Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

As I have said previously, I am never sure if you actually believe most of the things that you say or if your worldview will not allow you to faithfully engage with the Scriptures.

But your intentional decision to remove the first three lines of the commentary by Robertson & Plummer - 1 Corinthians which went against your position tends to indicate that many of your comments are not so much merely the outcome of poor comprehension on your part, but in this particular case, it indicates that it was in fact wilful misdirection on your part.

I've downloaded that commentary. Where abouts are the three lines you are referring to? Actually, the commentary looks a good read to me.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Those commentators source their theology exclusively from objective and infallible scripture, the only place theology should be drawn from. Not from subjective and fallible experiences. That is the hallmark of Pentecostal hermeneutics - doctrine is invented from peoples experiences and then attempted to be read back into scripture using exegetical fallacies.

As Biblicist points out, these commentators base their opinions on their personal theology, and that of their mentors, and on a total lack of practical experience or observation of those involved in the prophetic. So, for that reason, any comments on the prophetic are subjective and not reliable.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yes, and you have also proven that the world is flat and that the moon is made of green cheese . . . a very sad response on your part.

If the earth is not flat, then why do people refer to the sea level? They should say, the sea curve!

 

[Biblicist]

I've downloaded that commentary. Where abouts are the three lines you are referring to? Actually, the commentary looks a good read to me.

When I saw your query I initially wondered why it was so difficult to locate as I had provided the page number; but then I discovered that as I had the new edition which included the original two volume set that there were actually two pages numberd 122.

Volume 1 Chapters 1 to 8 was published in 1959
Volume 2 Chapters 9 to 16 was published in 1965

The combined edition was published in 1968.

Edited:

 

[Biblicist]

If the earth is not flat, then why do people refer to the sea level? They should say, the sea curve!

Your post was well timed as I had just finished speaking to a family member who is a part of our Coast Guard so I made mention of your post as there are actually a few legal considerations at play within your light hearted question.

For those countries and states that have a river as a part of their border, or even where a large body of water such as an ocean or a large expanse of water encroaches on Crown land, here in Australia (or at least within Victorian and NSW), we deem the high-water mark of a given expanse of water to be our understanding of what is the water-level in question.

As the Murray River which divides Victoria from New South Wales is completely within N.S.W., that means that when the river goes low that Victoria grows in size as well, which would be something like 300 Km times 10 to 50 metres.

So from what I can tell, what we deem to be the sea-level is only the fine line of water that touches a given piece of land!

There you go . . . how's that for a factoid!

 

[Biblicist]

After all my time on the forum I have only just noticed a potential quirk with how we reply to a thread on the forum.

If you look at the quote below, where you replied to something that I directed to another, it can give the false impression that you were the one that I was initially spoke to!

Maybe we should sometimes insert [Fred Nerk] at the start of some quoted material; I had never noticed this before.

I will return later tonight - hopefully.

 

[Biblicist]

How can his understanding of this verse be "rather unusual" when he points out that the majority of commentators agree with him?

As you often employ the term "the majority of commentators" without having researched the subject, you might want to take a look at the following summaries of what a number of the more renowned commentators have said regarding prophecy that were made prior to Moo's (1991) commentary; let alone with the incredible amount of commentary that was produced just prior to his and since which also disagreed with him.

As the commentators that I have referred to are all important theologians, their commentary is worth saving to a folder for future use:

(1546) Calvin, Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, p.415

My reason for not agreeing with those who make the whole of the office of Prophet consist in the interpretation of Scriptures is this . . .​

(1857) Hodge, Corinthians, p.269-70

To another prophecy. The nature of this gift is clearly exhibited in the 14th ch. It consisted in occasional inspiration and revelations, not merely or generally relating to the future, as in the case of Agabus, Acts 11:28, but either in some new communications relating to faith or duty, or simply an immediate impulse and aid from the Holy Spirit, in presenting truth already known, so that conviction and repentance were the effects aimed at and produced; comp. 14:25. The difference, as before stated, between the apostles and prophets, was, that the former were permanently inspired, so that their teaching was at all times infallible, whereas the prophets were infallible only occasionally. The ordinary teachers were uninspired, speaking from the resources of their own knowledge and experience.​

(1903) Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.317

προφητεία. Among the Greeks the προφήτης was the interpreter of the oracular responses delivered by the μάντις. 10, for instance, was prophetess of Apollo. The notion of predicting is not in the προ-, but comes to attach itself to the word because it is concerning the future that men consult the gods. Cf. Paley’s note on Eur., 10 413; Plato, Tim. 72. Among the Hebrews there was no μάντις. The seer and the prophet were one; inspiration and interpretation met. So also the prophets of the Apostolic age are under the immediate influence of the Spirit and teach the Church. Sometimes they spoke in tongues and others interpreted (cf. xiv. 29). But their immediate inspiration distinguishes them from the διδάσκαΧοι. The source of prophecy is revelation (cf. xiv. 6). But sometimes revelations are given which the prophet is not permitted to divulge. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 1, 4.​

(1909) Goudge, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.111

prophecy, ie. inspired preaching. This was the gift of the Christian prophets (xii. 2S; xiv. 29 f£). It might in some cases include the power to foretell the future (Ac. xi. 27, 28; xxl 10, 11), but primarily, as with the prophets of the O.T., it was a gift for teaching and exhortation. C£ note on v. 28.​

(1914) Robertson and Plummer, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.266

p.280 In Acts xiii. 1 we are equally in doubt whether ‘prophets and teachers ’ means one class or two.

10. προφητεία. Not necessarily predicting the future, but preaching the word with power (xiv. 3, 24, 30): comp. Didache xi. This gift implies special insight into revealed truths and a great faculty for making them and their consequences known to others. It was about the two pairs of gifts mentioned in this verse that the Corinthians were specially excited. See Ency. Bibl. hi. 3886, iv. 4760.​

(1915) MacRory, Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.187, 206

4 Prophecy,׳ which is discussed at length in chapter xiv., is not to be understood merely of the prediction of what was to come, though certainly it sometimes included that, but of the gift of exhorting the faithful under a special Divine influence.

p.206) The gift of Prophecy in the New Testament is not merely or principally the gift of foretelling future things, though it sometimes included this (Acts xi. 27; xxi. 4, 9—11), but a gift endowing its possessor with special powers to edify, exhort, and comfort the faithful (xiv. 3). Neither St. Paul, nor the Didache (x. 11, 13) nor Hermas (Shepherd, Hand. 11) makes any reference to prediction of the future as the function of the prophets, from which we may confidently conclude that it was not the most important part of the prophet’s gift. If they were sometimes enabled to foretell the future or reveal secrets, this was in order that their words might have more weight when by prayer or discourse they sought to edify, exhort, and comfort. (Cf. Corn., pp. 414 f.).​

(1937) Lenski, St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, p.539

Regarding “prophets” see v. 10, the gift of “prophecy.”

This gift is at times taken in a broad sense as in 14:1 and then refers to every ability to communicate the saving will and truth to others; again the expression is taken in a narrow sense and then refers to the fact of receiving direct communications from God and transmitting them to the persons for whom they are intended ׳.

Why would the onset of the charismatic movement render all previous commentaries on scripture obsolete? Did scripture change during the 1970's?​

(1938) Moffatt, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.182

The prophetic gift, characteristic of those who expounded the mind of God, meant revelations of present duty and of future prospects, by which they were inspired to fathom all mysteries and secret lore (xiii. 2), to show how Jesus was Lord, and to bring out the inner force and truth of the gospel.​

(1954) Grosheide, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.287

Prophecy in the New Testament is of a somewhat different nature from that under the old dispensation. It is that special gift that calls and enables certain persons to convey revelations of God to His church. Only a few prophetic utterances are recorded in the New Testament (Acts 11:28; 21:11) but those few show us that the prophets did not receive the same kind of revelations as the apostles received, i. e., revelations of fundamental importance for the whole church, but rather such as proclaimed to the primitive church what it had to do and to know under special circumstances. Those revelations did not have a permanent significance and that may be the reason why so few prophecies are mentioned in the New Testament. The primitive church did not yet have a New Testament; hence her need of prophecies. After the New Testament canon was closed, about 200 A. D., the Montanists tried to revive prophecy artificially, but then the phenomenon disappeared. At that time the church knew what the standard was for her action and confession, because she found it in the New Testament. Prophecy, as Paul describes it, was of a permanent nature; there were prophets at Corinth. This may justify the conclusion that the other charismata also had a permanent character.​

Why would the onset of the charismatic movement render all previous commentaries on scripture obsolete? Did scripture change during the 1970's?

Even though I have strongly advised against purchasing a commentary that was written before the 1980’s, where did I suggest that they were obsolete? Though I do feel that commentaries that have been written since the 1980’s are generally of a higher standard, if for nothing else that they are the result of modern publishing techniques. In addition, prior to the 80’s it was far less common to encounter commentary that interacted with other key commentary and commentators that spoke on the same field, this applies not only to Christian material but to secular as well.

When it comes to Pneumatology, many of the commentators prior to the late 60’s would frequently admit that they were guessing in that they suffered from a lack of experience with the spirituals, though some certainly provided some brilliant commentary on the things of the Spirit and of course the older commentaries. Barclay and Calvin have both summed up the dilemma of many of the peers of their particular time period:

(1954) William Barclay, The Letter’s to the Corinthians, p.141

This whole chapter is a very difficult chapter to understand because it deals with a phenomenon which, for most of us, is quite outside our experience.​

(1546) Calvin, Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, p.416

If any one is of a different opinion, I have no objection to his being so, and will not raise any quarrel on that account. For it is difficult to form a judgment as to gifts and offices of which the Church has been so long deprived, excepting only' that there are some traces, or shadows of them still to be seen.​

(1881) Stanley, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.244

The only allusion to this gift as still existing after the Apostolic times, is in Irenaeus :4 (We hear many brethren in the Church, having prophetical gifts, and by the Spirit speak- in״ in all kinds of languages.’ Many speculations occur in the later Fathers on the subject; but their historical testimony to the nature of the gifts may all be summed up in one sentence of Chrystostom, in his comment on this chapter: ‘This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts described, which are such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place.’​

And thank you for quoting Murray's definition of prophecy as it disproves the pentecostal/charismatic version.

This could be the problem that you have been having with trying to successfully engage on this subject, in that you have failed on this occasion as well to understand that Murray has in fact provided a superb summary of congregational prophecy, and from a time where we could expect that he may never have even encountered congregational prophecy.

As I have said before, as you are regularly making statements about things that you have not experienced, where you remain as an outsider, then you should probably avoid making too many definitive statements and simply ask questions. After all, if you could not understand that Andrew Murray had provided an accurate summary of congregational prophecy after all this time, then you really should keep your input to questions, where numerous forum members should be able to help you out – though obviously, this is something that has not been all that successful so far.

A prophet was a spokesman for God after receiving direct infallible revelations from Him, not somebody making wild guesses based on fuzzy feelings.

Even though I probably should know your views on this matter, where I realise that Major1 does not believe that the Father speaks to his children in prayer, unless it is through the Scriptures; if you hold to this very dated understanding as well, then your issues with prophecy would obviously go far deeper than debates over Continuism and cessationism but with the fundamentals of the Christian faith, where the Father does indeed communicate with his children, either through prayer, prophecy, dreams and visions.

Edit: The first line or two had been left out.

 

[Biblicist]

As Biblicist points out, these commentators base their opinions on their personal theology, and that of their mentors, and on a total lack of practical experience or observation of those involved in the prophetic. So, for that reason, any comments on the prophetic are subjective and not reliable.

Over maybe the past month or so, as I have been searching a number of Theological libraries for older commentary on First Corinthians in particular, I have been surprisingly impressed with the amount of good commentary that I have seen even by theologians of the 1800's.

I must admit that this has surprised me but of course as they are writing from within a period that in most part "hardly knew of the Spirit" then there are of course numerous holes in their theology as they lacked exposure and experience to the things of the Spirit; but so far, I am certainly impressed with the overall integrity of these men when it comes to faithfully commentating on the Word -- it has been a real eye opener for me.

As a result of this surprising amount of good commentary on First Corinthians, it makes me wonder why the early Pentecostals of last century took so long to cast off many errant views; who knows, maybe the various hardback commentaries were simply too expensive for most people to purchase and I guess that Christian libraries were hardly accessible for most.

 

[tdidymas]

This could be the problem that you have been having with trying to successfully engage on this subject, in that you have failed on this occasion as well to understand that Murray has in fact provided a superb summary of congregational prophecy, and from a time where we could expect that he may never have even encountered congregational prophecy.
Edit: Exerpt.

Could you please help me understand how you get support for "congregational prophecy" out of what Murray wrote (provided below)? What exactly do you mean by "congregational prophecy" that is practiced regularly in Charismatic circles, and how do you extract that idea from what Murray wrote?

John Murray - Epistle to the Romans
The regulative principle prescribed for a prophet was that he exercise his gift "according to the proportion of faith'. This has been interpreted, as a literal rendering might suggest, 'according to the analogy of the faith", faith being taken in the objective sense as the truth revealed and believed. This view would correspond to the expression, the analogy of Scripture, which means that Scripture is to be interpreted in accord with Scripture, that the infallible rule of the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. Much can be said in support of this interpretation.

l. If the expression means "proportion of faith', it would have the same force as "measure of faith" (vs. 3), and, since every one is to judge himself and exercise his gift in accordance with the measure of faith given, why should this be repeated and directed to the prophet specifically?

2. There is good reason why a prophet should be reminded that the new revelations he has received are never in conflict with existing revelation. This is the mark of a true prophet (cf. Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22; I Cor. 14:37; I John 4:1-6).

3. The criterion by which men are to judge the claims of a prophet is the canon of revelation which they possess (cf. Acts 17:11).

4. There is warrant in classical Greek for the meaning "analogy' in the sense of that which is in agreement or correspondence with something else.'"

TD

 

[swordsman1]

As you often employ the term "the majority of commentators" without having researched the subject, you might want to take a look at the following summaries of what a number of the more renowned commentators have said regarding prophecy that were made prior to Moo's (1991) commentary; let alone with the incredible amount of commentary that was produced just prior to his and since which also disagreed with him.

As the commentators that I have referred to are all important theologians, their commentary is worth saving to a folder for future use:

(1546) Calvin, Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, p.415

My reason for not agreeing with those who make the whole of the office of Prophet consist in the interpretation of Scriptures is this . . .
(1857) Hodge, Corinthians, p.269-70

To another prophecy. The nature of this gift is clearly exhibited in the 14th ch. It consisted in occasional inspiration and revelations, not merely or generally relating to the future, as in the case of Agabus, Acts 11:28, but either in some new communications relating to faith or duty, or simply an immediate impulse and aid from the Holy Spirit, in presenting truth already known, so that conviction and repentance were the effects aimed at and produced; comp. 14:25. The difference, as before stated, between the apostles and prophets, was, that the former were permanently inspired, so that their teaching was at all times infallible, whereas the prophets were infallible only occasionally. The ordinary teachers were uninspired, speaking from the resources of their own knowledge and experience.
(1903) Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.317

προφητεία. Among the Greeks the προφήτης was the interpreter of the oracular responses delivered by the μάντις. 10, for instance, was prophetess of Apollo. The notion of predicting is not in the προ-, but comes to attach itself to the word because it is concerning the future that men consult the gods. Cf. Paley’s note on Eur., 10 413; Plato, Tim. 72. Among the Hebrews there was no μάντις. The seer and the prophet were one; inspiration and interpretation met. So also the prophets of the Apostolic age are under the immediate influence of the Spirit and teach the Church. Sometimes they spoke in tongues and others interpreted (cf. xiv. 29). But their immediate inspiration distinguishes them from the διδάσκαΧοι. The source of prophecy is revelation (cf. xiv. 6). But sometimes revelations are given which the prophet is not permitted to divulge. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 1, 4.
(1909) Goudge, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.111

prophecy, ie. inspired preaching. This was the gift of the Christian prophets (xii. 2S; xiv. 29 f£). It might in some cases include the power to foretell the future (Ac. xi. 27, 28; xxl 10, 11), but primarily, as with the prophets of the O.T., it was a gift for teaching and exhortation. C£ note on v. 28.

It was Moo himself who said most commentators agreed with him on Rom 12:6, not me!

And why have you given us commentaries of 'prophecy' from 1 Corinthians when we are discussing what Paul said about prophecy in Romans 12:6 and the various commentaries thereof?

And BTW none of those commentaries your quoted subscribe to the pentecostal/charismatic re-definition of prophecy. ie a fallible 'word from the Lord' derived from a person's own thoughts.

Even though I have strongly advised against purchasing a commentary that was written before the 1980’s, where did I suggest that they were obsolete? Though I do feel that commentaries that have been written since the 1980’s are generally of a higher standard, if for nothing else that they are the result of modern publishing techniques. In addition, prior to the 80’s it was far less common to encounter commentary that interacted with other key commentary and commentators that spoke on the same field, this applies not only to Christian material but to secular as well.

When it comes to Pneumatology, many of the commentators prior to the late 60’s would frequently admit that they were guessing in that they suffered from a lack of experience with the spirituals, though some certainly provided some brilliant commentary on the things of the Spirit and of course the older commentaries. Barclay and Calvin have both summed up the dilemma of many of the peers of their particular time period:

Because the reason you rejected Murray's commentary on Rom 12:6 was because it was "written before the onset of the Charismatic Renewal so I doubt if he had ever even met a Pentecostal prior to this time".

Where did any commentator admit they were guessing due to a lack of experience? Any good exegete should based their conclusions solely on what scripture says and not on their own personal experiences.
The aim of exegesis is to draw the meaning solely from the text using the established principles of hermeneutics (examining the context, cross-checking with other scripture, etc). That is not always straightforward though as the number of different interpretations of a difficult text will testify, especially if insufficient time is given to studying the text. However the interpretation should be never be influenced by other sources such as your own experiences or preconceived ideas, the teachings of your denomination or mentors, etc - these must be cast aside. Trying to force your own ideas or experiences into a text is the fallacy of eisogesis and, as we know, is a very common practice in pentecostal/charismatic theology.

The reason that older commentators didn't experience those gifts was not because they weren't fortunate enough receive the 'second blessing experience', but because those gifts have ceased (as most of them will say). A situation that prevails to this day.

This could be the problem that you have been having with trying to successfully engage on this subject, in that you have failed on this occasion as well to understand that Murray has in fact provided a superb summary of congregational prophecy, and from a time where we could expect that he may never have even encountered congregational prophecy.

Tell me, did you actually read Murray's definition of prophecy before you posted it? It completely disagrees with the Pentecostal/charismatic re-definition of the term.

As I have said before, as you are regularly making statements about things that you have not experienced, where you remain as an outsider, then you should probably avoid making too many definitive statements and simply ask questions. After all, if you could not understand that Andrew Murray had provided an accurate summary of congregational prophecy after all this time, then you really should keep your input to questions, where numerous forum members should be able to help you out – though obviously, this is something that has not been all that successful so far.

I make my statements based on what scripture says about tongues, prophecy etc. As you admit, yours are based on your 'experience'. What you think is tongues and prophecy and what scripture describes them as are two completely different things.

 

[Biblicist]

Could you please help me understand how you get support for "congregational prophecy" out of what Murray wrote (provided below)? What exactly do you mean by "congregational prophecy" that is practiced regularly in Charismatic circles, and how do you extract that idea from what Murray wrote?TD

The term "congregational prophet" is merely a way of referring to how prophecy is utilised within the congregational/church setting as say against that of prophecy in the Old Covenant. When I am talking to other Continuists, be they Pentecostal or Charismatic, I would not bother prefacing prophet with congregational as they would be aware of the difference.

Andrew Murray's definition of prophecy fits perfectly within the Office/function of New Testament prophecy as it always involves revelation of truth but instead of saying it comes from God, I would say that the Holy Spirit is the agent/source of the communication.

“Prophecy refers to the function of communicating revelations of truth from God. The prophet was an organ of revelation; he was God’s spokesman. His office was not restricted to prediction of the future although this was likewise his prerogative when God was pleased to unveil future events to him”.
​

As Murray has stated, prophecy is not solely intended to 'predict the future' and from my observation it probably has more focus toward the immediate needs of both the local congregation and/or an individual within the congregation.

 

[swordsman1]

The term "congregational prophet" is merely a way of referring to how prophecy is utilised within the congregational/church setting as say against that of prophecy in the Old Covenant. When I am talking to other Continuists, be they Pentecostal or Charismatic, I would not bother prefacing prophet with congregational as they would be aware of the difference.

Andrew Murray's definition of prophecy fits perfectly within the Office/function of New Testament prophecy as it always involves revelation of truth but instead of saying it comes from God, I would say that the Holy Spirit is the agent/source of the communication.

“Prophecy refers to the function of communicating revelations of truth from God. The prophet was an organ of revelation; he was God’s spokesman. His office was not restricted to prediction of the future although this was likewise his prerogative when God was pleased to unveil future events to him”.
​

As Murray has stated, prophecy is not solely intended to 'predict the future' and from my observation it probably has more focus toward the immediate needs of both the local congregation and/or an individual within the congregation.

Nobody said prophecy is solely predicting the future. Prophecy can be forth-telling as well as fore-telling. They are infallible words given directly from God to the prophet whose job it is to accurately convey that message to the people as God's spokesman. Just as Murray describes it. Not as a thought that pops into a person's mind who then says this is a 'word from the Lord', which can sometimes be truth and other times error.

Your words "I would say" and "from my observation" regarding Murray's commentary are rather telling. ie. you are putting words into his mouth.

 

[Biblicist]

It was Moo himself who said most commentators agreed with him on Rom 12:6, not me!

If you wish to quote and agree with him that's up to you, but as you have been told on numerous occasions that his viewpoint is solely the domain of the cessationist and liberals then if you disagree then you need to say so when quoting him or another.

Because the reason you rejected Murray's commentary on Rom 12:6 was because it was "written before the onset of the Charismatic Renewal so I doubt if he had ever even met a Pentecostal prior to this time".

Where did any commentator admit they were guessing due to a lack of experience?

As you obviously did not read the views of the three theologians that I quoted on this very point then let me refer to them again:

(1954) William Barclay, The Letter’s to the Corinthians, p.141

This whole chapter is a very difficult chapter to understand because it deals with a phenomenon which, for most of us, is quite outside our experience.
​

(1546) Calvin, Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, p.416

If any one is of a different opinion, I have no objection to his being so, and will not raise any quarrel on that account. For it is difficult to form a judgment as to gifts and offices of which the Church has been so long deprived, excepting only' that there are some traces, or shadows of them still to be seen.
​

(1881) Stanley, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.244

The only allusion to this gift as still existing after the Apostolic times, is in Irenaeus :4 (We hear many brethren in the Church, having prophetical gifts, and by the Spirit speak- in״ in all kinds of languages.’ Many speculations occur in the later Fathers on the subject; but their historical testimony to the nature of the gifts may all be summed up in one sentence of Chrystostom, in his comment on this chapter: ‘This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts described, which are such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place.’​

Any good exegete should based their conclusions solely on what scripture says and not on their own personal experiences.

The problem here is that your understanding of experience is essentially a view that is not held by the vast majority of Evangelicals, Charismatics or Evangelicals and for centuries those who are Arminian have strenuously fought against this, dare I say, humanist understanding of how man relates to the Godhead.

The aim of exegesis is to draw the meaning solely from the text using the established principles of hermeneutics (examining the context, cross-checking with other scripture, etc). That is not always straightforward though as the number of different interpretations of a difficult text will testify, especially if insufficient time is given to studying the text. However the interpretation should be never be influenced by other sources such as your own experiences or preconceived ideas, the teachings of your denomination or mentors, etc - these must be cast aside. Trying to force your own ideas or experiences into a text is the fallacy of eisogesis and, as we know, is a very common practice in pentecostal/charismatic theology.

The reason that older commentators didn't experience those gifts was not because they weren't fortunate enough receive the 'second blessing experience', but because those gifts have ceased (as most of them will say). A situation that prevails to this day.

Up until recent months I have not bothered with the older commentaries on the things of the Holy Spirit as the material that has been produced over the past three or so decades has been more than satisfactory.

As I said in an earlier post, through my recent and ongoing readings within our local Christian college libraries, what has impressed me so far with much of the commentary by those prior to around 1960 and back through the 1800's, is that they regularly (but not consistently so) have presented a solid Continuist understanding of numerous key passages. When we consider that some of them were writing during the period of humanist rationalism, where Hume seems to be a guru for many contemporary cessationists, in spite of their lack of experience with the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit they have frequently performed as well as many contemporary commentators.

But, as with all things in the Christian walk, experience can make the difference between a religious theorist and one who walks in both confidence and vitality.

Tell me, did you actually read Murray's definition of prophecy before you posted it? It completely disagrees with the Pentecostal/charismatic re-definition of the term.

I understand, you were embarrassed by how you misunderstood Murray.

Before I forget, as you also 'struggled' to understand 1 Cor 13:10 (to teleion), I have now added 84 commentaries to that free study that I am preparing; undoubtedly you will also say that they are all wrong as well or that I have misread them. Once I hit the 100 mark I will post it on the forum - it is making for one very interesting read indeed.

I make my statements based on what scripture says about tongues, prophecy etc. As you admit, yours are based on your 'experience'. What you think is tongues and prophecy and what scripture describes them as are two completely different things.

That's a novel way of putting it, but I think that you are confusing Scripture with agenda.

 

[Biblicist]

Your words "I would say" and "from my observation" regarding Murray's commentary are rather telling. ie. you are putting words into his mouth.

Again, the Pentecostal and Charismatic has the advantage over you in that we have experience of the things of the Spirit whereas you have admitted that you do not. Tell me, how in the world can I be putting 'words into Murray's mouth' when I mentioned that I have OBSERVED within OUR congregations that the Holy Spirit APPEARS to work more in one manner than he does in another? Are you maybe struggling a bit with the English language - that was a strange comment even from you.

As I started to reply to TD yesterday, and yesterday has now turned into tomorrow, which just happens to be today, I will now depart for the land of slumber.

 

[swordsman1]

If you wish to quote and agree with him that's up to you, but as you have been told on numerous occasions that his viewpoint is solely the domain of the cessationist and liberals then if you disagree then you need to say so when quoting him or another.

I do agree with him, in fact my own limited research into other commentaries of this passage has corroborated his claim that most other commentators do indeed agree with him. But no doubt he had checked far more commentaries on Romans than I have.

Since when has Douglas Moo been known for being a cessationist or a liberal? He is a well known and highly respected scholar having written numerous books and commentaries including :

Romans (NICNT and Wycliffe commentaries)
James (Tyndale and Pillar commentaries )
2 Peter, Jude. (NIV Application Commentary
Colossians and to Philemon. (Pillar Commentary)
Galatians (Baker Exegetical Commentary)

In 2014, a Festschrift was published in his honour including contributions from G. K. Beale, Craig Blomberg, James Dunn, Grant R. Osborne, Thomas R. Schreiner, and N. T. Wright.

I am not aware of any contribution he has made to the continuist v cessationist debate. And neither is he a liberal, being thoroughly evangelical in his outlook and recognizing the bible as both infallible and authoritative. Liberalism is more the domain of Pentecostals and charismatics who have scant regard for scripture in their thinking.

As you obviously did not read the views of the three theologians that I quoted on this very point then let me refer to them again:

(1954) William Barclay, The Letter’s to the Corinthians, p.141
This whole chapter is a very difficult chapter to understand because it deals with a phenomenon which, for most of us, is quite outside our experience.
(1546) Calvin, Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, p.416
If any one is of a different opinion, I have no objection to his being so, and will not raise any quarrel on that account. For it is difficult to form a judgment as to gifts and offices of which the Church has been so long deprived, excepting only' that there are some traces, or shadows of them still to be seen.
(1881) Stanley, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.244
The only allusion to this gift as still existing after the Apostolic times, is in Irenaeus :4 (We hear many brethren in the Church, having prophetical gifts, and by the Spirit speak- in״ in all kinds of languages.’ Many speculations occur in the later Fathers on the subject; but their historical testimony to the nature of the gifts may all be summed up in one sentence of Chrystostom, in his comment on this chapter: ‘This whole place is very obscure; but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts described, which are such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place.’

In the case of Barclay you are right he is guessing, as a couple of sentences later he comes out with this clanger:

"First there is speaking with tongues. This phenomenon was very common in the early Church. A man became worked up to an ecstasy and in that state poured out a quite uncontrollable torrent of sounds in no known language."​

As for Calvin he was arguing against the claim by others that the gift of prophecy is 'inspired preaching'. His view being that as the gift has long since ceased it is difficult, apart from what scripture says, to establish it's exact nature. Stanley says likewise.

None of them say they are guessing because they lack having an 'experience'.

The problem here is that your understanding of experience is essentially a view that is not held by the vast majority of Evangelicals, Charismatics or Evangelicals and for centuries those who are Arminian have strenuously fought against this, dare I say, humanist understanding of how man relates to the Godhead.

You obviously do not understand what exegesis means if you think personal experiences form part of the process of biblical interpretation and establishing doctrine. But then that comes as no surprise to me, as this is typical of the pentecostal/charismatic mindset. As this is probably in the opening paragraphs of every text book on hermeneutics it just goes to show how inexperienced you are on this subject. But let me help you by quoting a few books:

Klein Blomberg Hubbard - Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
Any type of oral or written communication involves three expressions of meaning: (1) what the speaker or writer meant by what he or she said; (2) what the recipient actually understood by the statement; and in some abstract sense, (3) what meaning is actually encoded in the text or utterance itself.
...
We must avoid the tendency to regard our own experience as the standard for interpreting what we see and read. All of us seem to suffer from the same malady: to view our own experiences of the world as normative, valid, and true. Naturally, we are inclined to read the Bible through the lens of this tendency.

Grant Osborne - Hermeneutical Spiral.
Exegesis means to "draw out of" a text what it means, in contrast to eisegesis, to "read into" a text what one wants it to mean.
...
One major purpose of deductive study is to take us away from the contemporary meaning of the word-symbols in the text, which, because of our preunderstanding and personal experiences, we cannot help but read back into the text. Our effort then is to get back to the meaning the ancient author intended to convey. We could not do this without exegetical tools, for without help we know too little about that ancient period.Therefore we must use the inductive and deductive sides together to understand the “meaning” of the text.

Roy B Zuck - Basic Bible Interpretation
The Bible student must also approach the Scriptures with sound judgment and reason, seeking to be as objective in his approach to the Bible as possible, without coming to the Scriptures with prejudice or preconceived notions....
This corollary suggests that we should not go to the Bible with preconceived notions or ideas, but instead should let the Bible speak for itself....This corollary also suggests that the goal of Bible interpretation is to determine the original meaning of the text. This is called exegesis, reading the meaning out of the text, and is the opposite of eisegesis, reading a meaning into the text. If one person can make a Bible verse say what he wants it to say, and another person may say it means something else, something be wants it to mean, and if neither meaning is derived from the actual statement of Scripture, then we destroy the ability of the Bible to communicate as a normal piece of literature. Unless we accept the normal or natural sense of Scripture we have no controls in our approach to the Bible....
Subjectivism is the view that knowledge comes by one’s own experience, or that the supreme good is the realizing of a subjective experience or feeling....In liberal pulpits, rationalism and human experience or subjectivism are still the norm. Man’s reason is set above God’s revelation, God is robbed of His supernatural character, and the Bible is robbed of its authority.​

Up until recent months I have not bothered with the older commentaries on the things of the Holy Spirit as the material that has been produced over the past three or so decades has been more than satisfactory.

As I said in an earlier post, through my recent and ongoing readings within our local Christian college libraries, what has impressed me so far with much of the commentary by those prior to around 1960 and back through the 1800's, is that they regularly (but not consistently so) have presented a solid Continuist understanding of numerous key passages. When we consider that some of them were writing during the period of humanist rationalism, where Hume seems to be a guru for many contemporary cessationists, in spite of their lack of experience with the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit they have frequently performed as well as many contemporary commentators.

But, as with all things in the Christian walk, experience can make the difference between a religious theorist and one who walks in both confidence and vitality.

Of course the real reason you prefer modern commentaries is because more of them are written by authors who have been influenced by the pentecostal and charismatic movements, many having been churched in those environments and so are loyal to that dogma, despite it's lack of biblical support.

The older pre-twentieth century commentaries are just as valuable of course, their age not being a valid reason to reject them as you so often claim it is. In fact they are far more objective as they have not been influenced by the massive pentecostal/charismatic publicity machine nor have to panda to their publishers editorial control who will not let any book through that might offend the millions of people who have been duped by this movement and so risk losing sales.

I understand, you were embarrassed by how you misunderstood Murray.

Why would I be embarrassed when Murray explained himself perfectly well and I fully agree with him. You are the one who should be embarrassed for shooting yourself in the foot yet again and quoting a commentator that disagrees with your own position.

Before I forget, as you also 'struggled' to understand 1 Cor 13:10 (to teleion), I have now added 84 commentaries to that free study that I am preparing; undoubtedly you will also say that they are all wrong as well or that I have misread them. Once I hit the 100 mark I will post it on the forum - it is making for one very interesting read indeed.

We already know that most commentaries only devote a two or three sentences to a passage that is universally recognized as being one of the most obscure in the NT, with nearly all of them basing their understanding on the traditional and controversial translation of 'the perfect' in the KJV, but if you want to prove my point even further then go right ahead.

 

[LawrenceRaymond]

Interesting to see 1 Cor 13 applied about the incomplete, and the interesting idea that the cannon (which is only a selecting process, and more than one at one time....) constitutes completeness....but leave that and instead read and see what Paul directly says as he spends chapter 14 on tongues!

Your first point though is very key -- the tongues that came on pentecost were understood by people listening!

Paul will add to that in chapter 14.

It is not up to us to decide when the Spirit is done with whatever, and what the Spirit may or may not do.

I personally enjoy how speaking in tongues confuses the enemy. During World War I, Native Americans from the Choctaw, Cheyenne, Comanche, Cherokee, Osage and Yankton Sioux were enlisted to communicate as code talkers. Previous to their arrival in France, the Germans had broken every American code used, resulting in the deaths of many Soldiers. However, the Germans never broke the Indians’ “code,” and these Soldiers became affectionately known as “code talkers.”
My most sincere hope is that believers will make the most of this gift in the area of spiritual warfare!

 

[LawrenceRaymond]

Jesus Said:
Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

To me, personally, that doesn't sound like these things have ceased, but that they are to be active in the church But I don't wish to argue, only to leave my point of view. God bless.

It's such a blessing to see casting out devils and speaking in tongues placed side-by-side in Mark 16:17.
I've been in deliverance sessions where people take on the strength of ten men and a host of other crazy things while they are being ministered to and tongues was an excellent "secret weapon" during these sessions. Some of these experiences were not for the faint of heart to say the least but seeing people go from totally bound to totally free makes life worth living for and fighting for and if need be even dying for.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I suppose that a qualification is in order in that neither the congregational apostle and those who are Apostles-of-Christ are so called 'spiritual gifts'.

Those who were Apostles-of-Christ, such as the Twelve, where Matthias replaced Judas and Paul who as an Apostle-of-Christ was never one of the Twelve, were given their 'Office' by appointment by Christ and there is certainly no spiritual endowment or "gifting" in play.

As I in in the office at the moment I will have to reply in more detail sometime later in the day.


As you have completely misread the paragraph from TDNTT I will address it later tonight - hopefully.


How can my remarks be in error as you are obviously a novice to the better secondary material, as are probably most of the forum members who are on this thread, there is nothing wrong with that as we all have to start somewhere; but, for those who are obviously new to the various Greek lexicons and the better commentaries and who sometimes seem to be completely unaware of who the more renowned scholars are who have addressed this subject, then they need to approach their material very carefully and not insert their own thoughts as being theirs.

Remember, you are the one who loves to throw around insults but I will admit that I tend to be better at having a jibe at you - even when you are not even aware that I am doing so. If you can behave in a more mature and responsible manner and not go off the planet as you often do then you will not leave yourself open to some well deserved banter.

Commentaries are helpful, but the best Commentator is the Holy Spirit of Truth.

 

[Revelational]

My view is that speaking in tongues describes a gift given by the holy spirit, and not achieved by human means, but that it's purpose is to provide a miracle by which you can communicate with people. At the miracle of the Pentecost, all those who spoke in tongues were suddenly able to communicate with those that didn't speak their native language. It doesnt mention that there were those who were speaking in a heavenly, or angelic language. It is spontaneous, happens only according to the Holy Spirit's will, and a powerful tool for ministry, and not simply a measure of faith. All miracles flow from God, and we cannot 'tap into' the Holy Spirit to make it happen.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

My view is that speaking in tongues describes a gift given by the holy spirit, and not achieved by human means, but that it's purpose is to provide a miracle by which you can communicate with people. At the miracle of the Pentecost, all those who spoke in tongues were suddenly able to communicate with those that didn't speak their native language. It doesnt mention that there were those who were speaking in a heavenly, or angelic language. It is spontaneous, happens only according to the Holy Spirit's will, and a powerful tool for ministry, and not simply a measure of faith. All miracles flow from God, and we cannot 'tap into' the Holy Spirit to make it happen.

While I agree with the Spirit-given aspect of tongues, how do you explain Paul's statement that when a person speaks in tongues he speaks to God mysteries in the Spirit and no man understands him?

By the way, I have already heard the excuse that the non-understanding is limited to the Corinthians themselves, and it just doesn't wash with me. Also, when you have spoken in tongues, has anyone ever been able to understand what you have spoken?