Speaking in Tongues a Cessationists’ View

[swordsman1]

To try and explain away and hide their own lack of holiness and commitment to Christ as the cause, they introduced the teaching that the gifts ceased when the last Apostle died. Every Christian movement that has required holiness and commitment to Christ has had the supernatural gifts emerge.

So the reason Charismatics allegedly speak in tongues, and say Presbyterians don't is because Charismatics are holier and more committed to Christ than Presbyterians?

Have you seen some of the sinful practices committed in charismatic churches today?

 

[Saint Steven]

We have zero scripture to support your claims for tongues outlasting the Apostles who administered them.

That's pretty funny. And not correct either.

First the humor. It seems that the Apostles lived longer than it took to write the books in the NT canon. So, how could they write that the gifts had not outlasted them?

And I did in fact present scripture to indicate that the gifts would outlast the Apostles. Here it is again. Don't you remember? I asked you if you were called.

Acts 2:38-39
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

 

[Paul.]

The tongues of angels in 1 Cor 13 was Paul portraying an exaggerated scenario to make a point. He is saying even if someone could speak in tongues to the ultimate degree conceivable (speaking the language of angels), but not have love, it would be worthless. We can tell this because he does the same with 3 other gifts in the following verses - having the gift of prophesy to the ultimate degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie. omniscience); having the gift of faith to the ultimate degree of moving mountains; and having the gift of giving to the ultimate degree of giving up ALL you possess to the poor and even giving up your own life. Paul is saying that even if someone had those gifts to such a superlative degree, without love, it would be to no avail.

No one actually spoke in the language of angels. The only description of tongues in scripture is in Acts 2, miraculously speaking known foreign languages.

In 1 Cor 13:1-3 Paul did exaggerate some things to make a point. In verse 2 the term all is used in relation to knowledge, mysteries and faith. This does not mean that knowledge does not exist. It does not mean that mysteries do not exist. It does not mean that faith does not exist. In verse 3 giving to the poor is also coupled with all in order to exaggerate to make the point. This does not mean that giving to the poor does not exist. Verse 3 mentions allowing experiencing physical suffering even to the point of death. Physical suffering is mentioned to the greatest degree to make a point. This does not meant that physical suffering for the gospel does not exist even to the greatest degree. The exaggeration of all of these things does not mean that these things do not exist, therefore you are not justified in saying tongues of angels does not exist because there is exaggeration of things in the two verses that follow after the verse that mentioned the tongues of angels.

No one actually spoke in the language of angels.

In the verse that mentions languages of angels, languages of men is also mentioned in the same verse. If the context shows the "languages of men" is to be taken literally then the "and of angels" part of the sentence cannot be cut out as being completely different. In context, there is no change of thought.

Since angels exist and they are recorded as communicating in earthly languages, speaking in heaven and praising the Lord, the Bible clearly shows that using language is something angels do. To state their communication is only with earthly languages would be an argument from silence because the Bible does not state that this is the case. Based on this and the fact that angelic language is mentioned in 1 Cor 13:1, the only conclusion I can come to is that angelic language exists.

 

[Saint Steven]

What do you mean by "the theory of supernatural hearing"? I've never heard of that one.

Wow. We have had several posts back and forth discussing it. Perhaps we were misunderstanding each other. I thought you were defending the theory.

I hadn't heard of it before either. And don't even know what to call it other than "the theory of supernatural hearing".

This is something I had never heard of before Dave L presented it on this forum. (different topic - Tongues, a different view) Visit the link to get it straight from Dave.

As I understand it, "the theory of supernatural hearing" (my term - not sure what else to call it) states that at Pentecost the devout Jews in Jerusalem manifested the spiritual gift of the interpretation of tongues at the outpouring. That the 120 in and out of the upper room were only speaking one heavenly language which was then interpreted in the hearing of those who witnessed the event. But apparently not in the hearing of those who claimed they were drunk.

Does that sound familiar? I thought you were defending the idea. I apologize if I misunderstood you.

 

[Saint Steven]

My view is that every person who receives Christ receives the Spirit. The problem with many is that although they have the Spirit resident in them, they don't know how to allow the Spirit to flow out of them again, so He just stays dormant within them. So, what some may call the baptism of the Spirit may be just the Spirit who is already in them is now flowing out of them with, as Jesus said, rivers of living water.

I agree to a certain extent. What you are saying is one way to describe the current situation. But falls short of the whole picture. See my list at the bottom of this post for the scriptural model, if you will. We see that there was a second experience in which the Holy Spirit filled the believers. And I would agree that we can't put the Spirit in a box.

Today we hear testimonies of people having spontaneous experiences when the Spirit manifests in gifts. Others seek to have such an experience. It is also common for those who believe the gifts died with the Apostles to "hear from God", which is actually operating in the gift of prophesy. And even Cessationists believe God still heals when Elders pray for the sick.

1) Pentecost: Water baptism followed by receiving the "promised Holy Spirit"
2) Samaria: The Apostles were sent to lay hands on the new believers who had ONLY been baptized in water. (Acts 8:14-16)
3) Saul: Ananias of Damascus (not an Apostle) lays hands on Paul (Saul) to receive the Holy Spirit, followed by water baptism. (Acts 9:17-18)
4) Cornelius: The gentiles were filled with the Spirit prior to water baptism. (Acts 10 and 11)
5) Ephesus: The Apostle Paul encounters disciples of John the Baptist. They are water baptized in Jesus' name and Paul lays hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:1-7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I need to add this one to my list somehow.

Acts 4:31
After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

 

[Albion]

Today we hear testimonies of people having spontaneous experiences when the Spirit manifests in gifts. Others seek to have such an experience. It is also common for those who believe the gifts died with the Apostles to "hear from God", which is actually operating in the gift of prophesy. And even Cessationists believe God still heals when Elders pray for the sick.

Yes, there are some people who do say or think that way. However, none of it proves anything as far as the topic here is concerned--cessation or continuation.

 

[Hillsage]

If you had read the Grudem excerpt I quoted you would know that idea has been refuted. The Greek word for "by" and "in" is the same word.

And if you remembered from our former conversations, Spirit is capitalized not by translation but by interpretation. The AV 1611 had a small 's' in both cases in this verse. All the critical texts omit 'eis' which is translated "into" because of it's difficulty. Capitalization here in this verse came not as a point of better translating, but a matter of doctrinal pretext. And you can make a pretty sure bet that none of those translators spoke in tongues. A better translation/interpretation of that verse would say "all have been made to drink at one pneuma." And 'that pneuma' is the spirit of Christ which should not be capitalized, and not the Holy Spirit. When you got born again you received the holy spirit of Christ not the Holy Spirit. That the Holy Spirit is the spirit responsible for your spirit's regeneration was confirmed by my quote of John 3 which you conveniently did not deal with in my text.

Scripture, as shown here by others (multiple times by Steve) prove there is something after initial salvation especially so with Samaria. Phillip preached they "believed and were baptized" but they never received the baptism FROM the Holy Spirit with the evidence of supernatural power as on the day of Pentecost.

 

[Paul.]

Grudem explains this.

Pentecost and Samaria were the only two instances in the whole of Acts where the HS was received subsequent to conversion.

The book of Acts has 5 accounts of people or groups of people receiving the Holy Spirit.
1 - Acts 2:1-4 This instance as mentioned was separate and subsequent to salvation.
2 - Acts 8:14-16 This instance as mentioned was separate and subsequent to salvation.
3 - Acts 9:17 Paul is referred to as brother as he was a Christian at that point. His conversion happened on the Damascus road. Paul is told that he would be filled with the Holy Spirit. Acts 2 uses the same phrase. Paul also states in 1 Cor 14:18 that he spoke in tongues.
4 - Acts 10:44-46 Peter is at Cornelius' house and while he is still preaching the Holy Spirit was received. This is the only time it could be argued that it occurred at conversion. It was mentioned in the scripture subsequent to the salvation message having been preached but this is no guarantee that it was instant upon the peoples acceptance of the message preached.
5 - Acts 19:4-6 Paul finds some of John's disciples at Ephesus. They believed Paul's preaching, were baptized and had hands laid on them. When the laying on of hands occurred, they received the Holy Spirit. This followed salvation and baptism. You don't baptize unbelievers, so the Holy Spirit is therefore received after conversion.

In the four out of five times the receiving of the Holy Spirit is documented, it is clearly subsequent to conversion. There are grounds in the other instance to say that is was at the same time or so close to it that there was only seconds or a minute in time difference. Since 80% all clearly show the same pattern this has to be considered the normative and not the exception to the rule.

 

[Hillsage]

I experienced many years in charismatic circles. And possibly have more experience than you.

Just answer the question you and Sword refuse to acknowledge. Are you a Charismatic like the church of Corinth or are you one who is 'ungifted/unlearned' in the things we talk about from experience? Why won't either of you ever just admit this one point? Your refusal to do so is very TELLING as to what you really believe I think.

 

[Albion]

Since angels exist and they are recorded as communicating in earthly languages, speaking in heaven and praising the Lord, the Bible clearly shows that using language is something angels do. To state their communication is only with earthly languages would be an argument from silence because the Bible does not state that this is the case. Based on this and the fact that angelic language is mentioned in 1 Cor 13:1, the only conclusion I can come to is that angelic language exists.

How about this? The whole of Revelation is the record of a VISION. It is not meant literally. The Angels were seen by John to be doing X and Y; but to say, then, that they spoke languages as we understand them, especially since Angels do not have voice boxes, is silly (or at least presumptuous).

 

[Dave L]

Just answer the question you and Sword refuse to acknowledge. Are you a Charismatic like the church of Corinth or are you one who is 'ungifted/unlearned' in the things we talk about from experience? Why won't either of you ever just admit this one point? Your refusal to do so is very TELLING as to what you really believe I think.

The gifts ceased with the Apostles. You do not have the real thing. Example: Those who spoke in tongues in Acts did so spontaneously. You had to be coached and told what to do. Those who spoke knew what they said. You do not. You just make noise. And so on and on.....

 

[Dave L]

That's pretty funny. And not correct either.

First the humor. It seems that the Apostles lived longer than it took to write the books in the NT canon. So, how could they write that the gifts had not outlasted them?

And I did in fact present scripture to indicate that the gifts would outlast the Apostles. Here it is again. Don't you remember? I asked you if you were called.

Acts 2:38-39
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

John, the last remaining Apostle wrote Revelation.

The Holy Spirit? Yes, all believers are baptized in the Holy Spirit. But the charismatic gifts were not given to any but those the Apostles laid hands on. And they expired with the Apostles.

 

[Hillsage]

The gifts ceased with the Apostles. You do not have the real thing. Example: Those who spoke in tongues in Acts did so spontaneously. You had to be coached and told what to do. Those who spoke knew what they said. You do not. You just make noise. And so on and on.....

You're now just waffling like SWORD. OK then, change of game; forget everything you just said and answer the question based upon 'when' it was written. Is Paul addressing three groups of people or not?

And since he obviously IS, explain what Paul is talking about when HE writes to the Charismatic church of Corinth where "all speak in tongues" (which is not a 'hyperbole' or "exaggerated" as even SWORD and many other fundamentals have mislead 'even Charismatics' to believe.)

Paul makes it plain that there were three groups spoken of; one group was the all Charismatic, Corinthian church to whom Paul was writing to. The other CHRISTIAN group was "ungifted" or "unlearned" concerning the charismatic especially tongues, in the context. Since you and SWORD won't admit which group you ARE IN, then tell US ALL just what was different in YOUR OPINION, concerning the difference from Paul's perspective 2000 years ago? Who are these "ungifted, unlearned" CHRISTIANS that Paul is speaking about? And if 'they' are like you say 'already Spirit' baptized, then why is Paul's theology not lining up with your present day POV?

 

[Anto9us]

since Angels do not have voice boxes

ah, c'mon! Angels spoke many times in the Bible.

 

[Albion]

ah, c'mon! Angels spoke many times in the Bible.

You are now referring to angels who have been sent to Earth as messengers. Of course they have to have assumed human form in order to relate to us, as with the angel who spoke to the women at the tomb of Jesus. But you had been referring to Johns vision of angels in heaven.

 

[Anto9us]

Rev 5:2
And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

 

[swordsman1]

In 1 Cor 13:1-3 Paul did exaggerate some things to make a point. In verse 2 the term all is used in relation to knowledge, mysteries and faith. This does not mean that knowledge does not exist. It does not mean that mysteries do not exist. It does not mean that faith does not exist. In verse 3 giving to the poor is also coupled with all in order to exaggerate to make the point. This does not mean that giving to the poor does not exist. Verse 3 mentions allowing experiencing physical suffering even to the point of death. Physical suffering is mentioned to the greatest degree to make a point. This does not meant that physical suffering for the gospel does not exist even to the greatest degree. The exaggeration of all of these things does not mean that these things do not exist, therefore you are not justified in saying tongues of angels does not exist because there is exaggeration of things in the two verses that follow after the verse that mentioned the tongues of angels.

If speaking in the language of angels is a normal and expected operation of the gift of tongues then...

- becoming omniscient must be a normal and expected operation of the gift of prophecy;
- literally moving mountains must be a normal expected operation of the gift of faith;
- giving all your possessions to the poor (including the clothes on your back) is the normal operation of the gift of giving;
- giving up your own life is also a normal and expected operation of the gift of giving.​

Clearly these are all examples of gifts which are exaggerated to the ultimate degree conceivable - to make the point that having gifts even to such a superlative extent would be worthless without love. They are not something Paul expected from the regular operation of those gifts.

In the verse that mentions languages of angels, languages of men is also mentioned in the same verse. If the context shows the "languages of men" is to be taken literally then the "and of angels" part of the sentence cannot be cut out as being completely different. In context, there is no change of thought.

In each statement Paul starts with the normal gift, then extends it with an exaggerated hypothetical example:

• If I speak with the tongues of men (normal) and of angels (exaggerated example)...
• If I have the gift of prophecy (normal), and know all mysteries and all knowledge (exaggerated example)...
• If I have all faith (normal), so as to remove mountains (exaggerated example)...
• And if I give (normal) all my possessions to feed the poor (exaggerated example), and if I surrender my body to be burned (exaggerated example)...

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, there are some people who do say or think that way. However, none of it proves anything as far as the topic here is concerned--cessation or continuation.

I think the testimony of a spontaneous experience when the Spirit manifests in gifts is very good evidence that the gifts are in continuation. (have not ceased)

And the Cessationists don't seem to complain when one of their own claims to have heard from God. Even though that requires operating in the prophetic gifts. They still believe that God heals the sick when Elders lay hands on them and pray. Where did the laying on of hands originate if not with the Apostles?

 

[Anto9us]

Rev 5:11
And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
Rev 5:12
Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

So you wanna take away angels' vocal cords?

Angels are pictured in Revelation doing things that they could do here on earth like they did when they were sent -- in fact, they READ in Revelation -- all of the seven letters to the churches in Asia are written TO the ANGELS of each church.

The fact that Revelation is a VISION does not mean angels are pictured doing things that they cannot do in reality.

The fact that Paul spoke in hyperbole in the passage "Although I speak with the tongues of men and of angels" does not mean that angelic language does not exist. He infers the possibility that it DOES exist.

Dan 10:12
Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
Dan 10:13
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

We infer that Gabriel and Michael can COMMUNICATE with each other -- why would they use a HUMAN language to do that? They have been around before humans were.

Angelic language exists, forbid not the angels from using their vocal cords, as you forbid not those of us so gifted to pray in tongues - that may well be a heavenly language also.

 

[swordsman1]

And if you remembered from our former conversations, Spirit is capitalized not by translation but by interpretation. The AV 1611 had a small 's' in both cases in this verse. All the critical texts omit 'eis' which is translated "into" because of it's difficulty. Capitalization here in this verse came not as a point of better translating, but a matter of doctrinal pretext. And you can make a pretty sure bet that none of those translators spoke in tongues. A better translation/interpretation of that verse would say "all have been made to drink at one pneuma." And 'that pneuma' is the spirit of Christ which should not be capitalized, and not the Holy Spirit. When you got born again you received the holy spirit of Christ not the Holy Spirit. That the Holy Spirit is the spirit responsible for your spirit's regeneration was confirmed by my quote of John 3 which you conveniently did not deal with in my text.

Scripture, as shown here by others (multiple times by Steve) prove there is something after initial salvation especially so with Samaria. Phillip preached they "believed and were baptized" but they never received the baptism FROM the Holy Spirit with the evidence of supernatural power as on the day of Pentecost.

That was a quick change of tack. In your previous post you were quite happy to accept 1 Cor 12:13 as referring to the Holy Spirit. Now that your theory was debunked, you've come up with another new hypothesis that is so bizarre it really doesn't warrant any comment.