Number One Flaw in Cessationism

[CharismaticLady]

Nope. No gift of tongues in Acts. Did you read the links I gave you where I proved it was prophecy? Had you read them, you'd see that this rendering:

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

can (and should, in my view) be replaced with this rendering:

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The Greek term in question means 'language'. Don't confuse the generic term for language with the GIFT of tongues.

Acts is about prophecy-as-evangelism and what it's trying to convey is that prophecy is the perfect evangelistic tool because it has the ability to surmount all language barriers. Unfortunately most of the church still hasn't grasped the basics of NT evangelism.

Well this is a new argument, for sure. But it doesn't hold water.

I'm not saying prophecy was not present, but it was Peter who demonstrated it by correctly interpreting Joel 2. And even though the gift of interpretation of tongues was also present, it wasn't interpreting prophecy, but praise.

 

[JAL]

Well this is a new argument, for sure. But it doesn't hold water.

I guffawed at that one. Thanks.

I'm not saying prophecy was not present, but it was Peter who demonstrated it by correctly interpreting Joel 2. And even though the gift of interpretation of tongues was also present, it wasn't interpreting prophecy, but praise.

I don't see what you're saying. My argument was:
(1) Jesus implied prophecy at Acts 1:8. I provided two links that proved it twice.
(2) Then Peter CONFIRMED that Acts 2 was the fullfilment of Joel. Joel, as you recall, promised an outpouring of prophecy, not the gift of tongues.

Paul's logic in 1Cor 14 further confirms it, because there was no interpreter. 1Cor 14 is dealing with a tongue that NO ONE UNDERSTANDS without an interpreter. NOWHERE in Acts do we find a two-stage message of the kind:
(1) First the message is spoken in a tongue that no one understands
(2) Then an interpreter translates into a tongue that everyone in the vicinity understands.

So basically, I've confirmed my conclusion in triplicate. From where I'm standing, it is the dissenting views that don't hold water.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I guffawed at that one. Thanks.


I don't see what you're saying. My argument was:
(1) Jesus implied prophecy at Acts 1:8. I provided two links that proved it twice.
(2) Then Peter CONFIRMED that Acts 2 was the fullfilment of Joel. Joel, as you recall, promised an outpouring of prophecy, not the gift of tongues.

Paul's logic in 1Cor 14 further confirms it, because there was no interpreter. 1Cor 14 is dealing with a tongue that NO ONE UNDERSTANDS without an interpreter. NOWHERE in Acts do we find a two-stage message of the kind:
(1) First the message is spoken in a tongue that no one understands
(2) Then an interpreter translates into a tongue that everyone in the vicinity understands.

So basically, I've confirmed my conclusion in triplicate. From where I'm standing, it is the dissenting views that don't hold water.

So, before Peter spoke to tell them what was happening was a fulfillment of Joel 2, are you thinking that those who were speaking, that the devout Jews heard in their own languages, were speaking prophecies? Is that what you mean?

 

[JAL]

So, before Peter spoke to tell them what was happening was a fulfillment of Joel 2, are you thinking that those who were speaking, that the devout Jews heard in their own languages, were speaking prophecies? Is that what you mean?

"It will not be you speaking but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you."

Witnessing/evangelism refers to Spirit-inspired speech, also known as prophecy. Some people think that prophecy is limited to predicting the future but the majority of utterances spoken by prophets were probably not predictive.

We do find, in 1Cor 14, one restriction on prophecy is that the audience must be able to understand it. But no issues there, for Acts.

 

[CharismaticLady]

"It will not be you speaking but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you."

Correct.

Witnessing/evangelism refers to Spirit-inspired speech, also known as prophecy. Some people think that prophecy is limited to predicting the future but the majority of utterances spoken by prophets were probably not predictive.

Correct. The difference between foretelling and forth-telling.

We do find, in 1Cor 14, one restriction on prophecy is that the audience must be able to understand it. But no issues there, for Acts.

True, there wasn't, except for the mockers. Why didn't the mockers understand. All they heard was gibberish, a term mockers today love to describe a gift of God - Yikes!

So if the disciples were actually speaking in tongues, how could the devout Jews of different languages understand them?

 

[JAL]

Correct.



Correct. The difference between foretelling and forth-telling.



True, there wasn't, except for the mockers. Why didn't the mockers understand. All they heard was gibberish, a term mockers today love to describe a gift of God - Yikes!

So if the disciples were actually speaking in tongues, how could the devout Jews of different languages understand them?

Personally I don't give much thought to the dynamics of how it was accomplished. For example the Spirit could have both modified and multiplied the sound vibrations, as needed, to insure that every needed language was heard. The main points are:
(1) Peter classified it as prophecy.
(2) There was no 2-stage process (unknown tongue followed by an interpretation).

 

[CharismaticLady]

(1) Peter classified it as prophecy.

I apologize for having missed where you spoke of this. Can you give the texts again to this statement? Thanks.

 

[Acts2:38]

This is a horrible reading of 1Cor 13:8-12. That chapter is dealing with the maturation of the gifts, not the cessation of the gifts.

Actually, the point of the whole chapter was about Love as the greatest gift among two others, and that that will not vanish. However, the others will vanish away; cease; stop from being used.

I have never heard your view point before, though comparing to scriptures, it is wrong.

I back this up with concessions from cessationist scholars at post 58.

People are fickle things. Hosea did say that God's people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. The same holds true today for those weak in understanding from lack of study. Just because they are professors and such, doesnt make them exempt from being weak or making mistakes.

I too could grab a handful of quotes from scholars that have "switch sides". I dont care really what they say, only scripture. Does it compare to what scripture says, is what I am about.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Actually, the point of the whole chapter was about Love as the greatest gift among two others, and that that will not vanish. However, the others will vanish away; cease; stop from being used.

Yes, heaven will be full of love. There will be no need for any of the gifts in heaven. But, now it another matter altogether. We need all the help we can get!!!

 

[Acts2:38]

Nope. No gift of tongues in Acts. Did you read the links I gave you where I proved it was prophecy? Had you read them, you'd see that this rendering:

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

can (and should, in my view) be replaced with this rendering:

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The Greek term in question means 'language'. Don't confuse the generic term for language with the GIFT of tongues.

Friend,

That is the gift! The gift to speak a language not studied or known before, suddenly becoming known. That is the gift of tongues!

Greek term and context of scriptures states such. You nailed it on the head and still refused it. It amazes me.

 

[Acts2:38]

Yes, heaven will be full of love. There will be no need for any of the gifts in heaven. But, now it another matter altogether. We need all the help we can get!!!

I refer again to post #3. You have not addressed it at all yet.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Friend,

That is the gift! The gift to speak a language not studied or known before, suddenly becoming known. That is the gift of tongues!

Greek term and context of scriptures states such. You nailed it on the head and still refused it. It amazes me.

Are you saying that if I only know English (which is true) and I am given the gift of tongues, all of sudden I know the meaning of other languages and can speak them fluently? How many? One or more?

 

[Acts2:38]

I see where you frequently assert your conclusions but I'm not clear why you think Scripture has strong support for them. Paul mentioned the tongues of angels in chapter 13. You claim to positively rule this out. Should I believe you, or Paul? Boy - that's a tough one!

In that post you said:

"If you only speak English, and you go to people who only speak German....

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

Well yeah God understands you and knows what your saying, but the people who speak German have no clue what you say. So you need an interpreter. One who knows both German and English. If you dont have that interpreter...."

Are you saying that the gift of interpretation is someone who already knows the languages at issue? How is that a gift? Does't one just goto school for that kind of knowledge? Here's what Paul said:

"Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret." (14:13).

If the interpreter is supposed to be someone who already knows the languages, why is anyone supposed to PRAY for an interpretation? Why not just say, "Hey guys? Does any of you know both English and German?"

And if we're talking about known languages such as English and German - and according to you there is supposed to be someone in the congregation who DOES understand both languages - why does Paul say:

"Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit"

"No one" generally means "No one". There is no one in the congregation who knows both the languages.

I see you expressing a lot of opinions but having difficulty seeing where they line up with Paul.

You used quotes, heres mine:
What Are the "Tongues of Angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1?

 

[Acts2:38]

Are you saying that if I only know English (which is true) and I am given the gift of tongues, all of sudden I know the meaning of other languages and can speak them fluently?

Yes, reason....
Acts 2
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues,
Acts 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues
Acts 19
6...the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

How many? One or more?

Scripture doesnt say. But all the people heard their language Acts 2

because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

 

[swordsman1]

I was referring to 'gifts of healing'. The plural doesn't favor your view.

The plural simply means there were many types of gift of healing.

Right now you are debating me on whether:
(1) There is a gift of healing
(2) There is no such gift of healing.
But here's what interesting. NEITHER of those premises establishes your conclusion.
(3) That prayer isn't needed.

Your thesis (automatic charismata without prayer) simply isn't clearly articulated in Scripture. Basically, you're asking us to disregard a strongly articulated thesis (prayer) in favor of a non-articulated one.

Where in scripture does it say or even suggest that prayer is needed if you have the gift of healing?

You're shifting the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. You are asserting that "fanning into flame" means praying for healing. The onus is therefore on you to prove it.

From cover to cover, the Bible esteems men of prayer and implies that the blessings of God are more abundant for them. Jesus had a lot to say about prayer in John 14, 15, and 16, not to mention Mark 11. In those places He indicated that His blessings are given in response to prayer and faith.

Look, we were created for fellowship with God. On that ground alone, it doesn't make much sense to postulate a doctrine that flows the same volume of blessings to the prayerless. The burden of proof falls on you. You haven't met that burden.

Non sequitur. Just because prayer is an important aspect of Christian life doesn't mean that prayer is required to exercise the gift of healing. As the numerous examples in Acts demonstrates.

That wasn't implied. The plural 'gifts' was applied to healing.

That is exactly what you are implying. They are either all spiritual gifts, or none are. You can't just cherry pick one item from the list of gifts and arbitrarily declare that not to be a spiritual gift simply on the basis of 'gifts' being in the plural.

Show me in Scripture where the exegete isn't supposed to use common sense. Both healing and resurrection have in common the restoration of bodily functions (which is healing). But for obvious reasons, it's useful to have a word that identifies resurrection from the dead - as it is a DEGREE of healing monumentally more impressive. Even ordinary doctors can heal ordinary diseases. But they can't raise men from the dead. Scripture calls attention to such gradations in healing just like you yourself would distinguish first-aid healing from brain-surgery-healing. But common sense puts them in the same general category.

Try looking up the word 'healing' in a dictionary. If you can show me a single definition that says it also includes raising someone from the dead, then we can begin to take your suggestion seriously.

YOU claimed that the gift of healing is an automatic charism that NEVER needs prayer. That's what this debate was about. Now you're changing the topic, and putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to do a miracle without prayer.

You used the example of Peter praying before raising Tabitha and argued that because the gift of miracles is listed along with healing (all apples you said) then healing too could require prayer. (Despite you saying that there is no such thing as the gift of healing). It therefore logically follows that your theory must also apply to all the other gifts listed. Or are you cherry picking again? But yet again your argument is a non-sequitur. Just because one gift required prayer on occasion doesn't mean all the other gifts must also do. And again it can be argued that if Peter had to pray for God's help to raise her from the dead then he wasn't using a gift of miracles. Any of us can pray for a miracle and not have the gift. In fact it could even be argued that Peter didn't even pray for Tabitha to be raised from the dead (it doesn't say he did). So I'm afraid your rebuttal fails on multiple levels. As I said, apples and oranges.

 

[CharismaticLady]

#1 First error, you compared "prayer" as a miraculous gift on the same level as tongues and what have you. It is not. "Prayer" is a "spiritual blessing" reserved for those who are in Christ. There is a huge difference there. Everyone (unsaved and saved) has the "physical blessing" of "being fruitful and multiplying" which is quite obviously not a miracle (supernatural going against what is natural or normal). However only the saved are granted access to prayer.

Ephesians 1
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

It continues to list a broad spectrum of the blessings, in the following verses in which prayer would fall under.

It is clear that God would listen to any with that blessing of prayer so long as they are "in Christ" (Galatians 3:26-27;Ephesians 1:3) when looking at 1 Peter 3:12. The reason I mention this is because when it came to miracles, people granted the miracles gifts didnt typically have ALL of the miracles, hence when Paul mentioned:

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. (1 Cor. 13)

Elsewhere we also see Paul said:
1 Cor. 12
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

So it would be obvious prayer is not a miraculous gift, but a spiritual blessing, which is different, because everyone "in Christ" has access to prayer to God through Jesus.

Okay, you're right, I've dealt with prayer, but not with you.

These are prayer without the use of speaking in tongues. BUT they do require other gifts of the Spirit of 1 Corinthians 12. So none of the gifts of the Spirit have ceased, otherwise these scriptures would not be for us and we would be in a different covenant, and would have to find our NEWEST TESTAMENT, AND FIND ANOTHER SAVIOR.

1 John 3:
18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. 24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

1 John 5:
14 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him.

John 15:
7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

Notice answered prayer is the confirmation that we are on the right road to salvation, which cannot be said for OSAS.

Praying in tongues is when you DON'T know what is the will of God, and pray His perfect will outside our comprehension. It doesn't require interpretation, because it is for private use.

 

[swordsman1]

Unlike Acts, chapters 12 to 14 of 1Corinthians do feature the gift of unknown tongues as rightly defined in modern Pentecostalism

Define what you mean by "unknown" bearing in mind that word doesn't appear in the Greek.

And based on 14:28, I see no reason one can't speak the tongue quietly to himself for personal edification.

1 Cor 14:28 doesn't say "speak in tongues quietly to himself". If says "keep silent".

Using a gift solely for personal edification would be an abuse of a spiritual gift which are only supposed to be used for the benefit of others.

From an exegetical standpoint, the gift of interpretation, as Pentecostals point out, appears to be a sudden enduement for understanding a language unknown to anyone in the congregation, probably a language currently unknown to anyone on planet earth, such as an angelic tongue or an ancient human language.

There is no evidence in scripture that anyone spoke in angelic or non-human tongues. The only definition of the phenomenon is given in Acts 2 where it is clearly described as foreign languages. If they were ancient human languages they would have been spotted by the numerous linguists who have studied today's so called tongues.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Yes, reason....
Acts 2
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues,
Acts 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues
Acts 19
6...the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


Scripture doesnt say. But all the people heard their language Acts 2

because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

So, if I have been given the gift of tongues, shouldn't I already know what I'm saying in that other language?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Define what you mean by "unknown" bearing in mind that word doesn't appear in the Greek.



1 Cor 14:28 doesn't say "speak in tongues quietly to himself". If says "keep silent".

Using a gift solely for personal edification would be an abuse of a spiritual gift which are only supposed to be used for the benefit of others.

Again, you do not understand that there are two manifestations of the ability to speak in tongues.

Mark 16 - private use - prayer and praise - TO God. Doesn't require interpretation.

1 Cor. 12 - corporate use - messages - FROM God. Requires interpretation.

 

[JAL]

You used quotes, heres mine:
What Are the "Tongues of Angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1?

You cited that article in response to a post of mine - but it doesn't address all of the objections in that post. And I don't yet see where it convincingly addresses any of them. How does the article positively rule out angelic tongues? Consider the following reading of 13:1 (paraphrase):

"If I, having the gift of tongues, speak in languages of angels and men..."

The writer clearly wants to rule out such readings but I'm not clear how he, other than personal bias, reaches that conclusion. (BTW, this isn't all-or-nothing, it is feasible that in some cases tongues are ancient human languages and sometimes angelic languages).

The article is full of moot points such as, "There are numerous Bible examples of angels speaking to men." Agreed, but how does that moot point resolve THIS debate?

Much of the article is spent (wasted) on this moot point, "If one employs his gift of tongues before an audience..." - moot because most Pentecostals already concur that when the tongue is proclaimed TO THE WHOLE AUDIENCE, it's supposed to have an interpreter. But not every word of prayer enunciated in a church setting is proclaimed to the entire audience - verse 14:28 suggests that, when there is no interpreter, he can pray the tongue quietly to God. Also, as I said, Paul's regulations do not necessarily apply today because, sadly enough, there isn't much abundance of gifts to regulate, due to failures on the part of the church (in my view).

Much of the article is an attempt to shift the burden of the proof, i.e., "Prove to us that men spoke in angelic tongues." But the Pentecostal position hardly stands or falls on that question. It need not meet that burden of proof. Certainly that article fails to prove that an angelic tongue is an impossible theory.