Speaking in Tongues a Cessationists’ View

The fact that they ceased.

Isn't it interesting that the continuationists always want to duck the #1 reason that cessationists are cessationists?

Albion said:

Wrong. It is not a matter of reasoning, but of the Bibles testimony. I am not the one who presented that verse as evidence in the discussion about tongues ceasing. However, and because it was presented, we have to admit that it does not promise anything about tongues in the future but that the Holy Spirit will be given to the believers (of all times). That's the meaning of the verse.

Click to expand...

You agreed that those who were water baptized and received the promise of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost had the gifts we see in 1 Corinthians chapter twelve.

How can you now revoke that in claiming that Acts 2:39 doesn't include them?

swordsman1 said:

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

Click to expand...

That is your premise of interpreting this passage. Does it consistently play out?

swordsman1 said:

• If I speak with the tongues of men (normal) and of angels (exaggerated example)...

Click to expand...

Maybe. On its own it does not have any proof of exaggeration, but if the pattern holds it is conceivable.

swordsman1 said:

• If I have the gift of prophecy (normal), and know all mysteries and all knowledge (exaggerated example)...

Click to expand...

Yes, the pattern holds up here

swordsman1 said:

• If I have all faith (normal), so as to remove mountains (exaggerated example)...

Click to expand...

No, the pattern is broken. All is exaggerating the faith without a (normal). The words “so as to” are connective and are showing the results of the “all faith”. Moving mountains occurs because of, not as a secondary exaggerated example.

swordsman1 said:

• 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)...

Click to expand...

Again the pattern is broken. There is no break between the “give” and its exaggeration of “all”. The “all” refers to the giving, not separately. Besides, it was normal for the early church to sell their possessions and have everything in common, Acts 4:32-38. Also, surrendering the body to death was normal for the early church. Martyrdom may not be normal where we live today but it was normal for the early church and for many Christians around the world today. The Bible tells us to take up our cross and follow Jesus, to lay down our lives for the gospel. Many great church leaders throughout history have given their lives for their belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. It should be normal for us to be willing and ready to stand up for Jesus to the point of losing our lives, if that day ever comes to where we are.

The pattern of interpretation you place on the scripture is not consistent therefore I cannot conclude it is good hermeneutics.

swordsman1 said:

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;

Click to expand...

This conclusion is only possible if the interpretative pattern you are applying to this passage can be proven. As per earlier in this post, I do not believe it has.

The scripture supporting my view is in my signature line, and has been posted numerous times. Unless one wants to insinuate that I am not "called" by the Lord our God.

Saint Steven said:

You agreed that those who were water baptized and received the promise of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost had the gifts we see in 1 Corinthians chapter twelve.

How can you now revoke that in claiming that Acts 2:39 doesn't include them?

Click to expand...

That's not exactly what I "agreed" to, but Acts 2:38-39 addresses a different subject. That was explained earlier.

Albion said:

The fact that they ceased.

Isn't it interesting that the continuationists always want to duck the #1 reason that cessationists are cessationists?

Click to expand...

Not a fact. Only an opinion. Sorry.

Albion said:

That's not exactly what I "agreed" to, but Acts 2:38-39 addresses a different subject. That was explained earlier.

Click to expand...

Explain it in the context of that chapter, as I have. Where in Acts chapter two is the Holy Spirit referred to as merely an indwelling Spirit with no outward supernatural manifestations?

I am not saying all speak with tongues - but a lot do - the Holy Spirit includes many gifts and offices.

1Co 12:4
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1Co 12:5
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
1Co 12:6
And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
1Co 12:7
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
1Co 12:8
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
1Co 12:9
To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
1Co 12:10
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:
1Co 12:11
But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Dave L said:

We still have no scripture saying the charismatic gifts came in any other way than through the Two Outpourings or the Apostles' hands.

Click to expand...

Yes we do.
- Ananias was NOT an Apostle
- The elders at Timothy's church were NOT Apostles
- Barnabas was NOT an Apostle
- Timothy was NOT an Apostle


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, what do we have so far?
- Two outpourings (ignore the third)
- The Apostles' hands. (the 12)
- The Apostle Paul (can't forget him)
- Ananias (yet another Apostle appointed by Christ)
- The elders at Timothy's church
- Now you are including Barnabas as an Apostle
- Add Timothy laying hands, but "not suddenly"

What's to say that the gifts could not have continued, given the pattern we see here? Where does your ever-widening circle stop?

Dave L said:

Are you suggesting Paul was not an apostle?

Click to expand...

No. I'm saying that:
- Ananias was NOT an Apostle
- The elders at Timothy's church were NOT Apostles
- Barnabas was NOT an Apostle (capital "A")
- Timothy was NOT an Apostle

Saint Steven said:

Not a fact. Only an opinion. Sorry.

Click to expand...

Then our discussion is over. There is no way to break the impasse or reach any accord if one side insists that what happened really did not happen...BUT for no reason or with no explanation.

Even people who insist that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot JFK or that terrorists were not the people who brought down the Twin Towers offer some contrary theory or scenario.

That's not so with many of todays continuationists!

When some small church groups were moved to reintroduce tongues into the spectrum of Christian denominations only a couple hundred years ago, they--the forerunners of todays Pentecostals--were acknowledging that tongues had ceased but should be started up again (or God wanted them to be in evidence again because the last days had supposedly arrived or something else like that).

But today, many of their successors want to say that tongues never had ceased and just stand on that statement..

The SIGN OF THE FISH Coffeehouse was a two-story house in a part of town away from everything. I was a REGULAR there; REGULARS got there early, we had a prayer meeting prior to the "official opening" and people would come in - we regulars would witness to them...

We were forbidden by the Director (himself just a college student like us) to discuss Tongues -- we could not discuss the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in any way whatsoever.

Myself, Rick and Bruce agreed on this policy (though charismatics ourselves) - we gave our word that we would not discuss GETTING THE GHOST while on the premises.

But our word was NOT ENOUGH for the Director -- he wanted to convince us of the Cessationist position.

Early one evening, before the prayer meeting that preceded the arrival of the general public, the Director was showing everyone his new LEATHER BIBLE COVER -- it was a grand thing indeed, and everyone was OOOHHIng and AHHHing over it -- three little belts that fastened it, miniature beltloops, we all went gaga over his new Bible cover as he buckled and unbuckled the little belts, opening and closing his new Bible cover.

So the 'prayer meeting' or 'staff meeting' prior to opening to the public turned into another chance for the Director to preach Cessationism to all of us (after all the OOOHHing and AHHHing about his new leather Bible cover had died down).

I sat at the table as the Director's eyes bored into mine - right at me he was preaching and I knew what was coming -- he was gonna RAM IT HOME about "the Perfect" being the completed Bible.

"And what was it that we have now that caused tongues to cease?" and he held his Bible with both hands and held it a foot from my face and shouted

"THIS !!"

And Rick immediately quipped:

"What? Your LEATHER BIBLE COVER?"

The meeting was dismissed without prayer, Rick, Bruce and I were in hysterics and somehow made it to a study room upstairs, shut the door and just fell about the place. We laughed until tears rolled down our faces. We knew we had to get serious and go witness to people coming in soon, but we couldn't stop laughing. When we were just about normal, some one would say "leather Bible cover" and we would go down again and roll some more. I never laughed so hard and so long before or since.

Paul. said:

That is your premise of interpreting this passage. Does it consistently play out?
Maybe. On its own it does not have any proof of exaggeration, but if the pattern holds it is conceivable.
Yes, the pattern holds up here
No, the pattern is broken. All is exaggerating the faith without a (normal). The words “so as to” are connective and are showing the results of the “all faith”. Moving mountains occurs because of, not as a secondary exaggerated example.
Again the pattern is broken. There is no break between the “give” and its exaggeration of “all”. The “all” refers to the giving, not separately. Besides, it was normal for the early church to sell their possessions and have everything in common, Acts 4:32-38. Also, surrendering the body to death was normal for the early church. Martyrdom may not be normal where we live today but it was normal for the early church and for many Christians around the world today. The Bible tells us to take up our cross and follow Jesus, to lay down our lives for the gospel. Many great church leaders throughout history have given their lives for their belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. It should be normal for us to be willing and ready to stand up for Jesus to the point of losing our lives, if that day ever comes to where we are.

The pattern of interpretation you place on the scripture is not consistent therefore I cannot conclude it is good hermeneutics.
This conclusion is only possible if the interpretative pattern you are applying to this passage can be proven. As per earlier in this post, I do not believe it has.

Click to expand...

I think you are nit-picking. I don't think Paul would have been that concerned whether the exact syntax he was using matched a precise pattern. And remember we are dealing with an English translation not the original Greek where the order of words is usually completely different.

What cannot be denied is that Paul uses exaggerated examples of gifts in each of the 5 parallel statements in order to make a point, and that tongues of angels is one of them. So we cannot use this verse to say that normal everyday tongues was speaking the language of angels.

well, I'm a voodoo chile -- Lawd knows I'm a voodoo chile...

voodoo chile, babeh!!

Saint Steven said:

You agreed that those who were water baptized and received the promise of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost had the gifts we see in 1 Corinthians chapter twelve.

How can you now revoke that in claiming that Acts 2:39 doesn't include them?

Click to expand...

That is simply incorrect brother.

Acts 2:1...………...
"And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place".

Verse 2...………….
"Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.

Verse 3..............
"They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.

Verse 4.............
"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

Where in those verse do we find that there were OTHERS or ANYONE beside the Apostles present? YOU are reading INTO the Scriptures what YOU want them to say.

Now proper Bible study and exegesis demands that in this meeting we have the words, "they," and "them" used. In the Greek, when a pronoun is used we must take a look at the preceding noun. The preceding noun is found in Acts 1:26 and it is "apostles." So, the "they," and the "them," has reference to the apostles which is named in Acts 1"26 and the pronouns follow in Acts 2:1-4, "they," and "them."

That means there was NO ONE ELSE THERE my brother!!!!!

Dave L said:

Are you suggesting Paul was not an apostle?

Click to expand...

Where does your ever-widening circle stop?

You claim that the charismatic gifts only came by way of the two outpourings, or the Apostles' hands. There was a third outpouring, but let's ignore that for now. (Acts 4:31)

Who are the Apostles?
- There were the Twelve of course. (Judas out, Matthias in Acts 1:24-26)
These were the 12 Apostles. (capital "A")
- The Apostle Paul is then added as an apostle. (small "a")
Is that where we draw the line on apostles?
This creates the possibility for apostles to be added beyond the original twelve.

- And Barnabas? (also called an apostle)

Then we see Ananias, the elders at Timothy's church, and finally
Timothy distributing gifts by the laying on of hands.

Where does it end? It doesn't.
There is no way to contain apostleship and the
Holy Spirit gift-giving by the laying on of hands.

Albion said:

Then our discussion is over. There is no way to break the impasse or reach any accord if one side insists that what happened really did not happen...BUT for no reason or with no explanation.

Even people who insist that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot JFK or that terrorists were not the people who brought down the Twin Towers offer some contrary theory or scenario.

That's not so with many of todays continuationists!

When some small church groups were moved to reintroduce tongues into the spectrum of Christian denominations only a couple hundred years ago, they--the forerunners of todays Pentecostals--were acknowledging that tongues had ceased but should be started up again (or God wanted them to be in evidence again because the last days had supposedly arrived or something else like that).

But today, many of their successors want to say that tongues never had ceased and just stand on that statement..

Click to expand...

I wonder if you would agree that there was actually no argument between Continueists and Cessationist until about 100 or so years ago with the rise of the Charismatic Holiness Movement faith and Keswick theology.

It seems to me that there was no discussion on sign gifts and tongues until then.

Thoughts?