Cessationism question

[1stcenturylady]

One other excerpt to add:

Jack Cottrell (professor of theology at Cincinnati Christian University from 1967 to 2015)
The Holy Spirit: Power from on High (2007)

The Structure of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13

The key section for our purposes is 13:8-13. It is very important to understand the outline or structure of this paragraph. It consists basically of two contrasts. The first and main contrast is between things that are temporary (v. 8) and things that are permanent (v. 13). To get this point these two verses should be read together while setting verses 9-12 aside as a parenthesis, thus: Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. . . . But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Some things, Paul says, will cease-the very things you are fighting and dividing over: prophecy, knowledge, and tongues (v. 8). But the really crucial things will continue to exist-faith, hope, and love (v. 13a). The most important of all is love (v. 13b), since love never ends (v. 8a). Paul could have written just this much and still have made his point. But he knew that he had to explain the temporary nature of tongues, etc., a bit further. He knew that in the minds of many Corinthians the gift of tongues was the heart and soul of their faith. One can imagine their reaction to verse 8: "Oh, no, Paul! You can't mean that! Surely you are mistaken; surely tongues are not just temporary! Don't take away our tongues!”

In order to alleviate such concern, in verses 9-12, even before he completes his main contrast between verse 8 and verse la, Paul inserts a parenthesis with a secondary contrast. Here the contrast is to show phy gifts like tongues, prophecy, and knowledge are only temporary. The reason they are temporary, he says, is because they are only "partial" or piecemeal; something "perfect" or complete will come to take their place. This four-verse parenthesis should be read as a unit:

For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

Though the Corinthians no doubt did not want to hear this, Paul tells them that the very things they have made the centerpiece of their lives will be "done away" because they are only partial. As an analogy, their individual episodes of miraculous tongues and prophesying were like single pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Something is coming, though, that will be like the entire puzzle with all its pieces put together; then you will see the entire picture. Will that not be much better?

What is this coming thing that will take the place of tongues and other such gifts? Paul calls it the teleion in verse 10, translated “the perfect." If we can just know what this teleion is, we can know when the tongues and other things will cease. This is true because Paul specifically says, "WHEN the teleion comes," the partial will cease. The coming of the teleion will be the occasion for the end of these gifts.

The identity of the Teleion

The case for the cessationist view of miraculous spiritual gifts rests to a larre extent on our ability to identify the teleion to which forms according to gender. I.e. they can be masculine,

feminine, or neuter. If teleion here were in its masculine form (teleios), since it stands alone, we would translate it as “the complete one” or “the complete man,” referring to a person. But in fact the adjective is neuter in gender, thus must be read as “the complete thing."

This is very important because some have seen the translation, “When the perfect comes," and have jumped to the conclusion that this must be a reference to the second coming of Christ. After all, Jesus is the only "perfect one," and he definitely is coming again! The implication regarding miraculous gifts, of course, would be that tongues, etc., will continue until the second coming of Jesus.

When we understand, though, that teleion is a neuter adjective, we will see that it refers not to a person at all, but to a thing. If it referred to a person such as Jesus, the gender would have been masculine. Thus the best translation is "When the complete thing comes." Paul is thus saying that the partial things will cease when the complete thing comes.

Not Connected with the Second Coming

Do we have any way of discerning what this complete thing is supposed to be? Yes. For one thing, we know the limitations as to the time when it will appear. On the one hand, since Paul uses future tense ("will cease . . . will be done away”), the teleion must still be in the future relative to the time Paul was writing this letter. This means that the complete thing cannot be love, since love was surely already present within the church to some degree. It is important to see this, since love has upon occasion been suggested as the identity of the teleion. But this cannot be.

On the other hand, we know from something Paul says here that the teleion must be something that will come before the end of the age, before the second coming of Jesus. This is extremely important, because the most common view as to the identity of the complete thing is that is must have something to do with the second coming and with heaven.

How do we know that the complete thing must come before the end times and not in connection with the second coming? How do we know that it must come while the church is still existing in this age? Because of what Paul says in verse l8. Here he declares that the teleion will come and the partial gifts will cease while faith, hope, and love still abide or remain among God's people. If hope is still present, then the teleion must come before Christ's second coming, because once Christ comes, all that we are hoping for will become a reality, and hope itself will disappear. As Paul explains in Romans 8:24, we hope only for things we do not yet see, “for who hopes for what he already sees?" Some would apply this same reasoning to faith as well, since in one sense sight replaces faith (2 Cor 5:7) as well as hope.

In any case, verse la rules out any interpretation of the teleion that connects it with the second coming. Thus the partial gifts must cease sometime during the church age.

The Completed New Testament

A final consideration in our quest to identify the teleion is the fact that it is meant to replace some very specific kinds of gifts (v. 8). Since the complete thing replaces these partial things, it must be something similar in nature to the latter and must serve the same general purpose as the latter. What is the nature of the gifts named in verse 8? Prophecy, supernatural knowledge, and tongues (when interpreted) are all in the category of revealed knowledge. Thus the complete thing must also be in the category of revealed knowledge. Yet it is something complete, as contrasted with these partial forms.

Again this goes against identifying the complete thing as love, since love is not a revealed-knowledge kind of thing. Also, it rules out another view sometimes suggested, namely, that the teleion should be translated "mature" and that the "mature thing" is really the mature church (e.g., Robert Thomas, 79). Paul does seem to be contrasting childhood with maturity in verse 11, suggesting that the partial things are part of the church's childhood stage while the teleion is a mark of its maturity (see Unger, Tongues, 96-97). But the specific identity of the teleion must be something other than the mature church itself, since the latter is not a kind of revealed knowledge.

The only thing that meets all the requirements pointed out in this section is the completed New Testament. The teleion, the complete thing is the completed New Testament. When the completed New Testament has come, piecemeal prophecies, tongues, and knowledge will cease. Pettegrew is right: "Interpreting 'the completed teleion as the New Testament is still the most natural and logical explanation of the passage-far better than trying to introduce the Rapture, Second Coming death, or eternal state into the interpretation" (182).

This view is supported by the fact that elsewhere in the Bible God's will and word in the new-covenant era are described with this same adjective, teleios; see Romans 12:2, James 1:25; and Hebrews 5:146:1. Jacoby notes, by the way, that teleion is never used of heaven (Spirit, 189).

Some object to the view that the teleion is the completed New Testament on the grounds that no such document existed at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, so no one would have known what he was talking about. Keener, for example, says that the idea of a completed canon "could not have occurred either to Paul or to the Corinthians in their own historical context (since at that noint no one knew that point no one knew that there would be a New Testament canon). Thus we must accept “the impossibility that Paul could have expected the Corinthian Christians to think he meant the canon” (97). This argument is completely without merit, however. All Christians from the church’s beginning would be familiar with the old-covenant canon (what
"Scriptures" were the Bereans examining in Acts 17:11). They would also know that they were under a new covenant. Thus it is quite reasonable to think that they would be expecting a completed New Testament to guide them in this new-covenant age, in the same way that God's old-covenant people had the Old Testament to guide them. To call such an idea impossible-especially for an inspired apostle-is quite unfounded. "Moreover, how do we know that Paul is not telling them about the New Testament at this point? How else would the apostle explain that one day there would be a completed prophetic volume that would supplant all of the partial prophecies that had been given?" (Pettegrew, 182).

The New Testament was completed near the end of the first century, with the last writing of the Apostle John. All the New Testament books were then in circulation. Thus we must conclude that these partial gifts-such as tongues, prophecy, and knowledge-have ceased.

The Teleion and 1 Corinthians 13:12

For many people a major problem in accepting the view that the teleion is the completed New Testament is what Paul says in 13:12: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." At first glance this seems to be a contrast between our present condition and our future heavenly existence. This is what leads many to conclude that the teleion must be the result of the second coming.

In my judgment, however, this is a serious misunderstanding of verse 12. The time reference for the contrast between "now" and "then" is the time Paul was writing this letter. Thus the contrast is still between the church's years of piecemeal revelations ("now") and the time when the full New Testament will be available ("then"). a. "In a Mirror Dimly" versus "Face to Face." The first part of this verse is not a contrast between this present earthly life and our future heavenly state, but a contrast between two kinds of revelation: the less clear and the more clear. The less clear revelation is compared with trying to see one's face in a poor-quality mirror: "For now we see in a Mirror dimly.” The more clear revelation is then compared with seeing one’s face in a very good mirror: "but then face to face." That is, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, with only occasional, scattered, incomplete revelations of God's new-covenant will; but then, when the completed New Testament has come, we will see, as it were, face to face."

The key to understanding this statement is Numbers 12:8. The similarity of the imagery and language of 1 Corinthians 13:12a and the Greek version of Numbers 12:8 is so strong that it is nearly certain that Paul has the latter in mind as he writes the former. In Numbers 12 God is explaining to Aaron and Miriam why Moses as a prophet is in a class by himself compared with other prophets. God says. He speaks with other prophets in visions and dreams, but with Moses "I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings." The phrase "mouth to mouth" here corresponds to "face to face" in 1 Corinthians 13: 12a, and "not in dark sayings" corresponds to "dimly." In the latter phrasing the same Greek word is used in the Septuagint version of Numbers and in Corinthians, namely, ainigma ("riddle"). "In dark sayings" (Num 12:8) is literally "in riddles," and so is "dimly" in 1 Corinthians 13:12a.

For Moses and Paul the point is the same, i.e., a contrast between less clear and more clear revelation. Paul's image is definitely that of "seeing in a mirror." The KJV says, "For now we see through a glass, darkly," leaving the impression that Paul is talking about trying to look through a dirty window pane. Though "remarkably prevalent among Christians," this view is quite erroneous, says Kittel (179). It is also "incorrect to maintain that one of the characteristics of the mirrors of antiquity was to give indistinct pictures"; Kittel speaks of "the archaeological unsoundness of this view" (ibid.).

In the Rabbinic literature relating to Numbers 12:8, with which Paul would have been familiar, "Moses is indeed extolled as the one who received the supreme and most direct revelation of God when he saw Him in a clear mirror" (ibid.). This is the point of reference from which we must interpret 1 Corinthians 13:12.... The contrast is between (1) seeing in a cloudy, cracked mirror ("dimly"), and (2) seeing in a clear mirror where one's face can be clearly seen.

Thus in l Corinthians 13:12 “dimly" versus “face to face" represents enigmatic, incomplete revelation versus clear, complete revelation. The former is the piecemeal, temporary prophecies and tongues; the latter is the completed New Testament. This is supported by 2 Corinthians 3:7-18 and James l;23-25, where New Testament revelation is compared with looking in a mirror.

Some may still be hung up on the idea of seeing "face to face," thinking this must be a reference to seeing Jesus "face to face.” Actually Paul does not say we shall see him face to face. There is no object for the verb "see," since no specific object is intended. The point is not what or whom we will see, but how we will see. It refers to the comparative clarity of the revelation in the completed New Testament."

An expanded paraphrase of l3:12a is as follows: “For now, in these early days of the church, while we depend on occasional revelations through prophecy or interpreted tongues, it is like trying to see yourself in a scratched and cloudy mirror. But then, when the completed New Testament has come, it will be like seeing a sharp, clear image of yourself in a bright new mirror."

"Know in Part" versus "Know Fully"

The second part of verse 12 has also been interpreted as a contrast between the knowledge anyone has in this life and the knowledge we will have in heaven. This understanding would also support an eschatological interpretation of the teleion. That is, in this life all our knowledge is partial; only in heaven will we “know fully.” Thus the partial gifts such as tongues must last until the second coming, for only then will we "know fully.”

This view is based on a faulty view of the Greek words in verse 12b. Here there are two similar verbs for “to know": inosko and epiginosko. The popular belief is that the latter word represents some special, intensified knowledge, such as one might have in Heaven. This is why Bible versions translate it as “know fully”. The "fully” is based solely on the prefix epi- on the front of epiginosko, there is no word in the Greek that means "fully.”

The idea that there is such a contrast between ginosko and epiginosko is simply not true. The latter term does not necessarily carry any stronger meaning than the former. There is no warrant for translating it "know fully,” in the sense of some kind of heavenly, quasi-divine knowledge. An examination of parallel places where these two words are used in the New Testament shows that they are used interchangeably. The article on "Knowledge” in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology mentions no distinction between these words. The major article on ginosko in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says they are used in the New Testament “interchangeably" and “with no dif ference in meaning."

The object of our knowledge is not given; it is not important. The point is the contrast between two kinds or two levels of knowledge. Paul does not say we shall know God as fully as he knows us. Knowledge of God is not really the point. It is enough to conclude that with the more complete knowledge we have from the entire New Testament, we should know ourselves with more clarity, or know what we ought to be in a clearer way (see Jas l:23-25). All thoughts of full knowledge in the sense of omniscience should be excluded altogether. Such knowledge is impossible for finite creatures, which we will always be, even in heaven.

Thus verse 12 is not speaking of a kind of end-times knowledge that will be ours only when we are glorified or only when we get to heaven or only when Jesus comes again. This verse is quite consistent with the meaning of teleion in verse lo as the completed New Testament, which is a body of knowledge that is relatively clear and complete when compared with the fragments of knowledge given in the earliest days of the church via gifts of supernatural knowledge.

It stands firm that the best understanding of the teleion in l Corinthians 13:10 is that it refers to the completed New Testament. This confirms the fact that miraculous gifts ceased being passed along after the death of the apostles. The miraculous gifts filled a need in the absence of the written New Testament. Once the New Testament writings were in hand, this need ceased; thus the gifts ceased.​

How do you explain the modern tongues that have been interpreted today? How do you explain the other gifts that are still present, like hearing God's voice and miraculous healings. No, I haven't read the book-size posts you've posted. I want to know what you think.

 

[swordsman1]

How do you explain the modern tongues that have been interpreted today? How do you explain the other gifts that are still present, like hearing God's voice and miraculous healings. No, I haven't read the book-size posts you've posted. I want to know what you think.

Today's tongues are not the the tongues of the New Testament. Tongues in the NT are only described as the miraculous ability to speak a foreign human language without learning it. What occurs today is the physiological phenomenon known to linguists as glossolalia whereby your vocal organs go into a kind of autopilot. It has been shown that anyone, christian or not, can discover the technique.

There isn't a gift called 'hearing God's voice', but if by that you mean prophecy then that too has ceased. Prophecy in the bible is "Thus says the Lord", infallible and authoritive words from God which the prophet passes on to others, not a fuzzy feeling that people claim is a 'word from the Lord' which may or may not be true. In the early church prophecy was a vital way for God to communicate the tenets of the new Christian faith in the absence of the New Testament.

Healing can and does occur in response to prayer. But that is not the gift of healing that the disciples had. The disciples healed people instantly and completely without praying for it, as a miraculous sign to authenticate the gospel message. If you have to pray for healing it proves you don't have the gift of healing.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Today's tongues are not the the tongues of the New Testament. Tongues in the NT are only described as the miraculous ability to speak a foreign human language without learning it. What occurs today is the physiological phenomenon known to linguists as glossolalia whereby your vocal organs go into a kind of autopilot. It has been shown that anyone, christian or not, can discover the technique.

There isn't a gift called 'hearing God's voice', but if by that you mean prophecy then that too has ceased. Prophecy in the bible is "Thus says the Lord", infallible and authoritive words from God which the prophet passes on to others, not a fuzzy feeling that people claim is a 'word from the Lord' which may or may not be true. In the early church prophecy was a vital way for God to communicate the tenets of the new Christian faith in the absence of the New Testament.

Healing can and does occur in response to prayer. But that is not the gift of healing that the disciples had. The disciples healed people instantly and completely without praying for it, as a miraculous sign to authenticate the gospel message. If you have to pray for healing it proves you don't have the gift of healing.

The tongues of the Bible were not as you described. 1 Corinthians 14:2 "For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

They were not naturally understood by any man. You've got the cart before the horse. You are taking an account (Acts 2) and not interpreting it according to the rule (1 Corinthians 14:2).

 

[Biblicist]

One other excerpt to add:

Jack Cottrell (professor of theology at Cincinnati Christian University from 1967 to 2015)
The Holy Spirit: Power from on High (2007)

The Structure of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13

The key section for our purposes is 13:8-13. It is very important to understand the outline or structure of this paragraph. It consists basically of two contrasts. The first and main contrast is between things that are temporary (v. 8) and things that are permanent (v. 13). To get this point these two verses should be read together while setting verses 9-12 aside as a parenthesis, thus: Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. . . . But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Some things, Paul says, will cease-the very things you are fighting and dividing over: prophecy, knowledge, and tongues (v. 8). But the really crucial things will continue to exist-faith, hope, and love (v. 13a). The most important of all is love (v. 13b), since love never ends (v. 8a). Paul could have written just this much and still have made his point. But he knew that he had to explain the temporary nature of tongues, etc., a bit further. He knew that in the minds of many Corinthians the gift of tongues was the heart and soul of their faith. One can imagine their reaction to verse 8: "Oh, no, Paul! You can't mean that! Surely you are mistaken; surely tongues are not just temporary! Don't take away our tongues!” . . .​

​

Without the need to go too far through Cottrell's worldview, his argument quickly falls apart (see bold), where he first bases his approach to 1Cor 13 not from within a theological construct but from his need to protect his worldview, where he simply decides without any merit that prophecy, tongues etc are temporary. He then decides to build a false construct by saying that the Corinthians were "fighting and dividing over prophecy, knowledge and tongues", which I realise is little more than a cessationist argument that is built on an old-wives tale that has been handed down through the years which of course is an argument that has no merit as well.

As I've said on a number of occasions, since at least the late 1970's most Evangelical Christians who are not experientially Continuist have realised that the type of arguments that Cottrell is still trying to peddle have absolutely no basis in the Word, which is why the majority of Evangelicals are reticent to try and defend the cessationist worldview as they know that it is a worldview that has no support from within the Scriptures but instead where they generally understand that it is a worldview that came out of the humanism and rationalism of the dark period of the Church.

 

[Biblicist]

Today's tongues are not the the tongues of the New Testament. Tongues in the NT are only described as the miraculous ability to speak a foreign human language without learning it. What occurs today is the physiological phenomenon known to linguists as glossolalia whereby your vocal organs go into a kind of autopilot. It has been shown that anyone, christian or not, can discover the technique.

I understand that you are undoubtedly frightened by 1 Corinthians 12, 13 & 14 where Paul tells us that tongues can never be understood by man and that they are spoken in a heavenly language; but of course, if you were to openly admit that you undoubtedly already know this then your worldview would completely collapse, so as I said, I can understand why you still hold to this very dated and strange position.

As you undoubtedly do not believe what you present in regard to praying in the Spirit in particular, let alone with the Ministry of the Holy Spirit in general, I must admit that I can only ponder as to why you still try and peddle such a dated and unbiblical position - it certainly is strange to say the least!

 

[Biblicist]

As a followup to my post #164 I thought that it would be beneficial to provide an article on the views of SBC pastors and their views toward tongues.

According to the survey apparently around 50% of SBC pastors acknowledge that people do speak in tongues today and as the article is now 10 years old I would expect that this percentage would be about the same or even higher. Of course, as the article does suggest, the wording of the questionnaire (which I have not seen) may have confused some but in this day and age I would expect any reasonably intelligent person to understand what was being asked.

When we consider that the SBC was (or is still even known) to be a hotbed of cessationism, then this apparently high figure where even few SBC pastors are content with the cessationist worldview is in itself telling. Of course the survey also tells us that there are many SBC pastors who are open to both the Word and the Spirit where they are reluctant to sanction the humanist rationalism of the cessationist worldview which is rampant within their denomination.

SBC poll: Half of pastors say 'tongues' valid
News: June 26, 2007

A survey sample of senior pastors in tile Southern Baptist Convention found that exactly half of them say speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift given to some believers today--whether those utterances occur in public worship or are "private prayer languages," a term used in an escalating dispute within the denomination.

The findings came from LifeWay Christian Resources, an SBC agency known for its church education resources, and were released June 1--only days before the divisive issue was expected to arise at the June 12-13 annual meeting of Southern Baptists.

As Pentecostal and charismatic movements have grown in the past 100 years, the SBC has steadfastly denied the authenticity of modern-day glossolalia, or speaking in tongues. Its leaders have backed the theory that such spiritual gifts as described in the New Testament were legitimate only in the early years of the church.

The LifeWay research, gathered in April and May, included findings from 1,004 Protestant laity, 405 Southern Baptist senior pastors and 600 non SBC Protestant senior pastors. The pastors and laity were not asked if they engage in tongues-speaking.

In the survey, 50 percent of Southern Baptist pastors answered yes and 43 percent said no to the question: "Do you believe that the Holy Spirit gives some people the gift of a special language to pray to God privately? Some people refer to this as a private prayer language or the 'private use of tongues.'" Seven percent of the pastors interviewed said they didn't know.

Furthermore, 66 percent of the non-SBC Protestant senior pastors and 51 percent of Protestant laypeople believe in the validity of a private prayer language, according to the research.

The report received immediate attention from young SBC pastors who have used blogs to further their cause against a year-old International Mission Board guideline prohibiting the hiring of new missionaries who admit to praying in a private prayer language.

Alan Cross, in a June 1 blog post, wrote that the data suggest that SBC leaders .were mistaken when they maintained that a "continualist" position on spiritual gifts--the belief that miraculous gifts given during the time of the apostles can still be used in the modern era--was "an extreme minority position in Southern Baptist life.

"For the past year-and-a-half, we have heard repeatedly from proponents of the IMB policies-guidelines that they were in the vast majority in Southern Baptist life. This study proves that they are clearly wrong," said Cross, pastor of Gateway Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama "Southern Baptists are very divided over this issue, and there is a wide range of opinion."

Ed Stetzer, LifeWay's director of research, said the report showed "significant openness" to private prayer languages in the denomination. Stetzer also noted that the "middle ground is not that large" on the issue.

Brad Waggoner, vice president of research, said he had not expected such a high number of "cessationist" pastors to emerge--people who believe the ability to perform miraculous acts ended with the apostles. The figure was 41 or 43 percent, depending on how the question was posed. Recent seminary graduates polled, however, leaned more to the cessationist view (55 percent).

At least one critic questioned the survey's methodology and motives. Malcolm Yarnell, assistant dean for theological studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the questions regarding private prayer practices were vague and made certain assumptions about the "gift" of tongues. "[What] has been shared with the public is insufficient for a thorough analysis of the survey itself," Yarnell wrote.​

 

[swordsman1]

The tongues of the Bible were not as you described. 1 Corinthians 14:2 "For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

The context of 1 Cor 14:2 is church meetings, so the "no one" in v2 is not no one on the face of the earth, but no one in the congregation. And the specific problem that Paul is dealing with here is unrecognized tongues spoken in the congregation. So Paul begins the chapter by identifying the problem: "For one who speaks in an [unrecognized] tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one [in the congregation] understands". No one in the small Corinthian congregation understood the language spoken. Only God, who knows all languages, knows what was said. That doesn't mean it was a non-human language. If someone spoke Swahili in your church no one would understand either.

They were not naturally understood by any man. You've got the cart before the horse. You are taking an account (Acts 2) and not interpreting it according to the rule (1 Corinthians 14:2).

The hermeneutical rule is that clearer passages are to shed light on less clear passages. The clear passage is Acts 2:4-11, the less clear is 1 Cor 14:2.

 

[swordsman1]

he simply decides without any merit that prophecy, tongues etc are temporary.

Have you not read 1 Cor 13:8?

"But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away."​

He then decides to build a false construct by saying that the Corinthians were "fighting and dividing over prophecy, knowledge and tongues", which I realise is little more than a cessationist argument that is built on an old-wives tale that has been handed down through the years which of course is an argument that has no merit as well.

Seeing as the whole of 1 Corinthians is a letter of rebuke where Paul tackles problem after problem within the Corinthian church, there is little doubt that Paul had received a letter of complaint from the elders about what was occurring in the church, and spiritual gifts along with many other issues were clearly causing division and problems within the church.

As I've said on a number of occasions, since at least the late 1970's most Evangelical Christians who are not experientially Continuist have realised that the type of arguments that Cottrell is still trying to peddle have absolutely no basis in the Word, which is why the majority of Evangelicals are reticent to try and defend the cessationist worldview as they know that it is a worldview that has no support from within the Scriptures but instead where they generally understand that it is a worldview that came out of the humanism and rationalism of the dark period of the Church.

In your dreams maybe. The fact is many evangelical scholars, when they examine this passage in detail (as opposed to the one-sentence treatments afforded by the commentators you quoted), come to the conclusion that "completeness", when the revelatory gifts cease, is not the second coming of Christ or the eternal state, but the completion of the canon and the maturing of the church. I have provided detailed expositions by 10 seminary professors in my last 2 posts. I suggest you read them and learn.

I understand that you are undoubtedly frightened by 1 Corinthians 12, 13 & 14 where Paul tells us that tongues can never be understood by man and that they are spoken in a heavenly language;

Paul says nothing of the sort.
Where does Paul say "tongues can never be understood by man"?
Where does Paul say "they are spoken in a heavenly language;"?

 

[swordsman1]

As a followup to my post #164 I thought that it would be beneficial to provide an article on the views of SBC pastors and their views toward tongues.

According to the survey apparently around 50% of SBC pastors acknowledge that people do speak in tongues today and as the article is now 10 years old I would expect that this percentage would be about the same or even higher. Of course, as the article does suggest, the wording of the questionnaire (which I have not seen) may have confused some but in this day and age I would expect any reasonably intelligent person to understand what was being asked.

When we consider that the SBC was (or is still even known) to be a hotbed of cessationism, then this apparently high figure where even few SBC pastors are content with the cessationist worldview is in itself telling. Of course the survey also tells us that there are many SBC pastors who are open to both the Word and the Spirit where they are reluctant to sanction the humanist rationalism of the cessationist worldview which is rampant within their denomination.

SBC poll: Half of pastors say 'tongues' valid
News: June 26, 2007

A survey sample of senior pastors in tile Southern Baptist Convention found that exactly half of them say speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift given to some believers today--whether those utterances occur in public worship or are "private prayer languages," a term used in an escalating dispute within the denomination.

The findings came from LifeWay Christian Resources, an SBC agency known for its church education resources, and were released June 1--only days before the divisive issue was expected to arise at the June 12-13 annual meeting of Southern Baptists.

As Pentecostal and charismatic movements have grown in the past 100 years, the SBC has steadfastly denied the authenticity of modern-day glossolalia, or speaking in tongues. Its leaders have backed the theory that such spiritual gifts as described in the New Testament were legitimate only in the early years of the church.

The LifeWay research, gathered in April and May, included findings from 1,004 Protestant laity, 405 Southern Baptist senior pastors and 600 non SBC Protestant senior pastors. The pastors and laity were not asked if they engage in tongues-speaking.

In the survey, 50 percent of Southern Baptist pastors answered yes and 43 percent said no to the question: "Do you believe that the Holy Spirit gives some people the gift of a special language to pray to God privately? Some people refer to this as a private prayer language or the 'private use of tongues.'" Seven percent of the pastors interviewed said they didn't know.

Furthermore, 66 percent of the non-SBC Protestant senior pastors and 51 percent of Protestant laypeople believe in the validity of a private prayer language, according to the research.

The report received immediate attention from young SBC pastors who have used blogs to further their cause against a year-old International Mission Board guideline prohibiting the hiring of new missionaries who admit to praying in a private prayer language.

Alan Cross, in a June 1 blog post, wrote that the data suggest that SBC leaders .were mistaken when they maintained that a "continualist" position on spiritual gifts--the belief that miraculous gifts given during the time of the apostles can still be used in the modern era--was "an extreme minority position in Southern Baptist life.

"For the past year-and-a-half, we have heard repeatedly from proponents of the IMB policies-guidelines that they were in the vast majority in Southern Baptist life. This study proves that they are clearly wrong," said Cross, pastor of Gateway Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama "Southern Baptists are very divided over this issue, and there is a wide range of opinion."

Ed Stetzer, LifeWay's director of research, said the report showed "significant openness" to private prayer languages in the denomination. Stetzer also noted that the "middle ground is not that large" on the issue.

Brad Waggoner, vice president of research, said he had not expected such a high number of "cessationist" pastors to emerge--people who believe the ability to perform miraculous acts ended with the apostles. The figure was 41 or 43 percent, depending on how the question was posed. Recent seminary graduates polled, however, leaned more to the cessationist view (55 percent).

At least one critic questioned the survey's methodology and motives. Malcolm Yarnell, assistant dean for theological studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the questions regarding private prayer practices were vague and made certain assumptions about the "gift" of tongues. "[What] has been shared with the public is insufficient for a thorough analysis of the survey itself," Yarnell wrote.​

Not only was the question deliberately vague but it was also unbiblical. Tongues cannot be a 'private prayer language' since scripture makes it abundantly clear that spiritual gifts are given for the benefit of others, not self (1 Cor 12:7, 1 Peter 4:10).

As the article notes, there was considerable criticism regarding the survey's methodology, motives, and timing (released days before the annual SBC conference). So I wouldn't hold much weight to it.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The context of 1 Cor 14:2 is church meetings, so the "no one" in v2 is not no one on the face of the earth, but no one in the congregation. And the specific problem that Paul is dealing with here is unrecognized tongues spoken in the congregation. So Paul begins the chapter by identifying the problem: "For one who speaks in an [unrecognized] tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one [in the congregation] understands". No one in the small Corinthian congregation understood the language spoken. Only God, who knows all languages, knows what was said. That doesn't mean it was a non-human language. If someone spoke Swahili in your church no one would understand either.

So what do you believe is the reason for the gift of interpretation of tongues?


The hermeneutical rule is that clearer passages are to shed light on less clear passages. The clear passage is Acts 2:4-11, the less clear is 1 Cor 14:2.

 

[Biblicist]

The context of 1 Cor 14:2 is church meetings, so the "no one" in v2 is not no one on the face of the earth, but no one in the congregation. And the specific problem that Paul is dealing with here is unrecognized tongues spoken in the congregation. So Paul begins the chapter by identifying the problem: "For one who speaks in an [unrecognized] tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one [in the congregation] understands". No one in the small Corinthian congregation understood the language spoken. Only God, who knows all languages, knows what was said. That doesn't mean it was a non-human language. If someone spoke Swahili in your church no one would understand either.

It intrigues me with how the worldview of the hardcore-cessationist compels them to not only stand against the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, but where they also see the need to diminish the role of the Father and the Son as well.

A good example of this is with how the hardcore-cessationist attempts to replace Paul's "when the perfect comes" in 1Cor 13, which speaks of the return of Christ with his future Heavenly Kingdom, to that of how the hardcore-cessationist vainly feels that their knowledge of the Word of God makes them perfect.

The hermeneutical rule is that clearer passages are to shed light on less clear passages. The clear passage is Acts 2:4-11, the less clear is 1 Cor 14:2.

What an odd thing to say, which I have little doubt that even you are embarrassed to have to say it.

How can you say that the brief information of Act 2 compares in any way to the indepth treatment of tongues within 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 - you are being absurd! Though Acts 2 does agree with 1Cor 14 in that when we either praise the Lord in the Spirit or pray in the Spirit that such things are always directed to the Father and not to man.

 

[Biblicist]

Not only was the question deliberately vague but it was also unbiblical. Tongues cannot be a 'private prayer language' since scripture makes it abundantly clear that spiritual gifts are given for the benefit of others, not self (1 Cor 12:7, 1 Peter 4:10).

As the article notes, there was considerable criticism regarding the survey's methodology, motives, and timing (released days before the annual SBC conference). So I wouldn't hold much weight to it.

If the questionnaire made reference to how we are to pray in the Spirit (tongues), then I suspect that any objection to this New Covenant provision would be little more than a false flag objection that hardcore-cessationists like to try and pull, where they construct a false premise and attempt to force the Scriptures into their worldview.

With the SBC situation I gather that many hold to a hyper-Calvinist view that prayer should not be offered if it attempts to alter events that God has supposedly already put in place; so any reference to the Holy Spirit praying to the Father on our behalf would understandably enrage the hyper-Calvinist.

 

[Biblicist]

Have you not read 1 Cor 13:8?

"But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away."​

​

Yep, this will occur at the Eschaton when the Lord returns with his Heavenly Kingdom.

Seeing as the whole of 1 Corinthians is a letter of rebuke where Paul tackles problem after problem within the Corinthian church, there is little doubt that Paul had received a letter of complaint from the elders about what was occurring in the church, and spiritual gifts along with many other issues were clearly causing division and problems within the church.

Even though Paul provides us with no indication that the operations of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) were causing problems within Corinth, we know from the previous chapters that there were certainly other issues at play such as the arrogance of the wealthy and powerful towards those who were less well off.

When it comes to any supposed or imagined problems with the Ministry of the Holy Spirit within the congregational meetings, I can easily understand that some of the more wealthy and important citizens of the Corinthian Church that they could (or probably would) have been envious of those who were of less status who were being blessed by the Holy Spirit but this type of envy is found in both Continuist and cessationist congregations.

In your dreams maybe. The fact is many evangelical scholars, when they examine this passage in detail (as opposed to the one-sentence treatments afforded by the commentators you quoted), come to the conclusion that "completeness", when the revelatory gifts cease, is not the second coming of Christ or the eternal state, but the completion of the canon and the maturing of the church. I have provided detailed expositions by 10 seminary professors in my last 2 posts. I suggest you read them and learn.

In this day and age there are very few reputable Evangelical scholars who would attempt to deny that Paul is speaking of the future return of the Lord and his Kingdom, which is evidenced by the incredible number of articles that can be found in our better Christian magazines and other articles ; though I can understand that the hardcore variety will still try and peddle this now discredit worldview. Anyone who has an ear that is open to this would be well aware that within mainstream Evangelicalism that hardcore-cessationism is found more within the left-wing and liberal component of the church.

As for your 10 professors, we can always find individuals who are often (but not always) known to very few outside of their own circles who will present worldviews that are in opposition to God's Word. Most of the names you provided were unknown to me where they do not appear to have been quoted by those who are recognised to be leaders in their field.

You should always try to find sources that have produced monologues on First Corinthians.

Paul says nothing of the sort.
Where does Paul say "tongues can never be understood by man"?
Where does Paul say "they are spoken in a heavenly language;"?

You have the annoying habit of pretending that you do not understand an opposing position when in fact you do - which is something that we both know!

If you want to argue against a given position there is no value with feigning ignorance where instead you should be engaging with the question with the wealth of information that has already been given to you; or is this evidence the problem and not the question?

 

[swordsman1]

It intrigues me with how the worldview of the hardcore-cessationist compels them to not only stand against the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, but where they also see the need to diminish the role of the Father and the Son as well.

Nonsense. Quite the opposite in fact. Cessationists do no stand against the Holy Spirit, they seek to defend His honor against the false teachings that abound about Him. In particular the charismatic and Pentecostal heresies of attributing to the Holy Spirit things which are not of Him.

A good example of this is with how the hardcore-cessationist attempts to replace Paul's "when the perfect comes" in 1Cor 13, which speaks of the return of Christ with his future Heavenly Kingdom, to that of how the hardcore-cessationist vainly feels that their knowledge of the Word of God makes them perfect.

You are right, 1 Cor 13:8-11 is a good example. As I have pointed out charismatics and Pentecostals see the words "perfect" (in some translations) and "face to face" and hastily jump to conclusion it is referring to the second coming, when closer inspection reveals that there is no mention of Christ or his return in this passage. It is an example of the unwarranted associative fallacy whereby a word or phrase triggers off an associated idea, concept, or experience that bears no close relation to the text at hand, yet is used to interpret the text. In fact "perfect" is not even the best translation as more and more translations such as the NIV have come to recognize and have subsequently changed their wording to "completeness".

Judging from what you have just written it is pretty obvious you haven't even read the cessationist expositions of this passage, because not one of them says it is "their knowledge of the Word of God makes them perfect."

What an odd thing to say, which I have little doubt that even you are embarrassed to have to say it.

If you think that is an odd statement then it is obvious that you still have little understanding of the principles of hermeneutics. The rule that scripture should be interpreted by other scriptures has been a fundamental principle of bible interpretation since the days of the Reformers when the Westminster Confession declared: "The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

I remember from our previous discussions you were also clueless about the principle of context, whereby immediate context takes priority over wider context. When I quoted one of the textbooks on hermeneutics you amazingly tried to twist the words of that too!

But none of that surprises me in the least, as the whole of Pentecostal and charismatic theology is based on faulty hermeneutics. The rule of thumb of their teachers is to read their own preconceived ideas into a text based on their own "experiences" rather than letting the passage speak for itself. That is the fallacy of eisogesis whereby someone reads into the text his own ideas - what the reader wants the text to mean - as opposed to exegesis where the true meaning is determined by the sender of the message, not the recipient.

How can you say that the brief information of Act 2 compares in any way to the indepth treatment of tongues within 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 - you are being absurd!

And where exactly in the "indepth treatment of tongues within 1Cor 12, 13 & 14" does Paul tell us exactly what the gift of tongues is? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer because I have asked you the same question numerous times before and you have never provided an answer. That is because there is only one definitive description of the gift of tongues in scripture and it is not in First Corinthians.

If the questionnaire made reference to how we are to pray in the Spirit (tongues), then I suspect that any objection to this New Covenant provision would be little more than a false flag objection that hardcore-cessationists like to try and pull, where they construct a false premise and attempt to force the Scriptures into their worldview.

How can it be a false premise when scripture clearly teaches that spiritual gifts are for the benefit of others? Have you read 1 Peter 4:10 and 1 Cor 12:7?

With the SBC situation I gather that many hold to a hyper-Calvinist view that prayer should not be offered if it attempts to alter events that God has supposedly already put in place;

Yet more nonsense. The SBC hold no view on whether one should be Calvinist or Armenian, let alone advocate hyper-calvinism. From their website:

What is the SBC's official view of the doctrine commonly known as "Calvinism?"
The Southern Baptist Convention has not taken an official stance on either Calvinism or Arminianism. If you surveyed Southern Baptists across the nation you would likely find adherents at both ends of the spectrum with plenty at each point in between.​

so any reference to the Holy Spirit praying to the Father on our behalf would understandably enrage the hyper-Calvinist.

There is no reference to tongues being the "Holy Spirit praying to the Father on our behalf". It was the human spirit that prayed in tongues not the Holy Spirit. Have you not read 1 Cor 14:14? "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays,". The only reference to the Holy Spirit interceding on our behalf is in Romans 8 and that passage has nothing to do with tongues.

Paul provides us with no indication that the operations of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) were causing problems within Corinth

Again you are wrong. Seeing as Paul devotes a whole chapter to the correct operation of the gift of tongues in the church, it is pretty obvious that the Corinthians were guilty of abusing the gift and Paul was correcting the problem. This point is made clear in 1 Cor 14:9: "So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?". Even Pentecostalism's Gordon Fee acknowledges this fact: "The problem is not speaking in tongues per se but speaking in tongues without interpretation - which from the context seems very likely what the Corinthians were doing." (The First Epistle to the Corinthians).

In this day and age there are very few reputable Evangelical scholars who would attempt to deny that Paul is speaking of the future return of the Lord and his Kingdom, which is evidenced by the incredible number of articles that can be found in our better Christian magazines and other articles ; though I can understand that the hardcore variety will still try and peddle this now discredit worldview. Anyone who has an ear that is open to this would be well aware that within mainstream Evangelicalism that hardcore-cessationism is found more within the left-wing and liberal component of the church.
As for your 10 professors, we can always find individuals who are often (but not always) known to very few outside of their own circles who will present worldviews that are in opposition to God's Word. Most of the names you provided were unknown to me where they do not appear to have been quoted by those who are recognised to be leaders in their field.

All of which is nothing more than your biased opinion. Seeing as I have been able to provide 10 more detailed academic papers and book excepts than you have, none of which you have been able to refute, it is quite apparent that the cessationist view of 1 Cor 13:8-13 is alive and well in the scholarly world and has been for some time, despite your wishful thinking to the contrary.

You should always try to find sources that have produced monologues on First Corinthians.

Bad advice. If you want to learn about spiritual gifts it is not a good idea to just pick up a commentary on First Corinthians. As they cover the whole of First Corinthians, and quite often Second Corinthians too, such commentators can only devote a fraction of their time to spiritual gifts and so become a "jack of all trades and master of none". As a result their exegesis tend to brief and weak, as we have seen from the inadequate and faulty one-sentence commentaries you provided. Far better to find sources whose entire focus is spiritual gifts which have far more exegetical depth such as Robert Thomas's 300 densely packed pages in "Understanding Spiritual Gifts" or the detailed multi-page individual expositions that I provided on 1 Cor 13:8-13.

You have the annoying habit of pretending that you do not understand an opposing position when in fact you do - which is something that we both know!
If you want to argue against a given position there is no value with feigning ignorance where instead you should be engaging with the question with the wealth of information that has already been given to you; or is this evidence the problem and not the question?

No, I am genuinely unaware of where Paul makes the statements you claim. If not for my benefit then for the benefit of others who are similarly perplexed, please tell us:
Where does Paul say "tongues can never be understood by man"?
Where does Paul say "they are spoken in a heavenly language;"?

 

[Biblicist]

You are right, 1 Cor 13:8-11 is a good example. As I have pointed out charismatics and Pentecostals see the words "perfect" (in some translations) and "face to face" and hastily jump to conclusion it is referring to the second coming, when closer inspection reveals that there is no mention of Christ or his return in this passage. It is an example of the unwarranted associative fallacy whereby a word or phrase triggers off an associated idea, concept, or experience that bears no close relation to the text at hand, yet is used to interpret the text. In fact "perfect" is not even the best translation as more and more translations such as the NIV have come to recognize and have subsequently changed their wording to "completeness".

Judging from what you have just written it is pretty obvious you haven't even read the cessationist expositions of this passage, because not one of them says it is "their knowledge of the Word of God makes them perfect."

I can appreciate that as much as the Word of God can be difficult to understand at time that this can be further exasperated when we attempt to add a given worldview or set of unbliblical filters that further compound things. What you have failed to notice, or maybe that you have decided to feign ignorance about, is that the hardcore-cessationist does indeed set himself up as being perfect if they try and claim that Paul is speaking of the Word of God or with the completion of the Canon with his "that which is perfect".

If you want to try and say that when Paul made reference to "completeness" that he was somehow referring to the Word of God, then you are forced to say that this makes us all perfect and complete where as we are now able to see God 'face to face', that we know all things; which is of course ridiculous which is why the vast majority of Evangelicals ditched this viewpoint way back in late 1970's:

1Cor 13 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.​

If you think that is an odd statement then it is obvious that you still have little understanding of the principles of hermeneutics. The rule that scripture should be interpreted by other scriptures has been a fundamental principle of bible interpretation since the days of the Reformers when the Westminster Confession declared: "The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

I remember from our previous discussions you were also clueless about the principle of context, whereby immediate context takes priority over wider context. When I quoted one of the textbooks on hermeneutics you amazingly tried to twist the words of that too!

But none of that surprises me in the least, as the whole of Pentecostal and charismatic theology is based on faulty hermeneutics. The rule of thumb of their teachers is to read their own preconceived ideas into a text based on their own "experiences" rather than letting the passage speak for itself. That is the fallacy of eisogesis whereby someone reads into the text his own ideas - what the reader wants the text to mean - as opposed to exegesis where the true meaning is determined by the sender of the message, not the recipient.

Hermeneutics and cessationism, these two terms are ones that we would not usually associate in the same sentence. In fact, the more prudent cessationist will openly acknowledge that their worldview is not so much theological (no surprise here) where it is deemed to be more philosophical, where many of us recognise this as being little more than theological skepticism.

And where exactly in the "indepth treatment of tongues within 1Cor 12, 13 & 14" does Paul tell us exactly what the gift of tongues is? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer because I have asked you the same question numerous times before and you have never provided an answer. That is because there is only one definitive description of the gift of tongues in scripture and it is not in First Corinthians.

It's difficult to know if you are again feigning ignorance or maybe even having a good laugh by throwing in a line that helps you to avoid giving a serious response.

How can it be a false premise when scripture clearly teaches that spiritual gifts are for the benefit of others? Have you read 1 Peter 4:10 and 1 Cor 12:7?

For a start 1Pet 4:10 makes no reference to the Manifestations of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) where Peter simply uses the standard Greek word for grace. As for 1Cor 12:7, as you have been told before, the Greek word συμφέρον sympheron speaks of the good and not specifically of the common good. This means that the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit are given to the good of the one and all, where Paul even says in 1Cor 14:4 that when someone speaks in a tongue that this edifies them. In 1Cor 14:13-19 Paul speaks of how he both prays and sings in the Spirit (tongues) and in his native tongue so how can we not be edified when we pray and offer praise to the Lord; to say that prayer and praise does not edify the individual stands in complete opposition to the basics of the Gospel and even tradition.

Yet more nonsense. The SBC hold no view on whether one should be Calvinist or Armenian, let alone advocate hyper-calvinism. From their website:

What is the SBC's official view of the doctrine commonly known as "Calvinism?"
The Southern Baptist Convention has not taken an official stance on either Calvinism or Arminianism. If you surveyed Southern Baptists across the nation you would likely find adherents at both ends of the spectrum with plenty at each point in between.​

How strange, on the one hand you 'appear' to be trying to say that Southern Baptists do not hold to Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism and then you provide evidence from the SBC website that says that they do; do you know what Calvinists and even hyper-Calvinists believe?

There is no reference to tongues being the "Holy Spirit praying to the Father on our behalf". It was the human spirit that prayed in tongues not the Holy Spirit. Have you not read 1 Cor 14:14? "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays,". The only reference to the Holy Spirit interceding on our behalf is in Romans 8 and that passage has nothing to do with tongues.

Oh, so you hold to a trichotomous understanding of man and not to the traditional (and Biblical) dichotomous understanding! For the dichotomost, as there is no such thing as an independent 'human spirit' then your point is of course moot. As Gordon Fee points out, Paul's use of pneuma can also be read as "as the Spirit of me" or the "Spirit that is within me". Any notion that when we pray in the Spirit that this is somehow generated by man is completely foreign to the Scriptures - in fact it is utter nonsense and an affront to the Holy Spirit, but such is the cessationist worldview.

Again you are wrong. Seeing as Paul devotes a whole chapter to the correct operation of the gift of tongues in the church, it is pretty obvious that the Corinthians were guilty of abusing the gift and Paul was correcting the problem. This point is made clear in 1 Cor 14:9: "So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?". Even Pentecostalism's Gordon Fee acknowledges this fact: "The problem is not speaking in tongues per se but speaking in tongues without interpretation - which from the context seems very likely what the Corinthians were doing." (The First Epistle to the Corinthians).

So you seem to be confusing your earlier reference to "infighting" with their improper use of tongues within the congregational setting; even a completely harmonious congregation can be out of order by allowing all to sing or pray in the Spirit all at once.

All of which is nothing more than your biased opinion. Seeing as I have been able to provide 10 more detailed academic papers and book excepts than you have, none of which you have been able to refute, it is quite apparent that the cessationist view of 1 Cor 13:8-13 is alive and well in the scholarly world and has been for some time, despite your wishful thinking to the contrary.

If we try hard enough we can always find sources that will agree with almost any particular worldview but as maybe only two or three of the sources that you provided appear to be peer reviewed within the monologue commentaries on First Corinthians, then it is obvious that in most part they are not being taken all that seriously by Evangelical commentators (let alone by Pentecostals and charismatics) which is why their names are unfamiliar to me.

Bad advice. If you want to learn about spiritual gifts it is not a good idea to just pick up a commentary on First Corinthians. As they cover the whole of First Corinthians, and quite often Second Corinthians too, such commentators can only devote a fraction of their time to spiritual gifts and so become a "jack of all trades and master of none". As a result their exegesis tend to brief and weak, as we have seen from the inadequate and faulty one-sentence commentaries you provided. Far better to find sources whose entire focus is spiritual gifts which have far more exegetical depth such as Robert Thomas's 300 densely packed pages in "Understanding Spiritual Gifts" or the detailed multi-page individual expositions that I provided on 1 Cor 13:8-13.

I can understand why as a cessationist that you are afraid of commentaries and particular with monologue commentaries on First Corinthians! I suppose that your unfamiliarity with commentaries might allow you to think that the they only skip over each passage but this is a fallacy that only a novice would hold to. A good example of this is with Thiselton's 1446 page commentary on First Corinthians (2001) where he provides about 11 detailed pages alone on 1Cor 12:3 and Keener provides about 700 pages on Acts 2 and of course I could go on and on; but I do realise that this is a common mistake that the novice can make.

No, I am genuinely unaware of where Paul makes the statements you claim. If not for my benefit then for the benefit of others who are similarly perplexed, please tell us:
Where does Paul say "tongues can never be understood by man"?
Where does Paul say "they are spoken in a heavenly language;"?

Here we go again - more games on your part! You know full well that Paul spells this out in 1Cor 14:2 and he then expands on this throughout 1Cor 14:9-19 and 20-25.

 

[swordsman1]

If you want to try and say that when Paul made reference to "completeness" that he was somehow referring to the Word of God, then you are forced to say that this makes us all perfect and complete where as we are now able to see God 'face to face', that we know all things; which is of course ridiculous which is why the vast majority of Evangelicals ditched this viewpoint way back in late 1970's:

You still don't get it. Read the passage again. It doesn't say we will "see God face to face". God or Jesus are not mentioned. You are succumbing to the unwarranted associative fallacy. As you have been told before, in the context of the revelatory gifts, Paul is saying that now (at the time of writing) God's revelation to man is like looking in a mirror dimly but when "completeness" comes then it will be like seeing face to face. The partial piecemeal revelations will be replaced by a complete revelation that will enable us to see and understands God's revelation to man in far greater clarity and detail.
You also clearly misunderstand what Paul means by "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully". He does not mean we will "know all things". Even at the Parousia we will not "know all things", so that disproves your theory right off the bat. Paul is not referring to general knowledge at all. The knowledge he is referring is the same knowledge in he is referring to in v9 - revelatory knowledge which will cease together with prophecy, to be replaced with a full knowledge of God's revelation to man.

Hermeneutics and cessationism, these two terms are ones that we would not usually associate in the same sentence. In fact, the more prudent cessationist will openly acknowledge that their worldview is not so much theological (no surprise here) where it is deemed to be more philosophical, where many of us recognise this as being little more than theological skepticism.
It's difficult to know if you are again feigning ignorance or maybe even having a good laugh by throwing in a line that helps you to avoid giving a serious response.

You do talk some nonsense at times.

For a start 1Pet 4:10 makes no reference to the Manifestations of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) where Peter simply uses the standard Greek word for grace.

Wrong. Peter is indeed referring to spiritual gifts.

First I suggest you try reading 1 Peter 4:10 in the context of the surrounding verses (I know examining verses in context is an unfamiliar practice for the continuationist). The verse is surrounded by examples of spiritual gifts: v9 "Offer hospitality" (cf.Rom 12:13), v11 "speaking the utterances of God" (cf. 1 Cor 12:10), v11 "If anyone serves" (cf. Rom 12:7).

Second the word for gift in 1 Peter 4:10 is charisma, the same word used for spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12, Romans 12, Romans 1:11, 1 Cor 1:7, 1 Tim 4:14 etc.

Third Peter recognizes that believers will each be given different gifts ("Each of you should use whatever gift you have received"), exactly as Paul describes spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12:12-31 and Romans 12:6.

Fourthly, seeing as you are one for commentaries I suggest you try reading a couple on this verse:

1 and 2 Peter, Jude by Thomas Schreiner (New American Commentary)
Paul used the term "gift' (charisma) quite often to designate spiritual gifts (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 1:7; 12:49,28,30-31; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). Believers cannot boast about the gift they have, for otherwise they contradict its gracious character, thinking that somehow they merit its bestowal. The gifts are manifestations of "God's grace in its various forms." It is also implied that each believer has received at least one spiritual gift, for Peter addressed his words to "each one' (hekastos). The notion that God has granted charismatic gifts to each believer is also Pauline (1 Cor 12:7). Even though every believer possesses at least one gift, the gifts are not necessarily the same. God's grace manifests itself "in its various forms, so that the diversity of gifts reveals the multifaceted character of God's grace. What is most important, of course, is the purpose for having gifts. Gifts are not given so that believers can congratulate themselves on their abilities. They are bestowed "to serve others.' The Word used here can be translated "ministering” (diakonountes), o The term "serving" can be used in a variety of ways-of providing meals (Matt 8:15; Mark 1:31; Luke 4:39; 10:40; 12:37; 17:8; John 12:2; Acts 6:2), of visiting those in prison (Matt 25:44; 2 Tim 1:18), of providing financial support (Luke 8:3; Rom 15:25; 2 Cor 8:19,20), and in more general terms as well (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:26-27; John 12:26; Acts 19:22; 2 Cor 3:3; 1 Tim 3: 10, 13; Philm 13; Heb 6: 10.414 The point is that spiritual gifts are given to serve and to help others, to strengthen others in the faith. They are bestowed for ministry, not to enhance self-esteem. Paul emphasized the same theme, reminding believers that gifts are given to build up and edify others, not to edify oneself (1 Cor 12:7,25–26; 14:1-19.26; Eph 4:11-12). When believers use their gifts to strengthen others, they are functioning as “good stewards” (NRSV, kaloi oikonomoi) of God's grace. The word translated "stewards' could also be translated as “managers” (cf. Luke 12:42; 16: 1,3,8; 1 Cor 4: 1-2; cf. Gal 4:2: Titus 1:7), as long as it is clear that believers hold these gifts in trust since they are gifts of God. Spiritual gifts are not fundamentally a privilege but a responsibility, a call to be faithful to what God has bestowed.​

1 Peter by M. Eugene Boring (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries)
In this context, the mention of the gifts that each Christian has received (4:10-11) is also intended to emphasize their purpose in strengthening the Christian community. The discussion reflects not only the distinctive vocabulary of Paul-"gift" is charisma, a term found only in Paul and in literature dependent on him-but the main lines of the Pauline understanding of the church. Every Christian has received a gift, there is a variety of gifts, and the gifts are not for individual self-aggrandizement but for edification of the Christian community as a whole. Yet 1 Peter does not merely repeat the Pauline teaching of 1 Corinthians and Romans: here the gifts are repeatedly referred to God, the Holy Spirit not being mentioned in this context, and the imagery of body and breath (spirit) is not found. There is no attention to the problem of the more sensationalistic gifts of tongues, prophecy, and miracles, and Christian ministry is divided into the two main categories of word and deed (4:11). Thus 4:10-11 is not only Pauline, but already illustrates the combination of Pauline and Palestinian traditions found in 5:1-5 below. The plethora of charismata in Paul are now divided into ministry of the word of God and Christian service to others, as in Acts (6:1-7). The gifts are still directly from God, but are seen in terms of the community structured around presbyterial leadership.
The development of the discussion on spiritual gifts seems to have proceeded in three stages: (1) Paul's initial vigorous and somewhat polemical argument about "spiritual gifts" in 1 Cor 12; (2) the more reflective and toned-down discussion in Rom 12; (3) the development of the later version of this tradition in Rome after his arrival there, and after his death on the basis of Romans and 1 Corinthians (and Ephesians?); and (4) its appearance in 1 Peter and 1 Clement (cf. 1 Clem. 19:2; 23:2; 32:1:35:1, 4:44:3) in the next generation. In 1 Peter, there is no longer a detailed list of charismatic phenomena to be evaluated, but the essential understanding remains: it is God who speaks and acts in the church's speaking and acting. ​

As for 1Cor 12:7, as you have been told before, the Greek word συμφέρον sympheron speaks of the good and not specifically of the common good.

Seeing as every bible translation has "for the common good" (or words to that effect), I suppose they have all got their translations wrong have they? You must write to their respective translation committees and inform them of their error which you have discovered.

It seems your own Gordon Fee has also got it wrong, so you'd better write to him as well:

The First Epistle to the Corinthians
Such diversity in God manifests itself, Paul argues further, by the one God's distributing to the many of them different manifestations of the Spirit for the common good (v.7).
...
the Spirit has given diverse manifestations to different people for the common good of the community (v.7).
...
Third, probably to give a proper balance to “each one," he concludes with the reason for this great diversity: "for the common good." By so doing he anticipates the concern of chaps. 13 and 14, that the gifts are for the building up of the community as a whole, not primarily for the benefit of the individual believer.
...
the way they are being called to is one that seeks the good of others before oneself. It is the way of edifying the church (14:1-5), of seeking the common good (12:7). In that context one will still earnestly desire the things of the Spirit (14:1), but precisely so that others will be edified.​

Even your beloved Thiselton has got it wrong too:

This is parallel to 10:33, do not seek individual advantage, and to 10:23, where building up constitutes the common advantage (cf. also 6:12; 7:35). To the primary criterion of pointing to the Lordship of Christ or Christlikeness (12:3) as a mark of being authentically activated by the Spirit, Paul now adds a second criterion: the Spirit is at work where the public manifestation serves the common advantage of others, and not merely selfaffirmation, self-fulfillment, or individual status. The Spirit produces visible effects for the profit of all, not for self-glorification. If the latter is prominent, suspicion is invited. Ötöoral reflects both a continuous process of giving, and the sovereignty of God in choosing and in freely giving.​

What were they all thinking?

How strange, on the one hand you 'appear' to be trying to say that Southern Baptists do not hold to Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism and then you provide evidence from the SBC website that says that they do; do you know what Calvinists and even hyper-Calvinists believe?

I suggest you read what I posted again. The website does not say any of them are hyper-calvinist, it merely says some are calvinist, some are arminian, and all points in between. As opposed to your disingenuous allegation that many of them are hyper-calvinist.

Oh, so you hold to a trichotomous understanding of man and not to the traditional (and Biblical) dichotomous understanding! For the dichotomost, as there is no such thing as an independent 'human spirit' then your point is of course moot.

It seems this is yet another thing you are confused about. Since when does the dichotomist view not believe that man has a spirit? The dichotomist believes man has a body and soul/spirit (the 2 immaterial aspects being synonymous). The trichotomist believes in a body, and separate soul and spirit.

Scripture certainly makes clear that man has a spirit (eg Luke 1:46–47; 1 Cor 5:3; 7:34). And it is this same spirit that prayed in tongues (1 Cor 14:14) "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays,". We know that continuists has a habit of twisting Paul's words, but here it seems you are wishing to erase them as well.

If we try hard enough we can always find sources that will agree with almost any particular worldview but as maybe only two or three of the sources that you provided appear to be peer reviewed within the monologue commentaries on First Corinthians, then it is obvious that in most part they are not being taken all that seriously by Evangelical commentators (let alone by Pentecostals and charismatics) which is why their names are unfamiliar to me.

All of them are peer reviewed. As eight of them are excerpts from books from major publishers they would have been reviewed by the publishers editorial review board who will not print any old rubbish that might damage their reputation and cost them money (not that seminary professors are likely to write rubbish). The 3 academic papers were published in theological journals who have an equally demanding review process.

You are simply grasping at straws in order to try to discredit those cessationist authors. Why don't you try refuting them instead, if you think they are wrong?

You know full well that Paul spells this out in 1Cor 14:2 and he then expands on this throughout 1Cor 14:9-19 and 20-25.

Paul says nothing of the sort in 1 Cor 14:2. The word 'never' doesn't appear. You wouldn't be trying to deceive people by putting words into Paul's mouth again would you? It seems like the fallacy of eisogesis is raising it's ugly head again. As has been explained to you on numerous occasions, the context of this chapter is unrecognized tongues spoken in the congregation. Now read the verse again, this time taking note of the context.

 

[Biblicist]

You still don't get it. Read the passage again. It doesn't say we will "see God face to face". God or Jesus are not mentioned. You are succumbing to the unwarranted associative fallacy. As you have been told before, in the context of the revelatory gifts, Paul is saying that now (at the time of writing) God's revelation to man is like looking in a mirror dimly but when "completeness" comes then it will be like seeing face to face. The partial piecemeal revelations will be replaced by a complete revelation that will enable us to see and understands God's revelation to man in far greater clarity and detail.
You also clearly misunderstand what Paul means by "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully". He does not mean we will "know all things". Even at the Parousia we will not "know all things", so that disproves your theory right off the bat. Paul is not referring to general knowledge at all. The knowledge he is referring is the same knowledge in he is referring to in v9 - revelatory knowledge which will cease together with prophecy, to be replaced with a full knowledge of God's revelation to man.

I am at least impressed with your imagination but I suppose the hardcore-cessationist mindset does have a tendency to rework or adjust their arguments when things are not going all that well. Even though it was a valiant attempt on your part to rephrase an argument to suit your agenda, it still misses the cessationist position which is that the completion of God's written Word is when we "will see face to face". As I said, I can understand why you have tried to reword the cessationist position but the vast majority of Evangelicals discarded any notion that Paul is speaking of anything but the Parousia when the Lord returns with his Kingdom by the late 1970's - it is simply a dead dog that only hardcore-cessationists still try to dig up from time to time.

First I suggest you try reading 1 Peter 4:10 in the context of the surrounding verses (I know examining verses in context is an unfamiliar practice for the continuationist). The verse is surrounded by examples of spiritual gifts: v9 "Offer hospitality" (cf.Rom 12:13), v11 "speaking the utterances of God" (cf. 1 Cor 12:10), v11 "If anyone serves" (cf. Rom 12:7).

Second the word for gift in 1 Peter 4:10 is charisma, the same word used for spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12, Romans 12, Romans 1:11, 1 Cor 1:7, 1 Tim 4:14 etc.

Third Peter recognizes that believers will each be given different gifts ("Each of you should use whatever gift you have received"), exactly as Paul describes spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12:12-31 and Romans 12:6.

Fourthly, seeing as you are one for commentaries I suggest you try reading a couple on this verse:

As you have stated that you are unfamiliar with the commentaries on First Corinthians, or with the use of commentaries in general, this means that you would be unaware of the incredible amount of discussion that has developed over Paul's use of two particular Greek words which are pneumatikon and charisma, where any prudent scholar will approach these terms with great caution and where many will qualify not so much what Paul meant but with what he could have meant with these terms; this is why I never use the term 'spiritual gifts' where I will generally refer to them as ". . . (aka, spiritual gifts)".

Unless we have a clear understanding or even an awareness of words such as pneumatikon, charisma and phanerisos tou pnoumatos (manifestations of the Spirit), then any discussion on the subject of spiritual-graces becomes a fruitless task.

Even with Schreiner's commentary I am not sure if he fully understands the differences between the words and from what I am reading from the commentary you provided I am not sure what he is trying to say, which may reflect his own possible uncertainty on the question:

1 and 2 Peter, Jude by Thomas Schreiner (New American Commentary)
Paul used the term "gift' (charisma) quite often to designate spiritual gifts . . . ​

Boring has at least recognised that Peter is speaking of the graces that God gives to us and that Peter is not specifically referring to the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit but to God. Without knowing more about his thoughts on this matter it is difficult to know what his full thoughts are on this matter but he has at least made a proper delineation between the graces that are of the Spirit and the ones that are of the Father:

1 Peter by M. Eugene Boring (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries)
. . . Yet 1 Peter does not merely repeat the Pauline teaching of 1 Corinthians and Romans: here the gifts are repeatedly referred to God, the Holy Spirit not being mentioned in this context, and the imagery of body and breath (spirit) is not found. There is no attention to the problem of the more sensationalistic gifts of tongues, prophecy, and miracles, and Christian ministry is divided into the two main categories of word and deed (4:11). . .[/quote]
​

Seeing as every bible translation has "for the common good" (or words to that effect), I suppose they have all got their translations wrong have they? You must write to their respective translation committees and inform them of their error which you have discovered.

As I have pointed this fallacy out to your previously and that the readers of the versions that are in bold below would wonder what you are talking about, I am surprised that you have decided to repeat this old wives tale.

The following versions have wisely avoided prefacing the Greek word sympheron with 'common' as they have recognised that it is unwarranted (see bold below):

New International Version
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
New Living Translation
A spiritual gift is given to each of us so we can help each other.
English Standard Version
To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
Berean Study Bible
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
Berean Literal Bible
Now to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit, for the common profiting.
New American Standard Bible
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
King James Bible
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
A demonstration of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial:
International Standard Version
To each person has been given the ability to manifest the Spirit for the common good.
NET Bible
To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all.
New Heart English Bible
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But the revelation of The Spirit is given to each man as He helps him.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
The evidence of the Spirit's presence is given to each person for the common good of everyone.
New American Standard 1977
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
Jubilee Bible 2000
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one to profit with.
King James 2000 Bible
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man for profit.
American King James Version
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit with.
American Standard Version
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit.
Darby Bible Translation
But to each the manifestation of the Spirit is given for profit.
English Revised Version
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.
Webster's Bible Translation
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man for profit.
Weymouth New Testament
But to each of us a manifestation of the Spirit has been granted for the common good.
World English Bible
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all.
Young's Literal Translation
And to each hath been given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit;
​

Additional texts added:

Lexham English Bible
7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for what is beneficial to all. [italics]
New King James Version
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: [italics]
JB Philips
. . . Each man is given his gift by the Spirit that he may make the most of it.
Wycliffe Bible
And to each man the showing of Spirit is given to profit.
Orthodox Jewish Bible
But to each is given the disclosure of the Ruach Hakodesh for benefit:
Amplified Bible (Classic Edition)
But to each one is given the manifestation of the [Holy] Spirit [the evidence, the spiritual illumination of the Spirit] for good and profit.​

It seems your own Gordon Fee has also got it wrong, so you'd better write to him as well:

The First Epistle to the Corinthians
Such diversity in God manifests itself, Paul argues further, by the one God's distributing to the many of them different manifestations of the Spirit for the common good (v.7).
...
the Spirit has given diverse manifestations to different people for the common good of the community (v.7).
...
Third, probably to give a proper balance to “each one," he concludes with the reason for this great diversity: "for the common good." By so doing he anticipates the concern of chaps. 13 and 14, that the gifts are for the building up of the community as a whole, not primarily for the benefit of the individual believer.
...
the way they are being called to is one that seeks the good of others before oneself. It is the way of edifying the church (14:1-5), of seeking the common good (12:7). In that context one will still earnestly desire the things of the Spirit (14:1), but precisely so that others will be edified.[/quote]​

Fee was not incorrect as he rightly states in the commentary you quoted "not primarily..." where Fee tells us that he understands that the Manifestations of the Spirit benefit both the individual and the rest of the congregation.

[[Even your beloved Thiselton has got it wrong too:

This is parallel to 10:33, do not seek individual advantage, and to 10:23, where building up constitutes the common advantage (cf. also 6:12; 7:35). To the primary criterion of pointing to the Lordship of Christ or Christlikeness (12:3) as a mark of being authentically activated by the Spirit, Paul now adds a second criterion: the Spirit is at work where the public manifestation serves the common advantage of others, and not merely selfaffirmation, self-fulfillment, or individual status. The Spirit produces visible effects for the profit of all, not for self-glorification. If the latter is prominent, suspicion is invited. Ötöoral reflects both a continuous process of giving, and the sovereignty of God in choosing and in freely giving.​

What were they all thinking?]]​

Thiselton was correct in the he also makes reference to "the primary criterion . . . and public manifestation". So Thiselton understand that the Manifestations of the Spirit have both a corporate application and a private application.

As much as you were ill advised to select both Fee and Thiselton, as they in fact disagreed with your presumption, there are certainly other Continuist commentators who can be sloppy on this question.

I suggest you read what I posted again. The website does not say any of them are hyper-calvinist, it merely says some are calvinist, some are arminian, and all points in between. As opposed to your disingenuous allegation that many of them are hyper-calvinist.

Again, you need to gain a better understanding of the Calvinist and especially with the hyper-Calvinist understanding of prayer particularly within the SBC.

It seems this is yet another thing you are confused about. Since when does the dichotomist view not believe that man has a spirit? The dichotomist believes man has a body and soul/spirit (the 2 immaterial aspects being synonymous). The trichotomist believes in a body, and separate soul and spirit.

Scripture certainly makes clear that man has a spirit (eg Luke 1:46–47; 1 Cor 5:3; 7:34). And it is this same spirit that prayed in tongues (1 Cor 14:14) "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays,". We know that continuists has a habit of twisting Paul's words, but here it seems you are wishing to erase them as well.

Interesting indeed! You've certainly surprised me here as I would have thought that everyone understood that the dichotomist rejects that man has a distinct spirit where he is comprised of a Body and Soul. The classic-dichotomist views the references to the spirit and soul as being interchangeable which is something that I struggled with for the first couple of decades. This is why I refer to myself as being a functional dichotomist as I reject this position outright, where instead I view the spirit as speaking of man's thoughts, deliberations and mood; so man is still comprised of only a body and soul but the term spirit refers specifically to things that I have mentioned.

All of them are peer reviewed. As eight of them are excerpts from books from major publishers they would have been reviewed by the publishers editorial review board who will not print any old rubbish that might damage their reputation and cost them money (not that seminary professors are likely to write rubbish). The 3 academic papers were published in theological journals who have an equally demanding review process.

You are simply grasping at straws in order to try to discredit those cessationist authors. Why don't you try refuting them instead, if you think they are wrong?

It's not so much about discrediting them as I am merely stating that in most part very few if any commentators who have produced monologue commentaries on First Corinthians seem to bother with their input as the commentary of the hardcore-cessationist commentator is often little more than verbose ramblings that are obviously based on agenda and not honest theological discussion. Remember, even though I often quote not only Pentecostal and charismatic scholars, I also regularly quote those scholars who are "open-but-cautious", where they are neither cessationist or Continuist but I even quote those who I would place in the cessationist camp as they can faithfully and accurately disseminate God's Word; unfortunately, when it comes to many hardcore-cessationist commentators they often seem to approach God's word dishonestly or by slight of hand.

Paul says nothing of the sort in 1 Cor 14:2. The word 'never' doesn't appear. You wouldn't be trying to deceive people by putting words into Paul's mouth again would you? It seems like the fallacy of eisogesis is raising it's ugly head again. As has been explained to you on numerous occasions, the context of this chapter is unrecognized tongues spoken in the congregation. Now read the verse again, this time taking note of the context.

No you are grasping at straws again. Paul's use of "no man", not some men or a few men but with "no man" means exactly that - absolutely no one, which he goes on to further elaborate in 1Cor 14.
. . . . . . .

As I have said on numerous occasions, most contemporary and prudent hardcore-cessationists will admit that their world view cannot be found from within the Scriptures, where instead they base their world view on a philosophical construct. If you wish to stop wasting your time trying to defend your world view from within the Scriptures you might want to try and gain a better understanding of the philosophical approach to the defence of hardcore-cessationism.

Edit: Added in additional Bible versions.

 

[swordsman1]

I am at least impressed with your imagination but I suppose the hardcore-cessationist mindset does have a tendency to rework or adjust their arguments when things are not going all that well. Even though it was a valiant attempt on your part to rephrase an argument to suit your agenda, it still misses the cessationist position which is that the completion of God's written Word is when we "will see face to face". As I said, I can understand why you have tried to reword the cessationist position but the vast majority of Evangelicals discarded any notion that Paul is speaking of anything but the Parousia when the Lord returns with his Kingdom by the late 1970's - it is simply a dead dog that only hardcore-cessationists still try to dig up from time to time.

It's not so much about discrediting them as I am merely stating that in most part very few if any commentators who have produced monologue commentaries on First Corinthians seem to bother with their input as the commentary of the hardcore-cessationist commentator is often little more than verbose ramblings that are obviously based on agenda and not honest theological discussion. Remember, even though I often quote not only Pentecostal and charismatic scholars, I also regularly quote those scholars who are "open-but-cautious", where they are neither cessationist or Continuist but I even quote those who I would place in the cessationist camp as they can faithfully and accurately disseminate God's Word; unfortunately, when it comes to many hardcore-cessationist commentators they often seem to approach God's word dishonestly or by slight of hand.

As I have said on numerous occasions, most contemporary and prudent hardcore-cessationists will admit that their world view cannot be found from within the Scriptures, where instead they base their world view on a philosophical construct. If you wish to stop wasting your time trying to defend your world view from within the Scriptures you might want to try and gain a better understanding of the philosophical approach to the defence of hardcore-cessationism.

I won't bother replying to these paragraphs as they contain nothing of substance and mainly consist of your tired old anti-cessationist mantra, the clichés of which you repeat ad nauseum, being nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. How about trying to refute the cessationist position rather than your usual ad hominem mud-slinging exercises?

Even with Schreiner's commentary I am not sure if he fully understands the differences between the words and from what I am reading from the commentary you provided I am not sure what he is trying to say, which may reflect his own possible uncertainty on the question:

1 and 2 Peter, Jude by Thomas Schreiner (New American Commentary)
Paul used the term "gift' (charisma) quite often to designate spiritual gifts . . .
Boring has at least recognised that Peter is speaking of the graces that God gives to us and that Peter is not specifically referring to the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit but to God. Without knowing more about his thoughts on this matter it is difficult to know what his full thoughts are on this matter but he has at least made a proper delineation between the graces that are of the Spirit and the ones that are of the Father:

1 Peter by M. Eugene Boring (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries)
. . . Yet 1 Peter does not merely repeat the Pauline teaching of 1 Corinthians and Romans: here the gifts are repeatedly referred to God, the Holy Spirit not being mentioned in this context, and the imagery of body and breath (spirit) is not found. There is no attention to the problem of the more sensationalistic gifts of tongues, prophecy, and miracles, and Christian ministry is divided into the two main categories of word and deed (4:11). . .

Shreiner knows exactly what he is talking about. If you had studied 1 Cor 12 to even a minimal level you would know that the gifts listed in this chapter are charisma (1 Cor 12:4, 31), the exact same term that Peter uses in 1 Pet 4:10. Although I can understand why the glossolalist would try to disassociate this verse from spiritual gifts, as it destroys their idea that tongues can be for personal use, the numerous parallels between the gifts of 1 Peter 4:8-11 and the gifts of 1 Cor 12-14 are too strong for it to be anything other than the same thing, as the commentators point out.

Boring likewise leaves us in no doubt as to relationship between the gifts of 1 Peter 4:10 and the Pauline gifts: "The discussion reflects not only the distinctive vocabulary of Paul - "gift" is charisma, a term found only in Paul and in literature dependent on him - but the main lines of the Pauline understanding of the church...Thus 4:10-11 is not only Pauline, but already illustrates the combination of Pauline and Palestinian traditions found in 5:1-5 below. "

The following versions have wisely avoided prefacing the Greek word sympheron with 'common' as they have recognised that it is unwarranted (see bold below):

New International Version
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
New Living Translation
A spiritual gift is given to each of us so we can help each other.
English Standard Version
To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
Berean Study Bible
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
Berean Literal Bible
Now to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit, for the common profiting.
New American Standard Bible
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
King James Bible
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
A demonstration of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial:
International Standard Version
To each person has been given the ability to manifest the Spirit for the common good.
NET Bible
To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all.
New Heart English Bible
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But the revelation of The Spirit is given to each man as He helps him.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
The evidence of the Spirit's presence is given to each person for the common good of everyone.
New American Standard 1977
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
Jubilee Bible 2000
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one to profit with.
King James 2000 Bible
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man for profit.
American King James Version
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit with.
American Standard Version
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit.
Darby Bible Translation
But to each the manifestation of the Spirit is given for profit.
English Revised Version
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.
Webster's Bible Translation
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man for profit.
Weymouth New Testament
But to each of us a manifestation of the Spirit has been granted for the common good.
World English Bible
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all.
Young's Literal Translation
And to each hath been given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit;

Seeing as "withal" in the King James bible is a Middle English word which means "with all" (see withal - definition of withal in English | Oxford Dictionaries), then this too says that the 1 Cor gifts are given for profit with everyone. As a couple of translations copy the KJV's language that only leaves you with 9 out of 50+ english translation, all of which are obscure rarely used translations such as the "Aramaic Bible in Plain English". All the main well respected translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV etc render it as "for the common good". So you'd better get writing to inform them that their Greek scholars have all got it wrong. Until they change their wording I think it is safe to say the strong consensus among them that spiritual gifts are given "for the common good" is the correct translation, as both Fee and Thiselton concur. Your idea that this translation is unwarranted is simply nothing more than wishful thinking.

Interesting indeed! You've certainly surprised me here as I would have thought that everyone understood that the dichotomist rejects that man has a distinct spirit where he is comprised of a Body and Soul. The classic-dichotomist views the references to the spirit and soul as being interchangeable which is something that I struggled with for the first couple of decades. This is why I refer to myself as being a functional dichotomist as I reject this position outright, where instead I view the spirit as speaking of man's thoughts, deliberations and mood; so man is still comprised of only a body and soul but the term spirit refers specifically to things that I have mentioned.

You seriously need to brush up not only on the doctrines of spiritual gifts but also on things such as the tripartite vs bipartite view of man. I suggest you get hold of a book on the basic doctrines of the Christian faith which will help you to understand such things. Such books, even by continuist authors like Wayne Grudem, will tell you that the dichotomist view is man having a synomymous spirit/soul as well as a body.

Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith by Wayne Grudem
Another view is called dichotomy. This view teaches that "spirit” is not a separate part of man, but simply another term for "soul” and that both terms are used interchangeably in Scripture to talk about the immaterial part of man, the part that lives on after our bodies die. Therefore, man is made up of two parts (body and soul/spirit). Those who hold this view often agree that Scripture uses the word "spirit” (Heb. riach and Gk. pneuma) more frequently when referring to our relationship to God, but such usage, they say, is not uniform, and the word soul is also used in all the ways that spirit can be used. (However, many people who hold to some kind of dichotomy also affirm that the Bible most often views man as a unity, and that there is much interaction between our material and immaterial parts.)​

No you are grasping at straws again. Paul's use of "no man", not some men or a few men but with "no man" means exactly that - absolutely no one, which he goes on to further elaborate in 1Cor 14.

Yes, and what is the context? Unrecognized tongues spoken in the congregation. Absolutely no one in the congregation will understand when an unrecognized tongue is spoken among them. That doesn't mean it is a non-human heavenly language. That is something you are eisogetically reading into the text. Absolutely no mention is made of it being a non-human or heavenly language. The verse is dealing with the situation of somebody speaking a language, eg. Persian, that nobody in the congregation understands, which is exactly what was happening in Corinth as the rest of the chapter makes clear.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I am beginning to read this whole thread. In Acts Paul taught that the times and places of our births are set to cause us to reach out to God who is not far from each one of us. The gifts of knowledge and prophecy compliment scripture. We only know part of God's will for our lives in the whole Bible, and the role as teacher, missionary or evangelist are up to God between you and Him. And the same for where you ought to speak. And Jesus chose His disciples not by wisdom but in prayer, and so we ought to hear from God as to what to say and who to address in preaching and even intercession.

The canon is not complete. Paul said his own view which is partly expressed in the canon of scripture, is a dim reflection.

The Holy Spirit reveals the meaning of scripture as in 1 John, the anointing explains things. More at the end of the age, we need the vocal gifts, and God will supply our needs as we reach out to Him.

 

[Biblicist]

Shreiner knows exactly what he is talking about. If you had studied 1 Cor 12 to even a minimal level you would know that the gifts listed in this chapter are charisma (1 Cor 12:4, 31), the exact same term that Peter uses in 1 Pet 4:10. Although I can understand why the glossolalist would try to disassociate this verse from spiritual gifts, as it destroys their idea that tongues can be for personal use, the numerous parallels between the gifts of 1 Peter 4:8-11 and the gifts of 1 Cor 12-14 are too strong for it to be anything other than the same thing, as the commentators point out.

Boring likewise leaves us in no doubt as to relationship between the gifts of 1 Peter 4:10 and the Pauline gifts: "The discussion reflects not only the distinctive vocabulary of Paul - "gift" is charisma, a term found only in Paul and in literature dependent on him - but the main lines of the Pauline understanding of the church...Thus 4:10-11 is not only Pauline, but already illustrates the combination of Pauline and Palestinian traditions found in 5:1-5 below. "

As there is probably very little new original commentary that I expect to come across on First Corinthians 12, 13 &14, Acts 2, Rom 12, Eph 4:11 and 1 Pet 4, especially from within the various monologues on First Corinthians, then this undoubtedly gives me the advantage in that there is probably “very little new under the sun” that I expect to encounter at this point of time. As for the input of those scholars who for some strange reason are still within the hardcore-cessationist camp, as their deliberations on this humanist-rationalist worldview are now very old and tired, then I hardly expect to encounter anything of value from them in regard to Pneumatology and with 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 in particular.

Seeing as "withal" in the King James bible is a Middle English word which means "with all" (see withal - definition of withal in English | Oxford Dictionaries), then this too says that the 1 Cor gifts are given for profit with everyone. As a couple of translations copy the KJV's language that only leaves you with 9 out of 50+ english translation, all of which are obscure rarely used translations such as the "Aramaic Bible in Plain English". All the main well respected translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV etc render it as "for the common good". So you'd better get writing to inform them that their Greek scholars have all got it wrong. Until they change their wording I think it is safe to say the strong consensus among them that spiritual gifts are given "for the common good" is the correct translation, as both Fee and Thiselton concur. Your idea that this translation is unwarranted is simply nothing more than wishful thinking.

The use of the now archaic withal in the KJV is interesting in that its predecessor the Wycliffe Bible chose to carefully follow the Greek meaning which is to profit (singular & plural). Over the years when I have read the KJV I never saw it as referring to either the singular or plural but as an odd word with no apparent meaning. Even the “successors” to the KJV have dropped the word and the NKJV even chose to place of all in italics to indicate that it was not a part of the Greek word it was translating.

As I do not have any KJV commentaries on First Corinthians and I cannot locate my old Vine’s NT Concordance which I packed away quite a few years back, I will have to rely on my Young’s Concordance (which I only just found by chance) which has in relation to 1Cor 12:7 “To bear together, advantage”. Going by the successors to the KJV (1611), it seems that they have seen withal as following the Oxford definition which is “In addition; as a further factor or consideration”.

My BibleWorks program has provided a Strong’s lexical analysis of how the AV has employed the Greek word symphero:

4851 συμφέρω sumphero {soom-fer'-o}
Meaning: 1) to bear or bring together 2) to bear together or at the same time 2a) to carry with others 2b) to collect or contribute in order to help 2c) to help, be profitable, be expedient
Origin: from 4862 and 5342 (including its alternate); TDNT - 9:69,1252; v
Usage: AV - be expedient 7, profit 4, be profitable 3, bring together 1, be better 1, be good 1; 17​

The following Dictionary shows that the primary meaning of symphero is to be useful/advantageous:

Spoiler: EDNT Dictionary

4986

συμφέρω sympherœ bring together; assist, help; be advantageous, useful*

1. Occurrences in the NT — 2. Grammatical peculiarities — 3. Primary considerations regarding meaning

Bibliography

Lit.: BAGD s.v. — BDF index s.v. — K. WEISS, TDNT IX, 69-78.

1. Συμφέρω occurs 15 times in the NT, slightly more frequently in the narrative writings (9 times in the Gospels and Acts), though with no less significance in the epistolary literature (5 occurrences in Paul, 1 in Hebrews). On secular, OT, and Jewish usage cf. Weiss 69-75.

2. Συμφέρω can appear in various constructions with its intrans. meaning be useful, advantageous: absolute in 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23: οὐ πάντα συμφέρει; 2 Cor 12:1: οὐ συμφέρον; with dat. of the person benefited in 2 Cor 8:10 (cf. also Matt 5:29, 30, etc.; frequently documented in classical Greek and papyri: Mayser, Grammatik II/2, 265). The direction and goal of the advantage or benefit is indicated by a ἵνα clause in Matt 5:29, 30; 18:6; John 11:50; 16:7; by an inf. in Matt 19:10; by acc. with inf. in John 18:14. Subst. partc. in Acts 20:20 (pl.); 1 Cor 12:7 (sg.); Heb 12:10 (sg. with prep.): something useful or beneficial (cf. Mayser, Grammatik II/1, 2; II/2, index [623]).

3. The most significant connotations of συμφέρω in both the Gospels and the Epistles are found in the meaning be useful/advantageous.

a) Matthew uses συμφέρω in exaggerated figures of speech (5:29, 30: mutilation of the body; 18:6: drowning with a millstone fastened round the neck) to throw the irreplaceable value (συμφέρει with personal dat.) of eternal salvation into relief over against earthly advantages. 19:10 can be understood in a similarly radical fashion of figurative exaggeration (cf. 19:12: mutilation of the body): Jesus' unequivocal stance (no more divorce!) is contrasted with human excuses (then better no marriage at all!). The difference is that in the first case it is a genuinely "spiritual" advantage or benefit, in the second merely an "earthly-human" one — despite the apparent posture of renunciation on the part of the disciples.

b) Whereas Matthew is inclined to introduce συμφέρω in the context of Church problems, John's use is more christocentric. The benefit of Jesus' death is at first perceived, according to the suggestion of Caiaphas, as being done with a bothersome rebel (11:50; cf. 18:14). This is then interpreted from a soteriological perspective and seen to be at work in gathering God's dispersed people (11:51f.). 16:7 sees the future value of Christ's return to the Father: It is what precipitates the sending of the Paraclete and its inaugurating activity in the community of disciples (16:8).

c) Paul focuses on advantage for the Church and its growth. Freedom misused for the sake of one's own advantage (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23, probably referring to libertine slogans — "all things are allowed"; Paul counters vehemently with "but not all things are helpful") helps the Church as little as does egocentric charismatic activity (12:7). This includes also the apostle's advice to bring to a conclusion the collection for the Jerusalem church (2 Cor 8:10), as well as the Lukan reference (Acts 20:20) to the profitable, obvious effects of the Pauline proclamation; in contrast, Paul's own boasting in the ironic fashion of fool's talk is of no use at all (2 Cor 12:1), unless it serves to irritate his adversaries and shake up the congregation (12:11).

d) Heb 12:10 speaks of the instructional benefit of the present tribulations for a person's maturing process toward sanctification and righteousness. In Acts 19:19 συμφέρω is used literally: Magic books are brought together to be burned.

e) In summary, NT use of συμφέρω places not human-earthly benefit and personal advantage in the conceptual foreground, but rather the welfare and growth of the Church (Matthew, Paul). These goals in their own turn are based on the salvation work of Jesus Christ and the Paraclete (John).

A. Kretzer [3:289]

As for the very popular versions that you have decided to summarily dismiss as being irrelevant, let alone with the KJV and its ‘successors’ particularly with the highly popular NKJV which decided to remove any uncertainty by placing “of all” in brackets, we also have the SBC standard text being that of the Holman Bible and we also have the immensely popular (don’t really know why) Amplified Bible.

From a quick glance, it seems that the erroneous term "the common good" has crept into our translations from about the late 1950's, though a number have gone against this unwarranted trend.

• King James Bible
  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
• Holman Christian Standard Bible
  A demonstration of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial:
• King James 2000 Bible
  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man for profit.
• American King James Version
  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit with.
• American Standard Version
  But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.
• Douay-Rheims Bible
  And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit.
• English Revised Version
  But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.

Popular Versions added in after you replied (one’s that I should have included):

• New King James Version
  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: [italics]
• Lexham English Bible
  7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for what is beneficial
• JB Philips
  . . . Each man is given his gift by the Spirit that he may make the most of it.
• Amplified Bible (Classic Edition)
  But to each one is given the manifestation of the [Holy] Spirit [the evidence, the spiritual illumination of the Spirit] for good and profit.

You seriously need to brush up not only on the doctrines of spiritual gifts but also on things such as the tripartite vs bipartite view of man. I suggest you get hold of a book on the basic doctrines of the Christian faith which will help you to understand such things. Such books, even by continuist authors like Wayne Grudem, will tell you that the dichotomist view is man having a synomymous spirit/soul as well as a body.

Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith by Wayne Grudem
Another view is called dichotomy. This view teaches that "spirit” is not a separate part of man, but simply another term for "soul” and that both terms are used interchangeably in Scripture to talk about the immaterial part of man, the part that lives on after our bodies die. Therefore, man is made up of two parts (body and soul/spirit). Those who hold this view often agree that Scripture uses the word "spirit” (Heb. riach and Gk. pneuma) more frequently when referring to our relationship to God, but such usage, they say, is not uniform, and the word soul is also used in all the ways that spirit can be used. (However, many people who hold to some kind of dichotomy also affirm that the Bible most often views man as a unity, and that there is much interaction between our material and immaterial parts.)​

​

As you are maybe trying too hard to score a valid point, as a result, you have failed to notice that Grudem agreed with what I said, “This view teaches that "spirit” is not a separate part of man, but simply another term for "soul” and that both terms are used interchangeably in Scripture to talk about the immaterial part of man”.

​

Yes, and what is the context? Unrecognized tongues spoken in the congregation. Absolutely no one in the congregation will understand when an unrecognized tongue is spoken among them. That doesn't mean it is a non-human heavenly language. That is something you are eisogetically reading into the text. Absolutely no mention is made of it being a non-human or heavenly language. The verse is dealing with the situation of somebody speaking a language, eg. Persian, that nobody in the congregation understands, which is exactly what was happening in Corinth as the rest of the chapter makes clear.

Tell me, where does Paul say (or even hint) that when the Holy Spirit is praying to the Father that he does so in a human language? For that matter, as I have said before, if there was even a remote chance that the Holy Spirit would speak to the Father in a human language then Paul would have to address the serious complications that would arise if such a thing were to occur but of course he does not. If we were to obtain the services of say 100 completely unchurched individuals where we ask them to read 1 Cor 14, I would not expect a single person to say that they believe the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father in a human language.

As my post has shown, hardcore-cessationism is not something that is taught from within the Word of God but instead it is caught or has been handed down to many from misguided teachers of old who were focusing more on human agenda than they have been with God's.