Cessationism question

[Biblicist]

LOL I agree, sometimes it is best not to know - it can be none of our business what God has to put us through to correct our character (trials).

But I will have to disagree with tongues in a congregational setting needing to be praise TO the Father. What you are describing is our own prayer and praise language TO God that doesn't need interpretation. The SIGN of tongues.

In church, the GIFT of diverse kinds of tongues is what is in need of interpretation because these are FROM God to us. These are not praise or prayer, they are described in verse 6.

I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied (interpreted); for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification. 6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?

Let's see, I am thoroughly convinced that there is only one form of tongues, where the Holy Spirit always (and without exception) directs his communication to the Father, either in words of praise or in prayer, where Acts 2 reveals that he was speaking to the Father (and not to the crowd) in words of praise and adoration, which is what occurs within the congregational setting.

Now, with 1Cor 14:20-25 when Paul is speaking of the sign value of tongues, as many (most) will incorrectly presume that a sign is always positive, they miss out that the Scriptures regularly employ the term sign negatively as well. In chapter 14 Paul is admonishing/warning us that whenever someone who is unfamiliar with the things of the Spirit, say with an unbeliever or a cessationist, that when they walk into a meeting during a time of praise and worship that involves everyone speaking in uninterpreted tongues, that this will end up serving as a negative sign of judgment that will serve to harden them to the Gospel.

This particular passage has frustrated scholars, amateur Bible students and newbies for centuries where many scholars had actually given up hope that we would ever be able to understand what Paul was trying to say. Then back in 1988 the academic Wayne Grudem in his book Prophecy pointed out that a sign can be both positive and negative, where all these bright scholarly minds sat back and went "Oh, of course". I know that I was a bit taken back as well (being a newbie) by what we now know to be a simply solution that we all should have realised centuries back.

[Biblicist Edit: I left this out] I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?

Just quickly, Paul is simply contrasting these points with tongues which cannot be used in these four ways; which is why he wants everyone to prophesy during the congregational meeting.

 

[Biblicist]

Look at OT prophecy of Christ, and how He is all three. (No, I'm not Jesus only, but I don't condemn them either as heretics as some hyper-religious Trinitarian Christians sometimes do.)

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The three all together are Mighty God

The Spirit is Wonderful Counselor
The Father is Everlasting Father
The Son is Prince of Peace

Oh no, now we're moving into a full Trinitarian discussion; this fully committed Trinitarian shall avoid going down this (very interesting) pathway . . . though I am very tempted do do so, which is probably a good time for me to go about the rest of my day and lock down my computer for a few hours and hide the key.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Let's see, I am thoroughly convinced that there is only one form of tongues, where the Holy Spirit always (and without exception) directs his communication to the Father, either in words of praise or in prayer, where Acts 2 reveals that he was speaking to the Father (and not to the crowd) in words of praise and adoration, which is what occurs within the congregational setting.

Now, with 1Cor 14:20-25 when Paul is speaking of the sign value of tongues, as many (most) will incorrectly presume that a sign is always positive, they miss out that the Scriptures regularly employ the term sign negatively as well. In chapter 14 Paul is admonishing/warning us that whenever someone who is unfamiliar with the things of the Spirit, say with an unbeliever or a cessationist, that when they walk into a meeting during a time of praise and worship that involves everyone speaking in uninterpreted tongues, that this will end up serving as a negative sign of judgment that will serve to harden them to the Gospel.

This particular passage has frustrated scholars, amateur Bible students and newbies for centuries where many scholars had actually given up hope that we would ever be able to understand what Paul was trying to say. Then back in 1988 the academic Wayne Grudem in his book Prophecy pointed out that a sign can be both positive and negative, where all these bright scholarly minds sat back and went "Oh, of course". I know that I was a bit taken back as well (being a newbie) by what we now know to be a simply solution that we all should have realised centuries back.

Yes, I agree, and it was the basis for my book on tongues. The sign of tongues was the same type of sign as the sign of Jesus.

Luke 2:34-35

Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against 35 (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

This is the same thought as 1 Corinthians 14:25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

Therefore, the sign of tongues (prayer and praise language TO God that doesn't need interpretation) is not to be spoken outloud in church. ONLY the Gift of Diverse kinds of tongues, that are FROM God, and thus important to be interpreted for the profit of all.

Mark 16:17 - SIGN - prayer and praise TO God.
1 Corinthians 12:10 - GIFT - messages FROM God, that require interpretation as by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching

 

[1stcenturylady]

Oh no, now we're moving into a full Trinitarian discussion; this fully committed Trinitarian shall avoid going down this (very interesting) pathway . . . though I am very tempted do do so, which is probably a good time for me to go about the rest of my day and lock down my computer for a few hours and hide the key.

ROFL I thought it was only wrong to NOT believe in Trinitarianism in a discussion. I do and am a Trinitarian.

 

[Hillsage]

Wow . . . now that's a bit of a tongue twister!!!
This is where the Trichotomist understanding of the makeup of man can add in way too much extraneous information. To keep things brief, when we look at what Paul has to say throughout 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 we find that the only source/agent of tongues is with that of the Holy Spirit;

Well of course your 'not understanding the 'spirit/soul/body' trinity of man' would certainly weigh heavily in your understanding of things in scripture, as I am privileged to see them.

NIV

Note the use of the NIV's use of capital 'S' for Spirit

• 1Cor 12:4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them.
• 1Cor 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
• 1Cor 12:8 To one there is given through the Spirit . . .
• 1Cor 12:11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit . . .
• 1Cor 12: 13a For we were all baptized by one Spirit . . .
• 1Cor 12: 13b . . . and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
• 1Cor 14:1-2 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
  
• 1Cor 14:12 . . . Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit,
• (1Cor 14:16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit,)
  • 1Cor 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, [or the S/spirit of me as per v.16]
  • 1Cor 14:15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, [or the S/spirit of me as per v.16]
  • 1Cor 14:32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. [or the S/spirit of me as per v.16]
• 1Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit

I'm not sure what Nearly Inspired Version you're using, but the one on my computer agrees with my POV;

1CO 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

1CO 14:12 So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.

1CO 14:16 If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?

As far as your parenthetical [Sspirit of me] comment is concerned, I certainly don't consider the Holy Spirit as my Spirit, but I certainly do understand 'me being His'.

Apart from the agency of the Holy Spirit, no Biblical writer speaks of how a supposed human spirit can speak in tongues. The view that a supposed human spirit can do so actually denigrates the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit in that it undermines his place in the Economy of God, it is a very dangerous position to hold to in my view.

Well that's where the smart guys may not be as smart as some think. Maybe when the Holy Spirit first poured out holy spirit power upon you His first 'gift' was the healing of your spirit's 'muteness' that it might speak. We've heard the testimony of mute children receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit long after receiving Christ at their Mennonite outreach center. And when He fell UPON them, they started speaking in tongues which no one understood. But they never were healed to speak a word of English. The Charismatic girl who shared this testimony was an X Mennonite. She said her dad saw it happen. And the whole family ended up Spirit baptized and had to leave their 'ungifted' denomination.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Well of course your 'not understanding the 'spirit/soul/body' trinity of man' would certainly weigh heavily in your understanding of things in scripture, as I am privileged to see them.


I'm not sure what Nearly Inspired Version you're using, but the one on my computer agrees with my POV;

1CO 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

1CO 14:12 So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.

1CO 14:16 If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?

As far as your parenthetical [Sspirit of me] comment is concerned, I certainly don't consider the Holy Spirit as my Spirit, but I certainly do understand 'me being His'.


Well that's where the smart guys may not be as smart as some think. Maybe when the Holy Spirit first poured out holy spirit power upon you His first 'gift' was the healing of your spirit's 'muteness' that it might speak. We've heard the testimony of mute children receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit long after receiving Christ at their Mennonite outreach center. And when He fell UPON them, they started speaking in tongues which no one understood. But they never were healed to speak a word of English. The Charismatic girl who shared this testimony was an X Mennonite. She said her dad saw it happen. And the whole family ended up Spirit baptized and had to leave their 'ungifted' denomination.

I'm not a fan of NIV either, but because they have left out whole verses and partial sentences.

What version are you quoting?

 

[Biblicist]

Well of course your 'not understanding the 'spirit/soul/body' trinity of man' would certainly weigh heavily in your understanding of things in scripture, as I am privileged to see them.


I'm not sure what Nearly Inspired Version you're using, but the one on my computer agrees with my POV;

1CO 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

1CO 14:12 So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.

1CO 14:16 If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?

As far as your parenthetical [Sspirit of me] comment is concerned, I certainly don't consider the Holy Spirit as my Spirit, but I certainly do understand 'me being His'.


Well that's where the smart guys may not be as smart as some think. Maybe when the Holy Spirit first poured out holy spirit power upon you His first 'gift' was the healing of your spirit's 'muteness' that it might speak. We've heard the testimony of mute children receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit long after receiving Christ at their Mennonite outreach center. And when He fell UPON them, they started speaking in tongues which no one understood. But they never were healed to speak a word of English. The Charismatic girl who shared this testimony was an X Mennonite. She said her dad saw it happen. And the whole family ended up Spirit baptized and had to leave their 'ungifted' denomination.

Here we go, you and 1stcentury lady are a pair of bright sparks, here you both are talking about versions of 1Cor 14 when I was talking about chapter 12.

 

[Biblicist]

Yep '57' edition is mine. I got saved in '72' and received the HOLY SPIRIT 6 months later, so I probably bought my BAG in '73'. I actually have used it, a little bit. I went to the front cover and hand wrote the Greek alphabet so I knew what the letters looked like and where they fell in the alphabet. Then when I came across a Greek word I could 'painstakingly' look for each letter by flipping through the book. Personally I don't think it would make as good of a 'coffee table conversation piece' for me, as it would a 'fireplace' piece.

I will have to open with your final comment from your post as I actually laughed and choked at the same time when I came across your last line.

The “coffee table” reference was one that I have borrowed from a training document that I found online that discussed the various editions of the Bauer’s Lexicons. The author of that document was well aware that it can be hard to upgrade a lexicon particularly when they cost so much but as the BGAD (as against the BAGD) employs both formal definitions and glosses then this is enough to buy the newer edition if for no other reason. But as I said, for the vast majority of people the single volume (abridged) version of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) will be all that they will need and it is a really invaluable textual aid – a real must have!

As a “coffee table conversation piece”, depending on who we have over for a cuppa, the responses to such an indepth book would vary from “Hey, you still use that old thing” down to “Wow, that looks complicated, what’s a Lexicon, is that a car manual that’s written in Greek”?

Denominations have typically represented a tombstone to the last Spiritual move of God. . .

That can certainly be true, often more times that we would probably all like to believe. But my point was merely that I could not think of any Pentecostal denominations who hold to this position; but I am aware that it is commonly encountered within word-of-faith style ministries.

I'm pretty sure that on the day of judgment we'll all be as confused as a termite in a yoyo concerning what we all 'thought' we knew 'for sure'. That's why I cling to 'who' I know more than 'what' I know. But I am still enough of a 'thinker' that I do like to bounce my ideas off others, just to see if anything sticks. Unfortunately too much offense is taken by those who think 'defending the faith' is biblically defined as protecting your 'indoctrinated theological box', with your life.

Yes, I tend to play a bit of a mind game with myself where I try and imagine that I am standing before the Lord where I ask myself just how confident I am with a particular theological position. I even play this mind game as if I were standing in front of a judge and jury where I have as the final stakes the deed to my home; I must say, there are those times where this process can have me asking for an adjournment so that I can go and further consult with my legal advisors (aka, my commentaries and lexicons etc) where it might take even a decade before I am confident enough to resume a particular ‘legal’ case.

As many of us have worked out various ways of establishing some reasonable systems of checks and balances, it’s interesting in that this process can actually work, though our humanity will always find a way to muddy the waters.

This is why I value my peer-reviewed commentaries (my checks and balances) in that I can not only gain a consensus on certain issues, but where there is room for a wide range of opinions I can either come away with a good outcome or there will be those times where I have to cut my losses by accepting that some things are not as clear cut as I would like them to be.

 

[Biblicist]

Oops . . . I somehow replied to a post that was about two years old! [deleted]

 

[Hillsage]

I'm not a fan of NIV either, but because they have left out whole verses and partial sentences.

What version are you quoting?

I'm not sure what you're asking. If you mean what NIV version was I quoting in post 305, then it was the one which is in my in the software program. Is that what you mean?

 

[1stcenturylady]

I'm not sure what you're asking. If you mean what NIV version was I quoting in post 305, then it was the one which is in my in the software program. Is that what you mean?

You quoted: 1CO 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

What version is that?

 

[Hillsage]

Here we go, you and 1stcentury lady are a pair of bright sparks, here you both are talking about versions of 1Cor 14 when I was talking about chapter 12.

You two are leaving me in the dust here at the office.

The first four, of your #290 post, 'bullet points' were chapter 12, the next four were chapter 14. I agreed with the capitalization of the chapter 12, but not one of the chapter 14 NIV verses which you quoted, in that post, line up with any NIV translation I've got. Which is now 2 sources. One on my computer and the other is a book NIV bible. So although Lady1 hasn't said anything about this, maybe one spark here is brighter than the other two. Question now is, which one?

 

[Hillsage]

I will have to open with your final comment from your post as I actually laughed and choked at the same time when I came across your last line.

That's good, "A cheerful heart is a good medicine, but a downcast spirit dries up the bones." And at least we're in agreement that, for you, the 'downcast spirit' in a person isn't the 'spirit of Christ' or the 'Holy Spirit'....it's just that nebulous funksional thing you believe in.

Question, since this is all Greek to me anyway; Are there other 'functional dichotomists' out there, or is that your own personal tweak?

As a “coffee table conversation piece”, depending on who we have over for a cuppa, the responses to such an indepth book would vary from “Hey, you still use that old thing” down to “Wow, that looks complicated, what’s a Lexicon, is that a car manual that’s written in Greek”?

OK, I could act smart and google, or just take a chance on you not embarrassing me for my social ineptness and revealing my lack of international awareness...but I'll take a chance and just ask; is a "cuppa" a cup of coffee? Is it any drink in a cup? I don't remember ever hearing that word before.

As many of us have worked out various ways of establishing some reasonable systems of checks and balances, it’s interesting in that this process can actually work, though our humanity will always find a way to muddy the waters.

This is why I value my peer-reviewed commentaries (my checks and balances) in that I can not only gain a consensus on certain issues, but where there is room for a wide range of opinions I can either come away with a good outcome or there will be those times where I have to cut my losses by accepting that some things are not as clear cut as I would like them to be.

That's why I appreciate you, 'right or wrong', you've put a lot of time reading into where you've ended up. And time will tell just how 'balanced' your 'check and balance' system is.

 

[Hillsage]

You quoted: 1CO 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

What version is that?

If you haven't caught it in my last couple of 'catch up' posts, it is rendered like that, in BOTH NIV versions I have in my computer and in my Ryrie Study Bible from Moody press.

 

[Sanoy]

Thanks to all who participated in this thread and defended their side. This has been very informative.

 

[Biblicist]

That's good, "A cheerful heart is a good medicine, but a downcast spirit dries up the bones." And at least we're in agreement that, for you, the 'downcast spirit' in a person isn't the 'spirit of Christ' or the 'Holy Spirit'....it's just that nebulous funksional thing you believe in.

Question, since this is all Greek to me anyway; Are there other 'functional dichotomists' out there, or is that your own personal tweak?

That's a good question! I've mentioned on a few occasions how the linguists and theologians struggle with how we approach the meaning of a specific word, or more importantly, with how we all (it's a human thing) can easily fall for the trap of viewing a word in a sentence outside of the framework of the sentence. This is why they can refer to any given word as being "a minefield that the unwary will walk through", which means in part, that we can all easily forget that in itself, a word does not really contain any precise meaning unless we view the word in a context.

As a Pentecostal, this is why I regularly use the term non-classic Pentecostal and not simply Pentecostal or classic Pentecostal to describe my theological position and even then I will often place the words non-classic in italics to provide a hint that the non-classic is not a formal but merely an informal descriptor to the formal term Pentecostal.

Now the same goes for our use of the two terms Dichotomy and Trichotomy and particularly with how an individual wants the term 'human spirit' to be understood. Now to return to the question; as there are only two formal defined understandings regarding the makeup of man this has the unwanted outcome that we inadvertently end up forcing everyone to believe what we each think these two terms are supposed to mean:

1. Dichotomy = Body & Soul
2. Trichotomy = Body, Soul & human spirit

But the problem is that within both understandings there can be a wide range of diverse views which further muddies any discussion on the topic. As for me, I am certainly a Dichotomist, in that I recognise that man is comprised of two entities, being those of a Body & Soul; but I do not accept the classic-Dichotomist view that the words soul and spirit are interchangeable.

Even for the Trichotomist there are numerous approaches, where someone's use of the word Trichotomy actually means very little to me until I work out what they mean by it, or more properly with what they think that they mean by it.

For the Pentecostal or for anyone who understands the importance of the infilling of the Holy Spirit, both sides can often be unclear as to how the Holy Spirit interacts with the inner man. For the Dichotomist, does the Holy Spirit reside within the human body separate from our soul or does he somehow infuse himself into or with the inner man. For the Trichotomist, does He infuse himself with the supposed human spirit or remain outside as an external influence and which part of man is Saved, is it his soul or human spirit and are there two of us in heaven or which part goes to heaven, our soul or human spirit and even then if it is only one which one 'simply disappears'.

Wow . . . that was invigorating!! Suffice to say, my use of functional before the formal term Dichotomist in intended to let people know that even though I am a Dichotomist that I have a serious disagreement with one of its more classic aspects. As to how many there are of us, that's a good question, it could between 10-30% or I might be surprised to find that it is even higher though most people would not think to use the term functional.

That's why I appreciate you, 'right or wrong', you've put a lot of time reading into where you've ended up. And time will tell just how 'balanced' your 'check and balance' system is.

Thank you. I suppose these checks and balances are similar to how after we have all arrived at a specific wrong location and someone (or even ourselves) have asked, how in the world did you get to this part of town and not where you were supposed to go to? Where we often respond with "I have no idea"! I suppose any system of checks and balances is akin to maybe a GPS system where we can go back and see where we made a wrong turn, which can often be more easily pointed out by someone else than by ourselves.

OK, I could act smart and google, or just take a chance on you not embarrassing me for my social ineptness and revealing my lack of international awareness...but I'll take a chance and just ask; is a "cuppa" a cup of coffee? Is it any drink in a cup? I don't remember ever hearing that word before.

My bad! But you are right in that I was using an everyday colloquialism that should not be used on an International forum; having now said this, after my heavy explanation on the nature of man I definitely need a good cuppa before I start my day!

 

[1stcenturylady]

If you haven't caught it in my last couple of 'catch up' posts, it is rendered like that, in BOTH NIV versions I have in my computer and in my Ryrie Study Bible from Moody press.

Thank you.

Interesting that this NIV says,

2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

 

[Hillsage]

My bad! But you are right in that I was using an everyday colloquialism that should not be used on an International forum; having now said this, after my heavy explanation on the nature of man I definitely need a good cuppa before I start my day!

You're still "bad", you never answered my question. Is a 'cuppa' a cup of coffee, tea, anything in a cup...or what?

 

[Hillsage]

Thank you.

Interesting that this NIV says,

2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

So what NIV are you quoting? I have no idea what copyright date is on my computer software version, and the Ryrie bible from Moody was copyrighted in 1984. So if your NIV is of a later date it just goes to show you that capitalization of spirit is not the exact science most give translators the credit for...IMO.

 

[Hillsage]

Thanks to all who participated in this thread and defended their side. This has been very informative.

So, a lurker, has come forth. Thanks for coming out of the 'shadows' of this forum environment and letting us know....we are not alone.