Assembly of God and Tongues

[Biblicist]

My post 240 has been updated with a number of older commentaries which give an indication of how 1Cor 13:10 "that which is perfect" has been understood.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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.

Score ONE for Mac!!! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

[Biblicist]

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.

As I mentioned only a few days back to Swordsman1, my first 18 months or so as a Christian were within a full cessationist environment, where it was only after I began to compare what I was reading in the Word with regard to the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit that I realised that what I was seeing around me in the wider State Christian youth scene in particular, that this bore little resemblence to what Paul was talking about. As this was before the Internet and satellite TV, it was only through buying numerous Christian books that the penny began to drop, so when I was invited to a FGBMFI mens breakfast I was raring to go.

So having been there, I have a pretty good understanding of how many Christians (and churchgoers) are bound to the rationalism of the cessationist worldview and with some that it can be hard to break free from the shackles of human tradition.

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.
• The very same reason that cessationism bows the knee to human tradition.

 

[Biblicist]

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”.

Yes, when the Lord returns with the future Kingdom of God this will certainly happen.

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.'

That's right, but of course tongues and prophecy do not belong to the realm of signs, wonders or powers.

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.'

This is where many cessationists and even some Pentecostals can be a bit confused with what Paul was saying. He did not say that tongues were intended as a sign but that when an unsaved visitor or a Believer who was uninitiated into the things of the Spirit enters into a meeting where all were speaking/singing in tongues all at once, as they would be justifiably confused they will say that we are mad. This means that when the entire (or a large porton of a) meeting sings in the Spirit all at once, that it will have the UNINTENDED action of being a negative sign or indicator of judgment, which is why Paul forbade the uninterpreted use of tongues within the congregational setting.

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."

That should undoubtedly read as "the cessationist is forced to say (but not necessarily believe deep down) that Paul is referring to the completion of the Scriptures".

Robert L. Thomas, Understanding the Spiritual Gifts, pg. 130

- "... a completion of the revelatory gifts coincided1 with the completion of the New Testament".[/quote]
Is Thomas serious or is this maybe a misquote, as both prophecy and tongues continued for at least a further two centuries before the Holy Spirit was essentially forced out of the life of the church, where he was then slowly replaced with various sacraments.

"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.

Again, there view is a natural consequence of trying to maintain a worldview that cannot be supported from within the Scriptures.

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."

As above.

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."

That sounds very much like MacArthurs conference of about three years back where he attempted to spread his strangefire, which even disgusted many cessationists, but of course his worldview is indeed small in that it is essentially devoid of the Spirit, for that matter it also sadly devoid of much of the Son of God.

 

[Biblicist]

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.

Actually I was hoping that someone may have been able to quickly include a few cut and pastes from various cessationist sources as I am of the opinion that when many cessationists realise what cessationism actually believes, that it would give them good reason to the go back to the Scriptures.

A typical example of hard core cessationism can be found with F. David Farnell's 11 page article on "When will the Gift of Prophecy Cease?

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/chari...he-gift-of-prophecy-cease-by-f-david-farnell/

Farnell's key points are with Eph 2:20 where many cessationists confuse the everyday congregational apostle with those who were appointed by Christ to be 'Apostles-of-Christ, where he tries to say that tongues were a sign that the Apostles used, which is strange as we have many examples of where ordinary everyday Believers spoke in tongues and where Paul wanted everyone to be able to speak in tongues.

His next point is with 1Cor 12:10 where he attempts to say that the telion does not refer to the establishment of the future Kingdom of God but with the completion of the Scriptures. It is not surprising that probably the vast majority of Evangelical cessationists (as against those cessationists who are either Reformed or austere Calvinists) have themselves rejected this old stand, where they are not prepared to defend the indefensible but where they would sooner try different approaches.

 

[swordsman1]

So having been there, I have a pretty good understanding of how many Christians (and churchgoers) are bound to the rationalism of the cessationist worldview and with some that it can be hard to break free from the shackles of human tradition.

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.
• The very same reason that cessationism bows the knee to human tradition.

The is nothing from human tradition in cessationism. It is fully ground in scripture. The Bible clearly describes what tongues is, and when it would cease. And cease it did, at the end of the apostolic age when the "completeness" of the NT canon had come and replaced the "partial" revelatory gifts. Only to be resurrected apparently when Agnes Osman gave birth to the Pentecostal movement in the 1900's when she started free vocalizing and claimed it was the gift of tongues.

This is where many cessationists and even some Pentecostals can be a bit confused with what Paul was saying. He did not say that tongues were intended as a sign but that when an unsaved visitor or a Believer who was uninitiated into the things of the Spirit enters into a meeting where all were speaking/singing in tongues all at once, as they would be justifiably confused they will say that we are mad. This means that when the entire (or a large porton of a) meeting sings in the Spirit all at once, that it will have the UNINTENDED action of being a negative sign or indicator of judgment, which is why Paul forbade the uninterpreted use of tongues within the congregational setting.

And why does Paul say tongues was a sign? Because Isaiah prophesied that foreign languages spoken amongst the Jews would be a sign of judgement. And after quoting Isaiah's prophecy Paul says Corinthian tongues were the same.

Tongues was also a positive sign when it was included in the list of signs that NT believers would perform to confirm their message in Mark 16:17-18 along with driving out demons, healing, picking up deadly snakes, and drinking poison (things which clearly do not happen today).

Is Thomas serious or is this maybe a misquote, as both prophecy and tongues continued for at least a further two centuries before the Holy Spirit was essentially forced out of the life of the church, where he was then slowly replaced with various sacraments.

The Holy Spirit was not "forced" to do anything. Least of all by sinful man. He withdrew the sign and revelatory gifts because their purpose had been served. The gospel message was authenticated and the NT canon was complete.

That sounds very much like MacArthurs conference of about three years back where he attempted to spread his strangefire, which even disgusted many cessationists, but of course his worldview is indeed small in that it is essentially devoid of the Spirit, for that matter it also sadly devoid of much of the Son of God.

People can judge for themselves whether the truth was told at the Strange Fire conference. Heres the playlist.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcpTMSL-FR-duvHk-xYVLOGCQRLnYBNxU

And a couple of videos.

 

[swordsman1]

Farnell's key points are with Eph 2:20 where many cessationists confuse the everyday congregational apostle with those who were appointed by Christ to be 'Apostles-of-Christ,

A congregational apostle (church messenger) is not listed as a spiritual gift. The first and foremost spiritual gift is that of an Apostle of Christ. In fact in every English translation when apostolos is translated as 'apostle' it is always referencing an Apostle of Christ.

he tries to say that tongues were a sign that the Apostles used, which is strange as we have many examples of where ordinary everyday Believers spoke in tongues and where Paul wanted everyone to be able to speak in tongues.

Where did he say that?

His next point is with 1Cor 12:10 where he attempts to say that the telion does not refer to the establishment of the future Kingdom of God but with the completion of the Scriptures. It is not surprising that probably the vast majority of Evangelical cessationists (as against those cessationists who are either Reformed or austere Calvinists) have themselves rejected this old stand, where they are not prepared to defend the indefensible but where they would sooner try different approaches.

And he would be absolutely right of course as that is the only option which makes exegetical sense. Proponents of the Parousia view have to read words into the text that aren't there, either by innocently jumping to the wrong conclusion after seeing the words 'face to face' or by being eisogetically mischievous.

 

[Biblicist]

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.

Have you ever noticed that whenever we deem a particular statement to be based on hyperbole, that it means that we have recognized that the literary unit has a meaning that may possibly be taken another way? This means that the initial meaning, is what it is, where we have to surmise that the author or speaker wants us to read something else into the statement. If we deem any literary unit to be hyperbole or that it contains hyperbole, then the onus is on us to demonstrate that the first meaning has another.

The trouble with referring to 1 Cor 13:1-3 as being a unit of hyperbole is that Paul has already informed his audience that certain things within this three verse periscope have become a key part of his walk with Christ.

1 Corinthians, David E. Garland (2003) p.610

The mysteries of God have been revealed to Paul (2:1, 9-10; 15:51), and he regards himself as a "steward of God’s mysteries” (4:1). He claims (along with them) to know the mind of Christ (2:16) and to have knowledge (8:1), and he imparts his knowledge to them throughout the letter. Paul has faith and has performed miracles (2 Cor. 12:12; Rom. 15:19). He voluntarily gave up his rights as an apostle to receive support so that he could carry out his ministry more effectively (1 Cor. 9:1-23). The hardship catalogs (4:11-12; 2 Cor. 4:7-12; 6:3-10; 11:7-11) reveal the toll that this service has taken on him.​

Of the eight following points within 13:1-3, as they have become a key part of his walk both with Christ and in the Spirit; if we combine all eight as one, then how can these “marks of an Apostle-of-Christ” be deemed to be hyperbole?

1 Cor 13:1-3

• Tongues of men - Paul knew Latin, Greek, Aramaic & Hebrew
• Tongues of angels – Paul regularly prayed to the Father through the Holy Spirit (14:15)
• Prophecy – Paul regularly prophesied
• Knows all mysteries – He knew all ‘knowable’ and ‘revealed’ mysteries
• Has all knowledge – He knew all ‘knowable’ and ‘revealed’ knowledge
• All faith, so as to remove mountains – For this proverbial expression, see Thiselton below
• Gives all his possessions to the poor – Paul was often destitute
• Surrendered his body to be burned (or maybe to boast) – Paul knew that he would undoubtedly have to give his life for Christ

First Corinthians, Anthony C. Thiselton (2000) p.1041

To remove mountains is an echo of a tradition that appears in Mark 11:23-24 and Matt 17:20 (cf. Matt. 21:21) as a saying of Jesus. In her commentary on Mark, Morna D. Hooker comments, “Moving a mountain appears to have been a proverbial saying for doing difficult tasks.” Similarly, R. T. France describes the Matthew saying as “a proverbial expression for the most improbable occurrence.” This is how Paul uses the phrase. Just as knowledge transcends mere human discovery, so the kind of faith which is a gift here transcends mere human capacity and expectation. But there is no need either to defend or to attack worldviews relating to “miracle.” The verb μεθιστάνειν means to remove an object from one place and to transfer it to another, here used as part of the proverbial imagery. Finally, πασαν τήν πίσην is likely to be a generic use of all: gifts of every kind of faith. But it may signify either an ideal (Godet), i.e., all possible faith, or an ultimate, i.e., absolute faith (Moffatt, Hering).​

 

[Major1]

As I mentioned only a few days back to Swordsman1, my first 18 months or so as a Christian were within a full cessationist environment, where it was only after I began to compare what I was reading in the Word with regard to the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit that I realised that what I was seeing around me in the wider State Christian youth scene in particular, that this bore little resemblence to what Paul was talking about. As this was before the Internet and satellite TV, it was only through buying numerous Christian books that the penny began to drop, so when I was invited to a FGBMFI mens breakfast I was raring to go.

So having been there, I have a pretty good understanding of how many Christians (and churchgoers) are bound to the rationalism of the cessationist worldview and with some that it can be hard to break free from the shackles of human tradition.

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.
• The very same reason that cessationism bows the knee to human tradition.

And as I mentioned to you, I actually grew up in the Pentecostal environment. I saw and experienced exactly what you are trying to defend. Biblically it can not be defended at all. I have nothing at all against you as I really do not know you but I can see that you are trying to overwhelm others with information from others to support a thesis which can not be Biblically supported at all.

I saw the people who TAUGHT others how to speak in tongues. A gift does not require any teaching does it.
I saw the people who got depressed because they did not speak in tongues. They felt less than those who did.
I saw preachers who spent more time giving sermons on why we should speak in tongues than he did Jesus.
I saw person after person speak in total gibberish and no ever interpreted what they were saying.
I saw dozens of people speaking in tongues instead of at most 2 as the Bible says.

Today, most times the person who speaks in modern tongues have been coached or taught the phenomena. The congregation is told that they need to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit and if they do they will speak in tongues. However, Paul said all do not speak in tongues.(1 Cor. 12:29-31) There the Bible refutes this false idea. Every person when they are saved by God's grace is given the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which is the indwelling of Holy Spirit which gives the believer the Spirit of Christ.

Modern anthropologists have for many years studied the modern tongues phenomena and found it present in many different religions and cultures around the world. They found that not only do some Christians practice modern tongues, so do cults, churches and groups teaching false doctrine and many pagan religions. Dr. Shelia A. Womack, found similarities between that modern speaking in tongues, the Tourette Syndrome. The Trouette syndrome (TS) is an inherited disorder of the nervous system, characterized by a variable expression of unwanted movements and noises.

Linguists Eugene A. Nida, in the 1960's in his studies provided detailed reasons why modern glossolalia could not be a human language. Further W. A. Wolfram in his studies concluded in 1966 that glossolalia did not have the basic elements of human language

MY friend, you can copy and paste all you want to from people who believe as you do. YOU have been shown over and over by many people that tongues spoken today is not Biblical. It is your choice to continue to do what you want to do, however, speaking in tongues is not a Bible requirement of a saved person.

The "sign gifts" of which tongues were included were given to the apostles by the Lord Jesus as recorded in Mark 16. THEY were able to speak in tongues, get bitten by vipers and survive, raise the dead and drink poison. It was a package gift to THOSE men then and not to us today. When the last apostle died, that ended the "sign gifts" and John wrote the Revelation, that my friended was the completed Word of God hence the "perfect one" was come.

 

[swordsman1]

1 Cor 13:1-3

• Tongues of men - Paul knew Latin, Greek, Aramaic & Hebrew
• Tongues of angels – Paul regularly prayed to the Father through the Holy Spirit (14:15)

No, the context is spiritual gifts not natural abilities. When the word 'tongues' appears in 1 Cor 12-14 it is always referring to the spiritual gift not the natural ability. So Paul miraculously spoke in the 'tongues of men' ie foreign human languages that he never learned (further proof that the tongues of 1 Corinthians are the same as Acts 2). But like the other 4 parallel statements, he then extends the normal operation of the gift to the hypothetical -- and even if he could speak in the 'tongues of angels', but not have love, it would be nothing.

• Prophecy – Paul regularly prophesied

• Knows all mysteries – He knew all ‘knowable’ and ‘revealed’ mysteries

• Has all knowledge – He knew all ‘knowable’ and ‘revealed’ knowledge

The text doesn't say 'knowable' and 'revealed'. You are eisogetically putting words into Paul's mouth. Paul certainly prophesied, but did he really have the gift to such a degree that he literally knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge. That's what the text says. ie was he was omniscient? No.

All faith, so as to remove mountains – For this proverbial expression, see Thiselton below

'Moving mountains' is figurative language. Did Paul or anyone else literally move mountains? No.

Gives all his possessions to the poor – Paul was often destitute

Where does it say Paul was destitute? Did Paul really have the gift of giving to such a degree that he literally gave ALL his possessions to the poor? Again that's what it says. So that would include the clothes on his back. Did Paul really walk around naked? No.

Surrendered his body to be burned (or maybe to boast) – Paul knew that he would undoubtedly have to give his life for Christ

Where does it say Paul knew he would be a martyr? Where does it say he thought he might be burned in the process? Did he literally give his own body to be burned? No.

None of those parallel statements are meant to be taken literally including literally speaking in the language of angels. Paul was speaking hypothetically to make the point that even if he possessed spiritual gifts to an impossibly superlative degree, but not have love, it would be to no avail.

I must say though it does amuse me somewhat to watch a Continuist wriggling and grasping at straws trying to defend their main proof-text after it has been systematically refuted.

 

[Biblicist]

And as I mentioned to you, I actually grew up in the Pentecostal environment. I saw and experienced exactly what you are trying to defend.

That's something that has admittedly had me wondering; I can appreciate that there are many so called Pentecostal congregations that struggle to present even the Gospel in any systematic way let alone with the principles of the Full Gospel, which is probably the environment that you found yourself within.

Biblically it can not be defended at all. I have nothing at all against you as I really do not know you but I can see that you are trying to overwhelm others with information from others to support a thesis which can not be Biblically supported at all.

I know . . . I know what you mean, all that Bible stuff, it would be far easier to rely on our own understanding, afterall, it takes far less effort.

I saw the people who TAUGHT others how to speak in tongues. A gift does not require any teaching does it.

Even though I cannot recall ever seeing such a thing, I know that it happens a lot which is nothing more than people trying to be helpful where they are trying to assist people to get over their carnal hangups; but I agree, it probably goes overboard at times but the same thing happens within evangelical-cessationist prayer meetings where I have certainly wittnessed many people trying to 'help' people to repent and give their hearts to the Lord - in fact, I've done the same thing as well.

I saw the people who got depressed because they did not speak in tongues. They felt less than those who did.

I can understand why they would feel inferior but we've probably all seen those who have struggled with their new found faith in the Lord where they have felt worthless because they could not meet the standards of not only a Biblical faith but with the expectations of those within their evangelical-cessationist congregations. I won't go any further on this issue on the forum.

I saw preachers who spent more time giving sermons on why we should speak in tongues than he did Jesus.

I could almost say 'lucky you', as for my own 40 years in Pentecost and within some of the largest congregations across our country, I could probably count on one hand the messages that I have heard that have focused on the how and why we should be praying in the Spirit.

I saw person after person speak in total gibberish and no ever interpreted what they were saying.
I saw dozens of people speaking in tongues instead of at most 2 as the Bible says.

That's certainly wrong and it should not be allowed; but I have certainly seen congregations who have disobeyed the Scriptures where Paul said (and warned) "Do not forbid speaking in tongues".

Today, most times the person who speaks in modern tongues have been coached or taught the phenomena.

It seems that your exposure to the Full Gospel was indeed limited where many congregations will ensure that this does not happen. As for me, I 'decided' to speak in tongues while I was sitting in my car alone.

The congregation is told that they need to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit and if they do they will speak in tongues. However, Paul said all do not speak in tongues.(1 Cor. 12:29-31) There the Bible refutes this false idea. Every person when they are saved by God's grace is given the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which is the indwelling of Holy Spirit which gives the believer the Spirit of Christ.

I agree and this is something that I have already informed you of. Don't forget, the classic-Pentecostal understanding that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is thankfully not as popular as it once was, where I hope that within maybe a decade that even the AoG will discard this legacy understanding. Most charismatics since at least the late 80's have put the idea of subsequence way out to pasture.

Modern anthropologists have for many years studied the modern tongues phenomena and found it present in many different religions and cultures around the world.

They found that not only do some Christians practice modern tongues, so do cults, churches and groups teaching false doctrine and many pagan religions. Dr. Shelia A. Womack, found similarities between that modern speaking in tongues, the Tourette Syndrome. The Trouette syndrome (TS) is an inherited disorder of the nervous system, characterized by a variable expression of unwanted movements and noises.

This is nothing more than an old-wives tale as there has never been a single count of tongues being displayed within any Eastern religion. Many have tried to say that the Greek Oracles used to speak in tongues but every classic-Greek specialist who has looked into the early writings have recognised that there is no truth to it. It is still something that many cessationists try and claim but these views have only eminated from within earlier desperate cessationist commentators or by grass-roots cessationists who have taken their information from pamphlets.

Linguists Eugene A. Nida, in the 1960's in his studies provided detailed reasons why modern glossolalia could not be a human language. Further W. A. Wolfram in his studies concluded in 1966 that glossolalia did not have the basic elements of human language

Wow . . . linguistic studies from the 60's, what a blast from the past. As I read the better articles on this question, the conclusion is that linguistically tongues are inconclusive, where they recognise that they are 'language-like' but not language, which is what we would expect as tongues are not language but inarticulate. At least these studies have supported the Scriptures in that tongues are not language but merely language-like.

MY friend, you can copy and paste all you want to from people who believe as you do. YOU have been shown over and over by many people that tongues spoken today is not Biblical. It is your choice to continue to do what you want to do, however, speaking in tongues is not a Bible requirement of a saved person.

I have also had members of the flat-earth society try and tell me the same thing about their views, but repeating the same old mantra over and over does not make it true; where the form of hardcore cessationism that you have presented has been an embarrasment to many evangelical-cessationists, which is why the arguments you have presented have only served to encourage many cessationists to caste off this worldview for a Biblical understanding of the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit.

The "sign gifts" of which tongues were included were given to the apostles by the Lord Jesus as recorded in Mark 16. THEY were able to speak in tongues, get bitten by vipers and survive, raise the dead and drink poison. It was a package gift to THOSE men then and not to us today. When the last apostle died, that ended the "sign gifts" and John wrote the Revelation, that my friended was the completed Word of God hence the "perfect one" was come.

What, just to the Apostles . . . tell me, are you being serious!

And again, your view is not well received by many contemporary evangelical-cessationists, but of course it does find nurture within Reformed and austere Calvinism, where many Evangelicals have adopted the view that the Scriptures do not speak of any cessation of the role of the Holy Spirit nor do they speak of any continuance. The more people speak of 1Cor 13:10, where the perfect is supposed to speak of the completion of the last Book of the Bible, or with the Canon of Scripture two centuries later, it only serves to help them to discard the cessationist worldview - so please, keep it going!

 

[Biblicist]

Where does it say Paul was destitute? Did Paul really have the gift of giving to such a degree that he literally gave ALL his possessions to the poor? Again that's what it says. So that would include the clothes on his back. Did Paul really walk around naked? No.

Now your simply trying to be silly.

 

[swordsman1]

This is nothing more than an old-wives tale as there has never been a single count of tongues being displayed within any Eastern religion. Many have tried to say that the Greek Oracles used to speak in tongues but every classic-Greek specialist who has looked into the early writings have recognised that there is no truth to it. It is still something that many cessationists try and claim but these views have only eminated from within earlier desperate cessationist commentators or by grass-roots cessationists who have taken their information from pamphlets.

Then you clearly haven't read the research into non-Christian glossolalia by impartial secular academics who have no axe to grind with regard to doctrinal differences between Christian groups. For example:

L C May - A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian Religions
"As a rule, speaking-in-tongues and kindred phenomena are confined to those areas where there is spirit possession and where inspirational shamans hold forth. Glossolalia can be and often is the result of spirit-induced ecstasy making it possible for the inspirational shaman to cure, exorcize, and prophesy ... speaking-in-tongues is widespread and very ancient. Indeed, it is probable that as long as man has had divination, curing, sorcery, and propitiation of spirits, he has had glossolalia."

And George Jenning's "An Ethnological Study of Glossolalia" where he has observed glossolalia among the the Peyote cult among the North American Indians, the Haida Indians of the Pacific Northwest, Shamans in the Sudan, the Shango cult of the West Coast of Africa, the Shago cult in Trinidad, the Voodoo cult in Haiti, the Aborigines of South American and Australia, the aboriginal peoples of the subarctic regions of North America and Asia, the Shamans in Greenland, the Dyaks of Borneo, the Zor cult of Ethiopia, the Siberian shamans, the Chaco Indians of South America, the Curanderos of the Andes, the Kinka in the African Sudan, the Thonga shamans of Africa, and Tibetan monks.

Heather Kavan - The Language and Contexts of Glossolalia
The group I researched is called the Golden Light, a new religious group that arose in the early 1990's. Their preactices are a mixture of Kundalini yoga and New Age channelling. While almost all of the group were New Zealand European, many had strong previous associations with the Indian leader of Siddha yoga, Guru Maya.
...Speaking in tongues was experienced only rarely. There were no teachings that might lead participants to expect glossolalia, and they manifested it spontaneously, with little or no previous knowledge of the phenomenon. Most commonly this occurred during meditations where they experienced glossolalia as an uprush of past life trauma being dislodged by the spiritual energy. These utterances shared the same linguistic characteristics as Christian glossolalia but were less repetitive, and did not contain the preponderance of sounds like /tikitiki/ and /fanda/.

Of course it is more prevalent in Charismatic and pentecostal circles. No other religion 'pushes' it like they do. The pressure new members are put under to be 'baptised in the Spirit' and join the spiritual elite is enormous, so they quickly discover the 'trick' (as the professor of lingustics calls it) of being able to practice free vocalization/glossolalia.

Wow . . . linguistic studies from the 60's, what a blast from the past.

That seems rather an odd thing to say from someone who is happy to quote commentaries that are 200 years old if they support their view.

What difference does age make providing the original research and findings haven't been refuted?

As I read the better articles on this question, the conclusion is that linguistically tongues are inconclusive, where they recognise that they are 'language-like' but not language, which is what we would expect as tongues are not language but inarticulate. At least these studies have supported the Scriptures in that tongues are not language but merely language-like.

What? Scripture does not call tongues a language? Have you not read Acts 2, the only description of the gift, where the disciples were speaking 15 or so different foreign languages? The Greek word used is glossa which means language in this context. The same word is used in 1 Corinthians, where it also says the languages could be translated. If it can be translated then it must be a communicable language. Being such it will have structure, syntax, verbs, nouns, etc that makes it a mode of communication that can be translated from one language to another. Otherwise it is just gibberish.

And yet linguists who have studied pentecostal/charismatic glossolalia have found it to contain no linguistic structure, no words have ever been identified, etc, and is fundamentally not a language.

 

[swordsman1]

Now your simply trying to be silly.

Those are the conclusions you have to draw if you want to make Paul's 5 parallel statements literal. It's not me that is being silly.

 

[Major1]

That's something that has admittedly had me wondering; I can appreciate that there are many so called Pentecostal congregations that struggle to present even the Gospel in any systematic way let alone with the principles of the Full Gospel, which is probably the environment that you found yourself within.


I know . . . I know what you mean, all that Bible stuff, it would be far easier to rely on our own understanding, afterall, it takes far less effort.


Even though I cannot recall ever seeing such a thing, I know that it happens a lot which is nothing more than people trying to be helpful where they are trying to assist people to get over their carnal hangups; but I agree, it probably goes overboard at times but the same thing happens within evangelical-cessationist prayer meetings where I have certainly wittnessed many people trying to 'help' people to repent and give their hearts to the Lord - in fact, I've done the same thing as well.


I can understand why they would feel inferior but we've probably all seen those who have struggled with their new found faith in the Lord where they have felt worthless because they could not meet the standards of not only a Biblical faith but with the expectations of those within their evangelical-cessationist congregations. I won't go any further on this issue on the forum.


I could almost say 'lucky you', as for my own 40 years in Pentecost and within some of the largest congregations across our country, I could probably count on one hand the messages that I have heard that have focused on the how and why we should be praying in the Spirit.


That's certainly wrong and it should not be allowed; but I have certainly seen congregations who have disobeyed the Scriptures where Paul said (and warned) "Do not forbid speaking in tongues".


It seems that your exposure to the Full Gospel was indeed limited where many congregations will ensure that this does not happen. As for me, I 'decided' to speak in tongues while I was sitting in my car alone.


I agree and this is something that I have already informed you of. Don't forget, the classic-Pentecostal understanding that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is thankfully not as popular as it once was, where I hope that within maybe a decade that even the AoG will discard this legacy understanding. Most charismatics since at least the late 80's have put the idea of subsequence way out to pasture.


This is nothing more than an old-wives tale as there has never been a single count of tongues being displayed within any Eastern religion. Many have tried to say that the Greek Oracles used to speak in tongues but every classic-Greek specialist who has looked into the early writings have recognised that there is no truth to it. It is still something that many cessationists try and claim but these views have only eminated from within earlier desperate cessationist commentators or by grass-roots cessationists who have taken their information from pamphlets.


Wow . . . linguistic studies from the 60's, what a blast from the past. As I read the better articles on this question, the conclusion is that linguistically tongues are inconclusive, where they recognise that they are 'language-like' but not language, which is what we would expect as tongues are not language but inarticulate. At least these studies have supported the Scriptures in that tongues are not language but merely language-like.


I have also had members of the flat-earth society try and tell me the same thing about their views, but repeating the same old mantra over and over does not make it true; where the form of hardcore cessationism that you have presented has been an embarrasment to many evangelical-cessationists, which is why the arguments you have presented have only served to encourage many cessationists to caste off this worldview for a Biblical understanding of the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit.


What, just to the Apostles . . . tell me, are you being serious!

And again, your view is not well received by many contemporary evangelical-cessationists, but of course it does find nurture within Reformed and austere Calvinism, where many Evangelicals have adopted the view that the Scriptures do not speak of any cessation of the role of the Holy Spirit nor do they speak of any continuance. The more people speak of 1Cor 13:10, where the perfect is supposed to speak of the completion of the last Book of the Bible, or with the Canon of Scripture two centuries later, it only serves to help them to discard the cessationist worldview - so please, keep it going!

And why do you think that the earth is not flat???????

I do not know why you have not read or studied anyone who presents the ideas posted for you.

It is a well accepted apologetic teaching that the apostles are the ones who received the "sign Gifts" and when John died that end those gifts. This is not some off the wall theology.

I am NOT a Reformist neither am I Calvinistic. Actually I received my education in a Presbyterian University and followed that with Southern Baptist undergrad work. What I posted is well knownand taught in every non-Pentecostal school I know of and have attended.

Honestly my brother, only the radical fringe thinks that Scripture is still being written. Virtually all cessationists and agree that Scripture ceased to be produced with the death of the last apostle. With the death of John, the canon closed.
If that is not the case, why has no Scripture been added to the canon after the Revelation 2000 years ago????

What is the significance of this? Three things.......
(1) It is evident that the Spirit of God no longer is inspiring people to write Scripture. Hence, there is a measure of discontinuity between the first century and the twentieth.

(2) Much of Scripture is prophetic in nature. In the least, a certain kind of prophecy apparently ceased in the first century So one cannot simply say that prophecy continues today just as it did in the first century.

(3) Significantly, many folks say that the biblical argument for the cessation of the sign gifts is inadequate. Ironically, these same folks are adamant that Scripture ceased in the first century.

From where I sit my brother, I see that the people who reject cessationism do that so that they can keep speaking in tongues, having faith healing services and experiencing miracles which the AOG promotes.

Ironically, the AOG rejects Catholic, JW's and Mormonism doctrine but all of them practice continuationism as does the AOG. Go figure.

Again may I say, if you want to do those things that is your choice to do so but they are not Biblical anymore than "slain in the spirit" is Biblical.

 

[Biblicist]

And why do you think that the earth is not flat???????

Errr...okay!

I do not know why you have not read or studied anyone who presents the ideas posted for you.

??

It is a well accepted apologetic teaching that the apostles are the ones who received the "sign Gifts" and when John died that end those gifts. This is not some off the wall theology.

How about the 120 on the Day of Pentecost; then we have the Samaritans in Acts 8 where Simon observed that something special was happening when people were receiving the Holy Spirit, which could only be with how they were speaking in tongues; now for the cessationist, they would never expect to see anything special occuring when someone is Born Again. Then we have the Centurion, his family, friends and associates who were filled with the Spirit with speaking in tongues. Then we have Acts 19 where the Ephesians spoke in tongues. With First Corinthians Paul tells us that the "Father has established within Church (not just Corinth) the Offices of prophecy and tongues which means that probably 99.99% of the early church prophesied and were able to pray in the Spirit.

Of course there is also Eph 6:18 where Paul reminds the Ephesians to pray in the Spirit (Tongues) at all times and the writer of Jude also encourages his readers to pray this way as well.

But as you are basing your view on a reworking of 1Cor 13:10 then we both know that your point is not valid; in fact, I really do not believe that any cessationist honestly believes that 1Cor 13:10 is referring to the completion of the last Book of the Bible.

I am NOT a Reformist neither am I Calvinistic. Actually I received my education in a Presbyterian University and followed that with Southern Baptist undergrad work. What I posted is well knownand taught in every non-Pentecostal school I know of and have attended.

So your not Reformed or a Calvinist, but then you say that you attended a Presbyterian University - are you maybe saying that they were Arminian Evangelicals and maybe not reformed? From what I have observed over the years, the vast majority of Presbyterians are either Reformed or confessional liberals.

Honestly my brother, only the radical fringe thinks that Scripture is still being written. Virtually all cessationists and agree that Scripture ceased to be produced with the death of the last apostle. With the death of John, the canon closed.
If that is not the case, why has no Scripture been added to the canon after the Revelation 2000 years ago????

Hey, we've finally found something that we both agree on! As I am not aware of any Pentecostal denomination that believes that the Scriptures are still being written then your point is obviously moot. Of course this is really little more than an old-wives tale that probably had its beginnings within the more asutere form of cessationist Calivinism, where these sad chappies do not even believe that when can pray to the Father and see things being changed as a result. Of course no Evangelical worth his salt would dare say that we cannot pray to the Father to see things changed around. Who would have thought that anyone actually believes that the Scriptures are still being written.

What is the significance of this? Three things.......
(1) It is evident that the Spirit of God no longer is inspiring people to write Scripture. Hence, there is a measure of discontinuity between the first century and the twentieth.

For those who reject that the Father still speaks to us in prayer then this would definitely be their position.

(2) Much of Scripture is prophetic in nature. In the least, a certain kind of prophecy apparently ceased in the first century So one cannot simply say that prophecy continues today just as it did in the first century.

"Apparently ceased", so in all truth you don't really know!

(3) Significantly, many folks say that the biblical argument for the cessation of the sign gifts is inadequate. Ironically, these same folks are adamant that Scripture ceased in the first century.

??

From where I sit my brother, I see that the people who reject cessationism do that so that they can keep speaking in tongues, having faith healing services and experiencing miracles which the AOG promotes.

Ironically, the AOG rejects Catholic, JW's and Mormonism doctrine but all of them practice continuationism as does the AOG. Go figure.

I guess that you left your 'Pentecostal' church while you were still a youngster as you certainly have some very odd views when it comes to the Full Gospel, it's almost as if you got them from some pamphlet. As for the next old-wives tale that the Mormons are supposed to speak in tongues, their view is that God gives someone the gift of tongues while they are in one of their colleges so that they can learn a language faster so that they can use it sometime in the future as a missionary; their understanding of tongues has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit speaking through an individual. I have been baiting Mormon door-knockers for at least 30 years on this point as I knew full well even back then that they they rejected tongues, just as their cessationist counterparts do.

As for the JW"s, what a hoot!
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010735

"Clearly, modern-day speaking in tongues is very different from the gift of holy spirit given to Jesus’ early followers. In fact, there is no reliable record of anyone receiving that same miraculous power since the death of the apostles".
​

Wow...that could have come out of probably any cessationist pamplet on tongues. As there view is that tongues were used in the early church to the spread the Gospel, which is odd that we have no evidence of this and Paul certainly never talks about it being a possiblity, then the JW's and traditional cessationists share exactly the same position. Tell me, did you really ever attend a Pentecostal church?

Again may I say, if you want to do those things that is your choice to do so but they are not Biblical anymore than "slain in the spirit" is Biblical.

"Slain in the Spirit", I agree but as all liberal churchgoers (their the ones who deny that Jesus in the Christ), as each and everyone of them are cessationists, then cessationism is "not Biblical anymore than "liberalism" is Biblical; do you see how easy it can be turned around!

Edit: Fixed faulty 'quote' and typo

 

[swordsman1]

With First Corinthians Paul tells us that the "Father has established within Church (not just Corinth) the Offices of prophecy and tongues which means that probably 99.99% of the early church prophesied and were able to pray in the Spirit.

Where on earth do you get such ridiculous notions? Were 99.99% of the universal church also Apostles? The Bible specifically tells us in numerous passages that not everyone is given the same spiritual gift (1 Cor 12:28-30; 1 Cor 12:8-11, Rom 12:4-6).

Of course there is also Eph 6:18 where Paul reminds the Ephesians to pray in the Spirit (Tongues) at all times and the writer of Jude also encourages his readers to pray this way as well.

Paul didn't tell the Ephesians to pray in tongues. He never mentions tongues in his epistle. He told them to pray in the Spirit in their native language.

Eph 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people."​

How can you make requests for the Lord's people if you don't know what you are saying? If praying in the Spirit was tongues then every time we pray we should only pray in tongues and never in English - "on all occasions" it says.

No, that is clearly ridiculous. Praying in the Spirit simply means praying with the Spirit's leading. Same as we walk in the Spirit, and worship in the Spirit.

Jude likewise never mentions tongues.

 

[Biblicist]

This is a reasonably complicated post!

Where on earth do you get such ridiculous notions? Were 99.99% of the universal church also Apostles? The Bible specifically tells us in numerous passages that not everyone is given the same spiritual gift (1 Cor 12:28-30; 1 Cor 12:8-11, Rom 12:4-6).

For someone such as yourself who only a few posts back mentioned that they “have undertaken extensive research into charismatic matters”, then I am surprised that you are not aware of such a basic Full Gospel concept.

Now, a few posts back you also agreed that with 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 that Paul was addressing the setting of the congregational meetings, which would include the primary weekly assembly of the Saints along with other localised weekly meetings, which means that Pauls admonitions were essentially being directed that way; this does not mean that the 8 Congregational Offices (1Cor 12:28) cannot be used to minister outside of the congregational meeting, but we can agree that Paul is focusing on their primary collective meetings.

So when they all assemble, there will be those who can prophesy and those who will speak in tongues, where most importantly those who choose to praise the Lord in the Spirit should also be seeking to provide an articulation to the tongue that they provided. For those who have experienced Full Gospel worship, we will (or should) be well aware that those who can prophesy might show a degree of grace where they will choose not to pray in the Spirit within the congregational setting. As we are only permitted to have three prophesies and three tongues per meeting, where each tongue must be articulated, then it is probably right that the prophets allow others to speak words of praise to the Father in tongues, where the prophets will instead speak to the Father in tongues during their private times of praise and devotions.

As much as I recognise that the older classic-Pentecostal (i.e., AoG) view that Acts speaks of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as being subsequent to our initial conversion/initiation is incorrect, I do acknowledge that Luke tells us that when the Holy Spirit falls upon an individual that this can (and ideally should) be evidenced by the new initiate being able to pray in the Spirit. With Peter’s evangelistic message in Acts 2, where he refers to Joel’s prophecy, he tells the crowd in verses 16 & 17 “this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people”” and as the crowd witnessed the 120 speaking in tongues, then we know from the very beginning of the Church that they realised that tongues would remain during all of the “last days”.

When we move into First Corinthians 12, where Paul first prescribes the 9 Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (7-10) and where he later on the chapter prescribes the 8 Congregational Offices (v.28), we see that he has now established the Office (or Function) of tongues for the congregational setting. In verses 29 & 30 he refers back to the 8 Congregational Offices where he reminds them that not all;

• Are apostles (not a Manifestation of the Spirit)
• Prophesy
• Teach (not a Manifestation of the Spirit)
• Perform powers (aka, miracles)
• Have gifts of healings
• Speak in tongues and/or articulate tongues

So, having informed us that the Father chose to establish these 8 Congregational Offices, he also points out the obvious that not all will be recognised by the local congregation as being prophets or that they will all be recognised as functioning within tongues along with articulation during the meetings; to be acknowledged as someone who speaks in tongues during the meeting, this means that they would also have to be able to articulate to the congregation what the Spirit was saying to the Father (14:13). This does not mean that they cannot pray to the Father in the Spirit during their own times of praise and worship but merely that they will not function within the meetings in this way.

Paul makes it clear in 14:23 that he realises that every Believer within the meeting could pray in the Spirit where he says, “Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, . . . ” where he would not have said this is he did not expect it to be the case.

Throughout chapter 14 Paul spends a fair amount of time comparing prophecy and tongues, where he first tells us in the opening verse to desire earnestly the spirituals (aka, spiritual gifts), but especially that we seek to prophesy. The structure of verses 1 & 2 has Paul telling us that we should all seek to prophesy during the meetings (which has its connections with Acts) and in verses two and five he leaves us in not doubt that where we are all encouraged to “seek after the spirituals” that tongues is a natural follow on from Pauls admonition to seek all the things of the Spirit, which is why in verse 5 he “wishes that we all spoke in tongues”.

Paul didn't tell the Ephesians to pray in tongues. He never mentions tongues in his epistle. He told them to pray in the Spirit in their native language.

Eph 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people."​

How can you make requests for the Lord's people if you don't know what you are saying? If praying in the Spirit was tongues then every time we pray we should only pray in tongues and never in English - "on all occasions" it says.

No, that is clearly ridiculous. Praying in the Spirit simply means praying with the Spirit's leading. Same as we walk in the Spirit, and worship in the Spirit.

With Acts 2, we see the 120 praising God through the agency of the Holy Spirit, where we are also made aware that what the Holy Spirit says through us is being directed to the Father, where in this case it was in praise with regard to his ‘mighty works’. This is exactly what congregational tongues is about, where the Holy Spirit speaks words of praise through us to the Father; tongues has absolutely nothing to do with evangelising the lost or that the Holy Spirit will supposedly speak to an individual or to the congregation.

In 14:2 Paul tells us that when we speak to God, that the Holy Spirit speaks through us in mysteries, which only the Holy Spirit and the Father understand; I would presume that the Son and the Angelic hosts would also understand what the Holy Spirit is saying if they were privy to what was being spoken.

To sum this point up, in verses 14 & 15 Paul says “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit (the s/Spirit of me) and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also”. As “the spirit” can only refer to the Holy Spirit, who is the agent of tongues, then when Paul says in verse 15 that he will “pray with the mind (English for us) and with the spirit (the Holy Spirit), then praying in tongues is simply that, “praying in the Spirit”.

Jude likewise never mentions tongues.

As with Acts, 1Cor 14, Eph 6 and Jude, when they speak of praying in the Spirit, this is what the mean and as Luke and Paul have already caste the die so to speak for what this means, then the author of Jude would undoubtedly be meaning the same thing.

 

[swordsman1]

You still haven't supplied proof of your original assertion that 99.99% of the Corinthian congregation prophesied and spoke in tongues when the biblical evidence clearly points to the contrary. It clearly says those gifts were not given universally but were only given to a selected few in the body of Christ. Paul makes it abundantly clear that not everyone has the same gift.

1 Cor 12:29-30 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?" Clearly not.

1 Cor 12:8-10 "To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues."

Rom 12:4-6 "For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. "​

Now, a few posts back you also agreed that with 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 that Paul was addressing the setting of the congregational meetings, which would include the primary weekly assembly of the Saints along with other localised weekly meetings, which means that Pauls admonitions were essentially being directed that way; this does not mean that the 8 Congregational Offices (1Cor 12:28) cannot be used to minister outside of the congregational meeting, but we can agree that Paul is focusing on their primary collective meetings.

I have never said that 1 Cor 12 & 13 is referring to congregational meetings. With regard to spiritual gifts, meetings are not mentioned until Chapter 14. Prior to that the context is clearly the body of Christ, ie the universal church as a whole:

1 Cor 12:12 "Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body......"

1 Cor 12:27 "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, ....."

where the prophets will instead speak to the Father in tongues during their private times of praise and devotions.

Which would be a misuse of the gift of tongues. The purpose of spiritual gifts is for the benefit of others, never for self (1 Peter 4:10, 1 Cor 12:7). Nowhere in scripture is speaking in tongues privately at home ever encouraged.

I do acknowledge that Luke tells us that when the Holy Spirit falls upon an individual that this can (and ideally should) be evidenced by the new initiate being able to pray in the Spirit.

Where does Luke say that new believers should speak in tongues? That would go against Paul's clear teaching that not everybody can speak in tongues.

With Peter’s evangelistic message in Acts 2, where he refers to Joel’s prophecy, he tells the crowd in verses 16 & 17 “this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people”” and as the crowd witnessed the 120 speaking in tongues, then we know from the very beginning of the Church that they realised that tongues would remain during all of the “last days”.

In citing Joel's prophecy Peter was pointing out that the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the disciples, and this is what would happen to all believers at their conversion from then onwards. Joel's prophecy makes no mention of tongues. It is patently obvious new believers do not miraculously speak in foreign languages as the disciples did at Pentecost.

When we move into First Corinthians 12, where Paul first prescribes the 9 Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (7-10) and where he later on the chapter prescribes the 8 Congregational Offices (v.28), we see that he has now established the Office (or Function) of tongues for the congregational setting. In verses 29 & 30 he refers back to the 8 Congregational Offices where he reminds them that not all;

• Are apostles (not a Manifestation of the Spirit)
• Prophesy
• Teach (not a Manifestation of the Spirit)
• Perform powers (aka, miracles)
• Have gifts of healings
• Speak in tongues and/or articulate tongues

So, having informed us that the Father chose to establish these 8 Congregational Offices, he also points out the obvious that not all will be recognised by the local congregation as being prophets or that they will all be recognised as functioning within tongues along with articulation during the meetings; to be acknowledged as someone who speaks in tongues during the meeting, this means that they would also have to be able to articulate to the congregation what the Spirit was saying to the Father (14:13). This does not mean that they cannot pray to the Father in the Spirit during their own times of praise and worship but merely that they will not function within the meetings in this way.

As we have already seen that Paul is referring to the body of Christ, the universal church in Chapter 12, and not meetings, then the whole of this comment can be dismissed.

Paul makes it clear in 14:23 that he realises that every Believer within the meeting could pray in the Spirit where he says, “Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, . . . ” where he would not have said this is he did not expect it to be the case.

Of course Paul did not expect the whole congregation to speak in tongues in 14:23, any more than he expected the whole congregation to prophecy at once in the very next verse. The key word is "if". He was clearly speaking hypothetically. He was pointing out the disastrous consequences that would result should such a crazy situation should arise whereby everyone was speaking in a different foreign language at the same time which nobody could understand.

Throughout chapter 14 Paul spends a fair amount of time comparing prophecy and tongues, where he first tells us in the opening verse to desire earnestly the spirituals (aka, spiritual gifts), but especially that we seek to prophesy. The structure of verses 1 & 2 has Paul telling us that we should all seek to prophesy during the meetings (which has its connections with Acts) and in verses two and five he leaves us in not doubt that where we are all encouraged to “seek after the spirituals” that tongues is a natural follow on from Pauls admonition to seek all the things of the Spirit, which is why in verse 5 he “wishes that we all spoke in tongues”.

No, Paul was addressing the Corinthian church as a whole. It is the church as a whole that should desire the gift of prophecy, not individual believers. It is pointless for individuals to desire a particular gift because spiritual gifts are given at the sole discretion of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:11), and not according to our wishes and desires. We could pray for a particular gift we fancy until we are blue in the face, but unless it was God's will we will not be given it. In the New Testament accounts there was no seeking of gifts, apart that is from Simon the Sorcerer, and we all know what happened there. Even if your theory was correct it would be self-defeating because if an individual had to desire a particular gift, then it clearly shows they were not given it in the first place.

When Paul said "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues" he was speaking rhetorically. Just as he was in 1 Cor 7:7 when he wished that everyone was single and unmarried as he was. It was a wishful ideal, recognizing that the ability to miraculously speak a foreign language was a useful gift, but not something that he realistically expected everyone to have. Otherwise it would be a contradiction of his clear previous teaching that not everyone is given the same gift.

With Acts 2, we see the 120 praising God through the agency of the Holy Spirit, where we are also made aware that what the Holy Spirit says through us is being directed to the Father, where in this case it was in praise with regard to his ‘mighty works’. This is exactly what congregational tongues is about, where the Holy Spirit speaks words of praise through us to the Father;

If that is the case then you have just disproved your own assertion that Eph 6:18 was speaking in tongues as the Ephesians were admonished to pray in the Spirit to make "all kinds of requests", not to give praise to the Father. Not only that but clearly you cannot make specific requests in a language you don't know. So praying in the Spirit here is clearly praying in your native language, and nothing to do with tongues.

In 14:2 Paul tells us that when we speak to God, that the Holy Spirit speaks through us in mysteries, which only the Holy Spirit and the Father understand; I would presume that the Son and the Angelic hosts would also understand what the Holy Spirit is saying if they were privy to what was being spoken.

As would anyone else in the congregation who understood the foreign language spoken, which was clearly not the case in the small Corinthian church.

To sum this point up, in verses 14 & 15 Paul says “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit (the s/Spirit of me) and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also”. As “the spirit” can only refer to the Holy Spirit, who is the agent of tongues, then when Paul says in verse 15 that he will “pray with the mind (English for us) and with the spirit (the Holy Spirit), then praying in tongues is simply that, “praying in the Spirit”.

Not only does Eph 6 tell us that praying in the Spirit is praying in your native language, but it is highly questionable whether 1 Cor 14 says tongues is praying in the Spirit at all.

The original greek does not have capitalization. So unless the word 'Holy' precedes the Greek word pneuma (spirit) it could just as easily be the human spirit, and you have to rely on the context to determine which it is. As 1 Cor 14:15 makes it clear that it is my spirit (Gr.mου) that prays in tongues, then it is almost certain that 'pneuma' in v14-16 is referring to the human spirit which is why virtually all bible translations have translated this section as lower case human 'spirit'.

The only other occurrence of the phrase is v2 "they utter mysteries in the [pneuma]". Here the context doesn't help so the translators are split with 16 rendering it as "spirit" and 30 rendering it as "Spirit". But seeing as it is universally translated as 'spirit' in v14-16 it is most probably 'spirit' here.

Whatever the case it is clear the hijacking of the phrase 'praying in the Spirit' by Pentecostals to mean exclusively tongues is totally unjustified.

 

[Biblicist]

You still haven't supplied proof of your original assertion that 99.99% of the Corinthian congregation prophesied and spoke in tongues when the biblical evidence clearly points to the contrary.

As it’s difficult to know if you did not read my reasonably indepth reply on this particular point or that you are not engaging with it because you are unable to respond, as such I will have to leave you to your thoughts on this issue.

I have never said that 1 Cor 12 & 13 is referring to congregational meetings. With regard to spiritual gifts, meetings are not mentioned until Chapter 14. Prior to that the context is clearly the body of Christ, ie the universal church as a whole:

Check out your statement in #309;

‘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”.​

Which would be a misuse of the gift of tongues. The purpose of spiritual gifts is for the benefit of others, never for self (1 Peter 4:10, 1 Cor 12:7). Nowhere in scripture is speaking in tongues privately at home ever encouraged.

I realise that many cessationists who are austere Calvinists fail to understand that the Believer can commune with the Father in prayer and where in return he will also speak to them; so in your opinion, am I to presume that you believe prayer has no value to the one who is praying??

Of course, to negate the old cessationist viewpoint that the operations of the Spirit only benefit “the all” and not the individual Believer, all I need to do is to point to 1 Cor 14:3 where Paul says that the “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church”, which of course can be rephrased as ‘The one who speaks to the Father in the Spirit through inarticulate tongues EDIFIES HIMSELF, whereas the one who allows the Holy Spirit to speak through him to the congregation through an articulate language EDIFIES the congregation’.

So there we have it folks, Paul has stated that when we speak to the Father through inarticulate tongues that each of us who pray in the Spirit are EDIFIED.

As for self-edification and prayer, we only need to return to Jude 20-21 where it says;

“But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life”.​

Where does Luke say that new believers should speak in tongues? That would go against Paul's clear teaching that not everybody can speak in tongues.

As I cannot be sure if you are simply trying to be intentionally difficult, I suppose that I can only point you to the who knows how many thousands of commentaries, theses, evangelical and cessationist denominational position papers that have been written over the past 40 years that have addressed the classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence, where the classic-Pentecostal (AoG) bases this understanding on an incorrect reading of the historical material within Acts. For someone who claims to have “undertaken some intensive research on charismatic matters”, I’m surprised that you are not aware of what could be one of the most important theological discussions between the various denominations for decades.

In citing Joel's prophecy Peter was pointing out that the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the disciples, and this is what would happen to all believers at their conversion from then onwards. Joel's prophecy makes no mention of tongues. It is patently obvious new believers do not miraculously speak in foreign languages as the disciples did at Pentecost.

Very good indeed, I intentionally left this point out as I was wondering if you had picked up on my posts within other threads where I have discussed how Peter did not make a blatantly direct reference to tongues in Acts 2.

What he did do was to connect the ability of the 120 to speak words of praise about the “mighty acts of God” to that of the agency of the Holy Spirit; where the words that they were speaking came from the Holy Spirit, where he enabled the 120 to speak in human languages to the Father, where the nearby Jews were allowed to understand that on the Day of Pentecost that the Holy Spirit has been given to the Church of the Saints through the sacrifice of the Son of God – whom they crucified.

As we have already seen that Paul is referring to the body of Christ, the universal church in Chapter 12, and not meetings, then the whole of this comment can be dismissed.

Yes, that’s correct, but as he was addressing the “spiritual matters” from 12:1, he has had to build up to chapter 14 where the three chapters certainly have a universal application for all of us during the Church age, but Paul makes chapter 14 particularly relevant for the Corinthians. In fact, Pauls rebuke to the Corinthians for allowing all to speak/sing in the Spirit all at once is a rebuke that can be also directed to many Pentecostal congregations who also allow and even encourage this errent Corinthian practice.

Of course Paul did not expect the whole congregation to speak in tongues in 14:23, any more than he expected the whole congregation to prophecy at once in the very next verse. The key word is "if". He was clearly speaking hypothetically. He was pointing out the disastrous consequences that would result should such a crazy situation should arise whereby everyone was speaking in a different foreign language at the same time which nobody could understand.

Finally, hallelujah and praise the Lord! I’ve finally been able to get a hard core cessationist to acknowledge that Pauls primary concern with the Corinthian misuse of tongues was with how they were all (your words were “everyone”) speaking in tongues at once. Which oddly stands against the first part of your sentence (in grey) which said the exact opposite.

No, Paul was addressing the Corinthian church as a whole. It is the church as a whole that should desire the gift of prophecy, not individual believers. It is pointless for individuals to desire a particular gift because spiritual gifts are given at the sole discretion of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:11), and not according to our wishes and desires. We could pray for a particular gift we fancy until we are blue in the face, but unless it was God's will we will not be given it. In the New Testament accounts there was no seeking of gifts, apart that is from Simon the Sorcerer, and we all know what happened there. Even if your theory was correct it would be self-defeating because if an individual had to desire a particular gift, then it clearly shows they were not given it in the first place.

When Paul said "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues" he was speaking rhetorically. Just as he was in 1 Cor 7:7 when he wished that everyone was single and unmarried as he was. It was a wishful ideal, recognizing that the ability to miraculously speak a foreign language was a useful gift, but not something that he realistically expected everyone to have. Otherwise it would be a contradiction of his clear previous teaching that not everyone is given the same gift.

"Rhetoric" and "hyperbole" seem to be two very frequent cessationist terms, where I wonder if many cessationists deem Paul's remarks about Jesus being the Son of God and the need for mankind to repent of their sin as being nothing more than hyperbole, oh, that's right, as the liberal element of the Church are all cessationist, where they deem these passages to be hyperbole or finction, then this would be the case.

If that is the case then you have just disproved your own assertion that Eph 6:18 was speaking in tongues as the Ephesians were admonished to pray in the Spirit to make "all kinds of requests", not to give praise to the Father. Not only that but clearly you cannot make specific requests in a language you don't know. So praying in the Spirit here is clearly praying in your native language, and nothing to do with tongues.

It seems that you have unintentionally missed the obvious, where in Acts 2 we find the 120 speaking words of praise to the Father (with regard to his mighty acts), where the 120 did not have a clue what they were saying until the crowd informed them. So if we can offer words of praise to the Father in words we obviously do not know, then why can we not allow the Holy Spirit to intercede on our behalf to the Father in words we do not know, where the Holy Spirit will only intercede in those areas that we consciously ask him to intercede in. Of course, they are those times where we will sing in the Spirit to the Lord when we are on our own with nothing specifically in mind other than with the Father being our focus.

As would anyone else in the congregation who understood the foreign language spoken, which was clearly not the case in the small Corinthian church.

The “small Corinthian church”! As we have covered this before in another thread, I am aware that you know full well that this was not the situation. I have to wonder why you have thrown in what you would have to realise is not true, particularly as you have claimed to have “researched charismatic issues to great depth”. How could the congregations of Corinth, being not only those that were based in the large city of Corinth, but also to the North which included the port suburbs of Lechaion. Then we have the coastal city of Cenchrae to the South East which also held the Cenchrean games at alternate years to that of the Olympic Games. Then we have the town of Isthmia at the Eastern end of the Diolkos ship tramway, where the Diolkos apparently carried the vast majority of maritime traffic between the Western and Eastern portions of the Empire. Due to the pivotal location of Corinth, which was built as a Roman city, when the influential Church within the region of Corinth sneezed we can understand that it would have easily effected the rest of the Church.

By the way, can you or anyone else point to where Paul or any of the Apostles-of-Christ spoke of the possibility of employing tongues to evangelise; where the answer is no as no one has been able to demonstrate that such a thing is a possibility.

Not only does Eph 6 tell us that praying in the Spirit is praying in your native language, but it is highly questionable whether 1 Cor 14 says tongues is praying in the Spirit at all.

The original greek does not have capitalization. So unless the word 'Holy' precedes the Greek word pneuma (spirit) it could just as easily be the human spirit, and you have to rely on the context to determine which it is. As 1 Cor 14:15 makes it clear that it is my spirit (Gr.mου) that prays in tongues, then it is almost certain that 'pneuma' in v14-16 is referring to the human spirit which is why virtually all bible translations have translated this section as lower case human 'spirit'.

The only other occurrence of the phrase is v2 "they utter mysteries in the [pneuma]". Here the context doesn't help so the translators are split with 16 rendering it as "spirit" and 30 rendering it as "Spirit". But seeing as it is universally translated as 'spirit' in v14-16 it is most probably 'spirit' here.

Whatever the case it is clear the hijacking of the phrase 'praying in the Spirit' by Pentecostals to mean exclusively tongues is totally unjustified.

As I find it hard to believe that anyone actually feels thats the Holy Spirit is not the agency of tongues, then I can put your remark on the shelf as a mere attempt to make a reply without substance.
----------
As I've said before, the best defence option for the cessationist is to remain silent!