Bob Carabbio
Old guy -
- Dec 22, 2010
- 2,274
- 569
- 83
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So then, if I stood in my garage you would then be able to call me an automobile......correct????
Oops...it seems that I may have hit a nerve.Which are totally meaningless, since the MESSAGE AND CONTEXT of the verse, and the following chapter is: (drum roll) It doesn't matter SPIT what you say, how you say it, or what "Miracles you perform" - if it's not done out of LOVE - then NO Brownie points for you!!!!!!
Paul NEVER SAYS the "Tongues" are "Heavenly Languages" (as opposed to terrestrial languages) and foolish attempts to use 1 Cor 13:1 to prove ANYTHING about them are just ridiculous. The KEY WORD IS: "IF".
Not responsive to ANYTHING I said in my post - Ignored.
That must have been a really . . . really "interesting" congregation! What was their position regarding the Baptism in the Holy Spirit?
Personally I am glad I do not have to read all of those chaps.Let me help some of you to come up to speed with a discussion that has been strongly discussed across the entirety of Christendom from at least the 1970's . . . where have you chappies been?
The following are brief excerpts from various commentaries:
The Charismatics, John MacArthur 1978
A key question arises at this point. What did Paul mean by the “tongues of men and of angels?’’ What is the gift of languages? There is much disagreement today on these questions. I believe, however, that the Bible is exceedingly clear on what this gift was. And the best place to go is to the first mention of tongues in Acts 2.
Acts 2:1-11 describes the great day of Pentecost, the birthday of the church. There was a sound like a mighty rushing wind. Cloven tongues like fire seemed to appear on the disciples. And they spoke in other languages. The Greek word used in this passage is glossa, the normative Greek word for “language.” Many within the Charismatic movement today claim that the gift of tongues is a “private prayer language,” ecstatic uttering in a language known only to God.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee 1987
That the Corinthians at least, and probably Paul, thought of tongues as the language(s) of angels seems highly likely—for two reasons: (1) There is some evidence from Jewish sources that the angels were believed to have their own heavenly language (or dialects) and that by means of the “Spirit” one could speak these dialects. Thus in the Testament of Job 48-50 Job’s three daughters are given “charismatic sashes” 22 when these were put on they allowed Hemera, for example, to speak “ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God with the hymnic style of the angels. And as she spoke ecstatically, she allowed ‘The Spirit’ to be inscribed on her garment.”23 Such an understanding of heavenly speech may also lie behind the language of 1 Cor. 14:2 (“speak mysteries by the Spirit”). (2) As has been argued elsewhere 24 one can make a good deal of sense of the Corinthian view of “spirituality” if they believed that they had already entered into some expression of angelic existence.
God's Empowering Presence, Gordon D. Fee 1994
1 This opening sentence is the reason for the entire argument: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels.” One may be quite sure that the Corinthians believed they were; indeed, this best accounts for the sudden shift to the first person singular (cf. 14:14-15).43/ On its own this could mean nothing more than "speak eloquently,” as some have argued and as it is popularly understood. But since it is not on its own, but follows directly out of 12:28-30 and anticipates 14:1-25, most likely this is either Paul’s or their understanding (or both) of “speaking in tongues.” “Tongues of men” would then refer to human speech,437 438 inspired of the Spirit but unknown to the speaker; “tongues of angels” would reflect an understanding that the tongues-speaker was communicating in the dialect(s) of heaven.1 Corinthians, Alan F. Johnson 2004
ul’s first conditional thesis, If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels (v. 1), alludes to the manifestation of tongues inspired by the Spirit (12:10; 14:1-40). “Tongues of angels” may be the Corinthians’ term for some kinds of tongues manifestations, but that does not seem to be Paul’s view. In any case this obscure reference should not be made the focus of any theory or practice about “tongues,” as did Edward Irving in the early nineteenth century. Irving’s theory was that foreign language tongues that were unknown to the speaker were the “tongues of men,” while those utterances that could not be paralleled in any known human language were the “tongues of angels” (Knox 1950:552-53). That tongues were a highly prized Spirit manifestation among the Corinthians is clearly evidenced by the lengthy attention Paul gives to correcting their abuses in chapter 14. Yet not even this highly prized gift, if it is not manifested with Christian love, can produce authentic Christlike character.
The Bible Knowledge Word Study: Acts-Ephesians. Darrell Bock p.294 (2006)
(glossais ... kai ton angeldn)—Given the references to tongues in 12:28, 30; 13:8 and the fifteen occurrences in chapter 14, this expression is probably a reference to the supernatural gift of tongues. Yet, it is not entirely clear whether Paul or the Corinthians (or both) thought that the gift of tongues was the dialects of angels (see Blomberg, 259; Garland, 611; Hays, 223, who see this as likely; cf. Fee, 630, who is “quite sure” that this was the case).
1 Corinthians, Ciampa & Rosner 2010
13: 1 This verse has played a remarkable role in some modern discussions of the viewpoints of the Corinthians and their theological problems. Those who conclude that the Corinthians were suffering from an overrealized eschatology have found in this verse a hint that they may have thought that by speaking in tongues they were already participating in angelic experience as all believers would upon the resurrection from the dead. This thought, that some Corinthians aspired to or imagined themselves to be participating in angelic life and experience, is also considered to be related to their abstinence from sexual relationships (7:1), among other things.22 We find the texts employed in support of such interpretations to have more convincing interpretations that do not depend on overrealized eschatology as the key background issue.And to sample a few more:
Some interpreters have suggested that by speaking in human or angelic tongues Paul refers to "sublime oratory," picking up on the theme of wise and lofty speech from the first two chapters. 23
- Keep in Step with the Spirit, p.207 (1985)
- 1 Corinthians, Leon Morris p.175 (1985)
- 1 Corinthians, Prior p.229 (1985)
- 1 Corinthians, Kistemaker p.452 (1993)
- 1 Corinthians, Barnett p.243 (2000)
Edit: I forgot to add in the obligatory commentary of Gordon Fee (1987), now rectified.
Right Here:
Want to see it again???
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee 1987
That the Corinthians at least, and probably Paul, thought of tongues as the language(s) of angels seems highly likely—for two reasons: (1) There is some evidence from Jewish sources that the angels were believed to have their own heavenly language (or dialects) and that by means of the “Spirit” one could speak these dialects. Thus in the Testament of Job 48-50 Job’s three daughters are given “charismatic sashes” 22 when these were put on they allowed Hemera, for example, to speak “ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God with the hymnic style of the angels. And as she spoke ecstatically, she allowed ‘The Spirit’ to be inscribed on her garment.”23 Such an understanding of heavenly speech may also lie behind the language of 1 Cor. 14:2 (“speak mysteries by the Spirit”). (2) As has been argued elsewhere 24 one can make a good deal of sense of the Corinthian view of “spirituality” if they believed that they had already entered into some expression of angelic existence.
So, Pentecostalism's foremost theologian Gordon Fee
If you were to have carefully read the excerpt that I provided by Fee, you would have noticed where he said "Such an understanding of heavenly speech . . ." which refers to the possiblity that the Corinthians could have been pre-conditioned to their way of thinking by their own Jewish traditions; this is how a respectable scholar tackles any question, where he will include all possible factors that may effect the beliefs of any individual or group.So, Pentecostalism's foremost theologian Gordon Fee has to rely on an extra-biblical Jewish fairy tale, the Testament of Job, for evidence of tongues being a heavenly language. Talk about grasping at straws. That's rather like saying there is proof that lions can talk because one appears in the Wizard of Oz. And these people call themselves scholars?
When it comes to biblical evidence their entire doctrine hinges on a highly dubious interpretation of a single verse, which is easy to refute. When Paul said that even if he spoke in the tongues of angels, but not have love,.... he was obviously speaking hypothetically. None of the 5 parallel statements in 1 Cor 13:1-3 are clearly meant to be taken literally.
Gordon D. Fee was the first Pentecostal (AoG) to obtain an accredited theological doctoral degree, though by his own recognition he is not so much a theologian but an exegetical scholar, they're the chappies who the theologians refer to.Who???
If you head back to my post 279 and check the credentials of the 17 scholars and commentators that I quoted, you will discover that the majority of them are neither Pentecostal or charismatic, where some are even outright hardcore cessationists (remember John MacArthur), where others are deemed to be open-but-cautious (see post 269).The informed answer is that the expression “heavenly language” is nowhere found in Scripture.
It is a Pentecostal denominational teaching hence it is un-Biblical.
Oh, so you understand that the Ministry of the Holy Spirit (healings, prophecy, tongues etc) throughout the Church Age will only be completed when the Lord returns with the future Kingdom of God, which we refer to as the Perousia!Personally I am glad I do not have to read all of those chaps.
I only have to read ONE copy and it is the bible itself.
1 Corth. 13:8....
"Love never fails but where there be prophecies they will fail; where there be tongues THEY WILL CEASE; where there be knowledge it shal vanish away".
Simple enough to me!
As I have never said any such thing then I will have to ask you where you got your information? As you said that you have spent years within a Pentecostal congregation, I am surprised that you have not understood that I do not hold to the position of subsequence which I explained in post 269 and probably on a number of other occassions on this particular thread; which I grant is a position that I only discarded maybe three or so years back.The same as the Bible explains to us in the Word of God. We are baptized in the Holy Spirit at the moment we accept Christ.
God bless you my friend but as a Pentecostal you make all references to the “baptism of the Spirit” refer to a postconversion (after conversion) pouring forth of the Spirit. You talk about the “baptism of the Spirit” as being a “second experience” following salvation.
I am sure that you are convinced in the theology of the AOG teaching, I however am going to stick with the Biblical evidence which is: 1 Corinthians 12:13 where Paul says that all of the Corinthians became members of Christ’s body when they were baptized by the Spirit.
Acts 1 & 2 tell us that "baptism with the Spirit” ----1:5
“Holy Spirit comes on you” -----1:8
filled with the Holy Spirit” ----2:4
“pour out my Spirit” ----2:17
“poured out” ----2:33
The best understanding of the baptism of the Spirit is, in my humble opinion, that it is an outpouring of God’s Spirit which can occur many times. So should we seek a “second experience?” Absolutely. And a third, and a fourth and . . . . We need special outpourings of God’s Spirit many times in our lives.
If you were to have carefully read the excerpt that I provided by Fee, you would have noticed where he said "Such an understanding of heavenly speech . . ." which refers to the possiblity that the Corinthians could have been pre-conditioned to their way of thinking by their own Jewish traditions; this is how a respectable scholar tackles any question, where he will include all possible factors that may effect the beliefs of any individual or group.
You would undoubtedly find it advantageous to undertake a course on study principles and techniques, though these courses can be a bit hard to track down.
If you head back to my post 279 and check the credentials of the 17 scholars and commentators that I quoted, you will discover that the majority of them are neither Pentecostal or charismatic, where some are even outright hardcore cessationists (remember John MacArthur), where others are deemed to be open-but-cautious (see post 269).
Oops . . . for a minute there I thought that I had inadvertantly stated in my original post with the 17 scholars and commentators that MacArthur was saying that he realised that the tongues of 1Cor 13:1 were rightfully angelic tongues, where originally I only included him in the list to demonstrate to those who did not already know that any scholar or commentator (MacArthur is a commentator and not a scholar) worth his salt understood that this was a key point of discussion with this particular verse. Why I pointed out MacArthur to Major1 in a subsequent post is beyond me as I should have point to others such as Dan Wallace.MacArthur didn't say tongues was a heavenly language. Instead he rightly pointed out that the only description of the gift in scripture was given in Acts 2.
Actually I did not recommend a course on the Principles of Hermeneutics but with one that is aimed toward study principles and techniques, where the two differing courses are not one and the same.And the principles of hermeneutics are certainly not hard to track down.
Why I pointed out MacArthur to Major1 in a subsequent post is beyond me as I should have point to others such as Dan Wallace.
I think that you are right. My reference to Wallace went from memory (big mistake when I'm tired), where I quoted Wallace in post 240 point 13 in relation to 1Cor 13:1 and not 13:10. This is why I sat back in the office today and said, right, I'm going home, as the brain cells are failing to line up side by side; so after a good nights sleep all should be well. It's not a good thing to try and keep track of so many lines of thought all at once when your (I'm) tired as ditzy errors can easily creep in, even at the best of times.You didn't quote Wallace in your claim that 1 Cor 13:1 is saying tongues is a heavenly language. If you had you would have found this:
The fourfold condition is used in a broad way. Paul builds his argument from the actual (he does have prophetic powers) to the hypothetical (he does not understand all mysteries or have all knowledge [otherwise, he would be omniscient!]). This is his pattern for the first three verses of 1 Cor 13: to argue from the actual to the hypothetical. It is therefore probably that Paul could speak in the tongues of human beings, but not in the tongues of angels (v1). 1 Cor 13:1 then, offers no comfort for those who view tongues as a heavenly language.
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament By Daniel B. Wallace p471
I am afraid you are mistaken. I spent years in the Pentecostal church. What I post and explain is WHAT I HAVE SCEEN!
What you described actually happen once in my life and it was a man who spoke in Portuguese. That was the one and only time it happened. 99.9 % of the time it is always several people (Usually women) speaking in gibberish and no can interpret because it is not a language at all.
What I have seen is actual people faking tongues so that they can look and sound as "spiritual" as the people around them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?