Assembly of God and Tongues

[Major1]

So it seems you have a rich experience of people "faking" tongues and a small experience of people actually speaking in tongues. Point is you could tell the difference between an actual language, even if you didn't have a clue what language it was, and babbling gibberish.

I used to challenge my ceasationist friends to just fake tongues as they supposed I did. They had no different phonemes than there base language. After a couple tries everyone in the group could distinguish the broad range of sounds, and pitch changes, inflections, guttural patterns that differentiated my genuine speaking in tongues from their babble.

So point is so could you. And so tongues seem to still exist.

Another point, fake money exists, but that doesn't reduce or eliminate the existence of real money does it?

I am afraid you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying that ALL of the tongues being spoken in today's church are faked. And YES, it is very easy to know when someone is speaking in another known language compared to the babbling gibberish done in churches today.

You can not compare tongue speaking to money counterfeit money. It just not work like that.

 

[Major1]

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.

With all due respect, do you not see how hard you are having to work to prove your opinion???

Those of us how are discussing this with you just read the Scriptures, accept them as they are and we are done. You however are quoting one commentator after another to try and validate your opinion. Seems like a lot of effort to me.

A very long time ago, a professor of mine told me that when all the pieces fit together without any work, then you are getting to the truth.

 

[Major1]

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.

As the classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence is based completely on (a misreading of) Luke's writings, where most contemporary AoG scholars now recognise that Paul does not speak of subsequence, then I realised that I had succumbed to tradition and my own 'experience' which is why I now understand that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is soterical and not one of subsequence.

My apologies. I have not had the opportunity to read all the posts available to us. There are so many people posting and cross posting it obvious that I mistook one of theirs as yours.

 

[Major1]

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!

No sir I do not.

I believe that Paul was very clear in 1 Corth. 13:88-12.

The temporary gifts ended when the Bible was completed. First Corinthians 13:10 says........
“When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away”.

The ESV puts it this way: “When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” The “in part” or “partial” things are the gifts of prophecy, knowledge, and tongues (verses 8–9). There will be a time when these gifts will cease because something better (“that which is perfect”) will replace them. Perfect means “complete”—the incomplete will be replaced by the complete.

When the Bible was completed it rep[laced the temporary gifts. YES, I know that there is other thoughts of this passage.

Some believe as you seem to be saying that the "Perfect One" is heaven.
Some believe it was the coming of Jesus.
Some believe that it is the 2nd Coming of Jesus.

IMHO, the context and Greek grammar which in this case is neuter, insists that it is a "THING" and not a person or a place. The only perfect THING I know of then is the Word of God.

In his study Bible, Charles Ryrie has the following to say about verse 11:

'There are stages of growth within the present imperfect time before Christ’s return. After the church began, there was a period of immaturity, during which spectacular gifts were needed for growth and authentication (Heb. 2:3-4). With the completion of the NT and the growing maturity of the church, the need for such gifts disappeared. '

 

[Major1]

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).

It is always a good idea to approach the Scriptures not through a given preconceived agenda but where we are each open to the leading of the Spirit.

While you may be totally correct, the point is till made that commentators do not take precedence over the actual Scriptures and the phrase Heavenly Language is not in the Scriptures.

If, IF there was a heavenly language, would it not be logical and understandable then that the angels would speak such a language???? There are numerous Bible examples of angels speaking to men. In not a single instance do they communicate in anything except in languages that are perfectly understandable — a communication that the recipient can process readily. There is not one shred of biblical evidence to suggest that angels speak in disjointed, incomprehensible sounds.

And as for Jon Macarthur, please note the response in comment #295 to your previous quote which I agree with.

 

[Biblicist]

With all due respect, do you not see how hard you are having to work to prove your opinion???

Those of us how are discussing this with you just read the Scriptures, accept them as they are and we are done. You however are quoting one commentator after another to try and validate your opinion. Seems like a lot of effort to me.

"Working hard" . . . I would have thought that most of what I have said came under the umbrella of Bible101.
I grant that it can be a bit tricky to keep multiple complex lines of thought running without errors when we're tired, where mistaking 1Cor 13:1 for 13:10 in the midst of the numerous scholars and commentators that I have quoted can be messy when running from memory only, but overall this thread has been an absolute joy; though, from an intellectual aspect, which undoubtedly plays to my frail human ego, I would like to see a bit more of a show from the cessationist side.

With many of the scholars that I have quoted, I can easily copy and paste them from a folder which contains a growing list of articles on each of the verses of 1Cor 12, 13 & 14, along with Acts 2 and other key passages, which increasingly allows me to cross-reference a particular verse or passage against numerous scholars without having to go to my hard copies. There are still a few gaps in the list but they are filling up week by week.

A very long time ago, a professor of mine told me that when all the pieces fit together without any work, then you are getting to the truth.

Interesting indeed! As all of us (scholars and lay alike), we would all recognise that any serious study of the Scriptures involves maybe 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration, where many passages may remain a mystery for decades where some many only be solved when we stand before the Lord; this is something that your scholarly friend would certainly give his assent to as he has undoubtedly spent many frustrating and late hours pondering over not only numerous Scriptures but with many Biblical doctrines as well.

As Paul said interestingly enough within one of our main chapters of interest within this thread;

(1Co 14:20 NASB) Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.​

When were childen in Sunday school, it could be very hard to get us to think past our first thoughts, but when we began to enter into adulthood our thinking then matured where we were better equipped to carefully consider complex situations including the many difficult Scriptural passages; this is something that a child cannot do.

 

[Biblicist]

While you may be totally correct, the point is till made that commentators do not take precedence over the actual Scriptures and the phrase Heavenly Language is not in the Scriptures.

If, IF there was a heavenly language, would it not be logical and understandable then that the angels would speak such a language???? There are numerous Bible examples of angels speaking to men. In not a single instance do they communicate in anything except in languages that are perfectly understandable — a communication that the recipient can process readily.

When the angelic hosts are speaking to men then we should not be surprised to discover that they are speaking the language of the one who they are speaking to, otherwise we could not say that they were in fact speaking to them.

Now, when the angels (who reside within the heavens) are communicating with each other or with the members of the Godhead, then we should not be surprised to discover that they are speaking a form of utterance that is superior to that of the creation. In fact, why would anyone expect the angelic hosts or the members of the Godhead to speak in a frail, imperfect and mortal language - it makes no sense.

This is why we refer to the utterances that the Holy Spirit speaks through us to the Father as being a "heavenly language" which is more than legitimate as the angelic hosts and the Godhead reside within the heavens.

And as for Jon Macarthur, please note the response in comment #295 to your previous quote which I agree with.

Oh yes, that's where I referred to John MacArthur and not someone such as Alan Johnson, where I even had the wrong post in mind.

There is not one shred of biblical evidence to suggest that angels speak in disjointed, incomprehensible sounds.

When we take Pauls statement in 1Cor 13:1 that he speaks in the "tongues of angels" along with how Paul has gone to some length within 1Cor 14 to explain that no man can ever understand what the Spirt is saying to the Father, then how can anyone suggest that they have the ability to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Father?

 

[Biblicist]

No sir I do not.

I believe that Paul was very clear in 1 Corth. 13:88-12.

The temporary gifts ended when the Bible was completed. First Corinthians 13:10 says........
“When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away”.

If you could point me to where Paul has said this (or even hinted that this is so) then you will have done something that no other individual has ever been able to do before you. As I've said previously, way back in the 1970's 1Cor 13:10 became the proverbial golden nail in the coffin of cessationism, where once people had the scales fall from their eyes then many millions of cessationists were able to realise that Paul was speaking of the future Kingdom of God, the Parousia, where Jesus will return to establish God's Kingdom here on earth. You are right in that Paul is not specifically speaking about Jesus, but with the Kingdom of God where Jesus will return as its head.

The ESV puts it this way: “When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” The “in part” or “partial” things are the gifts of prophecy, knowledge, and tongues (verses 8–9). There will be a time when these gifts will cease because something better (“that which is perfect”) will replace them. Perfect means “complete”—the incomplete will be replaced by the complete.

When the Bible was completed it replaced the temporary gifts. YES, I know that there is other thoughts of this passage.

Some believe as you seem to be saying that the "Perfect One" is heaven.
Some believe it was the coming of Jesus.
Some believe that it is the 2nd Coming of Jesus.

IMHO, the context and Greek grammar which in this case is neuter, insists that it is a "THING" and not a person or a place. The only perfect THING I know of then is the Word of God.

In his study Bible, Charles Ryrie has the following to say about verse 11:

'There are stages of growth within the present imperfect time before Christ’s return. After the church began, there was a period of immaturity, during which spectacular gifts were needed for growth and authentication (Heb. 2:3-4). With the completion of the NT and the growing maturity of the church, the need for such gifts disappeared. '

Back in post #240 I provided a sample of the views of some of the leading theologians of our day, where I even quoted Daniel B. Wallace who is a leading cessationist (though from what I have been reading this week he does seem to be a very uncomfortable cessationist), where even he acknowledges that 13:10 is pointing to the future Kingdom of God, where he actually refers to the return of Jesus but this is just semantics as it is Jesus who will be at the head of the Heavenly army.

If anyone has a commentary (or something similar) that has been written by a scholar since the 1980's who still believes that 1Cor 13:10 refers to either the death of the last Apostle or to the completion of the Canon then I would certainly appreciate a link to such an oddity.

______________________

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace (1996) (cessationist)

1 Cor 13:10 όταν δε ελθη τό τέλειον, τό έκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται whenever the perfect comes, the partial will be done away

Although there can be no objection to the τέλειον referring to the completion of the canon grammatically (for the adj. would naturally be neuter if it referred to a thing, even if the inferred noun were feminine, such as γραοή), it is difficult to see such a notion in this passage, for this view presupposes that (1) both Paul and the Corinthians knew that he was writing scripture, and (2) the apostle foresaw the completion of the NT before the Lord's return.6 A more likely view is that "the perfect" refers to the coming of Christ7 (note the terminus given in v 12 (τότε) as "face to face," a personal reference that does not easily comport with the canon view).8

Cf. also Matt 19:17; 27:29; Mark 1:4; Acts 5:31; Rom 8:34; 12:9, 21; 1 Cor 1:20, 25-28; Gal 4:27; Eph 1:20; 2:14,16; 1 Tim 5:16; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 4:18; 1 John 2:20; Rev 3:7.
Footnotes:
6 G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) 645, n. 23, remarks that this "is an impossible view, of course, since Paul himself could not have articulated it."
7 One cannot object that the reference is not to the coming of Christ because the adj. is neuter, since the neuter adj. is sometimes used for persons for masons of rhetoric, aphoristic principle, suspense, etc. Cf. Matt 12:6,41; 1 Cor 1:27-28; Heb 7:7.
8 This is not necessarily to say that the sign gifts would continue until the Second Coming, for in Paul's mind he would be alive when Christ returned (cf. 1 Thess 4:15). Such an anticipation summarily removes this text from supporting either the charismatic or cessationist position on sign gifts.

 

[swordsman1]

When we take Pauls statement in 1Cor 13:1 that he speaks in the "tongues of angels"

That's not true. Paul never said he spoke in the tongues of angels. You repeatedly ignore the clear evidence that Paul was speaking hypothetically in that verse. Here it is again:

1 Cor 13:1-3
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and
if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and
if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.​

This passage consists of 5 parallel statements to illustrate the superiority of love over the spiritual gifts. Paul doesn't say he did any of those things. Each of them is an IF statement. Paul is saying that even if he possessed spiritual gifts to an impossibly superlative degree, but not have love, it would be to no avail. It is quite obvious that in each of these statements Paul is using exaggerated figures of speech to make his point:

Did Paul really have the gift of prophecy to such a degree that he literally knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge. ie was he was omniscient? No.

Did Paul really have the gift of faith to such a degree that he could literally move mountains? No.

Did Paul really have the gift of giving to such a degree that he literally gave ALL his possessions to the poor and made himself destitute? No.

Did Paul literally give his own body to be burned? No.

And neither did he literally speak in the language of angels. He was speaking hypothetically. None of those parallel statements are meant to be taken literally.

Now that I've explained it for the umpteenth time, perhaps you could have a go at refuting it?

along with how Paul has gone to some length within 1Cor 14 to explain that no man can ever understand what the Spirt is saying to the Father

Another lie. Paul never said that "no man can ever understand". He said no one in the congregation understood the untranslated language spoken at Corinth. That doesn't mean it was an extra-terrestrial language. If someone was speaking say Persian in a small Greek church it is not surprising no one understood what was said.

There is only one passage in scripture that describes exactly what tongues is (Acts 2:6-11), foreign human languages. Nowhere is it redefined as something else.

 

[swordsman1]

If you could point me to where Paul has said this (or even hinted that this is so) then you will have done something that no other individual has ever been able to do before you. As I've said previously, way back in the 1970's 1Cor 13:10 became the proverbial golden nail in the coffin of cessationism, where once people had the scales fall from their eyes then many millions of cessationists were able to realise that Paul was speaking of the future Kingdom of God, the Parousia, where Jesus will return to establish God's Kingdom here on earth. You are right in that Paul is not specifically speaking about Jesus, but with the Kingdom of God where Jesus will return as its head.

You are just repeating your tired old mantra from a few days ago. I have already posted conclusive proof that 1 Cor 13:8-12 is referring to the completed canon and not the Parousia.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/assembly-of-god-and-tongues.7955793/page-12#post-70216469

Please go back and refute it if you think its wrong.

Back in post #240 I provided a sample of the views of some of the leading theologians of our day, where I even quoted Daniel B. Wallace who is a leading cessationist (though from what I have been reading this week he does seem to be a very uncomfortable cessationist), where even he acknowledges that 13:10 is pointing to the future Kingdom of God, where he actually refers to the return of Jesus but this is just semantics as it is Jesus who will be at the head of the Heavenly army.

If anyone has a commentary (or something similar) that has been written by a scholar since the 1980's who still believes that 1Cor 13:10 refers to either the death of the last Apostle or to the completion of the Canon then I would certainly appreciate a link to such an oddity.

______________________

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace (1996) (cessationist)

1 Cor 13:10 όταν δε ελθη τό τέλειον, τό έκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται whenever the perfect comes, the partial will be done away

Although there can be no objection to the τέλειον referring to the completion of the canon grammatically (for the adj. would naturally be neuter if it referred to a thing, even if the inferred noun were feminine, such as γραοή), it is difficult to see such a notion in this passage, for this view presupposes that (1) both Paul and the Corinthians knew that he was writing scripture, and (2) the apostle foresaw the completion of the NT before the Lord's return.6 A more likely view is that "the perfect" refers to the coming of Christ7 (note the terminus given in v 12 (τότε) as "face to face," a personal reference that does not easily comport with the canon view).8

Cf. also Matt 19:17; 27:29; Mark 1:4; Acts 5:31; Rom 8:34; 12:9, 21; 1 Cor 1:20, 25-28; Gal 4:27; Eph 1:20; 2:14,16; 1 Tim 5:16; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 4:18; 1 John 2:20; Rev 3:7.
Footnotes:
6 G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) 645, n. 23, remarks that this "is an impossible view, of course, since Paul himself could not have articulated it."
7 One cannot object that the reference is not to the coming of Christ because the adj. is neuter, since the neuter adj. is sometimes used for persons for masons of rhetoric, aphoristic principle, suspense, etc. Cf. Matt 12:6,41; 1 Cor 1:27-28; Heb 7:7.
8 This is not necessarily to say that the sign gifts would continue until the Second Coming, for in Paul's mind he would be alive when Christ returned (cf. 1 Thess 4:15). Such an anticipation summarily removes this text from supporting either the charismatic or cessationist position on sign gifts.

You are beginning to sound like a worn out record repeating itself. I have already refuted that as well.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/assembly-of-god-and-tongues.7955793/page-13#post-70220545

 

[Biblicist]

You are just repeating your tired old mantra from a few days ago. I have already posted conclusive proof that 1 Cor 13:8-12 is referring to the completed canon and not the Parousia.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/assembly-of-god-and-tongues.7955793/page-12#post-70216469

Please go back and refute it if you think its wrong.

When it comes specifically to 1Cor 13:10, as your thoughts are obviously your own, where they are being based on agenda and not upon serious theological reflection, then your unfounded views need to be supported by a reputable cessationist theologian who has been published since the 1980's (Chick pamphlets are not what I am after). I guess such a 'theological' oddity exists and I know that I would value seeing a recognised cessationist authority trying to support the impossible - afterall, they do this with so many other Scriptures so a link to 13:10 should not be all that hard to find; though I wonder if there are any cessationist academics who would be prepared to stand against one of the leading cessationists of our day such as Dan Wallace?

You are beginning to sound like a worn out record repeating itself. I have already refuted that as well.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/assembly-of-god-and-tongues.7955793/page-13#post-70220545

Do you maybe have a thread somewhere that also demonstrates how you have 'proven' that the earth is flat? How I absolutely relish addressing Continuist Pneumatic Theology - but a serious cessationist challenge on even a single point would probably help me to keep my interest going.

 

[Biblicist]

Over the past 20 or more years, for those who have observed or at least tried to keep abreast of the developments with the interactions between cessationists and Continuists, they would have noticed that many respected and well known cessationts are to various degrees obviously a bit uncomfortable with their position.

A few minutes back I came across a video by Prof. Darrell Block of Dallas Theological Seminary where it 'seems' that he is not all that willing to offer a strong rejection of Continuist theology. The video only goes for about 4 minutes and if anyone has any other relevant links to Block's views would be appreciated.

Darrell Block link Author and Research Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary

Daniel Wallace link

Ken Wytsma link The 6m 40 sec mark is interesting.

 

[swordsman1]

When it comes specifically to 1Cor 13:10, as your thoughts are obviously your own, where they are being based on agenda and not upon serious theological reflection, then your unfounded views need to be supported by a reputable cessationist theologian who has been published since the 1980's (Chick pamphlets are not what I am after). I guess such a 'theological' oddity exists and I know that I would value seeing a recognised cessationist authority trying to support the impossible - afterall, they do this with so many other Scriptures so a link to 13:10 should not be all that hard to find; though I wonder if there are any cessationist academics who would be prepared to stand against one of the leading cessationists of our day such as Dan Wallace?

There are plenty of theologians who believe that "completeness" in 13:10 comes at the end of the apostolic age and not at the Parousia. Here are just a few of them:

Myron J. Houghton, Senior Professor of Systematic Theology at Faith Baptist Bible College:
David Farnell, professor of New Testament studies at The Master's Seminary
Bruce Compton, Professor of Biblical Languages and Exposition at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
Robert L. Thomas, professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary
Donald G. McDougall, Associate Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary
Merrill F. Unger, former professor at Dallas Theological Seminary
John F. Walvoord, former president of Dallas Theological Seminary
Dr. R Gromacki, Professor Emeritus of Bible and Greek, Cedarville University
Richard B Gaffin, Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary
Thomas R. Edgar, Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Capital Bible Seminary
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Reformed Theological Seminary
Walter J. Chantry, Westminster Theological Seminary

There are many more who believe that that the gift of tongues ceased around that time.

While there are a quite a few respected theologians out there who have carefully studied scripture and are able to provide an accurate exposition of God's word, there are clearly many others who ignore the rules of hermeneutics and so twist scripture to arrive at totally erroneous conclusions. One thing is patently obvious - scholars disagree with each all the time, so much so it is like walking through a theological minefield. Of course proponents of false doctrines like to cherry pick their favorite quotes in an attempt to justify their views. And judging by the exegetical quality of some of the quotes you have provided here, there are clearly many 'scholars' who are best avoided.

Anyway God's word doesn't need a 'scholar' to interpret it for us. It was written for everyday men and woman to understand reading their own bibles. And providing you carefully study it using the established principles of bible interpretation you will quickly arrive at the correct meaning. Doing so with the key verses that relate to tongues, it becomes patently obvious that the practice that has appeared in churches over the past few decades is not the gift that is described in the New Testament.

 

[Major1]

If you could point me to where Paul has said this (or even hinted that this is so) then you will have done something that no other individual has ever been able to do before you. As I've said previously, way back in the 1970's 1Cor 13:10 became the proverbial golden nail in the coffin of cessationism, where once people had the scales fall from their eyes then many millions of cessationists were able to realise that Paul was speaking of the future Kingdom of God, the Parousia, where Jesus will return to establish God's Kingdom here on earth. You are right in that Paul is not specifically speaking about Jesus, but with the Kingdom of God where Jesus will return as its head.



Back in post #240 I provided a sample of the views of some of the leading theologians of our day, where I even quoted Daniel B. Wallace who is a leading cessationist (though from what I have been reading this week he does seem to be a very uncomfortable cessationist), where even he acknowledges that 13:10 is pointing to the future Kingdom of God, where he actually refers to the return of Jesus but this is just semantics as it is Jesus who will be at the head of the Heavenly army.

If anyone has a commentary (or something similar) that has been written by a scholar since the 1980's who still believes that 1Cor 13:10 refers to either the death of the last Apostle or to the completion of the Canon then I would certainly appreciate a link to such an oddity.

______________________

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace (1996) (cessationist)

1 Cor 13:10 όταν δε ελθη τό τέλειον, τό έκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται whenever the perfect comes, the partial will be done away

Although there can be no objection to the τέλειον referring to the completion of the canon grammatically (for the adj. would naturally be neuter if it referred to a thing, even if the inferred noun were feminine, such as γραοή), it is difficult to see such a notion in this passage, for this view presupposes that (1) both Paul and the Corinthians knew that he was writing scripture, and (2) the apostle foresaw the completion of the NT before the Lord's return.6 A more likely view is that "the perfect" refers to the coming of Christ7 (note the terminus given in v 12 (τότε) as "face to face," a personal reference that does not easily comport with the canon view).8

Cf. also Matt 19:17; 27:29; Mark 1:4; Acts 5:31; Rom 8:34; 12:9, 21; 1 Cor 1:20, 25-28; Gal 4:27; Eph 1:20; 2:14,16; 1 Tim 5:16; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 4:18; 1 John 2:20; Rev 3:7.
Footnotes:
6 G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) 645, n. 23, remarks that this "is an impossible view, of course, since Paul himself could not have articulated it."
7 One cannot object that the reference is not to the coming of Christ because the adj. is neuter, since the neuter adj. is sometimes used for persons for masons of rhetoric, aphoristic principle, suspense, etc. Cf. Matt 12:6,41; 1 Cor 1:27-28; Heb 7:7.
8 This is not necessarily to say that the sign gifts would continue until the Second Coming, for in Paul's mind he would be alive when Christ returned (cf. 1 Thess 4:15). Such an anticipation summarily removes this text from supporting either the charismatic or cessationist position on sign gifts.

So now we are competing in the battle of Bible commentaries?????

So be it. I am pretty sure that we can post some comments for you. .............however IMHO the best commentery is the Word of God itself.

1 Corinthians 13:8.......
“whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away”.

2 Corinthians 12.12 Paul says:
'Truly the signs of AN APOSTLE were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.'

1 Corinthians 14.21-22 Paul says.........
'In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.'

Dave Miller, Ph.D, Apologetics Press : "... the exegete is forced to conclude that Paul’s use of “perfect” referred to the completed revelation or totally revealed New Testament Scriptures."

Robert L. Thomas, Understanding the Spiritual Gifts, pg. 130 - "... a completion of the revelatory gifts coincided1 with the completion of the New Testament".

"Use and Abuse of Tongues" by  Theodore Epp and John Paton......... In a discussion on the cessation of the gift of prophecy they claim the doing away of that which is in part was “especially fulfilled when the Scriptures as we have them today were completed.

Richard De Haan .......... "The gift of tongues was never intended to be a permanent feature of the church. It is one of the temporary charismatic gifts which served a special function during the transitional period while the church gradually lost its Jewish character and the New Testament was in the process of being written."

Josiah Gregory cited in Clarkes Commentaries on tongues...."People of little religion are always noisy; he who has not the love of God and man filling his heart is like an empty wagon coming violently down a hill: it makes a great noise, because there is nothing in it."

Greek Definition of perfect: "teleion"........

1. VINE: "Signifies having reached its end, finished, complete, perfect"
2. THAYER: "brought to its end, wanting nothing necessary to completeness; when used of men it means full-grown, adult, of full age, mature."
3. BAGSTER: "brought to completion, complete, entire, as opposed to what is partial or limited"
4. ARNDT & GINGRICH: "having attained the end or purpose, complete, perfect"

As A Pentecostal believer, I am sure that you are aware of the actual quote from Pentecostal doctrine book:......
"1 Cor 13 & Eph 4 both speak of the church corporately growing into full manhood, which is a progressive, continuing and future fact".

This Pentecostal interpretation states that as time goes on, the church would become more mature, more Christ like and have a fuller understanding of doctrinal things and have an increased "unity of faith". All these things increase gradually over time till the second coming.

To refute this view, It must be pointed out that.......

1). The facts of history show there was only one church in the first century that was unified on doctrine and there are thousands of churches today!
2).That a falling away was prophesied in 1 Tim 4:1-4.
3). That such a falling away has occurred with the result that there are thousands of denominations today, each teaching differing doctrine. Even though Pentecostal churches represent a tiny fraction of denominations today, even they are highly divided over doctrine and fellowship disputes as YOU yourself have stated.
4). On what basis would Pentecostals suggest that the church has grown into manhood gradually over time? If you know that this is the case, I would suggest the examples!
5). Such vague concepts are eagerly swallowed whole by Pentecostals desperate to escape the truth of these passages, but when investigated and examined, are simply false teaching unable to bear even the lightest cross examination!
That is what we are seeing right here on this web site.

 

[Major1]

You are just repeating your tired old mantra from a few days ago. I have already posted conclusive proof that 1 Cor 13:8-12 is referring to the completed canon and not the Parousia.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/assembly-of-god-and-tongues.7955793/page-12#post-70216469

Please go back and refute it if you think its wrong.




You are beginning to sound like a worn out record repeating itself. I have already refuted that as well.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/assembly-of-god-and-tongues.7955793/page-13#post-70220545

Yes, I have to agree with you.

 

[Major1]

When the angelic hosts are speaking to men then we should not be surprised to discover that they are speaking the language of the one who they are speaking to, otherwise we could not say that they were in fact speaking to them.

Now, when the angels (who reside within the heavens) are communicating with each other or with the members of the Godhead, then we should not be surprised to discover that they are speaking a form of utterance that is superior to that of the creation. In fact, why would anyone expect the angelic hosts or the members of the Godhead to speak in a frail, imperfect and mortal language - it makes no sense.

This is why we refer to the utterances that the Holy Spirit speaks through us to the Father as being a "heavenly language" which is more than legitimate as the angelic hosts and the Godhead reside within the heavens.


Oh yes, that's where I referred to John MacArthur and not someone such as Alan Johnson, where I even had the wrong post in mind.


When we take Pauls statement in 1Cor 13:1 that he speaks in the "tongues of angels" along with how Paul has gone to some length within 1Cor 14 to explain that no man can ever understand what the Spirt is saying to the Father, then how can anyone suggest that they have the ability to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Father?

With all due respect to you my brother, this is really a simple problem to solve.

YOU are a Pentecostal. YOU are going to support and expound that teaching no matter what is show to you. What we have going on here is classic on every single internet web site. YOU and others are shown over and over the Scriptures but you always fall back on your denominational theology.

WHY?

The very same reason that the Catholic believes he must pray to Mary.
The very same reason that the Mormon believes that Joseph Smith must approve of those who accept Christ.

These are example of Religionists. I am not condemning you, only stating the obvious. You want to speak in a strange tongue because it makes you FEEL closer to God. That is salvation based on "emotions" and not the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I know that you will not agree but the bottom line my friend is that by speaking in a strange gibberish, it is actually adding something to the gospel of Christ. It is a "works" production.

Eph. 2:8-9.......
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Is that true or not????

It means we are saved by the work of the Lord Jesus on the cross, His death, and resurrection. PLUS NOTHING!

No more bloody animal sacrifices, no more Temple ceremonies, no more rituals and NO MORE TONGUES.

 

[Major1]

"Working hard" . . . I would have thought that most of what I have said came under the umbrella of Bible101.
I grant that it can be a bit tricky to keep multiple complex lines of thought running without errors when we're tired, where mistaking 1Cor 13:1 for 13:10 in the midst of the numerous scholars and commentators that I have quoted can be messy when running from memory only, but overall this thread has been an absolute joy; though, from an intellectual aspect, which undoubtedly plays to my frail human ego, I would like to see a bit more of a show from the cessationist side.

With many of the scholars that I have quoted, I can easily copy and paste them from a folder which contains a growing list of articles on each of the verses of 1Cor 12, 13 & 14, along with Acts 2 and other key passages, which increasingly allows me to cross-reference a particular verse or passage against numerous scholars without having to go to my hard copies. There are still a few gaps in the list but they are filling up week by week.


Interesting indeed! As all of us (scholars and lay alike), we would all recognise that any serious study of the Scriptures involves maybe 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration, where many passages may remain a mystery for decades where some many only be solved when we stand before the Lord; this is something that your scholarly friend would certainly give his assent to as he has undoubtedly spent many frustrating and late hours pondering over not only numerous Scriptures but with many Biblical doctrines as well.

As Paul said interestingly enough within one of our main chapters of interest within this thread;

(1Co 14:20 NASB) Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.​

When were childen in Sunday school, it could be very hard to get us to think past our first thoughts, but when we began to enter into adulthood our thinking then matured where we were better equipped to carefully consider complex situations including the many difficult Scriptural passages; this is something that a child cannot do.

You said...........
"Working hard" . . . I would have thought that most of what I have said came under the umbrella of Bible101.

LOL.....That is exactly what I was thinking about this whole conversation. I just didn't want to insult you.

If YOU want to speak in a gibberish voice......go right ahead. What I am saying is that no one needs to be a saved Christian to speak in charismatic-style tongues, because it is not a true gift of the Spirit.

IMO, the powerful current that constantly propels the charismatic believers further and further from the Bible is evidence of a serious fundamental error, namely, the idea that the revelatory and sign-gifts are for all time.

 

[toLiJC]

Assembly of God believes that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Are they right?

what if we all speak in some language that none of us and others understand?!, that is why, first of all, there is a special gift of the Holy Spirit to speak foreign languages in order to preach the Gospel to foreigners, then there is also a gift to speak the Word of the true God in a language that is not of this world, but there should be somebody to translate/interpret it

1 Corinthians 14:27-28 "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

Blessings

 

[Major1]

what if we all speak in some language that none of us and others understand?!, that is why, first of all, there is a special gift of the Holy Spirit to speak foreign languages in order to preach the Gospel to foreigners, then there is also a gift to speak the Word of the true God in a language that is not of this world, but there should be somebody to translate/interpret it

1 Corinthians 14:27-28 "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

Blessings

That is why speaking in tongues have ended. We do not go to Africa expecting the people there to hear us speak in their own language. God gave us a brain so we know to take an interpreter with us.

 

[Dave-W]

No more bloody animal sacrifices, no more Temple ceremonies, no more rituals and NO MORE TONGUES.

The first three are before the cross. So I can see why you say that.

But the latter is completely AFTER the cross. It continues.