Cessationism question

[Biblicist]

The only full and unequivocal description of the gift of tongues is given in Acts 2. Several verses are given over to its description. Undoubtedly it is the miraculous ability to suddenly speak in foreign languages that the disciples had never learned.

The Holy Spirit undoubtedly spoke to the Father through the 120 in known human languages which enabled the unregenerate Jews to understand that something very unusual had just occurred. For the 120, unless they were told by some of the crowd that they were indeed speaking in known human languages then they probably would have not known that they were.

One thing that was made evident on the Day of Pentecost is that tongues has no value with evangelism as the crowd were at a complete loss as to what was happening. All the crowd heard was with how the 120 were ‘speaking of the wonders of God’ which means that the Holy Spirit was speaking praise to the Father and not words to man; which is the normal application of tongues as per (NIV) 1Cor 14:2, 16 -

(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.

(16) Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?​

If Peter had not provided an evangelistic message then the crowd would have undoubtedly dispersed thinking, "They are full of sweet wine" as they would have presumed that the Galileans were speaking pre-rehearsed but disjointed phrases in languages that they could not have known.

The Reformed (cessationist) theologian Marion L. Soards said it well with his following remark;

1 Corinthians (1999), p.281

Verses 2 -5 develop the thesis that was stated in verse 1. Having declared his own strong preference for prophecy over tongues, Paul offers a reflection on these two gifts that informs the readers that anyone who speaks in a tongue does not address people but God, and no human understands because the speaker utters mysteries with his spirit (lit. "but in spirit speaks mysteries"). According to Paul's teaching, there is a clear point and a clear audience for tongues, but other humans are not the intended recipients of the message and so they do not comprehend the substance of the speech in tongues or benefit from it.​

The tongues at Cornelius's household was also definitely foreign languages because in the next chapter when Peter reports back to Jerusalem he says they received the Holy Spirit in exactly the same way as the disciples did at Pentecost (Acts 11:15).

Peter did not say “exactly the same way” as this would require that the Holy Spirit fell upon the Centurion and his family and friends with the sound of a rushing wind and with tongues of fire. What Paul did say was that the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as he did with us at the beginning. The object is not with tongues being in known human languages, sounds of rushing wind or with tongues of fire but with the reception of the Holy Spirit upon the Romans with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Peter was saying that God has signalled that the Gentiles are now grafted into the Body by their reception of the Holy Spirit.

I can see nowhere in the Bible where tongues is anything other than speaking in foreign languages. I have heard it said that charismatic tongues is the 'tongues of angels' that Paul refers to in 1 Cor 13, but that is a misinterpretation of that passage. Paul never says he spoke in the tongues of angels. He says that even if he could do such a thing but not have love then he nothing but a clanging cymbal. Paul is using hyperbole. This is confirmed in the next 2 verses where he also uses the same figure of speech to exaggerate the gifts of prophecy, faith, and giving. All he is saying is even if he had those spiritual gifts to the ultimate degree theoretically possible, but not have love, they are worthless. It doesn't mean that he really moved mountains, could fathom all mysteries, gave all that he had to the poor, or spoke in the tongues of angels.

With my reference to the cessationist Marion L. Soards, his observations regarding tongues where they are always given as unintelligible utterances would reflect the majority view. Soards recognises the futility of trying to present tongues as being spoken in known human languages as this would go against the unequivocal evidence that Paul provides us in that tongues can never be understood by man.

With regard to 1Cor 13:1

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.​

Paul is saying;

If [when] I speak with the tongues of men [Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek & Latin] and of angels [tongues], but do not have love [do not speak in love], I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.​

As for this passage being hyperbole, if Paul is saying that there are those times where he is maybe tired, hungry and frustrated which causes him to speak harshly then he would not be employing hyperbole. We undoubtedly all suffer from this human malady and we can certainly pray in the Spirit (tongues) outside of a framework of love which means that when we offer words of praise and intercession then our words may be fine, but we become little more than a noisy gong before the Lord.

As Paul certainly speaks in a number of human languages (tongues of men) and where he says in 1 Cor 14:18 that he “speaks in tongues more than us all” then it is hard to see where Paul is employing hyperbole in this passage.

 

[Biblicist]

"Diverse Kinds of Tongues" in the original Greek is "genē (genos) glōssōn (glossa)"

1085. genos
Strong's Concordance
genos: family, offspring
Original Word: γένος, ους, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: genos
Phonetic Spelling: (ghen'-os)
Short Definition: offspring, family, race, kind
Definition: offspring, family, race, nation, kind.

1100. glóssa
Strong's Concordance
glóssa: the tongue, a language
Original Word: γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: glóssa
Phonetic Spelling: (gloce-sah')
Short Definition: the tongue, a language, nation
Definition: the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech).


It is speaking of obviously speaking of the languages of the nations, the languages of the races, etc.

As I said earlier, you need to avoid referring to brief Strong's definitions as they can easily get you into strife.
Have you noticed that Strong says with 'genos' that it can also refer to a family or offspring and with 'glossa' that it also refers to the physical tongue?

What did you make of my reference to the description found in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament?

 

[random person]

As I said earlier, you need to avoid referring to brief Strong's definitions as they can easily get you into strife.
Have you noticed that Strong says with 'genos' that it can also refer to a family or offspring and with 'glossa' that it also refers to the physical tongue?

What did you make of my reference to the description found in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament?

Strife? Against exposing the extrabiblical false doctrines of the charismatic movement; exposing the signs of occultism from the New Age Kundalini Awakening and stage hypnotism witnessed within the charismatic movement?

 

[Biblicist]

Strife? Against exposing the extrabiblical false doctrines of the charismatic movement; exposing the signs of occultism from the New Age Kundalini Awakening and stage hypnotism witnessed within the charismatic movement?

How about engaging with the scholarly material that I have presented to you.

 

[random person]

How about engaging with the scholarly material that I have presented to you.

Why? The evidence is too plain to see? Pentacostalism does not represent 1st Century Christianity.

It is occultism and stage hypnosis mingled with emotionalism under the guise of Christianity.

 

[swordsman1]

Peter did not say “exactly the same way” as this would require that the Holy Spirit fell upon the Centurion and his family and friends with the sound of a rushing wind and with tongues of fire. What Paul did say was that the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as he did with us at the beginning. The object is not with tongues being in known human languages, sounds of rushing wind or with tongues of fire but with the reception of the Holy Spirit upon the Romans with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Peter was saying that God has signalled that the Gentiles are now grafted into the Body by their reception of the Holy Spirit.

"The Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning" implies that the tongues at Cornelius household was exactly the same as at Pentecost. ie foreign languages. There is nothing in the bible to suggest the tongues of Act 10 and 19 was anything other than foreign languages. The same word 'glossa' (which means a foreign language) is used in all 3 tongues events.

With my reference to the cessationist Marion L. Soards, his observations regarding tongues where they are always given as unintelligible utterances would reflect the majority view. Soards recognises the futility of trying to present tongues as being spoken in known human languages as this would go against the unequivocal evidence that Paul provides us in that tongues can never be understood by man.

Paul is not saying that tongues can never be understood by man. In 1 Cor 14 Paul is correcting the Corinthians, just as he had been doing throughout the epistle for jealousy, quarreling, sexual immorality, lawsuits, abuse of the Lord’s table etc. And here he is criticising the Corinthians for misusing the gift of tongues because it was not being understood (either by people of the native tongue being present or by translation by spiritual gift). This criticism is obvious from 1 Cor 14:9-12 and why he introduces strict rules at the end of the chapter regarding the practice of tongues to ensure it is understood. This is why they are speaking mysteries. If someone started speaking Swahili in your church their words would also be a mystery to you. Just because it is a "mystery" doesn't mean it is a heavenly language.

The proof that Paul takes tongues to mean foreign languages comes in 1 Cor 14:21 where Paul explains the purpose of tongues: “In the Law it is written: "With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord." Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers”

And again the word "glossa" (foreign languages) from Acts 2 is used throughout 1 Cor 12-14. Why would he use the same word to describe something completely different?

Paul is saying;
If [when] I speak with the tongues of men [Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek & Latin] and of angels [tongues], but do not have love [do not speak in love], I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

No, the word is definitely "if" not "when". Otherwise the corresponding "if's" in the following 2 verses must also be translated as "when". When did Paul move mountains? When did Paul give all his possessions to the poor? When was he able to fathom all knowledge? 1 Cor 13:1-3 is clearly hyperbole.

 

[Biblicist]

"The Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning" implies that the tongues at Cornelius household was exactly the same as at Pentecost. ie foreign languages. There is nothing in the bible to suggest the tongues of Act 10 and 19 was anything other than foreign languages. The same word 'glossa' (which means a foreign language) is used in all 3 tongues events.

The problem you have with your point of view is that glossa does not mean foreign languages as it refers to the physical organ.

I've reposted some material from a previous post which should help you to better understand how the term glossa has been used in the New Testament.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Anthony C. Thiselton (2000) p.1086

In spite of Gundry’s arguments about the regular use of γλῶσσα to denote communicative languages which are not necessarily linked with exalted or ecstatic states of consciousness, “It is highly unlikely that tongues signify known languages in these contexts [i.e., 13:1 or 14:2].”[1] Without any contextual indicator, γλῶσσα may denote simply an organ of speech. However, the context of chs. 12-14 provides “antithetical parallelism” between tongues and prophecy in which “the most obvious characteristic of tongues is its unintelligibility,” which becomes elaborated in the analogy of reverberating musical instruments as against those with differential pitch, rhythm, and tempo (vv. 7-8).[2] Although Chrysostom interprets mysteries more positively, Calvin more convincingly perceives the term to denote that which is “unintelligible, baffling, enigmatic,... as if Paul had written, ‘Nobody understands a word he says.’”[3] Some modern commentators understand πνεύματι to refer to the human spirit, largely on the basis of the occurrence of this meaning in vv. 14 and 32.[4] Many commentators before the 1950s were unduly influenced by a view of human personhood dominated by idealist or Cartesian dualism, and πνεῦμα as human spirit plays a very minor role in Paul. Almost always it denotes the Holy Spirit, except in those specific contexts (14:14 and 32) where semantic contrasts clearly indicate otherwise. As in 15: 44, to confuse human “spirituality,” let alone “immateriality, ” with that which is characterized by the agency of the Spirit of God is to invite serious misunderstanding of Paul’s theology. NRSV, REB, and NJB (against NIV, AV/KJV) rightly translate the Spirit.

[1] (29) Williams, Tongues of the Spirit, 26; cf. Gundry, “‘Ecstatic Utterance’ (NEB)?” 299-307; and BAGD, 162.
[2] (30) Gillespie, The First Theologians, 130 and 150-51.
[3] (31) Calvin, First Epistle, 286, cf. Chrysostom, 1 Cor. Horn., 35:1, which in part anticipates Dautzenberg’s approach.
[4] (32) Kistemaker, 1 Cor, 477; Edwards, First Epistle, 357; Meyer, Cor, 2:5. However, these writers hastily modify their claim by insisting on the importance of the Spirit's agency at the same time. Robertson and Plummer make no qualification (First Epistle, 306). But for the Spirit cf. Fee, First Epistle, 656-57; and Conzelmann, 1 Cor, 234.​

Paul is not saying that tongues can never be understood by man. In 1 Cor 14 Paul is correcting the Corinthians, just as he had been doing throughout the epistle for jealousy, quarreling, sexual immorality, lawsuits, abuse of the Lord’s table etc. And here he is criticising the Corinthians for misusing the gift of tongues because it was not being understood (either by people of the native tongue being present or by translation by spiritual gift). This criticism is obvious from 1 Cor 14:9-12 and why he introduces strict rules at the end of the chapter regarding the practice of tongues to ensure it is understood. This is why they are speaking mysteries. If someone started speaking Swahili in your church their words would also be a mystery to you. Just because it is a "mystery" doesn't mean it is a heavenly language.

It seems that you are getting your arguments from the branch of cessationism that belongs to the fundies and the pamphleteers and certainly not from reputable sources.

The proof that Paul takes tongues to mean foreign languages comes in 1 Cor 14:21 where Paul explains the purpose of tongues: “In the Law it is written: "With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord." Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers”

Paul's sole objective with this passages is to contrast the use of uninterpreted tongues within the church setting with the unknown languages of the Assyrian invaders. Even though the Assyrians were giving legitimate commands, as they were given in a language that the Israelites could not understand it created chaos where many were being cut down because they would not obey the soldiers orders. The same goes when we all praise God in the Spirit (tongues), even though the Father understands what the Holy Spirit any visitors who are either unbelievers or cessationist would be confused by this activity of the Spirit of God - Paul absolutely forbids the use of uninterpreted tongues within the congregational setting.

And again the word "glossa" (foreign languages) from Acts 2 is used throughout 1 Cor 12-14. Why would he use the same word to describe something completely different?

As I've mentioned on numerous occassions, as you understanding of glossa is incorrect then your perspective is leading you down numerous wrong pathways. May I suggest that you go and locate some better commentaries which will help you to better understand how Paul employs glossa.

No, the word is definitely "if" not "when". Otherwise the corresponding "if's" in the following 2 verses must also be translated as "when". When did Paul move mountains? When did Paul give all his possessions to the poor? When was he able to fathom all knowledge? 1 Cor 13:1-3 is clearly hyperbole.

As the metaphor 'move mountains' would have been understood to be referring to major obstacles then "when" is more than logical. As Paul came from a wealthy family and that he was single, then it seems that he did give away his entitlements and wealth which is why he often had to work to support himself, so "when" is more than logical.

Then we have 'fathom all knowledge' which is something that Paul could rightfully claim particularly as he had been in heaven, so "when" is more than logical here as well.

 

[swordsman1]

It seems that you are getting your arguments from the branch of cessationism that belongs to the fundies and the pamphleteers and certainly not from reputable sources.

No, quite the opposite in fact. It is true that if you look hard enough you can find any doctrinal writings to match your particular brand of theology no matter how erroneous it is. (I can't say I have heard of either of the theologians you quoted with their unusual interpretations). I prefer to read the likes of John Stott the great Anglican theologian. I'm sure you would agree that he is not just another pamphleteer? This is what he says about tongues:

Probably at this point something needs to be said about “tongues”, the gift much emphasized by some. A question mark still stands over the contemporary phenomenon known as tongue-speaking, whether it is identical to the New Testament gift. It is clear that on the Day of Pentecost the Spirit-filled believers were speaking “in other tongues”, that is in foreign languages, “as the spirit gave them utterance” and that all these languages were intelligible to groups in the crowd (Acts 2:4-11). There is a strong theological and linguistic presumption that the phenomenon referred to in 1 Corinthians is the same. First, the Greek phrases are almost exactly the same, and one of the first rules of Biblical interpretation Is that identical expressions have an identical meaning. Second, the noun glossa has only two known meanings, namely the organ in the mouth and language. There is no linguistic warrant for the NEB rendering ecstatic utterance”. This is not a translation but an interpretation. Similarly the verb for the “interpretation of tongues” means the translation of languages. Third, the whole thrust of 1 Corinthians 14 is to discourage the cult of unintelligibility as a childish thing: “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking... but in thinking be mature” (verse 20). The God of the Bible is a rational God does not delight in irrationality or unintelligibility.

This interpretation raises a few exegetical difficulties which has lead some to distinguish sharply between “tongues” in the Acts and tongues in 1 Corinthians. But the difficulties are small in comparison with the strength of the argument that the phenomenon is the same, not an unintelligible ecstatic utterance but an intelligible language - intelligible, that is to some present (as on the day of Pentecost); it would of course need to be interpreted or translated in a multilingual port like Corinth for the benefit of those who spoke another language. If the gift is essentially linguistic, one can understand better why Paul puts it at the bottom of the list, and why it is not even mentioned in the three other lists. It is true that he says ”I want you all to speak in tongues” (much as Moses said “Would that all the Lord's people were prophets” Numbers 11:29), because all God’s gifts are good and desirable, but in itself (apart, that is, from the content spoken) it does not have a particular ability to edify.

What then about the contemporary practice of private tongue speaking as an aid to personal devotion? Many are claiming to discover through it a new degree of fluency in their approach to God. Others has spoken of a kind of “psychic release,” which they have found liberating and which one would not want to deny them. On the other hand, it needs to be said (from 1 Corinthians 14) that if Paul completely forbids public tongues speaking without interpretation, he strongly discourages private tongue speaking if the speaker does not understand what he is saying. Verse 13 is often overlooked: “He who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret”. Otherwise mind will be “unfruitful” or unproductive. So what is he to do? Paul asks himself. His reply is that he will pray and sing “with the Spirit”, but he will do so “with the mind also”. It is clear that he simply cannot contemplate Christian prayer and praise in which the mind is not actively engaged.

Some readers will no doubt respond that in the early verses of 1 Corinthians 14 the apostle contrasts prophecy and tongue-speaking, stating that the prophet “edifies himself,” and therefore is actively encouraging the practice of private tongue-speaking. I confess that I question whether this is the right deduction to draw. Two reasons make me hesitate.

First, “edification” in the New Testament is invariably a ministry that builds up others. The Greek word oikodomeo mean literally “to build,” and is used of building cities, houses, synagogues, etc. Used figuratively it is applied to the church. “I will build my church,” said Jesus (Mt 16:16). “You are ...God’s building,” wrote the apostle Paul (1 Cor 3:9; cf. Eph 2:20-21), and “like living stones” are being “built into a spiritual house,” added Peter (1 Pet 2:5). From this basic meaning the word came to be used of “strengthening, establishing, edifying” Christians and churches. Luke write that the Palestinian church was “being built up,” and Paul that his his apostolic authority had been given him “for your upbuilding” (Act 9:31; 2 Cor 10:8; 12:19; 13:10). In addition, Christians have a ministry of “mutual upbuilding” (Rom 14:19) in which they are to “build one another up” (1 Thess 5:11; cf. Rom 15:2; Eph 4:20; Jude 20). And if it be asked what edifies the church more than anything else, Paul would reply “truth” (Acts 20:32; cf Col 2:7) and “love” (1 Cor 8:1; cf 10:23). The same emphasis on building up others prevails in 1 Corinthians 14, in that not only does the prophet “edify” by his message (verse 3-4) but in public worship “all things” are to be “done for edification” (verse 26; cf verse 17) and all Christians are to “strive to excel in building up the church” (verse 12; cf. verse 5). Now in the light of this consistent New Testament emphasis on edification as a ministry to others and to the church, what are we to make of the one and only exception, which sat that the tongue-speaker “edifies himself”? Surely there must be at least some degree of irony in what Paul writes, for the phrase is almost a contradiction in terms. Self-edification is simply not what edification is all about in the New Testament.

Second, we have to read the expression in the light of the teaching we have already considered that all spiritual gifts are service gifts, bestowed “for the common good” for ministry to others. How, then, can this one gift be turned in upon itself and be exercised for personal good instead of the common good? Must one not say that this involves a misuse of a gift? What would one think of a believer with a teaching gift who uses it only to give himself private instruction, or of a man with a healing gift who healed no one but himself? It is hard to justify the self-directed use of a gift specifically bestowed for the benefit of others.

So for these two reasons it seems to me that there must be a note of irony, if not of sarcasm, in Paul’s voice as he writes of the tongue-speaker edifying himself. He takes it for granted that the Corinthians, to whom he had clearly explained the purpose of spiritual gifts in chapter 12, we get his meaning and not need him to spell it out any further.

From "Baptism & Fullness" by John Stott.

The problem you have with your point of view is that glossa does not mean foreign languages as it refers to the physical organ.

No, 'glossa' is not just the physical organ. It also means a language.

G1100 γλῶσσα - Strong's Greek Lexicon Number
1. the tongue, a member of the body, an organ of speech
2. a tongue, the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations

Note that it pertains to the languages of nations. Traditionally the old english word 'tongue' has also meant earthly languages. For example the introduction to the King James Bible describes itself as a "Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue". It is perhaps a bit confusing that modern translations has kept the word tongues to describe the spiritual gift, when the modern literal translation should be the gift of languages. There are numerous instances in the New Testament where the word glossa is used and clearly means earthly languages:
Revelation 5: 9 "...with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation."
Revelation 7: 9 "... before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb"
Revelation 10: 11 "Then I was told, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.”"
And crucially Acts 2:9 "Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”

As John Stott points out the same word glossa is then used to describe the spiritual gift throughout 1 Cor 12-14. The phrases are almost exactly the same and one of the first rules of biblical interpretation is that identical expressions have an identical meaning. There is no linguistic warrant to interpret it as an ecstatic utterance or anything else non-human. Throughout 1 Corinthians it can only mean earthly languages the same as it does in Acts and Revelation. Also the Greek verb for 'interpretation' (2058. herméneia) in 1 cor 12:10 and 1 Cor 14:26 is only used in the context of translation between human languages.

In 1 Cor 12:10 & 28, where tongues is described as "different kinds of tongues" (plural) it can only mean earthly languages as there are a multitude of human languages. Yet there is presumably only one language of angels in heaven (unless you are suggesting there was also a Tower of Babel event in heaven!!). And remember "γλώσσαις" (plural of glossa) as used throughout 1 Cor 12-14 is more accurately translated as "languages". Not singular if it was referring to a heavenly language.

Paul's sole objective with this passages is to contrast the use of uninterpreted tongues within the church setting with the unknown languages of the Assyrian invaders. Even though the Assyrians were giving legitimate commands, as they were given in a language that the Israelites could not understand it created chaos where many were being cut down because they would not obey the soldiers orders. The same goes when we all praise God in the Spirit (tongues), even though the Father understands what the Holy Spirit any visitors who are either unbelievers or cessationist would be confused by this activity of the Spirit of God - Paul absolutely forbids the use of uninterpreted tongues within the congregational setting.

You are missing the point I was alluding to in 1 Corinthians 14:21. Here Paul unequivocally links the gift of tongues with earthly languages.

As the metaphor 'move mountains' would have been understood to be referring to major obstacles then "when" is more than logical. As Paul came from a wealthy family and that he was single, then it seems that he did give away his entitlements and wealth which is why he often had to work to support himself, so "when" is more than logical.

Then we have 'fathom all knowledge' which is something that Paul could rightfully claim particularly as he had been in heaven, so "when" is more than logical here as well.

Now this novel interpretation of 1 Cor 13:1-3 doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You say this passage is to be taken literally and that Paul really did give all his possessions to the poor yet there is no evidence whatsoever of this from the scripture. Even better is that he could 'fathom all knowledge' simply because he had a vision of the third heaven, again without a shred of biblical proof. And, best of all, the "moving mountains" is not a hyperbole, but yet is a far more implausible figure of speech to mean he overcame obstacles! Wow! This is stretching scripture way beyond what even I thought possible.

Read 1 Cor 13:1-3 as it is naturally written, see the obvious hyperbole Paul is using, and you will see that he nor anyone else spoke in the tongue of angels.

Seriously, you need to look into the sound principles of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) to discover the exegesis of scripture and so uncover the true meaning. If there are unclear passages then you need to look at clearer passages in scripture to shine light upon them. And the undoubted clear passage with regard to the gift of tongues is Acts 2:4-11. Having a strange experience and then trying to twist scriptures to account for it is the wrong way to go about things (that is called eisogesis).

 

[Biblicist]

No, quite the opposite in fact. It is true that if you look hard enough you can find any doctrinal writings to match your particular brand of theology no matter how erroneous it is.

To place your remark in some sort of context, when it comes to writings on Pnuematology, we can place a point of demarcation sometime around the mid 1980’s where prior to this time most commentary on the Holy Spirit and particularly with his ministry, which Paul detailed in 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 could be deemed as being primitive at best.

Since this time with the onset of a plethora of charismatic and Pentecostal scholars we have also seen an amazing increase with the level of maturity by Evangelical scholars who may not be charismatic but where they are theologically “open-but-friendly” toward the distinctive theologies of these two Renewal movements. Even if a scholar is not a charismatic, in this day and age where scholars can easily and quickly interact with other fellow specialists, it would take a rather desperate and biased scholar who would try to present the views that John Stott did in his 1964 booklet Baptism and Fullness: The Work of the Holy Spirit Today.

(I can't say I have heard of either of the theologians you quoted with their unusual interpretations). I prefer to read the likes of John Stott the great Anglican theologian. I'm sure you would agree that he is not just another pamphleteer? This is what he says about tongues:

Having now read through a part of Stott’s book (via Google books as well), if you had of handed it to me asking who I thought had wrote it then I would have undoubtedly said that it was probably written by a pamphleteer. As John Stott is well known, his material would easily be deemed to be disappointing by most where it was nothing less than primitive. It was more than obvious that he was writing about a subject that he knew very little about; but as I said previously, he was writing in a time period where the Holy Spirit was hardly known outside of the various doxologies. It could be that he was being prompted by someone (or maybe a publisher) to write about the new charismatic movement which amounted to being a major error of judgement on his part.

In 1970 a British Evangelical theologian by the name of James Dunn wrote a superb critique of Pentecostal theology which eventually became an important point of contact between Evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal theologians and will undoubtedly remain so until the return of the Lord. But sadly, Stott’s book will remain within the domain of the pamphleteers. Many of Dunn’s criticisms were taken on board by Renewal scholars whereas Stott’s work would be relegated to being little more than a writing of insignificance that bore no relevance to contemporary discussions.

As for Anthony Thiselton, he is a British Anglican theologian who is now retired, as his writings crossed all denominational lines he would be considered to be one of the worlds preeminent theologians particularly in the field of hermeneutics and undoubtedly the greatest contemporary theologian within the Anglican church (he was also a good friend of the late John Stott). To my knowledge Thiselton is not a charismatic but he is definitely in the category of being theologically “open-but-cautious” to Renewal theology.

The person he quoted, Robert H. Gundry who is also retired, is a very well known old school cessationist whose material has been frequently used by other cessationists. As any academic support for cessationism is built on humanist rationalism, this would compel any honest theologian to point out the various fundamental errors that these old school cessationists were forced to employ.

Thiselton has extensively written on First Corinthians with his first public publication in 2000 being a massive 1446 page work and in 2005 he produced a shorter work designed for laymen and pastors, his omission of John Stott’s works in this area maybe be out of courtesy to a friend whose material he may have deemed to be a bit dated and irrelevant.

Thiselton’s 2013 book The Holy Spirit – In Biblical Teaching through the Centuries, and Today does refer to him on four occasions but only in context of the British charismatic renewal of the 60’s and 70’s and never toward Stott’s theological views.

Stott is not known for his views on the Holy Spirit, where from the commentaries that I own his name is not mentioned, though Gordon Fee does reference his name in his footnotes to God’s Empowering Presence (1994) but Fee did remark that Stott’s views are not so much theological but that they are based more with his preconceived prejudices.

I noticed that his publishers republished his old 1964 work the year after he died, which in my view will only serve to detract from his memory where the newer breed of astute Biblical students should undoubtedly come to the same conclusion that I have regarding Stott’s work in that it was not worthy of someone who is a scholar; oddly enough, Stott allowed two more printings to be released during his lifetime – which was certainly an odd decision on his part.

No, 'glossa' is not just the physical organ. It also means a language.

G1100 γλῶσσα - Strong's Greek Lexicon Number
1. the tongue, a member of the body, an organ of speech
2. a tongue, the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations

Once you recognise that glossa does not just refer specifically to language, or human language but primarily to the physical organ then you are on the way to understanding how the various Biblical writers employed the word. Even though its primary use is with the physical organ, as our tongues are used to convey both speech and sound then we of course have to work out from the context how the word is being used.

If you have been able to read through the material that I have posted regarding glossa, then you would quickly come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no value with trying to impose human language as the primary meaning of glossa particularly as the Greek lexicons reject this notion outright.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, references to Strong's definitions should be minimised as it becomes impossible to understand a Greek word with Strong's limited examples.

Note that it pertains to the languages of nations. Traditionally the old english word 'tongue' has also meant earthly languages. For example the introduction to the King James Bible describes itself as a "Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue". It is perhaps a bit confusing that modern translations has kept the word tongues to describe the spiritual gift, when the modern literal translation should be the gift of languages. There are numerous instances in the New Testament where the word glossa is used and clearly means earthly languages:

Even though we do not know why the translators chose ‘tongue’ and not ‘language’, it could very well be that as most people only encountered the Word of God through someone proclaiming it from a church platform, then they may have chosen ‘tongue’ because it was the way in which most people heard the Scriptures where they were being proclaimed via the tongue. They may have also recognised that other foreign translation committees had or were in the process of translating the Scriptures into their own languages as well where the tongue would have also been the primary source for most illiterate or even those who were literate but who were unable to afford to buy portions of the Scriptures.

So the role of the various national translation committees could have been to provide the Word of God so that it could be primarily proclaimed (via the tongue) to the various people groups which would have made the choice of language to be unnecessary.

Revelation 5: 9 "...with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation."
Revelation 7: 9 "... before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb"
Revelation 10: 11 "Then I was told, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.”"
And crucially Acts 2:9 "Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”

The use of glossa in the above passages are euphemisms for the nations which you will be able to see from the follow TDNT definitions. Or Bauer’s see 2.b.

The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature IBauer’s), states on page 162 [summary only];

1. Tongue;
a. as an organ of speech,
b. of forked flames,

2. Language;
a. Every language = every person
b. As a distinctive features of nations,

3.
a. There is no doubt about the thing being referred to, namely the broken speech of person in religious ecstasy.
b. Antiquate foreign, unintelligible, mysterious utterances
c. Speaking in marvellous heavenly languages

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged) TDNT (1985), on pages 123-24 defines glossa in the following ways:

Glossa
A. The General Use of glossa
1. The physical organ “tongue” is the first meaning.
2. We then have “speech,” or “manner of speech,” or “language.”
3. “An expression which is strange or obscure and needs explanation” is a third sense.

B. The Use of glossa in the NT
1. “Tongue” occurs in the NT in Lk, 16:24; 1:64; Mk. 7:35. Sins of the tongue are given prominence in Jms. 3:1-12. A similar stress may be found in Job, Psalms, Jeremiah, and Sirach, where the bent is practical but the sins are ultimately against God. Figuratively, the tongue can also rejoice (Acts 2:26) and praise (Phil. 2:11). Tongues as of fire symbolize God’s descending power at Pentecost (Acts 2:3).

2. “Language” is the meaning in Acts 2:11; “language” is also used figuratively for “nation” in Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11, etc.

3. Glossolalia.

a. Speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 12-14; cf. Mk. 16:17; Acts 2:4) is a gift (1 Cor. 14:2). This speaking is primarily to God (14:2, 28) in the form of prayer, praise, or thanksgiving (14:2, 14-17). Its benefit is for the individual rather than the community (14:4ff). In it the nous is absorbed so that the words are obscure (14:2, 9, 11, 15-16). Since the sounds are not articulated, the impression of a foreign language is left (14:7-8, 10-11), and uncontrolled use might suggest that the community is composed of mad people (14:23, 27). Yet tongues are a sign of God’s power (14:22). To make them useful either the speaker or someone else must interpret (14:5. 13, 27-28; 12:10, 30). If parallels may be found in other religions, Paul discerns a difference in the religious content (1 Cor. 12:2-3). He can thus accept and even claim the charisma (1Cor. 14:18, 39) but demands that it be subject to edification, order, limitation, and testing (1 Cor. 14:26ff). Prophecy is superior to it, and above all the gifts is love (1 Cor. 13).

b. It should be noted that, while there are Hellenistic parallels for tongues, there is also an OT basis. Thus the seers of 1 Sam. 10:5ff. Seem to be robbed of their individuality, and their fervour finds expression in broken cries and unintelligible speech (Is. 28:10-11). The later literature, e.g., Eth. En. 71:11, gives similar examples of ecstatic speech (not necessarily speaking in tongues).

c. The event recorded in Acts 2 belongs to this context. Like the speaking in tongues depicted by Paul, it is a gift of the Spirit (v.4) which causes astonishment (v.7) and raises the charge of drunkenness (v.13). But in this case the hearers detect their own languages (vv. 8, 11). Since they are all Jews (v.9) and an impression of confused babbling is given, it is not wholly clear what this implies. Perhaps there is a reflection of the Jewish tradition that at Sinai the law was given to the nations in seventy languages. In any case, the orderly proclamation of Peter quickly follows (vv. 14ff).

d. Why glossa came to be used for this phenomenon is debatable. Speaking (only) with the physical tongue is a most unlikely explanation in view of Paul’s gene glosson in 1 Cor 12:10 and the plural in 14:5. Nor is it likely that the phrase “tongues as of fire” of Acts 2:3 underlies the usage. The meaning “unintelligible sound” might seem to fit the case, but Paul sharply criticizes this aspect and glossa is for him more than an isolated oracle (1 Cor 14:2, 9, 11, 26). It seems, then, that “language” is the basic meaning; here is a miraculous “language of the Spirit” such as is used by angels (1 Cor. 13:1) and which we, too, may use as we are seized by the Spirit and caught up to heaven (2 Cor. 12:2ff.; cf. 1 Cor 14:2, 13ff. As well as the stress on the heavenly origin of the phenomenon in Act 2:2ff.).​

You are missing the point I was alluding to in 1 Corinthians 14:21. Here Paul unequivocally links the gift of tongues with earthly languages.

As Paul emphatically rejects the notion that tongues is given in known human languages, then your point was probably easily lost. It is becoming increasingly hard to find any honest contemporary theologian, be they either Pentecostal or cessationist who would accept that the tongues of First Corinthians is given in anything but an inarticulate utterance. Even my earlier reference to the views of the cessationist theologian Kistemaker, this shows that he also agrees with this majority view. If you were to try and refer to John Stott’s views, you will need to keep in mind that his less than honest appraisal of Paul’s teachings belongs to a bygone era, where his views would probably make most contemporary cessationist scholars cringe.

Now this novel interpretation of 1 Cor 13:1-3 doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You say this passage is to be taken literally and that Paul really did give all his possessions to the poor yet there is no evidence whatsoever of this from the scripture. Even better is that he could 'fathom all knowledge' simply because he had a vision of the third heaven, again without a shred of biblical proof. And, best of all, the "moving mountains" is not a hyperbole, but yet is a far more implausible figure of speech to mean he overcame obstacles! Wow! This is stretching scripture way beyond what even I thought possible.

Read 1 Cor 13:1-3 as it is naturally written, see the obvious hyperbole Paul is using, and you will see that he nor anyone else spoke in the tongue of angels.

Even though I understand that you are limited by your lack of reading on the subjects being discussed (I say this respectfully), it does seem that you are still trying to force the Scriptures into the very narrow bottleneck of your cessationist world view. If you were to spend some time maybe at a nearby Christian library where you can access to the better commentaries on First Corinthians (and not just commentaries by Pentecostals and charismatic’s) then this experience would undoubtedly help you to come up to speed with the theological discussions and outcomes of the past 30 or so years.

Seriously, you need to look into the sound principles of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) to discover the exegesis of scripture and so uncover the true meaning. If there are unclear passages then you need to look at clearer passages in scripture to shine light upon them. And the undoubted clear passage with regard to the gift of tongues is Acts 2:4-11. Having a strange experience and then trying to twist scriptures to account for it is the wrong way to go about things (that is called eisogesis).

As your ‘research’ seems to rely on the very primitive and dated works of people such as John Stott and that you also employ Strong’s definitions, then I think that it is a bit odd to try and tell someone who quotes from a number of the best Greek lexicons along from the 14 commentaries that I own on First Corinthians, that I need to improve my understanding of Biblical interpretation. Remember, as I specialise in this field this demands that I have to read the best material on the subject, be it from sources who are Pentecostal (both classic and non-classic), charismatic, third-wave, with those who are “open-but-cautious” and even by the few reasonably competent contemporary cessationist commentators, where the latter are increasingly hard to find.

The dark old days where cessationism held the theological high ground are well dead and buried where the cessationist worldview now belongs to a bygone era along with the dinosaurs. Thankfully the more astute contemporary cessationist scholars have raised their standard way above that of John Stott’s very primitive ramblings of the early 60’s, which were nothing less than embarrassing.


Edit: Changed word on line 3 and within the TDNT definition.

 

[swordsman1]

Describing traditional and highly respected pre-1980's theologians like John Stott as 'primitive' because they disagree with your version of pneumatology seems pretty arrogant to me. No doubt you think the same of Spurgeon, Warfield, Edwards, Owen, Calvin, Luther etc none of whom believed in the continuation of the charismatic gifts. I think quite the opposite is true. Their expositions have stood the test of time and found to be biblicly sound, unlike the modern Pentecostal and Pentecostal leaning theologians you refer to. They are well versed in the dark art of eisogesis, of using far-fetched expositions to try to make their strange experiences and errant theology fit scripture. Using baffling or convoluted explanations doesn't mean it is clever or advanced and thus right.

The meaning of the Bible hasn't changed since the 1980's. It has remained the same for the last 2000 years. It was written by God for man to easily understand over the ages. It is not hard to uncover the true meaning of scripture using simple deduction and basic principles of biblical interpretation. Doing so it is relatively easy to debunk the errant teachings of Pentecostalism as I have shown with tongues. They are contested only by offering highly dubious alternative explanations (like the implausible interpretation of 1 Cor 13:1-3 you gave earlier).

Ever since Agnes Ozman found the knack of speaking glossolalia at the beginning of the 20th century they have been redefining the biblical description of the spiritual gifts and other doctrines to match their own ideas. Their tongues are not the same as the gift of tongues of the bible, their healings are not the same as the gift of healing in the bible, their prophecy is not the same as prophecy in the bible.

 

[Biblicist]

Describing traditional and highly respected pre-1980's theologians like John Stott as 'primitive' because they disagree with your version of pneumatology seems pretty arrogant to me.

It has little to do with his views being in opposition to my own as I had explained, his exegesis of 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 would be deemed to be mediocre by probably most (if not all) contemporary cessationist scholars. Since the time he wrote his commentary on the Holy Spirit in 1964, there has been a major shift within the Calvinist fold with the development of a number of various threads with what we now refer to as New Calvinism. These New Calvinists have in most part broken free from the limitations of the old school Calvinism where they have been able to move away from the limitations of this particular world view where they can now better engage with the Scriptures.

As Stott is rarely quoted by his peers when it comes to either First Corinthians or with the Holy Spirit, this should speak volumes in itself where it seems that his work in these two fields leaves even his peers somewhat cold.

I should probably say that you are confusing my confidence with this subject with arrogance, though I have absolutley no doubt that anyone who has spent as much time as I have on this subject that we would all easily have obtained far more knowledge than would Spurgeon, Owen and Warfield, and for that matter with Calvin and Luther.

No doubt you think the same of Spurgeon, Warfield, Edwards, Owen, Calvin, Luther etc none of whom believed in the continuation of the charismatic gifts. I think quite the opposite is true. Their expositions have stood the test of time and found to be biblicly sound, . . .

Undoubtedly my interest with these older theologians would be far less than that of the Calvinist theologian Anthony Thiselton who made the following references to them in his substantial 2000 work on First Corinthians, which was undoubtedly the largest and best known work of all time on First Corinthians, well except for Gordon Fee’s slightly smaller exegetical commentary on First Corinthians;

Spurgeon gains one brief three line mention (p.78) but even this was only in respect to an historical event where he does not bother to address any of Spurgeon’s theological views. The humanist theologian Warfield’s name was mentioned in passing with no comment about his theology (p.1063). The next on your list is John Owens who does not get a mention but of course John Calvin gains around 80 references and finally Luther has about 80 as well; after all, as Thiselton is a strong Calvinist he would not dare to avoid quoting him.

As Thiselton is possibly the most senior and credentialed Calvinist theologian of our time, if he does not bother with the scholars you mentioned (other than with Calvin and Luther) then I am more than justified with ignoring them as well.

In David Garlands (Calvinist?) 870 page work on First Corinthians (2003) neither Spurgeon, Warfield or Owen gain a mention but Calvin gains 35 mentions and Luther gets two brief references (p.723). I could refer to other books where Spurgeon and Warfield are both quoted and ignored but in most part they seem to be relegated to the older commentaries; for those scholars who are strong Calvinists we can understand why they see the need to still quote him, after all, without Calvinism there cannot be a Calvinist worldview.

I recognise that the older works by these men which are now well out of copyright that they can be accessed very cheaply or even for free, but if you want to engage in a serious manner with contemporay exegetes then you have no other option to purchase the more expensive contemporay commentaries and monographs (and sadly they don't come cheap).

unlike the modern Pentecostal and Pentecostal leaning theologians you refer to. They are well versed in the dark art of eisogesis, of using far-fetched expositions to try to make their strange experiences and errant theology fit scripture. Using baffling or convoluted explanations doesn't mean it is clever or advanced and thus right.

As Renewal (Pentecostal and charismatic) theology has undoubtedly gained the high ground where there is an incredible amount of ongoing interaction with Evangelical scholars, this means that the distinctive doctrines of the Renewal movements (excluding those of the wof movement) will continue to surge forward where they will be increasingly incorporated (though modified) by Evangelicalism. I strongly suspect that the rise of New Calvinism was due to the incredible inroads that have been made by Renewal scholars where they realised that the old Calvinism simply did not have the answers in that it did not adequately adequately address Pneumatological issues.

The meaning of the Bible hasn't changed since the 1980's. It has remained the same for the last 2000 years. It was written by God for man to easily understand over the ages. It is not hard to uncover the true meaning of scripture using simple deduction and basic principles of biblical interpretation.

Don’t forget, the men that you quoted (though Warfield was a latter addition) that they were viewed by the traditionalists as being the upstarts of their time. I did notice that you did not refer to any pre-Reformation theologians or scholars.

As for the Scriptures not changing, this is true, but you would have to be aware that I am referring to the restoration of Biblical truths that had been essentially lost during the 1000 years of the Dark Ages of the Church. As Justification by Faith was lost for almost a millennium, should we be surprised that the theology of the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit was in most part lost/ignored up until a little more than a century ago.

Doing so it is relatively easy to debunk the errant teachings of Pentecostalism as I have shown with tongues. They are contested only by offering highly dubious alternative explanations (like the implausible interpretation of 1 Cor 13:1-3 you gave earlier).

Tell me, in all honesty do you really believe that you ‘debunked’ Full Gospel theology or are you merely saying it to convince yourself that this is the case, where maybe if you say it too yourself enough then it might come to reality; I really doubt that you believe that you have been successful in doing this.

Ever since Agnes Ozman found the knack of speaking glossolalia at the beginning of the 20th century they have been redefining the biblical description of the spiritual gifts and other doctrines to match their own ideas. Their tongues are not the same as the gift of tongues of the bible, their healings are not the same as the gift of healing in the bible, their prophecy is not the same as prophecy in the bible.

This sounds very similar to that of Roman Catholicsm who laid similar charges against the Reformers, where Benjamin Warfield was finally compelled to try and counter the mockery of the Roman Catholics where they challenged the Reformers with "Show us your miracles and we will show you ours”; sadly for the Reformers, they knew full well that their worldview was devoid of the Power of God which Rome was also well aware of and was something that they teased the Reformed denominations over for about four centuries and where they continue to do so.

I noticed that you have avoided any reference to my lexical entries in my last post!!


Edit: Reversed grammar in second last paragaph "show you ours".

 

[Biblicist]

At this point of time I am in the process of purchasing Craig C. Keener's monumental 4 volume work on the Book of Acts where I am still waiting for volume 4 to be released; volume 3 goes to page 3348. Keener has provided a CD for each volume where for volume 3 it includes 292 pages of names for the theologians and commentators that he has referred to. As Keener may have quoted well over 3000 sources the following quotes from the theologians that you referred to has been revealing to say the least.

As for Owen, Warfield and Stott it seems that they did not even get a mention.

• Luther (13)
• Calvin (9)
• John Owen (0)
• Spurgeon (1)
• Warfield (0)
• John Stott (0)

The contemporary scholars Gordon Fee has 23 references, Thiselton has 8, Witherington has around 65, Bruce Winter has about 150, Carson 30, William and Robert Menzies have 32 between them and the list goes on.

Edit: Corrected spelling for Robert

 

[swordsman1]

Tell me, in all honesty do you really believe that you ‘debunked’ Full Gospel theology or are you merely saying it to convince yourself that this is the case, where maybe if you say it too yourself enough then it might come to reality; I really doubt that you believe that you have been successful in doing this.

What I said was that errant Pentecostal teaching can easily be debunked. In this thread at least, in our discussion on tongues, the points I have made have not been addressed. I pointed out that the glossolalia practiced by charismatics and Pentecostals does not match the description of the gift of tongues in the NT as they claim. And you have failed to come up with any convincing proof to the contrary.

To recap... The one and only definitive description of the gift of tongues in given in Acts 2. And glossolalia certainly isn't that. Instead I am told that glossolalia is the language of angels that Paul refers to in 1 Cor 13:1. But as I have pointed out, it is obvious when read in context of the 2 following associated verses that Paul is using hyperbole and what he is saying is that even if he had spiritual gifts to the ultimate theoretical degree possible (moving mountains, fathoming all mysteries and knowledge, giving all his possessions to the poor, and speaking in the tongues of angels), but not have love, they are worthless. I'm sorry but your alternative explanation that the "if's" in all our modern translations should in fact be "when's" and that Paul was not using exaggerated speech at all is utterly unconvincing.

Further nails in the language of angels coffin is given in 1 Cor 14:21-22 where Paul clearly links tongues with earthly foreign languages; in 1 Cor 12:10 where tongues is described as "different kinds of tongues" (plural) can only mean the multitude of earthly languages; and in Rev 5, 7 & 10 where the same word is clearly used to refer to earthly languages.

Yet more nails come from a number of academic studies of charismatic glossolalia by renowned linguists. If it was a real language you would have the same words repeating and be able identify nouns, verbs, adjectives etc and piece together it's structure. Yet the linguists conclusion is that it is nothing more than random syllables that merely sound like a language.

You say that John Stott, Charles Spurgeon and all the other great Christian writers before the 1980's have got it wrong regarding the doctrines of the Holy Spirit and only an elite circle of modern mainly Pentecostal scholars have the correct explanations, but it is so deep and complex that I would have to buy their expensive books to obtain a grasp of it. Sorry but that sounds like a cop out to me. God's word is not esoteric. Surely you can provide the answers to these basic problems of Pentecostal teaching in your own words that us laymen can understand, rather than continually pointing us to the works of modern scholars.

 

[Biblicist]

[This passage has been inserted into the front]You say that John Stott, Charles Spurgeon and all the other great Christian writers before the 1980's have got it wrong regarding the doctrines of the Holy Spirit and only an elite circle of modern mainly Pentecostal scholars have the correct explanations, . . .

The reason that these pre-80’s theologians essentially ‘got it wrong’ with regard to Pnuematology, was not that they were avowed cessationists, but more often than not, it was because the rank-and-file members of their various denominations were not demanding answers of them regarding the things of the Spirit. A couple of years back I came across an article where a commentator was addressing this question, where he quoted another theologian (whose name I am trying to source), who said when asked by a congregational member why he and the other theologians prior to the 70’s did not address charismatic issues, the reply was “because no-one asked us”.

I can’t recall who the theologian was and I am still trying to track down the comment [It was someone of the calibre of William Barclay or Leon Morris], but it probably accurately reflects the situation prior to the 70’s and 80’s. As most Pentecostals up until this period presumed that theologians were grown in cemeteries and not seminaries, this meant that they were not interested in their opinions and as the earlier Pentecostal doctrines often lacked solid Biblical basis this meant that the Evangelical scholars were not interested with them as well, so both served to further widen the gap.

Once the charismatic renewal of the 60’s & 70’s arose this allowed the rank-and-file congregational members to start asking questions of their theologians and over a period of time, once they caught up with what was happening around them, many of these theologians either became charismatic’s themselves or they moved into the category of those who are deemed to be theologically “open-but-cautious”, where they remained primarily non-continuist experientially but theologically they are more Continuist than they are cessationist. As far as my interest goes, I certainly concentrate on scholars who fit into the top-end of the following scale, such as with Fee and Macchia, but I certainly spend a lot of time with those scholars who are neither Pentecostal or charismatic but where they fit somewhere within 4 to 6 on the scale, where many of these same individuals could easily have opinions that fit into 7 to 8 or even higher; Thiselton is a good example of a scholar who fits into this category.

One of the limitations of the chart I have produced is that it does not show were the various theologies and views of the classic and non-classic Pentecostals, charismatics and third-wave fit in.

. . . but it is so deep and complex that I would have to buy their expensive books to obtain a grasp of it. Sorry but that sounds like a cop out to me. God's word is not esoteric. Surely you can provide the answers to these basic problems of Pentecostal teaching in your own words that us laymen can understand, rather than continually pointing us to the works of modern scholars.

In my formative years when I gave my heart to the Lord as a 17 year old within a cessationist setting, it did not take me long to realise that there was a vast chasm between what I was seeing around me when I compared this to the content of Acts and First Corinthians. Even as a novice (before satellite TV & the Internet), I quickly realised that ‘those tongues’ (other than with Acts 2) were not human languages but something else. So when I was invited to a FGBMFI charismatic men’s meeting about 18 months later then I was primed to go! So I figure that as a newbie teenage where I could understand what Paul was saying (that tongues was a language of the Angels), then I agree that we should not need any academic material to point this out – it’s already plain enough to see even for a unwitting-cessationist novice such as myself.

The reason why I have quoted numerous respected sources is to contrast the sources that you have quoted such as John Stott whose 1964 amounts to being little more what a pamphleteer would have written. As I am using “my own words”, where serious research into any given subject will always find us incorporating the language of the particular science; as we are discussing aspects of theology (particularly with Pnuematology) then we should all expect to learn how to use any new words or idioms that come from within these studies – it’s not all that hard, otherwise we are no better off than the fundi pamphleteers!

What I said was that errant Pentecostal teaching can easily be debunked. In this thread at least, in our discussion on tongues, the points I have made have not been addressed. I pointed out that the glossolalia practiced by charismatics and Pentecostals does not match the description of the gift of tongues in the NT as they claim. And you have failed to come up with any convincing proof to the contrary.

As I’ve fully addressed your questions, using material from both Pentecostal and quasi-cessationist scholars then I think that maybe you are trying a bit too hard to overstretch your point; the lexical entries that I have provided alone, which are used by all scholars should be enough to debunk any notion that the tongues of 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 are supposedly human languages – this old idea was put to rest maybe 20 to 25 years back.

To recap... The one and only definitive description of the gift of tongues in given in Acts 2. And glossolalia certainly isn't that. Instead I am told that glossolalia is the language of angels that Paul refers to in 1 Cor 13:1. But as I have pointed out, it is obvious when read in context of the 2 following associated verses that Paul is using hyperbole and what he is saying is that even if he had spiritual gifts to the ultimate theoretical degree possible (moving mountains, fathoming all mysteries and knowledge, giving all his possessions to the poor, and speaking in the tongues of angels), but not have love, they are worthless. I'm sorry but your alternative explanation that the "if's" in all our modern translations should in fact be "when's" and that Paul was not using exaggerated speech at all is utterly unconvincing.

As I mentioned earlier, we know that Paul spoke Aramaic and Greek and as a Roman citizen he undoubtedly would have been conversant in Latin as well; so his use of “if” would understandably refer to those times when he “would” speak in these various tongues of men. With the tongues of “angels”, Paul goes to great pains in 1Cor 14 to state that man cannot understand what is said by the Holy Spirit in tongues (where no reputable contemporary cessationist theologian would dare deny this), where he also says that he speaks in tongues more than us all. So we now have Paul saying that when (or ‘if’ as in his case) that he were to hypothetically ever speak in the tongues of men or of angels outside of an attitude of love, that he (we) would only become sounding brass.

With regard to my reference to how Paul had apparently given up his family wealth along with his status as a senior Pharisee, I am a bit surprised to see you saying that you can’t understand my point particularly has Paul spent much of his time working as a tent maker to support himself.

When it comes to the mysteries that Paul obviously understood; as he had travelled to heaven and heard things that no man is to utter and that he was given the responsibility to compile most of the New Testament, then it seems that you are again trying to deny my position simply because it stands against your own – you should probably choose points that you can defend instead of trying to object for objections sake.

Further nails in the language of angels coffin is given in 1 Cor 14:21-22 where Paul clearly links tongues with earthly foreign languages; in 1 Cor 12:10 where tongues is described as "different kinds of tongues" (plural) can only mean the multitude of earthly languages; and in Rev 5, 7 & 10 where the same word is clearly used to refer to earthly languages.

With Rev 5, & & 10, I guess that you have chosen to ignore what I have previously posted, so if you go and check out a few commentaries on Revelations you should discover that these are references to nations or clusters of people groups who each speak . . . proclaim . . . declare in their own unique tongues.

Yet more nails come from a number of academic studies of charismatic glossolalia by renowned linguists. If it was a real language you would have the same words repeating and be able identify nouns, verbs, adjectives etc and piece together it's structure. Yet the linguists conclusion is that it is nothing more than random syllables that merely sound like a language.

There have certainly been a handful of research studies into glossolalia, and leaving aside some of the more biased ‘research’ programs of the early 60’s, they seem to favourably indicate that glossolalia is “not language but language like” which fits well into the Biblical understanding of tongues; they also indicate that the participants have shown brainwaves which indicate a high sense of peace and satisfaction. No study in the past 40 years (to my knowledge) has shown any negativity toward contemporary Glossolalia. If you have any negative reports then please feel free to quote them.

If you wish, once your provide your links, I could probably go and compile the research that has occurred over the years into Glossolalia where a summary of their results should help others to realise that there are numerous research programs that have provided positive results for the contemporary practice of Glossolalia, where there will always be inherent limitations with any human program that tries to dissect the things of the Spirit. As I have a copy Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia (1986), it would probably be good to update the research since this 537 technical work was released.

Somehow I could see you walking into a tyre dealership declaring, I have now debunked your view that tyres are round as they are really square; when asked for your reasoning, it would probably go along the lines of “Because I need to believe it to be true”. With regard to your “more nails” that you think that you are using, do you find them to be as rusty as I suspect, where they tend to break and fall apart when you try to force-fit them into spaces that they do not belong?

 

[swordsman1]

As I’ve fully addressed your questions, using material from both Pentecostal and quasi-cessationist scholars then I think that maybe you are trying a bit too hard to overstretch your point;

Ok then let's look again at what I believe to be the correct interpretation of 1 Cor 13:1-3, and then compare it with the alternative explanations you have provided so far. As this is the linchpin of the Pentecostal claim that the glossolalia they practice is the language of angels it is important to look at this passage carefully to obtain the correct exegesis.

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

It is obvious Paul makes a series of parallel statements containing exaggerated figurative language (hyperbole) to make the point that even if he had spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy, faith, & giving to the ultimate degree theoretically possible, but not have love, they are worthless. Having the gift of prophecy to the degree that he can "know all mysteries and all knowledge" is clearly hyperbole because no one, not even Paul, knew all mysteries and knowledge. Having "all faith, so as to remove mountains" is clearly hyperbole. Giving "all my possessions to feed the poor" would mean giving away everything, including the clothes he wears, to feed the poor. Did Paul walk around naked? Did Paul give his body to be burned (v3)? Of course not, and because all the parallel statements in this passage are hyperbole, neither did he have the gift of tongues to such as degree that he spoke the language of angels.

Your alternative explanation of 1 Cor 13:1-3 basically argues that none of Paul's statements are hyperbole and he literally did all those things. There are a number of flaws in your theory:
1. Firstly you say that all the "if's" in this passage should be translated "when". Yet ALL the main modern translations of the bible have the word "if".
2. There is no evidence to say that Paul actually was wealthly and that he gave it all to the poor. This is pure speculation. Remember Paul said "if I give all my possessions to feed the poor...".
3. Why would having a vision of the third heaven enable him to know all mysteries? It is ridiculous to suggest that this event or anything else enabled Paul to know all the mysteries of the universe and of God. Remember the verse says "all mysteries" and "all knowledge".
4. You said that "removing mountains" is a metaphor for "removing obstacles". But all you are doing here is replacing one figure of speach with a lesser one. It is still a figure of speech. To say that tongues of angels is to be taken literally means all the other parallel statements have to be taken literally as well. You can't just pick and choose which ones to take literally in order to suit your theology.
5. You haven't yet explained how "surrender my body to be burned" is to be taken literally.
6. Rejecting hyperbole denies the whole point of this passage which is that love is greater than the gifts. Remember the whole thrust of ths chapter is about the greatness of love. "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." And the chapter ends "But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love". The point Paul is making is that love is greater than faith and hope, and greater than than the most superlative of spiritual gifts.

Your explanation of this passage clearly lacks plausibility. One of the first rules of bible interpretation is that the most obvious interpretation is invariably the right one. We take the plain meaning of the text at face value allowing for normal use of figurative language. Another rule is we use clearer passages to shine light on more obscure one. The single definative passage on tongues is Acts 2. God wouldn't give us such a detailed description of the gift of tongues, if this was to be the exception rather than the rule.

the lexical entries that I have provided alone, which are used by all scholars should be enough to debunk any notion that the tongues of 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 are supposedly human languages – this old idea was put to rest maybe 20 to 25 years back.

I don't have access to the lexicon you cite but reading the descriptions you quote it hardly seems like the author is unbiased: "It seems, then, that “language” is the basic meaning; here is a miraculous “language of the Spirit” such as is used by angels (1 Cor. 13:1) and which we, too, may use as we are seized by the Spirit and caught up to heaven"

There is plenty of evidence to prove that the tongues of 1 Cor 12-14 were human languages as per Acts, and not a 2nd type of tongues:
1. Paul clearly links tongues with earthly languages in 1 Cor 14:21-22.
2. The words to describe tongues in 1 Cor 12-14 are the same words used in Acts 2 & 10. (Acts 11:17 explicitly states that the tongues at Cornelius household was the same as Pentecost). Luke wrote the book of Acts after 1 Corinthians was penned and as he was a close friend of Pauls would have known if there was two types of tongues. Luke would not have used the same terminology if there was, creating even more confusion.
3. 1 Cor 12:10 states that there are "various kinds of tongues" (plural). 'The Greek word "gene" means “kinds” in the sense of “family,” “race”, “people,” “nation” or “offspring”. It clearly means the multitude of the earthly languages. Paul uses "gene" in 1 Cor 14:10-11 to clearly refer to various kinds of earthly languages.
4. The tongues in both Acts 2 & 1 Corinthians were a sign for the Jews (Acts 2:5, 1 Cor 14:21–22).
5. The tongues in both Acts 2 & 1 Corinthians would produce a similar reaction from unbelievers who did not understand it. Accusing them of being "drunk" in Acts 2, and "mad" in 1 Cor 14.

Can you please provide a similar list of evidence to prove that 1 Cor 12-14 is the language pf angels?

There have certainly been a handful of research studies into glossolalia, and leaving aside some of the more biased ‘research’ programs of the early 60’s, they seem to favourably indicate that glossolalia is “not language but language like” which fits well into the Biblical understanding of tongues; they also indicate that the participants have shown brainwaves which indicate a high sense of peace and satisfaction. No study in the past 40 years (to my knowledge) has shown any negativity toward contemporary Glossolalia. If you have any negative reports then please feel free to quote them.

When I get some time I shall certainly look into the academic research and post some quotes here (maybe as a new thread), but to start here are some excerpts from the Wikipedia entry for glossolalia:

In 1972, William J. Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto, published a thorough assessment of Pentecostal glossolalia that became a classic work on its linguistic characteristics......Glossolalia consists of strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but emerging nevertheless as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody. That the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker is confirmed by others. Felicitas Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, also found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the patterns of speech of the speaker's native language. Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language".[10] He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organized, and – most importantly of all – there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts...On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as "meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead".

Felicitas Goodman studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the United States, the Caribbean and Mexico; these included English-, Spanish- and Mayan-speaking groups. She compared what she found with recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan. She took into account both the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and the supra-segmental elements (rhythm, accent, intonation) and concluded that there was no distinction between what was practised by the Pentecostal Protestants and the followers of other religions.

 

[Biblicist]

As much as I have thoroughly enjoyed compiling this post, it has unfortunately become quite a long reply, this means that it will probably only grab the attention of those who have a strong interest with gaining a better understanding of the theology behind what is often referred to as Full Gospel Theology.

Ok then let's look again at what I believe to be the correct interpretation of 1 Cor 13:1-3, and then compare it with the alternative explanations you have provided so far. As this is the linchpin of the Pentecostal claim that the glossolalia they practice is the language of angels it is important to look at this passage carefully to obtain the correct exegesis.

For accuracy’s sake, as we know that tongues are always inarticulate, in that no man is ever able to understand what the Holy Spirit says to the Father, this means that as tongues are never given in a known human language; as such, with the Spirit’s inarticulate words (1Cor 14:2), sounds (14:7-12), groanings where most translations improperly employ 'languages' instead of the literal 'sounds', (Rom 8:26, uncertain but highly probably) then tongues must be something else other than a human language. As Paul has told us in 1Cor 13:1 that as he speaks in the tongues of men, be it Aramaic, Latin or Greek and that he also speaks in an Angelic tongue, then we are left with little option but to accept 1Cor 13:1 at face value.

If we did not have Paul’s account in 13:1 then we could just as well refer to the Holy Spirit’s intercession on our part as a ‘Divine or Heavenly’ utterance. As the Holy Spirit is speaking directly to the Father in a form of communication that no man can understand (14:2) then why are you fussed if the Holy Spirit speaks in an Angelic tongue, a Divine tongue or a special tongue between the Holy Spirit and the Father? Do you feel that the Godhead should maybe communicate in sign language or maybe in the archaic language of the 1611 edition of the KJV?

• Leon Morris (1 Corinthians) 1958, p.167 (neither a charismatic nor cessationist)

“The ability to speak in different kinds of tongues appears to have been a special form of speech when the person uttering the words did not know what they meant (unless he also had the gift of interpretation). Some have interpreted this from Acts 2, where ‘tongues’ seems to mean speaking in foreign language. But it is difficult to see this here. Whereas in Acts 2 the characteristic is intelligibility (Acts 2:8-11), here the characteristic is unintelligibility (‘no-one understands him’, 1Cor 14:2), but one exercised among believers. It is not understood by people who speak other languages, but requires a special gift of interpretation. Without that gift of interpretation, the speaker in tongues is to speak ‘to speak to himself and God (14:28), which is a strange way to treat one of the world’s recognised languages”.​

(Morris p.175) The tongues of men and of angels almost certainly refers to the gift of ‘tongues’, but the expression is general enough to cover-speech of any kind (cf. JB, “all the eloquence of men or of angels’).

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

It is obvious Paul makes a series of parallel statements containing exaggerated figurative language (hyperbole) to make the point that even if he had spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy, faith, & giving to the ultimate degree theoretically possible, but not have love, they are worthless. Having the gift of prophecy to the degree that he can "know all mysteries and all knowledge" is clearly hyperbole because no one, not even Paul, knew all mysteries and knowledge. Having "all faith, so as to remove mountains" is clearly hyperbole. Giving "all my possessions to feed the poor" would mean giving away everything, including the clothes he wears, to feed the poor. Did Paul walk around naked? Did Paul give his body to be burned (v3)? Of course not, and because all the parallel statements in this passage are hyperbole, neither did he have the gift of tongues to such as degree that he spoke the language of angels.

Now I couldn’t wait to get to the part of your remarkable paragraph that I’ve placed in bold. Here’s where I now have to ask you the same question that I asked Random Person in another current thread “Are you taking this thread seriously!” First of all, there would hardly be a single person who has ever walked on this planet who would have thought that Paul’s statement, where he says that he has “given all his possessions to feed the poor” as implying that he (or we) would have to run around naked – I will have to award you my gong award of the year for this one.

Secondly, as Jesus said to the rich young ruler in Matt 19:21 "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." Are you suggesting that Jesus is instructing the rich young ruler (and us) to walk around naked; how could you have missed the comparison with the rich young ruler – you have outdone yourself. If you wish, you can always go back and edit this portion of your post using the strikethrough feature where I will then do the same with this post.

When I went and checked back with my commentaries, I had completely forgotten (happens a lot!) that the Greek suggests the following, (1Cor 13:3) The verb psomizein means “to eat or “to give others morsels to eat” so the word picture is one of doling out one’s substance to give food to others (Garland p.614). If this is the situation, and it seems to be highly probably as a number of scholars are suggesting the same, then it appears that “giving away all our possessions” is referring to how we can over an extended period of time provide food and assistance to those who need it.

This means that as countless thousands have done what Garland and other have suggested, then Paul's words are not hypothetical but fully literal.

It is obvious Paul makes a series of parallel statements containing exaggerated figurative language (hyperbole). . .

As I have addressed this point on numerous occasions it can be left alone, but your use of “exaggerated figurative language” is a bit strange, how is it figurative?

. . . to make the point that even if he had spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy, faith, & giving to the ultimate degree theoretically possible, but not have love, they are worthless.

I’ve addressed this question elsewhere in this thread but Paul does not even come close to saying that the Operations of the Spirit are “worthless” because we fail to minister them through love; I would imagine Paul would sooner cut off his right arm before he would ever blaspheme the Holy Spirit in such a way.

Having the gift of prophecy to the degree that he can "know all mysteries and all knowledge" is clearly hyperbole because no one, not even Paul, knew all mysteries and knowledge. Having "all faith, so as to remove mountains" is clearly hyperbole.

As Paul obviously has the faith to remove any obstacle, except of course for the ‘thorn in his side’ which the Lord said will stay due to the incredible number of revelations that he has received, then this can hardly be hyperbole. “Mysteries and knowledge” is addressed below.

Your alternative explanation of 1 Cor 13:1-3 basically argues that none of Paul's statements are hyperbole and he literally did all those things.

As I have the advantage in that I am going with the plain meaning of Paul’s statements, then the onus on you is to prove otherwise.

As Paul does speak in numerous human languages and that he also speaks in tongues then I am on the high (or higher) ground. As your odd statement about running around naked needs no further explanation, then my view that as Paul had apparently forsaken the family business where he was compelled to regularly work as a tradesman during his travels, then I am definitely on the high ground with this as well.

3. Why would having a vision of the third heaven enable him to know all mysteries? It is ridiculous to suggest that this event or anything else enabled Paul to know all the mysteries of the universe and of God. Remember the verse says "all mysteries" and "all knowledge".

Does the “knowing all mysteries” in 1Cor 13:2 demand that Paul has a full understanding of all the sciences, with astronomy, physics etc, absolutely not, his knowledge would only need to pertain to those things that are knowable as per what the Father has wanted man to know, or in Paul’s situation, along with those things that he heard spoken of in heaven.

1. David Prior (1 Corinthians) Ed. John Stott (1985)p.228 (hard-core cessationists)

“It would be tempting to assume that Paul is using rhetorical hyperbole in this passage, i.e. that the full impact and value of these important gifts (prophecy, revelation, knowledge) is diminished when love does not flow. That is not what Paul writes. If there is no love, he maintains, there is nothing of any real value in my ministry. I may be successful; I may get results; I may be admired, appreciated and applauded – but, as far as God and eternity and concerned, I am nothing. . .”​

2. Garland (1 Corinthians) states, p.610; (non-charismatic?)

“The mysteries of God have been revealed to Paul (1Cor 2:1, 9-10; 15:51), and he regards himself as a “steward of God’s mysteries” (1Cor 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”.​

3. Fee (1 Corinthians) states pp.632-33 (Pentecostal)

“But what does Paul intend by the second item, “fathom all mysteries and all knowledge”? These terms appear together as a regular feature of Jewish apocalyptic, especially with regard to the unfolding of God’s final eschatological drama. Paul now uses this language to refer to God’s present revelation of his ways, especially in the form of special revelations by means of the eschatological Spirit whom Christians have received (cf. 14:6). This is most likely how we are also to understand both the “utterance of knowledge” in 12:8 and the “knowledge” that accompanies tongues and prophecy in vv. 8-13 that follow”.​

4. Kistemaker (1 Corinthians) states p.454 (cessationist)

“Mysteries and knowledge [ . . . ] Some scholars take this saying as an explanation of the word prophecy. They read, “If I have prophecy, that is, know all mysteries and knowledge . . . but do not have love I am nothing”. The interpretation has merit, because both terms mysteries and knowledge depend on the verb to understand and are thus intimately connected. And another passage links prophecy and mystery (Rev. 10:7). Moreover, mysteries are truths which God has hidden from his people. If God’s people want to understand these mysteries, they need divine wisdom”.​

5. Leon Morris (1 Corinthians) states p.176 (neither charismatic or cessationist)

All mysteries (see on 2:7) and all knowledge point us to the sum of all wisdom, human and divine. It includes the knowledge people gather for themselves (gnosis, knowledge, sometimes has a meaning not unlike our ‘science’), and what they know only by revelation. Mysteries are truths that people could never find out for themselves. They know them only because it has pleased God to reveal them”.
​

4. You said that "removing mountains" is a metaphor for "removing obstacles". But all you are doing here is replacing one figure of speach with a lesser one. It is still a figure of speech.

Removing mountains is not so much a metaphor where it is in fact an idiom. If something is an idiom, where it frequently becomes a literal speech marker, then it is difficult for a literal idiom to be metaphor as this would remove the truth from the idiom. Wikipedia and many other sources provide superb examples of what an idiom is:

An idiom (Latin: idioma, "special property", from Greek: ἰδίωμα – idíōma, "special feature, special phrasing, a peculiarity", f. Greek: ἴδιος – ídios, "one’s own") is a phrase or a fixed expression that has a figurative, or sometimes literal, meaning.​

To say that tongues of angels is to be taken literally means all the other parallel statements have to be taken literally as well. You can't just pick and choose which ones to take literally in order to suit your theology.

As I have demonstrated that each aspect of 1Cor 13:1-3 was more than a metaphor then I really should not have to go any further on this point, but . . .

• Leon Morris (1 Corinthians) p.175

“The tongues of men and of angels almost certainly refers to the gift of ‘tongues’ . . .”​

You haven't yet explained how "surrender my body to be burned" is to be taken literally.

You are undoubtedly aware that with 1Cor 13:3, where Paul says (NIV2)“...give over my body to hardship that I may boast” would probably stand out as being the most disputed of Pauline passages (though there are a few). The main point of contention is with the textual variant where kauchēsomai means to give over to boasting or kauthēsomai which means to give over to be burned. Irrespective with which one is correct, if to be burned is correct, then Paul would undoubtedly be referring to his calling as an Apostle where he expects that his calling will lead him to death. If it is boasting, then he would be referring to his right to “boast in Christ” with 1Cor 15:31. So neither are hypothetical were he would expect to die due to his testimony and when he stands before the Lord he will be able to boast about his relationship with Christ, which he is also able to do while he is on earth.

6. Rejecting hyperbole denies the whole point of this passage which is that love is greater than the gifts.

As Paul (or any astute theologian) would never say that love is supposedly ‘greater’ than the Operations of the Spirit, but where they should say that the Operations of the Spirit must be MINISTERED by each of us in love, then your point is easily dismissed.

Remember the whole thrust of ths chapter is about the greatness of love. "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." And the chapter ends "But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love". The point Paul is making is that love is greater than faith and hope, and greater than than the most superlative of spiritual gifts.

This is of course a repeat of your earlier similar remark; but Paul makes no mention that love is greater than any operation of the Spirit, which is evident from 1 Cor 12 & 13. What Paul does say is that if we do not minister in love then we become little more than (13:1) chalkos echon or “sounding brass”. If Harris (1981) and Garland (2003) pages 610-616 are correct, it appears that the chalkos that Paul is probably referring to are the “acoustical sounding vases” that were often employed within amphi-theatres, if this is correct, then these beautiful devices which produce a pleasing sound could be likened to those who minister within any of the Operations of the Spirit outside of a proper attitude of love; whereas the beauty of the particular Operation will still remain evident, but the one ministering outside of a proper attitude of love essentially remains “hollow” where they gain little or nothing from their ministry, but others certainly are edified and blessed by what they are doing.

Your explanation of this passage clearly lacks plausibility. One of the first rules of bible interpretation is that the most obvious interpretation is invariably the right one. We take the plain meaning of the text at face value allowing for normal use of figurative language. Another rule is we use clearer passages to shine light on more obscure one. The single definative passage on tongues is Acts 2. God wouldn't give us such a detailed description of the gift of tongues, if this was to be the exception rather than the rule.

As for the application of tongues (which is separate from its purpose on that day), we know from Acts 2:11 where Luke says “...we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues”, that this has a direct parallel with 1Cor 14:16,17 where Paul refers to the content of tongues within the congregational setting as being of “thanksgiving” and “praise” where our praise also connects with the wonders of God.

I don't have access to the lexicon you cite but reading the descriptions you quote it hardly seems like the author is unbiased: "It seems, then, that “language” is the basic meaning; here is a miraculous “language of the Spirit” such as is used by angels (1 Cor. 13:1) and which we, too, may use as we are seized by the Spirit and caught up to heaven"

As you do not have access to the primary lexicons, then undoubtedly any that you find will do, as they should always say much the same thing.

So, the non-charismatic Anglican scholar (Thiselton) is now supposed to be biased, that’s certainly novel! The next thing that you might say is that the TheologicalDictionary of the New Testament (post #69 & 58) is biased as well. Then there’s the highly authoritative Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Bauer’s) on the same page. Elsewhere through this thread I would have quoted Thayer’s Lexicon along with Louw-Nida and the VGNT Dictionary where all of the respected lexicons and dictionaries will point to the physical organ of the tongue as being the primary meaning of glossa.

There is plenty of evidence to prove that the tongues of 1 Cor 12-14 were human languages as per Acts, and not a 2nd type of tongues:
1. Paul clearly links tongues with earthly languages in 1 Cor 14:21-22.
2. The words to describe tongues in 1 Cor 12-14 are the same words used in Acts 2 & 10. (Acts 11:17 explicitly states that the tongues at Cornelius household was the same as Pentecost). Luke wrote the book of Acts after 1 Corinthians was penned and as he was a close friend of Pauls would have known if there was two types of tongues. Luke would not have used the same terminology if there was, creating even more confusion.
3. 1 Cor 12:10 states that there are "various kinds of tongues" (plural). 'The Greek word "gene" means “kinds” in the sense of “family,” “race”, “people,” “nation” or “offspring”. It clearly means the multitude of the earthly languages. Paul uses "gene" in 1 Cor 14:10-11 to clearly refer to various kinds of earthly languages.
4. The tongues in both Acts 2 & 1 Corinthians were a sign for the Jews (Acts 2:5, 1 Cor 14:21–22).
5. The tongues in both Acts 2 & 1 Corinthians would produce a similar reaction from unbelievers who did not understand it. Accusing them of being "drunk" in Acts 2, and "mad" in 1 Cor 14.

As you have placed each of your five points way outside of what the Scriptures have to say, then it becomes rather hard to reply, at the risk of sounding arrogant, as each of your points are simply far too off the mark which would require a fair amount of time to spend on an already long post, you should probably refer to my other replies to address them.

Can you please provide a similar list of evidence to prove that 1 Cor 12-14 is the language pf angels?

As this point has already been addressed on numerous occassions then I will have to point you back to my other replies on this question.

When I get some time I shall certainly look into the academic research and post some quotes here (maybe as a new thread), but to start here are some excerpts from the Wikipedia entry for glossolalia:

In 1972, William J. Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto, published a thorough assessment of Pentecostal glossolalia that became a classic work on its linguistic characteristics......Glossolalia consists of strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but emerging nevertheless as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody. That the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker is confirmed by others. Felicitas Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, also found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the patterns of speech of the speaker's native language. Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language".[10] He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organized, and – most importantly of all – there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts...On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as "meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead".

Well done! You have just provided a good example of where praying in the Spirit (tongues) is not the same as human language but where it is more “word-like and sentence-like units”. As tongues has nothing to do with human language, or with human language units, where it is “only a facade of language” then even though it is certainly “word-like” and “language-like”, tongues still does not bear any proper relationship with human language – again, well done!

With your quote by Samarin, you inadvertently supported the increasingly majority scholarly view that tongues is not a cognitive language, where at best, it is language-like but certainly not language. With your second quote by Goodman, you may need to come up to speed with her research where the following excerpt will show that Goodman recognises that there is probably a distinction between Christian glossolalia with that of pagan ritual.

Spirit Possession around the World: Possession, Communion, and Demon Expulsion across Cultures, J. Laycock (2015) quotes Goodman on page 139;

“The study of glossolalia outside of Christianity is complicated by the challenge of differentiating between utterances qualifying as glossolalia and form of ecstatic religious experience. Virgil’s Aeneid, for example, describes a Cumaean sibyl who spoke “strangely” when possessed. Though this could qualify as glossolalia, it remains unclear. The modern practice of glossolalia outside of the Christian faith has been studied among various forms of shamanism. Unlike Christianity, shaman glossolalia occurs during a divinatory experience in which a spirit inhabits a host to communicate. L. Carlyle May has noted that the Christian practice of whole groups or congregations concurrently speaking in tongues is not found among non-Christian religious practitioners of glossolalia”.​

I have enjoyed replying to both your own posts and with those of Random Person. I trust that your “objections”, which the more battle-weary cessationist will tend to stay away from that they are little more than illusions that cannot stand up to the Word of God or for that matter even with reason. What I’ve observed over the years when it comes to the better cessationist line of defence, is that it is not so much by confrontation, but by silence, where most astute cessationist church leaders have resigned themselves to staying low, where if their congregants do not ask, then they certainly will not bring up the subject; this helps to keep the status quo unchanged.

If you want to gain some brownie-points when you discuss theological questions with classic-Pentecostals, you might be able to gain some satisfaction when you ask about the classic-Pentecostal view that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to our being supposedly first ‘sealed’ in the Spirit. Then there’s the quirky formula of tongues + interpretation = prophecy which can easily unsettle a Pentecostal who has not thought this formula through.

Edit: Scripture reference in para.2. Grammar on 2nd last paragraph.

 

[swordsman1]

For accuracy’s sake, as we know that tongues are always inarticulate, in that no man is ever able to understand what the Holy Spirit says to the Father, this means that as tongues are never given in a known human language; as such, with the Spirit’s inarticulate words (1Cor 14:2), sounds (14:7-12), groanings where most translations improperly employ 'languages' instead of the literal 'sounds', (Rom 8:26, uncertain but highly probably) then tongues must be something else other than a human language.

That's not true. The only full definition of tongues in the Bible (Acts 2) states clearly that tongues were understandable human languages: "how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?". Same with Acts 10 where they were specifically heard "exalting God" (Acts 10:46) in tongues in the same way the disciples did at Pentecost (Acts 10:47, Acts 11:15, Acts 11:17).

Where does the bible say that tongues is the Holy Spirit speaking to the Father? Paul clearly states that it is the human spirit that speaks in tongues, not the Holy Spirit: "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries" (1 Cor 14:2) and "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." (1 Cor 14:14). It is a common Pentecostal mis-interpretation to think that the "groanings" in Rom 8:26 is referring to tongues. Firstly the gift of tongues is never even mentioned in this chapter and would be totally out of context. Second why would Paul say the Holy Spirit is available to intercede for us when not all believers had the gift of tongues (1 Cor 12:30). By looking at the context of the preceding verses (from v22 of Romans 8) you can clearly see what Paul is referring to: Creation, the believer and the Spirit are all “groaning” in despair because sin has negatively affected the world.

If we did not have Paul’s account in 13:1 then we could just as well refer to the Holy Spirit’s intercession on our part as a ‘Divine or Heavenly’ utterance. As the Holy Spirit is speaking directly to the Father in a form of communication that no man can understand (14:xx) then why are you fussed if the Holy Spirit speaks in an Angelic tongue, a Divine tongue or a special tongue between the Holy Spirit and the Father? Do you feel that the Godhead should maybe communicate in sign language or maybe in the archaic language of the 1611 edition of the KJV?

There is nothing outside 1 Cor 13:1 to indicate that tongues is in anyway divine, heavenly, or angelic. It is an enormous stretch to conclude that simply because nobody understood the Corinthian tongues it must have been the language of angels.

It doesn't say "no one CAN understand" in 1 Cor 14:2 meaning nobody in the whole wide world could understand the tongues. All versions simply say "for no one understands" (plain present tense), meaning no one in the meeting understands what is being said. They don't understand because it is uninterpreted tongues. If someone started speaking in Swahili in their meeting nobody would understand them - their words would be a mystery. In the subsequent verses Paul makes it clear that such uninterpreted tongues is futile and undesirable eg "unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air". And ultimately he forbids it. It is perfectly obvious that Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for their unintelligible tongues speaking. The reason is because spiritual gifts are only meant to be for the edification of others, never of self (1 Cor 12:7, 1 Peter 4:10).

• Leon Morris (1 Corinthians) 1958, p.167 (neither a charismatic nor cessationist)

“The ability to speak in different kinds of tongues appears to

You quote other authors as if you are quoting scripture, making out that if one or two particular authors support your view then it must be correct. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of books on 1 Corinthians and tongues and of course it is easy to pluck out a few quotes which agrees with your view on a particular passage. That doesn't make your view correct. I could just as easily quote renowned authors who hold the opposite view. They constantly disagree with each other. Men are fallible, scripture and it's plain meaning exegised using the basic rules of hermanutics is not. You will therefore forgive me if I don't place much credence in the quotes you pluck out to support your views. Our aim here should be to determine the correct exegesis, not on which authors lend support to our ideas.

So, the non-charismatic Anglican scholar (Thiselton) is now supposed to be biased, that’s certainly novel! The next thing that you might say is that the TheologicalDictionary of the New Testament(post #69 & 58) is biased as well.

Yes it is. As I said the author of the lexicon entry your quoted is clearly biased in favour of Pentecostal theology. Lexicons are mean't to be neutral, just focusing on the definition and usage of the words. It seems the author is an avid tongues speaker: "here is a miraculous “language of the Spirit” such as is used by angels (1 Cor. 13:1) and which we, too, may use as we are seized by the Spirit and caught up to heaven (2 Cor. 12:2ff.; cf. 1 Cor 14:2, 13ff."

Now I couldn’t wait to get to the part of your remarkable paragraph that I’ve placed in bold. Here’s where I now have to ask you the same question that I asked Random Person in another current thread “Are you taking this thread seriously!” First of all, there would hardly be a single person who has ever walked on this planet who would have thought that Paul’s statement, where he says that he has “given all his possessions to feed the poor” as implying that he (or we) would have to run around naked – I will have to award you my gong award of the year for this one.

You have proved my point perfectly. You are quite right nobody would rightly think Paul went around naked. Yet if 1 Cor 13:3 is to be taken literally, and he really did give away all his possessions to the poor as you assert, then that is exactly what he must do. It says "if I give all my possessions to the poor", including the clothes he wears. Clearly that isn't the case - it is hyperbole just as the other parallel statements in this passage are hyperbole, including the tongue of angels. The gong is yours!

As I have addressed this point on numerous occasions it can be left alone, but your use of “exaggerated figurative language” is a bit strange, how is it figurative?

When speech or writing is not literal it is figurative.
Hyperbole is a figurative language with an obvious and intentional exaggeration in order to make a point.

As Paul obviously has the faith to remove any obstacle, except of course for the ‘thorn in his side’ which the Lord said will stay due to the incredible number of revelations that he has received, then this can hardly be hyperbole.

The hyperbole is "so as to remove mountains", something that is obviously not meant to be taken literally. Paul is exaggerating.

I’ve addressed this question elsewhere in this thread but Paul does not even come close to saying that the Operations of the Spirit are “worthless” because we fail to minister them through love; I would imagine Paul would sooner cut off his right arm before he would ever blaspheme the Holy Spirit in such a way.

That's what the scripture says, "it profits me nothing" 1 Cor 13:3.

As Paul does speak in numerous human languages and that he also speaks in tongues then I am on the high (or higher) ground. As your odd statement about running around naked needs no further explanation, then my view that as Paul had apparently forsaken the family business where he was compelled to regularly work as a tradesman during his travels, then I am definitely on the high ground with this as well.

As I've asked before, where is your evidence that Paul even had a family business, let alone sold it and gave all the proceeds to the poor? That is just pure speculation.

Does the “knowing all mysteries” in 1Cor 13:2 demand that Paul has a full understanding of all the sciences, with astronomy, physics etc, absolutely not, his knowledge would only need to pertain to those things that are knowable as per what the Father has wanted man to know, or in Paul’s situation, along with those things that he heard spoken of in heaven.

You are neglecting a small but important word. "If I have the gift of prophecy, and know ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge". In other words, if this to be taken literally as you assert, Paul was omniscient.

You are undoubtedly aware that with 1Cor 13:3, where Paul says (NIV2)“...give over my body to hardship that I may boast” would probably stand out as being the most disputed of Pauline passages (though there are a few). The main point of contention is with the textual variant where kauchēsomai means to give over to boasting or kauthēsomai which means to give over to be burned. Irrespective with which one is correct, if to be burned is correct, then Paul would undoubtedly be referring to his calling as an Apostle where he expects that his calling will lead him to death. If it is boasting, then he would be referring to his right to “boast in Christ” with 1Cor 15:31. So neither are hypothetical were he would expect to die due to his testimony and when he stands before the Lord he will be able to boast about his relationship with Christ, which he is also able to do while he is on earth.

That idea does't work either. All the parallel statements are in the same (present) tense:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels...
If I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries...
If I have all faith so as to remove mountains...
If I give all my possessions to feed the poor...
If I surrender by body to be burned...

So if taken literally as you claim then "I surrender my body to be burned" is something that he must have already attained like all the others statements in the list. Not something that will happen when he dies.

Removing mountains is not so much a metaphor where it is in fact an idiom. If something is an idiom, where it frequently becomes a literal speech marker, then it is difficult for a literal idiom to be metaphor as this would remove the truth from the idiom. Wikipedia and many other sources provide superb examples of what an idiom is:
An idiom (Latin: idioma, "special property", from Greek: ἰδίωμα – idíōma, "special feature, special phrasing, a peculiarity", f. Greek: ἴδιος – ídios, "one’s own") is a phrase or a fixed expression that has a figurative, or sometimes literal, meaning.

An idiom is a commonly used expression with a hidden meaning that cannot be understood on it's own. It's meaning must be learned. eg "You're pulling my leg", "It's raining cats & dogs". It doesn't have to be figurative eg "waste not, want not". "Remove mountains" is not an idiom.

So is "remove mountains" to be taken literally or figuratively? It must be one or the other. Whatever you choose must be applied to all the parallel statements in this passage. You can't just pick and choose to suit your theology. If figurative then you must allow "tongues of angels" to be figurative. If literal then what you are saying is not only can Paul literally speak the language of angels, he is also literally omniscient, he can literally remove mountains, he has literally given every possession he owns to the poor, and he literally allows his body to be burned! I'm surprised you can't see the absurdity of this assertion.

 

[random person]

The proper order of reading Paul's teaching on tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue [NO INTERPRETER] speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. verse 2

Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue [NO INTERPRETER], my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. verses 13-14

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips [UNKNOWN TONGUE] will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues [UNKNOWN TONGUE] are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues [UNKNOWN TONGUE], and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? verses 21-23

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

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. verse 33

Pentacostals and charismatics are misinterpreting chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians believing unknown tongues means it is exclusively not a human language, that is completely incorrect as per VERSE 21, the unknown tongue, is an exclusive human language but in bad need of an interpreter because it is not the speaker's native language or even in the congregations' native language.

 

[Biblicist]

The proper order of reading Paul's teaching on tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue [NO INTERPRETER] speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. verse 2

Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue [NO INTERPRETER], my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. verses 13-14

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips [UNKNOWN TONGUE] will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues [UNKNOWN TONGUE] are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues [UNKNOWN TONGUE], and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? verses 21-23

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

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. verse 33

Pentacostals and charismatics are misinterpreting chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians believing unknown tongues means it is exclusively not a human language, that is completely incorrect as per VERSE 21, the unknown tongue, is an exclusive human language but in bad need of an interpreter because it is not the speaker's native language or even in the congregations' native language.

As for the bright colours, that certainly grabbed my attention, but the content fell completely short where I can only suggest that you go through my posts on this thread which will explain why your reasoning lacks any semblance of logic. May I suggest that you avoid any more gandstanding where you should maybe engage with the material that has already been posted.

 

[random person]

As for the bright colours, that certainly grabbed my attention, but the content fell completely short where I can only suggest that you go through my posts on this thread which will explain why your reasoning lacks any semblance of logic. May I suggest that you avoid any more gandstanding where you should maybe engage with the material that has already been posted.

unknown tongue = uninterpreted language / foreign language

As per 1 Corinthians 14:21