί
Transliteration
nyni
Pronunciation
nü-nē' (Key)


The KJV translates Strong's G3570 in the following manner:
now (21x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
now, at this very moment

Strong's Concordance

Definition: adv. (a) of time: just now, even now; just at hand, immediately, (b) of logical connection: now then, (c) in commands and appeals: at this instant.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

νυνί; (νῦν with iota demonstrative (Krüger, § 25, 6, 4f; Kühner, § 180, e. (Jelf, § 160, e.); Alexander Buttmann (1873) Gram. § 80, 2)), in Attic note, at this very moment (precisely now, neither before nor after; Latinnunc ipsum), and only of Time, almost always with the present, very rarely with the future (cf. Lob. ad Phryn., p. 19). Not found in the N. T. except in the writings of Paul and in a few places in Acts and the Epistle to the Hebrews; and it differs here in no respect from the simple νῦν; cf. Fritzsche, Romans, i., p. 182; (Winer's Grammar, 23);

1. of Time: with a present (Job 30:9), Acts 24:13 L T Tr WH; Romans 15:23, 25; 1 Corinthians 13:13 (ἄρτι ... τότε δέ ... νυνί δέ); 2 Corinthians 8:11, 22; Philemon 1:9, 11 (namely, ὄντα); with a perfect indicating continuance, Romans 3:21 (others refer this to 2); with a preterite (Psalm 16:11 ()), Romans 6:22 (opposed to τότε); Romans 7:6; Ephesians 2:13 (opposed to 1, τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ); Colossians 1:22 () (and Colossians 3:8; also Romans 11:30 WH marginal reading) (opposed to πότε); Colossians 1:26 (R G L marginal reading; cf. Winers Grammar, § 63 I. 2 b.; Buttmann, 382 (328)) (opposed to ἀπό τῶν αἰώνων); with a future, Job 7:21; Baruch 6:4 (Epistle Jeremiah 3); 2 Macc. 10:10; τῆς πρός ὑμᾶς νυνί ἀπολογίας, Acts 22:1.

2. contrary to Greek usage, in stating a conclusion (see νῦν, 2), but since the case stands thus (as it is): 1 Cor. ( R G T L marginal reading); R G (i. e. since ὁ γλώσσῃ λαλῶν without an interpretation cannot edify the church); but now (German so aber), Hebrews 9:26 L T Tr WH; after a conditional statement with εἰ (see νῦν, at the end), Romans 7:17; 1 Corinthians 12:18 (R G T WH marginal reading); ; Hebrews 8:6 (here L Tr marginal reading WH text νῦν), cf. ; Rec., cf. ; (Buttmann, § 151, 26).


BDAG Lexicon:

νυνί

νυνί adv. of time (Hdt. 7, 229 al.; SIG 259, 11 [338/337 B.C.]; PPetr III, 42 H [8] f, 4 [III B.C.]; POxy 490, 5 [124 A.D.]; 506, 25; 908, 5; LXX [Thackeray 191]; TestJob; JosAs cod. A 12, 7; 13, 5 [p. 55, 15; 57, 12 Bat.]; Joseph.; Ar. 13, 7; Just., D. 11, 2; Tat. 28, 1) an emphatic form of νῦν made by adding to it the demonstrative suffix ι (Kühner-Bl. I 620; B-D-F §64, 2; Rob. 296; 523) without alteration of mng. (Mayser 456). Except for Ac 22:1 v.l.; 24:13; Hb 8:6;9:26; 11:16 v.l.; ἐπεὶ δὲ ν̣υ̣ν̣ί̣ AcPt Ox 849; 1 Cl 47:5; 2 Cl 2:3, only in the Pauline writings and there always ν. δέ (the ms. tradition oft. varies betw. νῦν and νυνί)

① temporal marker with focus on the moment as such, now

ⓐ w. the pres. (Job 30:9; Jos., Ant. 14, 404) Ac 24:13; Ro 15:23, 25; 2 Cor 8:22; Phlm 9; cp.11; perh. also AcPt Ox 849.

ⓑ w. the perf. in pres. sense ν. δὲ … πεφανέρωται but now … has been revealed Ro 3:21.

ⓒ w. aor. (Job 30:1; Just., D. 11, 2) Ro 6:22; 7:6; 11:30 v.l.; Eph 2:13; Col 1:22; 2 Cl 2:3. Impv.: 2 Cor 8:11; Col 3:8; 1 Cl 47:5.

ⓓ w. a subst. (PRyl 111, 4 [161 A.D.] τὴν νυνεὶ γυναῖκά μου) ἡ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ν. ἀπολογία the defense which I now make before you Ac 22:1.

② temporal marker with focus on a prevailing situation, w. the idea of time weakened or entirely absent, now, as it is

ⓐ ν. δέ but now, as the situation is Ro 7:17; 1 Cor 13:13; 14:6 v.l. (Tat. 28, 1).

ⓑ introducing the real situation after an unreal conditional clause or sentence but, as a matter of fact 1 Cor 5:11 v.l.; 12:18; 15:20; Hb 8:6; 9:26; 11:16 v.l.—DELG s.v. νυ. M-M.


First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
By Joseph A. Fitzmyer


13. And now faith, hope, love remain, these three. So Paul draws his description of love to a close, with a verse that has many problems, not the least of which is the connection of the threesome to what has immediately preceded in vv. 10-12 and the addition of faith and hope to a discussion that has involved so far only love. It is a formula that is meant to terminate the discussion of love and its relation to the pneumatika, but it introduces a further discussion of two of them; and its wording raises a number of questions.

One thing is clear, however, pistis is not the same as that in v. 2, "faith to move mountains"; rather it now denotes the full sense of saving and justifying "faith," the response to the Christian gospel, as in other Pauline passages (Rom 10:6-10: belief in the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus), and especially in those in which the triad further occurs (l Thess 1:3; 5:8; Gal 5:5—6; cf. Col 1:4-5). Note also the linking of love to faith in 1 Cor 16:13-14; Thess 3:6; Phlm 5. The triad, however, is meant to replace the threesome of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge of vv. 1-2 and 8.

The first difficulty is the meaning of the adv. nyni, "now." It is scarcely to be understood as the equivalent of the temporal adv. arti (v. 12a), which was contrasted with tole, "then," another adv. of time. It is rather expressing a logical conclusion, as in Rom 7:17: “but now,” i.e., as the situation is (BDAC, 682). Cf. also il Cor 12:18; 15:20; 2 Cor 8:11, l2.
 
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
✟251,947.00
Faith
Christian
"You said "At the time of Paul's writing, when church had to rely on piecemeal prophecies for guidance in the faith in the absence of the NT, it was like seeing dimly in a poor mirror (mirrors were poor quality in those days)"

Right, they were polished steel and none too good.

To the Corinthians, Paul seemed to be zeroing in on misuse of Tongues, Prophecies and Word of Knowledge -- everybody had one, all at the same time causing confusion. The fact that the "other gifts" besides those three would pass away also was not the main point in Corinthians.

Only tongues was a problem in Corinth. Prophecy was being used correctly - to edify the church. So that theory doesn't hold.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟251,947.00
Faith
Christian
In your 5th part of the 7, you say

"At the time of Paul's writing the early church needed prophecy and words of knowledge to guide them in the faith in the absence of a New Testament."

They had eye-witnesses of Christ and those who had been with Jesus since His ministry began. Your statement makes it look like "Oh, the poor early church without a New Testament - how did they ever get by?"

Not in every church they didn't. Least of all Corinth.

Can you imagine what it what be like today if we didn't have the scriptures, and we could only obtain our information about the Christian faith from local prophets?
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
1Co 14:29
Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
1Co 14:30
If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
1Co 14:31
For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
1Co 14:32
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Only tongues was a problem in Corinth. Prophecy was being used correctly - to edify the church. So that theory doesn't hold.


You're not reading too closely. Paul gave correction to Corinthian prophets ALSO, NOT JUST TONGUE-TALKERS.


1Co 14:26
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟251,947.00
Faith
Christian
You say for your point 6:

"in Eph 2:20 which says that apostles and prophets were only for the foundation of the church."


2:20 says nothing of the kind!!


Eph 2:19
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Eph 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Eph 2:21
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Eph 2:22
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

In the analogy of a building, apostles and prophets are a foundation, atop chief cornerstone of Christ, and the "ye" is the Ephesian Christians themselves -- there is not the slightest whiff of a saying that apostles and prophets are LIMITED TO A CERTAIN TIME-FRAME!

This building anology is concerned with position in the structure, not "the church going forth through time", where does all this eisogesis come from?

I just don't get you, Swordsman -- NOW does not really mean NOW -- face to face doesn't really mean face to face...


Last time I checked a foundation is what you lay at the bottom of a building. Not something you continue to lay right up to the roof.

Do we have apostles today? No. Neither do we have prophets.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟251,947.00
Faith
Christian
Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (2002)
By Harold W. Hoehner

Commentary: 2:20. έποικοδομηθέντες επί τώ θεμελίω, "having been built on the foundation." Paul makes a transition in his metaphor from those who belong to a household (oikeios) in verse 19 to that of a building in which the Spirit of God dwells (eitol Ko&oumbévites . . . οικοδομή . . . συνοικοδομείσθε. . . κατοικητήριον) in Verses 20-22. The aorist passive participle èTolkoöoun0évteg may signify a temporal idea, indicating that the readers of this letter have already built on the foundation at the time of their conversion, or, more likely, it may denote cause, namely, the reason we are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God's household is because we have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The passive emphasizes that we who are in one body are recipients of the action. God is the subject of the building. The following preposition éIt with the accusative would imply motion (1 Cor 3:12; Rom 15:20) but with the genitive or dative, as here, it denotes place - "on" or "upon" which the structure is built. The word beuélo, means "foundation," which speaks of the beginnings of something that is coming into being, a term that is synonymous to KatoBoxń in 1:4. The nature of the foundation is explained next.

töv diroo to cov kori repoontów, "of the apostles and prophets." Five items need to be considered. First, there is only one article for both nouns. This "does not necessarily identify the Apostles and Prophets as one and the same persons," but the one article may indicate that "groups more or less distinct are treated as one for the purpose in hand."

Second, the genitives have been interpreted in various ways. (1) Some think they are possessive genitives: "the apostles' and prophets foundation." But Ellicott has pointed out that this would mix up the Beué)tos, "foundation" and cKpoyovicios, "cornerstone." It states that the foundation belongs to the apostles and yet, on the other hand, Christ is the cornerstone, the main stone of the foundation. Therefore, Christ belongs to the apostles! (2) Others see these as subjective genitives or genitives of agency or originating cause: "the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets." This refers to doctrine preached by the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone of that doctrine. Those who propound this use of the genitive suggest that two passages support this view: 1 Cor 3:10-11, where Paul, as a wise architect, laid the foundation which is Christ; and Rom 15:20, where Paul specifically states that he will not build on another person's foundation. However, there are some problems with this view. First, it makes Christ both the foundation and the cornerstone. If the foundation is the apostolic doctrine about Christ, what is the content of the cornerstone's teaching? It would appear to be the same teaching, making Christ redundant as the cornerstone." Also, to make Christ personal, as Ellicott does, seems to be inconsistent and confusing with the nonpersonal (teaching). Second, the parallel passages mentioned above do not support this view of the genitive. The first parallel passage is 1 Cor 3:10-11, which states that each believer builds his or her works on the foundation of Christ. However, in the present context there is nothing about building works on the foundation. The second parallel text is Rom 15:20 where Paul states that he will not build on another person's foundation. But this text refers to the establishment of new local churches, whereas in the present context Paul is not speaking about the foundation of a local church. Aside from this, if one uses Rom 15:20 as a text to support the view that the foundation is the doctrine taught by the apostles and prophets, then why would not Paul want to build on it? Did he have a different doctrine? Third, in 1 Cor 3:10-11 Paul specifically states that he laid (temko) the foundation, whereas in Ephesians he does not. Ultimately, the interpretation of one passage cannot be imposed on another, especially when they are not addressing the same issue. (3) Still other interpreters regard these as genitives of apposition: "the foundation consisting of the apostles and prophets." This view is the most consistent. First, the imagery depicted in the present context is that Christ, as a person (or Toi Xplo to Troot - Christ Jesus himself and not Christ's own teaching), is the cornerstone, the apostles and prophets, as persons, are the foundation, and the saints, as persons, are the building. Second, this coincides with 4:11 and more specifically 1 Cor 12:28 which states, "God placed or appointed (see to) in the church first apostles, second prophets, ..." as foundations for ministry. Third, the aorist rather than a present passive participle is used to indicate a summarizing aspect normally referring to past time (aorist participles usually indicate antecedent time to that of the main verb) rather than a repeated action. If it were talking about the doctrine on which the church is built, then there ought to be a present or perhaps a perfect tense to indicate a repeated action representing a continuing effect of the teaching throughout the readers' lives and throughout the centuries of the church. However, if it is referring to persons, it is fitting for the aorist to be used to indicate past time of the apostles and prophets as that first foundation. Fourth, this view corresponds well with Rev 21:14 where the twelve apostles, along with the twelve tribes of Israel, are the foundations of the new city of Jerusalem. In the end, it seems best to view these genitives as appositional, indicating that the apostles and prophets are the historic persons who first formed the universal church. The relationship of this concept to Christ as the cornerstone will be discussed below.
 
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
✟251,947.00
Faith
Christian
Comment: Unless you want to argue we are perfect now....this is clearly referring to the perfect state we will achieve.

'The perfect' is a poor translation of teleios in my view (see my previous post). 'Completeness' as per NIV etc is a better word, and yes I do believe 'completeness' has come, which in the context of revelation which 1 Cor 13:8-12 demands, is the completed new testament.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married



All believers are baptized in the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13 says so.

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."
If you are not baptized in the Spirit you are not part of the body of Christ.
Don't claim for yourself what was written to what is arguably the most charismatic church known to man. A church where Paul said every one of them 'could' speak in tongues. You want to call it hyperbole....of course you would.

I'm not saying you haven't received the baptism FROM THE SPIRIT which gave us all a 'born again spirit' making us ALL a Charismatically 'ungifted, unlearned' Christian. I'm saying you never received the baptism OF THE SPIRIT which comes from Jesus the baptizer (Matt 3:11, Mar 1:8, Luk 3:16).

1CO 14:23 If, therefore, the whole church (of Corinth) assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

Aren't you just still denying you are in the group that Paul was wanting the Charismatic church to not offend. Differing translations call you guys different things. But it all boils down to 'those without' coming into a Charismatic church full of 'those that have'. The RSV above calls you 'outsiders' other translations call you "unlearned, ungifted". And the verse ends with you guys calling us mad....or basically "babblers or gibberish speakers". :(
 
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

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Prophet was not an office for which we have many people named in the New Testament -- I know of Agabus as a New Testament Prophet -- and Phillip's four virgin daughters who prophesied. Anybody else?

I have seen a list of New Testament 'apostles' as high as 25 -- if you count Andronicus and Junia -- and Christ Himself as the chief apostle.

I don't know who today would say that their bishops are apostles, and that their preachers are Prophets -- there may be some, I don't know.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟251,947.00
Faith
Christian
But again I asked the other individual this question...and i'll ask you it...why would God randomly change his covenant like that? We are told in the Grace period...we have access to the HOly SPirit on the inside....and Paul elebarotes how this Spirit brings gifts....

There was an indication that JESUS would come....and an indication that the outpouring of the holy SPirit would come in prophecy in the OT....but there is no prophecy for then another change happening...when the Gifts would cease here on Earth. I just don't see how one could go with that interpretation.

Not to mention we see unexplainable today...i knew someone who couldn't walk..went to a church...got prayer....and walked. I've seen too much to suggest to the contrary that this stuff is dead.

IF we see stuff...we can't deny it.

There was no prophecy that says apostles would cease, but they did. And apostleship is listed as a spiritual gift. So why not other gifts which we are told were also foundational to the church?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.