Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[swordsman1]

the earlierst definitive reference that I have found to the Canon theory was by Jamieson (1872)

but the first scholar to put this into print appears to that of Jamieson (1875).

You mean to say that out of your months of scouring Christian libraries you never came across these 2 books:

Jonathan Edwards - Charity and its Fruits (1738)
John Owen - A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit (1676)

And those are just the famous theologians who espouse the canon theory. I'm sure I'd find numerous others if I trawled the seminary libraries as you claimed to have done.

 

[Major1]

That's silly.
The fact that men sin doesn't mean Christ is imperfect.
But Teleios is about this epoch reaching its end with the arrival of Christ.

Of course not. But the argument that you are using.............
"But Teleios is about this epoch reaching its end with the arrival of Christ."

That can not be correct. If the next Coming of Christ and His Kingdom is the "Perfect" of 1 Corth. 13 then how could there be sin in the Kingdom which is Perfect. THAT is what is silly IMO. But IF that is what you want to believe, then go right ahead and do so.

What it actually means is that the Coming of Christ and His kingdom can not be the Perfect as there will still be sin and rebellion during that 1000 year rule.

 

[Major1]

Though it would still be legitimate to speak of the Parousia as being the return of Christ, as this is still an event. To repeat myself, theologically speaking, the Parousia refers to the state of affairs that immediately arise after the Return of Christ with his Kingdom.

[Staff edit].

I think we all know what you are saying and everyone knows what the Parousia is, but I do not agree with you that it is the Perfect of 1 Corth 13:10.

I believe that the speaking in tongues, knowledge and prophecy ended with the canon of Scriptures.

Question:
In 1 Cor 13:10, what does "The Perfect, (τὸ τέλειον)" refer to, and how would it have understood at the time it was written - not 500 years later?

1 Cor. 13:10, NASB - 10 but when "the perfect, (τὸ τέλειον)" comes, the partial will be done away.

2. The Issue:
The "New Testament" Anachronism:

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

Causation vs. Correlation:

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

1 Corinthians 13:10 - What does "The Perfect" Refer to?

 

[Major1]

I used to bump heads with a few die hard cessationists on another site all the time years ago who believed the same thing. They were vehemently against the gifts of the spirit.

Fortunately, when I came to Christ I was never indoctrinated into any of that belief system.

I saw and experienced enough on my own while seeking the Lord to know the gifts of the spirit have never ceased and that the Book of Acts has never ended. It has no ending but is in fact an open ended book.

The Lord still performs miracles, healings, people are still Baptized with the Holy Ghost, they still speak in tongues, are still delivered from demonic spirits. The Lord is as alive and active now as he was 2,000 years ago.

Here is a young boy with a broken leg bone sticking out. He had had .2 operations without success. The Doctors wanted to cut his leg off. His Mother and the Boy however believed Jesus for a miracle. And they got one! The video is very graphic, and shows his condition before and after.

"Theologians" will rant and rave about the method used, "Anointing water". Some will even claim it is of the devil, etc. But this falls under the category of "Handkerchiefs" spoken of in the Bible. In the natural you cannot explain it. There is no power of course in Handkerchiefs, anointing water, oil, prayer cloths, etc.

But those are not what heals a person, faith in Jesus Christ does.
"And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." ~ Acts 19:11-12 KJV

Interesting that you did not post a link to the video.

I did find however and there are many web sites dedicated to the exposure of the practices of that church as faked.

Detecting False Prophets: The Case Study of Nigerian Pastor TB Joshua

https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2011/12/17/tb-joshuas-evil-doings-finally-exposed/

The Vanguard - Cameroon: CBC Pastor Says TB Joshua’s Emmanuel TV is a Cult

 

[Major1]

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." ~ Hebrews 13:8
Jesus still heals today.
He still performs miracles today.
He still saves today.
He still delivers today.
He still casts out demons today.

Like this extremely demonically possessed Woman who was involved with witchcraft, witch doctors, psychics, herbalists, had an abortion, generational family curses, an extremely violent temper, bad dreams, came from a muslim background, and more.
She is delivered and set free by the power of Jesus Christ from the evil spirits that were tormenting her. Most of the video involves her testimony.

CAUTION: She uses an abundance of profanity!

NO link except to "You tube" so it can be verified.

Why does it seem that your videos all come from African locations?

 

[Major1]

1. When you say "mimic" do you mean consciously or unconsciously? Is the person who mimics tongues doing it purposely and consciously?

2. Can a person unconsciously (without trying) mimic tongues?
TD

I do not know who you are asking? But IMO .......

1. Yes. The one faking tongues is doing consciously because they want.
2. I do not see how.

 

[1stcenturylady]

1. When you say "mimic" do you mean consciously or unconsciously? Is the person who mimics tongues doing it purposely and consciously?

2. Can a person unconsciously (without trying) mimic tongues?
TD

1. When you say "mimic" do you mean consciously or unconsciously? Is the person who mimics tongues doing it purposely and consciously?

2. Can a person unconsciously (without trying) mimic tongues?
TD

#1

They go to a Pentecostal church, hear others speak in tongues, and want it too for whatever reason. But the problem is they still haven't repented of all sin, and been baptized with the Holy Spirit. You must be baptized in the Holy Spirit to be able to speak in true tongues.

 

[Biblicist]

You mean to say that out of your months of scouring Christian libraries you never came across these 2 books:

Jonathan Edwards - Charity and its Fruits (1738)
John Owen - A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit (1676)

And those are just the famous theologians who espouse the canon theory. I'm sure I'd find numerous others if I trawled the seminary libraries as you claimed to have done.

It seems that you would be well advised to check the sources before you post them, where you then claim that they say things that they do not, for example:

• Jonathan Edwards - Charity and its Fruits (1738)

If you go to pages 304-05 you will discover that he considers 'the perfect' to refer to our future state in heaven.​

• John Owen - A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit (1676)

At this point of time, I am struggling to find a reference to the perfect by John Owen. His work on pages 474-486 titled The Original, duration, use, and end, of extraordinary spiritual gifts provides no reference to 1 Cor 13:10 at all.
​

There are a number of commentators from the post-Reformation up until the end of the 19th century who do not 'appear' to make any reference to 1 Cor 13:10 as support for the supposed cessation of the Manifestations of the Spirit. These commentators have made the task of describing their work rather difficult, but it is another task that I have to complete before my paper can be distributed.

 

[Francis Drake]

Let's see if young Francis Drake can pickup the baton and succeed where you failed. I see that he at least wisely accepts that teleios should be translated 'completeness'.

Hehe.
Young Francis Drake?
FD's got 500 years seniority on everyone here, but doesn't usually brag about it.

But Francis is pleased that swordsman wisely agreed with his post explaining the meaning of "teleios" as "completeness".
Swordsman's further explanation then expanded our shared understanding of the Greek word.
FD

PS, can you have a quiet word with your friend Major1 as he's still a little mixed up on this word and keeps bashing on about "perfect".
He's not going to listen to a medieval old fool like Francis Drake.

 

[faroukfarouk]

#1

They go to a Pentecostal church, hear others speak in tongues, and want it too for whatever reason. But the problem is they still haven't repented of all sin, and been baptized with the Holy Spirit. You must be baptized in the Holy Spirit to be able to speak in true tongues.

I myself don't want to speak in tongues.

Romans 8.9 says: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." As I understand it, being born again I already have the Holy Spirit indwelling. I already have the full revelation of God in His Word.

 

[Biblicist]

Sure there is conflicting views among Catholics, with one huge difference though. When there are conflicting views among Catholics, we have an authority we can turn too.......The Magisterium of the Catholic Church! Unlike the thousands of different Protestant/ non-Denominational churches and sects, with just as many interpretations/teachings of Scripture, there is no authority. (as is evident in the pages of this thread) Soooooo...when there is a conflict among Catholics, and thanks to Jesus, we have an authority to turn too..... The Magisterium of the Church.

So as one can see Biblicist, by reading the pages of this Christian Forum, without any sort of authority within these Protestant/ non-Denominational churches and sects, you all are like a team without a coach or a ship without a rudder, all going in different directions, teaching your own supposedly Holy Spirit inspired version of what you believe Scripture is saying.

I realize this is uncomfortable question for many of you Biblicist, but it must be asked......which of you are in error, and which one of you beleives you not in error of your interpretations/ understandings of the Scripture passages posted? So Biblicist, I will ask you directly. Let's say you are in disagreement with say.... Major1, 1stcenturylady, Francis Drake, ect. on a certain Scripture passage, would you consider their itnterpretations/ understandings to be in error and yours are not? Do you consider your understanding of Scripture to be Holy Spirit inspired? If so, what if they say the same, but they are totaly differnert interpretations and understanings? You would agree it's impossible for the Holy Spirit to be in error.... Right? So one of you would have to be.Who is it? Without any type of authority, who is it among you all that makes the determination who is in error, and who is not?

And let's remember what the Bible say's:


1 Tim. 3:15: " But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."


(one should take special notice Biblicist where it say's "Church" singular..... not churches.... plural!)

Have a Blessed Lenten Season

Having not only been employed by a major missions agency for a time, along with hearing who knows how many missionaries over the years who have struggled with the countless variations of teachings and understandings of Roman Catholics within Majority-World locations, let alone with the countless Journal articles that discuss the same issue; we are all well aware that Rome has the habit of falling back to the line that your denomination has "The Magisterium of the Catholic Church".

This is akin to saying that as Rome has a document that says that priests shall not sexually abuse children, that this means there is no such thing as sexual abuse within Roman Catholicism. For that matter, most political systems detail the integrity standards for their politicians, but no one really believes that these standards actually exist within the real world.

When it comes to the things of the Holy Spirit, most missionaries have discovered that the views of the Roman Catholic denomination will vary not only from country to country, but from State to State, from city to city, from town to town and even congregation by congregation. But of course these things do not matter as your denomination has there "Magisterium of the Catholic Church".

So, unlike your denomination, we do not pretend to hide behind some vague doctrinal statement that few if any actually believe in.

Edit: Typo

 

[1stcenturylady]

I myself don't want to speak in tongues.

Romans 8.9 says: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." As I understand it, being born again I already have the Holy Spirit indwelling. I already have the full revelation of God in His Word.

Why do you not want to speak in tongues?

 

[Francis Drake]

Sure there is conflicting views among Catholics, with one huge difference though. When there are conflicting views among Catholics, we have an authority we can turn too.......The Magisterium of the Catholic Church! Unlike the thousands of different Protestant/ non-Denominational churches and sects, with just as many interpretations/teachings of Scripture, there is no authority. (as is evident in the pages of this thread) Soooooo...when there is a conflict among Catholics, and thanks to Jesus, we have an authority to turn too..... The Magisterium of the Church.

So as one can see Biblicist, by reading the pages of this Christian Forum, without any sort of authority within these Protestant/ non-Denominational churches and sects, you all are like a team without a coach or a ship without a rudder, all going in different directions, teaching your own supposedly Holy Spirit inspired version of what you believe Scripture is saying.

I realize this is uncomfortable question for many of you Biblicist, but it must be asked......which of you are in error, and which one of you beleives you not in error of your interpretations/ understandings of the Scripture passages posted? So Biblicist, I will ask you directly. Let's say you are in disagreement with say.... Major1, 1stcenturylady, Francis Drake, ect. on a certain Scripture passage, would you consider their itnterpretations/ understandings to be in error and yours are not? Do you consider your understanding of Scripture to be Holy Spirit inspired? If so, what if they say the same, but they are totaly differnert interpretations and understanings? You would agree it's impossible for the Holy Spirit to be in error.... Right? So one of you would have to be.Who is it? Without any type of authority, who is it among you all that makes the determination who is in error, and who is not?

And let's remember what the Bible say's:


1 Tim. 3:15: " But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."


(one should take special notice Biblicist where it say's "Church" singular..... not churches.... plural!)

Have a Blessed Lenten Season

Given the nonsense of Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, The Assumption of Mary, the ever virgin Mary (whose other children are referred to in the gospels), the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has no more authority in this discussion than has the Koran or Hindu writings.

But this thread is obviously not the place to bring up the relevance of that organisation.
Whether I agree with swordsman, Major, or any other cessationist, we are (for better or worse) seeking the truth from scripture.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Why do you not want to speak in tongues?

Because by the Spirit of God I can already 'worship in spirit and in truth' (John 4); because God's revelation of Himself is already complete.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Because by the Spirit of God I can already 'worship in spirit and in truth' (John 4); because God's revelation of Himself is already complete.

So when you go to heaven you won't gain any more knowledge of Him? Sort of been there, done that?

 

[faroukfarouk]

So when you go to heaven you won't gain any more knowledge of Him? Sort of been there, done that?

Well, I get it from the Word, by God's grace.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Whether I agree with swordsman, Major, or any other cessationist, we are (for better or worse) seeking the truth from scripture.

Scripture is where to go, yes.

 

[Francis Drake]

Of course not. But the argument that you are using.............
"But Teleios is about this epoch reaching its end with the arrival of Christ."

That can not be correct. If the next Coming of Christ and His Kingdom is the "Perfect" of 1 Corth. 13 then how could there be sin in the Kingdom which is Perfect. THAT is what is silly IMO. But IF that is what you want to believe, then go right ahead and do so.

What it actually means is that the Coming of Christ and His kingdom can not be the Perfect as there will still be sin and rebellion during that 1000 year rule.

The Greek word teleios doesn't mean perfect, but complete.

Go and have a chat with your friend swordsman, you're more likely to take it coming from him than me.
FD​

 

[1stcenturylady]

Well, I get it from the Word, by God's grace.

I believe even reading the Bible, we only get a glimpse of Who God is. I believe it is looking through a dark glass, but when we go to heaven, we will know Him just as thoroughly as He knows us now.

 

[Biblicist]

40 years?!!! You clearly have not researched this properly at all, despite your claims. The canon theory has been espoused by numerous theologians from the 1600's right up to the present day (with probably the majority SINCE the 70's). I've posted several of their published expositions on these boards and you have never been able to refute them. Let's see if young Francis Drake can pickup the baton and succeed where you failed. I see that he at least wisely accepts that teleios should be translated 'completeness'.

From memory, you did post some rather abstract titles a few months back but I struggled to find valid links to them and I suspect that many of the items would have gone the same way as Major1's blunder, where he had blindly hoped that some commentators had said something that they in fact did not say, of which I have already pointed out to him.

Considering the lack of accessible historical information that supports the Canon view, then I more than welcome any valid and searchable links to such information. But please do not repeat what Major1 did, please check your sources before you post them.