Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[Biblicist]

I would agree with you except as I have said several times, the original Greek grammar will not allow that interpretation.

The grammer of "perfect one" is neuter which means that the subject must be a THING and not a person or an event to come.

You have me just a little more than intrigued as to why this is the third time that I have had to point out to you that the Greek grammar specifically points to the future establishment of the Kingdom of God! Tell me, will this be the third time that you have ignored my correction to your misunderstanding of this passage or will you pretend that we are only speaking of Jesus and not with the Kingdom that he will install on this earth?

Of course, need I also point out that maybe 90-95% of scholars also agree with me on this position.

 

[DamianWarS]

In the only example or mention of tongues in all the four gospels is in Mark 17:17 when Jesus gave the gift of tongues to the ELEVEN as they gathered, He said, “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues".

The original Greek says that the adjective “new” (Gr. kainos) can only mean they were going to speak in LANGUAGES that was new to them, that is, languages they had not learned or used until that time.

Now, I n Acts 2:4 Luke uses a different adjective when he says, “they began to speak with other tongues.” The word “other” (Gr. heteros) simply means that they spoke in LANGUAGES different from the normal language they were used to. The context substantiates this AS WE SEE IN aCTS 2:7-8.....
“And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?".

Every man heard them speak in his own language. Here the word “language” is the translation of dialekto from which our word “dialect” comes.

Now, is that what YOU have seen take place. What I have seen and heard is the utterances of noises which can not be translated because they are not languages at all.

But the more serious problems arise in the interpretation of the twenty-one references to tongues in 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14. There are those who tell us that the tongues in First Corinthians are ecstatic utterances not known in any country on earth. They base their conclusion on the term “unknown” which appears in 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19, and 27.

But the reader of this chapter in God’s Word must not fail to observe that the word “unknown” in every place where it appears is in italicized letters, which means that it does not occur in any Greek manuscript but was inserted by translators. The Holy Spirit did not direct Paul to write that the tongue is unknown.

All the usages of tongues in Paul’s treatment of the subject refer to foreign languages. “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into air” (1 Corinthians 14:9).

I know it's your OP but I feel like you're tackling too many things at once. Clearly tongues is practiced by more than the apostles in scripture so let's first show if it is biblically responsible to show that tongues can still be in operation today before looking at things that are dependent upon these result.

 

[DamianWarS]

In Mark 16, the ELEVEN Apostles were addressed by Jesus: and now, after all that they had experienced, they must believe, for else they would perish! In return, they were granted the powers to survive wild snake bites, but through faith in Christ, protection from poisoning, and to speak all foreign languages, heal the sick and raise the dead. After this, at a later stage, the Apostles were baptized with fire.
They now believed . I believe that you will agree with that as it is exactly what the Scriptures say.

Now some people, however, will argue that Jesus spoke about the people the Apostles would convert and that they would receive this special gift. The thinking of course is that if that was so then, then it is so now. Others say that it was only for those back then and not for us today.

But I am confident that there is no need or that there is no ability for the gift of tongues today for there is no proof to support the opposite, that this gift was only granted to the Apostles.

I will also ask this question. Since the sign gifts given to the ELEVEN were a PACKAGE deal which included being able to survive snake bites and drinking poison........
why do those who are animate in speaking in tongues not have pert rattle snakes and drink bleach.

And NO that is not testing God, it is using the gifts preserved just as speaking in tongues.

you are associating all the signs that are described in Mark as required in full to be manifested in the individual and I don't see Mark or the rest of scripture teaching this, actually I see the contrary. Scripture shows us far more than these 11 apostles spoke in tongues so I'm confused why you are playing this angle so much... are you suggesting that every case where tongues is evident so too are all these other signs in each of these believers? It feels like you are trying to make a strawman argument here labelling continuationism as backward snake handling poison drinkers.

There is one case that I can think of where an apostle was bitten by a snake and was unharmed which is Paul in Acts 28. Paul was gathering some sticks and disturbed a snake that came out and bit him and he was unharmed. Paul did not search out the snake nor does the text say he deliberately provoked the bite but it was an accident and not something Paul desired. Paul also killed the snake promptly so no more harm could be done. This doesn't seem to be the actions of a man looking for to drink poison or getting bitten by venomous animals but it is suggested he was protected by God.

I'm not searching for snakes or poison to drink and I think doing so grossly misunderstands the purpose of the HS. I might add all the disciples, with the exception of John, were killed by their enemies so protection from the HS was not universal for all circumstances. The text is Mark is also highly controversial with suggestions that it was added later. like the 1 Cor 13 text I don't think its responsible to develop doctrine solely on this text alone and rather it should agree with other accounts of scripture.

 

[1stcenturylady]

His Words, flow like a river, for they are perfect, for they come from The Perfect. The Perfect is Jesus, was Jesus, and always will be Jesus." When The Perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away"This was written only for clarification of His words through His servant Paul.

So are you saying His words are the perfect, as those who believe it is the publication of the Bible? Or the second coming? Your post was just poetic enough to be unclear.

 

[Biblicist]

That is beacuse the cessationism v continuationism debate was not an issue for the church fathers. They witnessed and reported that certain gifts ceased and accepted it as such, as did the rest of the church throughout history which remained cessationist right up until the twentieth century when supposedly those gifts are claimed to be suddenly restored. Since then far more research has been made into the biblical veracity of such claims including the in-depth study of 1 Cor 13:8-13.

What an odd thing to say, in a recent post you corrected an earlier error where you falsely claimed that tongues stopped soon after the death of the last Apostle, where you later acknowledged that tongues where known by some of the early Latin churchmen during the fifth century.

The advantage of studying the patristic writings is they can give us further insight into the teachings and practices of the apostles and early church. Seeing as they lived so close to the time of the apostles there is less chance of their teachings being corrupted by external doctrinal influences over time.

Even though some lived within a generation of the last Apostle (John) most of them were born many years later and some even three, four or five centuries later; this would be akin to a contemporary commentator speaking on the views of the first Reformers of the 16th century.

And one thing we do notice from their writings is they are unanimous in affirming that tongues were foreign human languages and not a heavenly/non-human tongue which is purely a twentieth century invention.

From what I have read on the views of the early Latin churchmen (and its often contradictory), I know that Tertullian did not say if he believed that tongues were in known human languages or in an Angelic tongue. As for the other early Latin churchmen we also need to be very careful in that some were apparently referring to Acts 2 as against the Epistles. In my opinion, as many of these individuals were the ones who led the Church into its 1000 years of Darkness then I would be surprised if many of them would acknowledge the Biblical position that the Epistles only speak of tongues being given within inarticulate/Angelic utterances.

As with the PDF that I provided a link to, which showed that the early Latin churchmen did not make any connection with 1 Cor 13:10 to the future completed Canon of Scripture, then I would also need to see some reputable material that has detailed what each of the known early Latin and Greek churchmen thought on this issue - it would undoubtedly be an interesting study as was the research that was undertaken in 1994 regarding "that which is perfect".

As I have explained to you before when you appealed to 1 Cor 1:7, not lacking in any of their gifts as they waited for the Lord's return is not the same as saying they had all the gifts until the Lord's return.

Now even you should realise the absurdity of trying to isolate the Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) from this passage. So are you trying to suggest (surely not), that when Paul is making reference to the charismata in 1 Cor 1:7 that he has not connected this with his later use of charismata in Corinthians - that would be absolutely absurd!

Commentators are virtually unanimous in affirming that Paul was referring to NT prophets in Eph 2:20. How could the OT prophets be the foundation of the NT church - they never knew the gospel of Christ but rather taught the law of Moses. And 'apostles who were also prophets' is Wayne Grudem's hypothesis that has been widely debunked by others as it violates Sharpe's rule of Greek grammar.

Of the three options for Eph 2:20 we have:

1. NT Apostles and OT Prophets
2. NT Apostles who were also Prophets
3. NT Apostles and NT prophets

Option 3 can be summarily dismissed as it would demand that all NT prophets had the same authority as the Twelve and Paul.

Option 1 certainly has promise as the OT Prophets regularly spoke of the future Messiah and of course Paul often referred to the Patriarchs and OT Prophets.

Option 2 also has some merit as the Twelve (along with Paul) also contained a Prophetic ministry.

As for my own opinion (and no-one really has the answer, or at least can prove which of the first two options are correct), I would lean toward Option 1 though Option 2 certainly has its strengths as well.

With Eph 2:20, as both the Pentecostals and Charismatics are unsure as to the meaning of "Apostles and p/Prophets" then I feel that those who are cessationists are well advised to leave this passage alone as it is really outside of their area of expertise.

Ignoring your insult, yes the gifts didn't vanish overnight, but disappeared gradually over a couple of hundred years as the completed canon was circulated among the churches which no longer needed the revelatory and miraculous gifts as a result. The later church fathers such as Augustine, Chrysostom, and others affirmed that those gifts had died out by around 400ad.

That's very good, I am glad to see that you corrected your earlier statement.

The Dark Ages is just another term for the Middle Ages. It doesn't mean it was a time of spiritual darkness or something.

Yes . . . and the poor Sodomites who God destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah were merely misunderstood.

 

[Biblicist]

I think I can answer for him of what he believes.

1 Corinthians 13 (remember chapter changes didn't happen for hundreds of years) verse one, says tongues of men and of ANGELS. You've already given your opinion that angels was merely an exaggeration. Let's move on.

1 Corinthians 14:2 says "no man understands."

I'm not debating this, I just think I know what Biblicist believes. I believe it is both men and angels. He may not. Maybe his opinion is that MEN is the "exaggeration." LOL

Even though I have an opinion on 1 Cor 13:1 where I am at least convinced that when Paul says that he speaks in the tongue of the Angels that he is referring to the inarticulate tongue that the Holy Spirit employs when he speaks through us to the Father.

When it comes to the tongues of men, even though I feel that he is referring to the human languages that he speaks to other men, such as with Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek, there is also the remote possibility that he is making reference to the tongues of Acts 2 where they were given in multiple human languages.

The problem with saying that he also speaks in known languages when he speaks in tongues is that Paul soon goes into some detail in chapter 14 to explain that within the congregational setting, that such tongues will never be able to be understood by anyone unless the Holy Spirit provides the speaker or another person with an interpretation.

There is also the problem that Paul never provides us with any examples where he or another has been empowered to speak in the Spirit within a known human language. Neither does Paul or any other speaker provide a hint that tongues can be used by the Holy Spirit to evangelise the lost or where the Holy Spirit will speak to any individual through tongues. Even with the situation on the Day of Pentecost, Luke tells us that what the 120 were speaking were words of praise that were being directed to the Father and not an Evangelistic message to the crowd, which is why the nearby crowd were left perplexed as to what was happening and why they had to ask the Disciples what was happening.

So to summarise:

1. The 'Angelic tongue' is our everyday prayer language that the Holy Spirit uses to speak to the Father.
2. The 'tongues of men' are in my view Paul's everday speech, be it in Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin or Greek and his choice of language would depend on the setting.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Even though I have an opinion on 1 Cor 13:1 where I am at least convinced that when Paul says that he speaks in the tongue of the Angels that he is referring to the inarticulate tongue that the Holy Spirit employs when he speaks through us to the Father.

When it comes to the tongues of men, even though I feel that he is referring to the human languages that he speaks to other men, such as with Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek, there is also the remote possibility that he is making reference to the tongues of Acts 2 where they were given in multiple human languages.

The problem with saying that he also speaks in known languages when he speaks in tongues is that Paul soon goes into some detail in chapter 14 to explain that within the congregational setting, that such tongues will never be able to be understood by anyone unless the Holy Spirit provides the speaker or another person with an interpretation.

There is also the problem that Paul never provides us with any examples where he or another has been empowered to speak in the Spirit within a known human language. Neither does Paul or any other speaker provide a hint that tongues can be used by the Holy Spirit to evangelise the lost or where the Holy Spirit will speak to any individual through tongues. Even with the situation on the Day of Pentecost, Luke tells us that what the 120 were speaking were words of praise that were being directed to the Father and not an Evangelistic message to the crowd, which is why the nearby crowd were left perplexed as to what was happening and why they had to ask the Disciples what was happening.

So to summarise:

1. The 'Angelic tongue' is our everyday prayer language that the Holy Spirit uses to speak to the Father.
2. The 'tongues of men' are in my view Paul's everday speech, be it in Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin or Greek and his choice of language would depend on the setting.

So you are saying that 1 Cor. 13:1 is referring to "if I speak in my own tongue I know (men), or speaking in tongues (angels). I never looked at it that way before. Interesting.

Of course, I still believe that the 120 on the Day of Pentecost were speaking in tongues, but what each of the devout Jews HEARD was their own language. We've had this discussion before, so we don't need to debate this again. 1 Corinthians was written close to fifteen years BEFORE Acts, so the readers of Acts already were familiar with interpretation of tongues, as well as knew the gifts of the Spirit from personal use. They didn't need it spelled out to them how the devout Jews were given the knowledge of what was being said.

Anyway, thanks for another 1 Cor. 13:1 interpretation.

 

[Biblicist]

So you are saying that 1 Cor. 13:1 is referring to "if I speak in my own tongue I know (men), or speaking in tongues (angels). I never looked at it that way before. Interesting.

Yes.
Even though the 'tongues of men' could possibly refer to how Paul may have spoken through the Spirit in a known human language, we have no examples from Paul where he has done so or that he is even aware that it is even possible; and of course, we know that Paul was fluent or at least conversant in a number of human languages.

Of course, I still believe that the 120 on the Day of Pentecost were speaking in tongues, but what each of the devout Jews HEARD was their own language. We've had this discussion before, so we don't need to debate this again. 1 Corinthians was written close to fifteen years BEFORE Acts, so the readers of Acts already were familiar with interpretation of tongues, as well as knew the gifts of the Spirit from personal use. They didn't need it spelled out to them how the devout Jews were given the knowledge of what was being said.

Anyway, thanks for another 1 Cor. 13:1 interpretation.

I understand.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Yes.
Even though the 'tongues of men' could possibly refer to how Paul may have spoken through the Spirit in a known human language, we have no examples from Paul where he has done so or that he is even aware that it is even possible; and of course, we know that Paul was fluent or at least conversant in a number of human languages.


I understand.

I don't know if I am the only one who believes this, but I do not believe that tongues was for the purpose of preaching the gospel to foreigners, as Major wrote. And as you said, there is no record of Paul ever doing so, and he was the apostle to the Gentiles. In fact, I do not believe when someone speaks in tongues that any humans present understand. I was surprised that swordsman actually said that too. I would have thought he would have agreed with Major.

 

[Biblicist]

I don't know if I am the only one who believes this, but I do not believe that tongues was for the purpose of preaching the gospel to foreigners,

Not since maybe the end of the first decade or so of the 20th century have any Pentecostals held to the view that tongues could be used to evangelise the lost, though many hardcore-cessationists will of course try to mislead their peers by saying that this was the purpose of tongues in the early Church.

Undoubtedly there would be many foreign missionaries who would at times wish that they could witness to an unreached people group in this way; when it comes to the Scriptures they simply do not provide us with any examples where such a thing has occurred, or that it could even occur in the future.

Even on the Day of Pentecost we find that the 120 were speaking words of praise to the Father, where the 120 were empowered to speak in the languages of the nearby foreign Jews. If we were to expect that tongues could be used to evangelise the unregenerate then we would have expected to see this occur on the Day of Pentecost but even here we don't see Luke recording that such a thing actually occurred.

In fact, with the unregenerate visitors on the Day of Pentecost there was actually no need for them to be evangelised in this way as they could apparently all speak in either Aramaic or at least that they were conversant with this particular dialect that was common to Judea. If some within the crowd had not approached the Disciples for an explanation to this very strange event, where few foreign Jews would ever expect to see so many rustic Galileans speaking in the languages of people groups that they would not normally encounter then the crowd would have dispersed being none the wiser as to what had just happened.

Now imagine the scenario where a group of missionaries were to go to a particular people group who had never previously heard the Gospel and that no member of this unreached people group could converse with the missionaries. If the Holy Spirit decided to speak an evangelistic message to them in tongues what would the missionaries be able to do once they had stopped speaking? Unlike the Day of Pentecost where the crowd could at least converse with the Disciples, it would probably take many months before the missionaries could comfortably communicate with such a people group - it would be bedlam.

 

[Major1]

you are associating all the signs that are described in Mark as required in full to be manifested in the individual and I don't see Mark or the rest of scripture teaching this, actually I see the contrary. Scripture shows us far more than these 11 apostles spoke in tongues so I'm confused why you are playing this angle so much... are you suggesting that every case where tongues is evident so too are all these other signs in each of these believers? It feels like you are trying to make a strawman argument here labelling continuationism as backward snake handling poison drinkers.

There is one case that I can think of where an apostle was bitten by a snake and was unharmed which is Paul in Acts 28. Paul was gathering some sticks and disturbed a snake that came out and bit him and he was unharmed. Paul did not search out the snake nor does the text say he deliberately provoked the bite but it was an accident and not something Paul desired. Paul also killed the snake promptly so no more harm could be done. This doesn't seem to be the actions of a man looking for to drink poison or getting bitten by venomous animals but it is suggested he was protected by God.

I'm not searching for snakes or poison to drink and I think doing so grossly misunderstands the purpose of the HS. I might add all the disciples, with the exception of John, were killed by their enemies so protection from the HS was not universal for all circumstances. The text is Mark is also highly controversial with suggestions that it was added later. like the 1 Cor 13 text I don't think its responsible to develop doctrine solely on this text alone and rather it should agree with other accounts of scripture.

The point I am making is that the sign gifts given in Mark 16 are a "package" given to the apostles.

We can not pick and choose the one that we want with the exclusion of the others. IF a man thinks that he can speak in tongues he then should be able to raise the dead or handle poisonous snakes.

It is a Bible fact that all the apostles were killed by their enemies. It is also a fact that we do not know how many times they were exposed to dirty water, or snake bitten. We know of the one time you mentioned when Paul was bitten but we have to understand that there were surely many more than that.

 

[Major1]

you are associating all the signs that are described in Mark as required in full to be manifested in the individual and I don't see Mark or the rest of scripture teaching this, actually I see the contrary. Scripture shows us far more than these 11 apostles spoke in tongues so I'm confused why you are playing this angle so much... are you suggesting that every case where tongues is evident so too are all these other signs in each of these believers? It feels like you are trying to make a strawman argument here labelling continuationism as backward snake handling poison drinkers.

There is one case that I can think of where an apostle was bitten by a snake and was unharmed which is Paul in Acts 28. Paul was gathering some sticks and disturbed a snake that came out and bit him and he was unharmed. Paul did not search out the snake nor does the text say he deliberately provoked the bite but it was an accident and not something Paul desired. Paul also killed the snake promptly so no more harm could be done. This doesn't seem to be the actions of a man looking for to drink poison or getting bitten by venomous animals but it is suggested he was protected by God.

I'm not searching for snakes or poison to drink and I think doing so grossly misunderstands the purpose of the HS. I might add all the disciples, with the exception of John, were killed by their enemies so protection from the HS was not universal for all circumstances. The text is Mark is also highly controversial with suggestions that it was added later. like the 1 Cor 13 text I don't think its responsible to develop doctrine solely on this text alone and rather it should agree with other accounts of scripture.

Double post.

 

[Major1]

you are associating all the signs that are described in Mark as required in full to be manifested in the individual and I don't see Mark or the rest of scripture teaching this, actually I see the contrary. Scripture shows us far more than these 11 apostles spoke in tongues so I'm confused why you are playing this angle so much... are you suggesting that every case where tongues is evident so too are all these other signs in each of these believers? It feels like you are trying to make a strawman argument here labelling continuationism as backward snake handling poison drinkers.

There is one case that I can think of where an apostle was bitten by a snake and was unharmed which is Paul in Acts 28. Paul was gathering some sticks and disturbed a snake that came out and bit him and he was unharmed. Paul did not search out the snake nor does the text say he deliberately provoked the bite but it was an accident and not something Paul desired. Paul also killed the snake promptly so no more harm could be done. This doesn't seem to be the actions of a man looking for to drink poison or getting bitten by venomous animals but it is suggested he was protected by God.

I'm not searching for snakes or poison to drink and I think doing so grossly misunderstands the purpose of the HS. I might add all the disciples, with the exception of John, were killed by their enemies so protection from the HS was not universal for all circumstances. The text is Mark is also highly controversial with suggestions that it was added later. like the 1 Cor 13 text I don't think its responsible to develop doctrine solely on this text alone and rather it should agree with other accounts of scripture.

Ooops, double post.

 

[Major1]

Not since maybe the end of the first decade or so of the 20th century have any Pentecostals held to the view that tongues could be used to evangelise the lost, though many hardcore-cessationists will of course try to mislead their peers by saying that this was the purpose of tongues in the early Church.

Undoubtedly there would be many foreign missionaries who would at times wish that they could witness to an unreached people group in this way; when it comes to the Scriptures they simply do not provide us with any examples where such a thing has occurred, or that it could even occur in the future.

Even on the Day of Pentecost we find that the 120 were speaking words of praise to the Father, where the 120 were empowered to speak in the languages of the nearby foreign Jews. If we were to expect that tongues could be used to evangelise the unregenerate then we would have expected to see this occur on the Day of Pentecost but even here we don't see Luke recording that such a thing actually occurred.

In fact, with the unregenerate visitors on the Day of Pentecost there was actually no need for them to be evangelised in this way as they could apparently all speak in either Aramaic or at least that they were conversant with this particular dialect that was common to Judea. If some within the crowd had not approached the Disciples for an explanation to this very strange event, where few foreign Jews would ever expect to see so many rustic Galileans speaking in the languages of people groups that they would not normally encounter then the crowd would have dispersed being none the wiser as to what had just happened.

Now imagine the scenario where a group of missionaries were to go to a particular people group who had never previously heard the Gospel and that no member of this unreached people group could converse with the missionaries. If the Holy Spirit decided to speak an evangelistic message to them in tongues what would the missionaries be able to do once they had stopped speaking? Unlike the Day of Pentecost where the crowd could at least converse with the Disciples, it would probably take many months before the missionaries could comfortably communicate with such a people group - it would be bedlam.

1 Corth. 14:22............
Paul said, "So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers".

From..........(Tongues Are For Unbelievers).............

Does Paul mean to say that tongues are not intended for believers? To answer this question we must examine the immediate context of this verse:

Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking. Instead, be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. 21 It is written in the law: "By people with strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, yet not even in this way will they listen to me," says the Lord. 22 So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers (I Corinthians 14:20-22, NET Bible).

God expects tongues to convince the unbeliever because speaking in languages which have never been learned cannot be faked, and therefore cannot be denied by unbelievers.

God has given tongues as the evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost so that unbelievers will believe when they hear believers speaking in tongues. If they do not believe God will use their experience to condemn them in judgment for not believing. Tongues will either excuse or accuse the unbelievers who hear them, at the judgment. So then tongues are actually to be used to evangelize the lost.

 

[Major1]

I know it's your OP but I feel like you're tackling too many things at once. Clearly tongues is practiced by more than the apostles in scripture so let's first show if it is biblically responsible to show that tongues can still be in operation today before looking at things that are dependent upon these result.

That has been done my brother. Several times now by several people. But to satisfy your proposition I will attempt one more time to make my point.

It has been stated over and over that speaking in tongues has ceased and that they are not for us today.

In 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, Paul, in emphasizing the eternality of love points out that the gift of receiving prophecy from God, the gift of speaking in tongues, and the gift of receiving knowledge from God will end. I did not say that and I had nothing to do with what Paul said but he actually did say it.

He says this will happen when that which is perfect is come. Again, several people have made the point correctly that the Greek word translated “perfect” here is teleios. Some people and I think that you as well have tried to argue that point as not being grammatically ccorrect but it is none the less the fact.

It means “complete.” Again, it has been pointed out and said several times that the Greek word used is in the "Nueter" which means it is a THING and not a person or an event. Something has reached its perfection when it is complete. What Paul is referring to is the canonization of Scripture.

Once God put all of the knowledge He wanted the church to have into the church through the gifts of knowledge, tongues, and prophecy—and all of this was recorded in Scripture—then He stopped giving those gifts. Tongues were only for the period of transition from the Old to the New Covenant, they were a witness against unbelievers, and were the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies foretelling the divine judgment against the Jews as He turned from them to the Gentiles as seen in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22; Isaiah 28:11-13. According to the Scriptures, not me................
Tongues, as well as the gifts of knowledge and prophecy, have ceased.

I am not saying that God does not continue to work in ways that we would consider to be supernatural. I know that He does. For example, God heals, and He even on occasion does other things that we commonly call miracles. But He does these things as acts of mercy, not to add knowledge to the revelation of the Bible or to witness to unbelievers.

 

[Major1]

pentecostals/charismatics have been guilty of of what I call "sola experientia" which is my way of saying using experience as a source of revelation. They reject this doctrinally of course but in practice it happens and is often validated by putting "in the spirit" at the end of it.

I have no doubt that the power of the HS can produce intense reactions and emotions possibly making someone feel weak which may result in them falling over (try and close your eyes and lift your hands swaying back and forth and see what happens to you) but we should not give this a title and then begin to seek it and worse teach on it and use false scriptural references to prop it up. Being "slain in the spirit" is not a value found within scripture and so it is something we should deemphasize while emphasizing biblical values and practices.

More mainstream denominations like the AOG have the right focus of doctrine that leans on Biblical guidance but there will be communities that still take on their own culture and dip out of biblical practices and others not under a more reputable denomination may have even greater abuse. But these aren't reasons to reject biblical practices they are reasons to reject unbiblical practices.

BINGO! That is exactly what I have already said about 10 pages ago I think!!!!

 

[Major1]

Is the new heaven and new earth things? Yes, they are. And there we will see Jesus face to face. No where in 1 Cor. 13 does Paul mention his letters as, the perfect.

Don't you think that they are part of God's Creation and His power?

If you think that they are "Things" then go right ahead sister and think that way. There is nothing I can say to you that will make any difference to you.

 

[Major1]

Tell me about a prayer that was answered, yes. I love to hear these testimonies. I'll share some of mine too for you.

My response to you was from your words of...............
"
You said...............
"Never once in all those years did I see one prayer answered."

I have prayer answered YES, NO and there are several I am still waiting to hear about.

 

[Major1]

You have me just a little more than intrigued as to why this is the third time that I have had to point out to you that the Greek grammar specifically points to the future establishment of the Kingdom of God! Tell me, will this be the third time that you have ignored my correction to your misunderstanding of this passage or will you pretend that we are only speaking of Jesus and not with the Kingdom that he will install on this earth?

Of course, need I also point out that maybe 90-95% of scholars also agree with me on this position.

Actually we can go back and forth all you want to but it will not change what I have said.

Most people misunderstand what Paul and the Holy Spirit have in mind with the adjective translated "perfect". A closer look at the Greek word TELEIOS found in 1 Cor. 13:10 shows us why. To interpret TELEIOS, "perfect", to mean Jesus Christ or Heaven is inconsistent with both the context and with the usage in the rest of the New Testament.

The adjective TELEIOS as it is used in the New Testament. TELEIOS is translated as perfect, complete, mature. When describing things instead of people, the gender will be neuter or, in one instance, feminine gender. Most of the time, the adjective has a named subject that it modifies. But in the 1 Corinthians 13 passage, only the context can determine because the adjective stands alone: "the perfect." So the meaning of the adjective is determined by the context. I believe that the "perfect" of 1 Cor. 13 is the completed word of God.

 

[Major1]

this shows a lack of understanding with the greek for multiple reasons. to start most "things" aren't neuter. For example all these words in greek are not neuter

• law [nomos] - masculine
• scripture [graphe] - feminine
• canon [kanon] - masculine
• book [biblos (where we get out word "bible" from]- feminine
• prophecy [propheteia] - feminine
• revelation [apokalypsis] - feminine
• age (as in an amount of time) [aion] - masculine
• period (as in an amount of time) [chronos] - masculine

the word is an adjective, it is nominative without a head noun and as such it acts as the noun, because it is neuter this points to it being an abstract which does not directly point to a neuter noun but can represent something else be it masculine, feminine or neuter because it is an abstract. a more abstract of "perfect" in english would be "perfection", a more abstract of "complete" would be "completeness"

let's look at another verse in the bible with abstracts being used:

Phil 4:8
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable... all these words are adjectives, all of them are nominal case and all of them are neuter gender and all them do not have a head noun just like "the perfect". By your logic this can only point to "things". In reality they are all abstracts and can point to anything.

I believe that both the Greek and the context of 1 Corinthians 13:10 do not lend to the idea that Jesus or heaven are in mind. Instead, the gender neutral THING that the Holy Spirit indicates is the completed Word, the Bible. That goes in the blank for 1 Cor. 13:10. I don't want to be dogmatic on this point except that I am certain that Paul is not talking about the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit remaining active until the return of Jesus Christ and Heaven.

There is no evidence that the gifts continued. Paul is saying that the gifts will cease. If they were not going to cease until Jesus' returned, would he even need to say that? Also, there is no one I know who is speaking in tongues or healing or raising the dead as occurred in the New Testament. I know that people are claiming otherwise, but where is the proof? What Jesus and the Apostles did was undeniable proof of their claims. No such thing exist today.