What do you think the word "perfect" means in 1Cor. 13:10?

M4H, please read my post again and then yours and ask yourself, "Did I address the question asked of me? You will see that you clearly did not. I wanted to know why Paul used a verb that means "will fade away on their own", for tongues and a verb that means "something will make them end" for Prophecy and Knowledge. Paul did this and if I am wrong about what I think it means you must be able to offer another reason for the clear verb usage of Paul.

Also, did you catch verse 9 in what you posted? No tongues there, just knowledge and Prophecy, which end at the same time. Tongues is not included because tongues will end on their own and before the other two.

M4H, If you can't address this basic issue I would consider stepping back and taking some time to figure out why. If you can I am all ears. Please respond either way and directly to the points I have made. Thanks so much!

In Christ our Lord,
Brian

 

"as long as there are people in this world that have not heard the gospel and the bible hasn't been translated into every language, so we can go tell those lost souls about Jesus"

Now, this is a subject with which I have extensive experience. As part of a missionary church and family, ministering to the deaf all over the world (there is no bible in any sign language, BTW), when a people group is discovered using a different sign language (sign languages were also confused at Babel), then the missionaries learn the sign language that's needed to communicate the gospel to that group. I have met a missionary who had neither spoken language or sign language as a child, born deaf in a small village in Africa where he was the ONLY deaf person, he only learned sign language at all when missionaries came to his village and taught him how to communicate using sign language, how to read, and about the gospel message. He became saved, and is now a missionary ministering to other deaf. So needing tongues to communicate the gospel to people who don't have a bible in their language...doesn't fit with my experience of the Spirit ministering through other people to people with communication difficulties. What about people who can't hear?

And as for people making fun of tongues, I've heard the exact same sounds come from my 15 month old. So either she's speaking in tongues or tongues is baby talk. Personally, I don't think a 15 month old would be spiritually mature enough to speak in tongues.

We're not going to be doing much talking to each other in heaven, so I don't know what language it will be in. My guess is that we will be too busy worshipping Jesus to care about talking to each other. We were made for a purpose, my friend, and when we're in heaven we'll be worshipping, not visiting with each other.

Just my 2 cents!

And yes, I do already have my mind made up. Its one of those things that I know that I know that I know that I know, just like being saved, only difference is I can't figure out how to explain it...YET

Thanks for all your posts! I look forward to reading some more. Its really helping me understand both sides of the debate.

[ January 14, 2005, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: beverly31 ]

 

A public poll on any given matter is simply the conclusion of "pooled ignorance." It doesn't mean the conclusion is right. Most often the majority is in the wrong. If the majority is always in the right, then wouldn't true Biblical born again Christianity be in the majority? It isn't. It is one of the smallest minorities in the world.
DHK

 

Very true.

Obviously PAul did not say in 1Cor 13 "the Word of God is not complete" -- nor did any NT author ever make the case "We have the 1Cor 12 gifts of the Spirit AS LONG AS the Word of God is incomplete".


The idea of an "incomplete Word of God" can not be found as the view of ANY Bible author.

Thereore - 1Cor 12 remains a valid teaching chapter in scripture and the instruction given in 1Cor 14 remains valid.

That is not a welcome to thought to many Christians today - however it does bring up a question.

What negative things should be said of those who CONTINUE to accept the teaching of scripture as found in 1Cor 12 and 1Cor 14? What negative things should be said about their faith, or church for believing that IN CHRIST the perfect happens at the 2nd coming because as 1Peter 1:13 tells us they "FIX Their hope COMPLETELY" on that event?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Briguy,
You haven't shown any scripture that puts the ceasing of tongues in the first century. Besides, I wonder if the passage can't be read in the sense of "Wherever there is speaking in tongues, it will eventually stop" rather than as a reference to the ending of speaking in tongues.

Briguy wrote,
***Bev, Tongues as a gift, was a sign that pointed to a judgement against the Jews. This judgement came down in 70AD. After that the sign was not needed and so tongues faded away, just as Paul said so clearly said that they would.****

Briguy,
DHK promoted this theory in an earlier thread, but was not able to offer any proof for it. Paul does use a verse about the sign of the Hebrews not hearing when God spoke to them through men who spoke a foreign tongue, to make the point that tongues are a sign to _unbelievers._ (He does not say Jews per se, and he gives an example that is not about Jews per se.) Paul's point seems to be that when unbelievers or unlearned hear tongues the same sign is fulfilled that 'yet for all that, they will not hear Me.' Prophecy is more inclined to produce faith.

Nothing in the Isaiah passage or the I Corinthians 14 passage indicate that tongues would cease at 70AD. The only reasoning I can see behind that is in line replacement theology-- the idea that God was done with Israel at 70 AD.
Since we believe the Bible, we shouldn't believe that theory. Jews are still around and they are still Jews. So there is no reason to think that if there was a sign especially for the Jews that the sign would cease in 70 AD. Paul does not connect tongues to the destruction of Jerusalem or the temple.

Also, Paul gives another purpose for tongues beside that as a sign-- edification. Without interpretation it edifies the speaker. With interpretation, it edifies the church.


Beverly31

I have seen a number of people who speak in tongues or claim to who hold to strange, unbliblical doctrinal teachings. But I have seen plenty of unbiblical doctrinal teachings among those who do not speak in tongues. The Corinthians apparently had a fair number of tongues speakers, but that did not guarantee them any kind of doctrinal purity in their congregation. Paul told them how immature they were, still drinking milk when he wrote I Corinthians. They probably had people arguing that it was okay to eat meat in an idol's temple, and there were some who were saying there was no resurrection of the dead. They were tolerat of an incestuous fornicator, and had various other problems. They were apparently even using God-given gifts wrongly. Gifts and doctrinal purity are two different issues. One can have gifts without doctrinal purity. Teaching that there are no gifts is not doctrinal purity, either.

Carefully read I Corinthians. You seem to assume that tongues always functioned as it did in Acts 2, where listeners understood their own languages spoken. Paul does not say tongues operated that way. In the Corinthian situation, no one understood the tongue unless someone with the gift of interpretation interpreted it. Unbelievers who come in do not understand the tongue. This is different from what happened in Acts 2.

[ January 14, 2005, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Link ]

 

There is none so dead as those that will not hear!
I have offered you proof of my position previously, but a person can only do so much. One can lead a horse to water, but he cannot make him drink. If I present to you Scriptural truth will you accept it or will you with biased and blinded eyes automatically reject it? I think we both know the answer.
Nevertheless, let us state the question again, and then give a Scriptural answer to it. Does Paul give the reason for gift of tongues as a sign to the unbelieving Jews? If it was a sign to the unbelieving Jews then what relevance does this gift have today since that sign has already been fulfilled in the first century unbelieving Jews?

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

"In the law it is written" Where is it written? In the law? Where in the law? Specifically in Isaiah 28:11,12.

Isaiah 28:11-12 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Who does Isaiah refer to when he speaks to "this people?" It is the nation of Israel that he is referring to. What does he refer to? He refers to the Day of Pentecost primarily, and the few occasions after that in the first century when the unbelieving Jews would hear believing Gentiles speak in tongues. They would hear God's message from Gentiles in languages that they were foreign to them. This would be a sign to them. It would be a sign that they would understand in the first century because it was written and prophesied 700 years before by the prophet Isaiah, just as the virgin birth was. In both cases the believing Jews accepted the prophecies. The unbelieving Jews did not. Paul quoting the prophecy said plainly that it was a sign to the Jews, the unbelieving Jews, and yet for all that they would not hear or believe. And he was right. They did not believe. The consequence was judgement. The judgement came in the first century. God does not break his promises. He does not lie.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

What the judgement was I will not dogmatically say that it was the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. as Briguy says it is. Perhaps it was the dispersion of the Jews. Perhaps it was the fact that from that time on they were no longer a nation, and did not become one until 1948. Perhaps it was the fact that God took away any Scriptural place for them to worship. Take your choice.
Now examine the Scripture:

In verse 21 Paul speaks of Israel, and tells the Corinthians that even though they hear people speak in tongues as they did on Pentecost they would not believe. That is what happened. Aside from the 3,000 that were saved, there were thousands that were not. They did not believe. They mocked Peter and the disciples. They accused them of being drunk. They were the ones that had crucified the Lord.

In verse 22, Paul says that tongues are specifically for the unbelievers and not the believers. But notice the very first word: "wherefore."
Now: Whenever you see a "wherefore" look before, to see why for, the therefore is there for.
Having done that we see that the "therefore" is a connective that connects the two verses together and the two thoughts together. It is a concluding statement to verse 21. The unbelievers of verse 22 are referring to the Jews of 21. That much is obvious. Paul is referring to the unbeiieving Jews. In every case in the book of Acts where tongues is mentioned: Acts 2, 10, 19, there were Jews that were present. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews. They were there to convince the Jews that the message that the Apostles were preaching was from God. "The Jews required a sign." And that sign was tongues. But they didn't listen, and were judged accordingly. By the end of the first century tongues had ceased. History bears this out. Your references to church fathers are spurious at best. No other epistle mentions tongues. The epistles to the Corinthians were two of the earliest epistles to be written. That is no coincidence.

Have you seen the film or DVD "The Passion of Christ?" Whether you have or not, can you visualize the road to Golgotha where Christ is carrying His cross, and the women are weeping loudly for Him. What does Christ say? Weep not for me? Why?
Luke 23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
--Later he utters a prophecy. But here he addresses the Jews of His generation, the children of His generation. Why, because they would be the ones to hear the sign of tongues and reject it. They would hear the gospel and reject it. They would be the ones to actually see the crucifixion of Christ and reject his forgiveness. All of these things they would reject, including the sign of tongues. Thus Jesus, knowing the judgement that would befall them, tells them to weep for themselves and their children. It was not for the children of future generations that he was addressing these women. It was for them, and their children, for the things that they were, and would witness in the following few years. Judgement was coming soon upon them. They rejected the sign of tongues and were thus judged. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews of the first century. Those Jews are no longer with us today. Thus tongues has fulfilled its purpose. The gift has ceased, along with the other spiritual gifts. This is only but one of many reasons why tongues have ceased. Please don't say that I have not offered you any proof.

This is almost like a false allegation. I hope it isn't. I do not believe in replacement theology. Romans 11 teaches that God has put aside Israel for a temporary period of time. They are still his people, but He is not dealing with them at this time. I am a dispensationalist. When Christ comes again, then God will start to deal again with the Jewish nation. Up until then He is calling out a nation unto Himself.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Paul intimates judgement by quoting Isaiah, and in the manner he quotes it. "Yet for all that they will not hear." What does that mean? It infers judgement. When a people does not hear God, God judges them. If you read Isaiah 28 you can read more of God's predictive judgement that would come upon the nation of Israel. It was not Paul's intention to quote the entire chapter.

So there was another purpose. That purpose was secondary. It passed away when the Bible was completed, which was about the same time judgement came on the Jews. That only strengthens my position. Briguy and Walguy have already explained to you the Greek how that tongues would pass away on their own accord. Tongues was a sign to the unbelieving Jew, and when that was fulfilled, the purpose of tongues was fulfilled, and the gift ceased.

And so your point is?? If the gifts have ceased there is no point in anything that you have said.
1. We all agree that the Corinthian church was a carnal church and misused the gifts.
2. We all agree that a churh can exist without perfect doctrine. If you ever find a perfect church don't join it; it won't be perfect any longer.
3. However, if you find a Charismatic church practicing "speaking in tongues" we automatically know that it is an unscriptural church, for we know that tongues have ceased. From the first century to the beginning of the 19th century no one spoke in tongues except for heretical groups of people. So no one had this gift for 1800 years. In the beginning of the 19th century the modern tongues movement suddenly appeared. What a coincidence. It certainly isn't of God, with that kind of timeline.

You are the one that misunderstands the use of tongues. Wherever tongues were spoken someone always understood. In fact if anything it probably operated in this way. God gave the gift of tongues as the Apostles traveled to foreign countries to speak in foreign languages. Tongues was always a foreign language. There was no need for the Corinthians to "show off" an ability to speak in a foreign language, and that is why all throughout the 14th chapter of 1st Corinthians he rebukes them for doing so. The speaker spoke in a foreign tongue or language. It was translated into Hebrew for the purpose of the unbelieving Jews that were present. It was a sign for the unbelieving Jews. Everywhere that Paul went, he went to the Jew first and then to the Greek. He went and preached in the synagogues. It would only be natural for him to speak in tongues to the nation in which the synagogues were located. Then it was translated for the Jews, as a sign to the Jews. Then many of the Jews beleived as is the case in the Book of Acts.
DHK

 

Two theads very much alike.
"But when that which is perfect is come" is Christ. When He enters one's life, "then that which is in part" - wich misses the mark and which falls short - everything sinful in our lives - "shall be done away". We shall have nothing to boast, not even 'our' gifts of the Holy Spirit!

 

Sorry for the interruption.
Paul's words here certainly mean, as Marshall gives it: "But when comes the Perfect Thing". Christ is called God's "Holy Thing".
This Scripture has meaning for OUR here and now, first, or it is worthless. Its future meaning comes second - in which case it also refers to Christ but with His Return.

 

I believe the best way to look at this word(perfect) would be as something perfect in the sense of being mature or complete. Paul addresses this with his examples when he compares these "imperfect" gifts with the perfect thing to come. Also his allusion to comparing them with a refection in a mirror to the the real thing coming. And then his comparison to a child with an adult. Just like the old covenant age was a "shadow" of the one to come, I believe the contrast here is comparing the same thing. These immature gifts were utilized to strengthen and edify the church as it was maturing, while it progressed to the time and place where it would replace the inferior shadow -- the old covenant. At the time that Paul wrote this, and even a few years later when the Book of Hebrews was written, the old covenant was still in force, yet it was slowly fading away. The Hebrew writer stated that as long as the old covenant was still in place the new covenant could not take its place. So Paul's premise here was the importance for this new, young, and immature church to desire to learn the Word and become mature in Christ in His kingdom so that when this transition did take place they would be ready. After all they new it was coming, because just before the departure of the Lord into the clouds they asked: "When will you restore the kingdom." I believe it all finally came to fruition with the demise of the jewish system and its theocracy in 70 A.D. This is what Jesus was pointing to in Matthew 24, so they barely had a generation to prepare!

 

Gerhard wrote,
***Two theads very much alike.
"But when that which is perfect is come" is Christ. When He enters one's life, "then that which is in part" - wich misses the mark and which falls short - everything sinful in our lives - "shall be done away". We shall have nothing to boast, not even 'our' gifts of the Holy Spirit! ***


But Paul was already writing to people who had Christ in their lives. He already had Christ in his life.

The Corinthians most likely got these gifts of the Spirit after they got the Spirit, after they had Christ in their lives.

 

Link

You are correct. The Corinthians could NOT have had these gifts of the Spirit had they not had the Spirit.

 

True.

And Corinth is NOT a Jewish congregation -- it is a mixed group of the saints where the barrier wall between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2) has been removed.

The message is clear - the sign to the church is prophecy but the sign to the unsaved/ungifted/unconverted/non-regenerate lost person is tongues (when used properly).

There is no way within "reason" that the current practice of jibberish would ever have been considered "a compelling argument for Christ" or for "Salvation" by the unsaved pagan in Corinth that simply happened to show up to see what Christians were doing!

The idea that Paul said anything about the destruction of Jerusalem to the people of Corinth as being a time when pagans in Corinth would no longer see tongues as an argument for salvation - is totally foreign to reason and to to chapter 12-14 of the letter to the Corinthians.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK,

Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being blind does not make your arguments any less false. The ad homenum (sp?) attack is a classic strategy of those who cannot prove their arguments. The reason I reject your argument is because you quote scripture and then use unscriputrally-substantiated human reasoning to make your case.

1. The idea that tongues is a sign to the Jew.

Paul quotes from Isaiah, a passage we both agree talks about the Hebrews in the immediate context. It is about Ephraim, which can be seen as representative of Israel, and comes right before Isaiah’s prophesy about Jerusalem.

The question is ‘What point is Paul making?’ Is Paul trying to tell the Corinthians about eschatological judgment of the Jews? Does this idea fit with the flow of the argument Paul is making about tongues in I Corinthians 14? It is clear from the context that Paul is arguing that tongues need to be interpreted, and that prophecy and other forms of edification that the church can understand is superior to (uninterpreted) tongues in the assembly. This is Paul’s point and we need to keep that in mind.

I can understand your reasoning that if Paul quotes this passage, he must be invoking the entire context, and he must be making an eschatological prophecy about the Jews, related to tongues. What I am saying is that, in context, it makes more sense to see that Paul is seeing a parallel or a principle here that even if God speaks to unbelieving people through foreign tongues, that they will not hear.

Let us consider how Paul uses other scripture. Paul quotes, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.’ If we were to apply the reasoning you use to the Isaiah quote in I Corinthians 14, then we would have to insist that Paul’s point is about literal oxen, and that Paul is arguing not to muzzle the mouth of a literal ox. But in this case we see that Paul explicitly argues that this verse is not about oxen, and he uses it as an argument for preachers of the Gospel living of the Gospel. Paul takes a principle of the law about oxen and applies it to people.

If we look at the I Corinthians 14 passage, we see that Paul quotes a passage which refers to Israel not believing when God spoke through men of other tongues. Then he says that if the ‘unbeliever or unlearned’ comes in and hears all speak in tongues, will he not say that ye are mad? This principle does not apply to Jews only. If everyone in a church today were speaking in tongues, wouldn’t non-Jews who didn’t know what it is be inclined to say ‘ye are mad?’ I would imagine a Greek unbeliever of the street in Paul’s day would have the same response if he went into a church meeting and saw all speaking in tongues. Paul was an apostle who received revelation from Christ. He has the authority to use scripture in the way I describe here. Look at Paul’s allegorical use of scripture about Hagar and Egypt in Galatians. It makes sense in context to see Paul extracting a principle from this passage. We can be sure of the argument Paul makes from the passage. Reading into the Isaiah passage the destruction of Jerusalem, dispersion, etc. is taking a leap of logic not supported by the text. I can see how you would arrive at it if you were a preterist.

2. Based on Preterist interpretation.

You say you are a dispensationalist. But your interpretation on this issue seems very much influenced by preterism. The quote from Joel in Acts 2 refers to eschatological events that preterists generally associate with the destruction of the temple. Many presterists think the destruction of the temple is Christ’s coming prophesied in Matthew 24. But dispensationalists generally do not. Matthew 24 mentions the darkening of the sun as one of the signs that occurs before Christ’s coming. Peter quotes Joel referring to this sign as something that will occur in the last days. A preterist might see tongues as a sign of the destruction of the temple because he associates this with the ‘day of the Lord.’ Dispensationalists would likely associate the ‘day of the Lord’ with the real coming of Christ, or events around that timeframe.

You seem to be interpreting Joel as a preterist would. I see this as inconsistent with your claim to be a dispensationalist. I suspect you have read some preterists arguments against tongues, and accepted them to bolster your case against tongues.

About the replacement theology thing, I did not mean that as an accusation that you a replacement theologian. Your did not seem to be being consistent, and that was my point. Btw, I did not know that there was a variety of Dispensationalism that taught that God was not was not ‘dealing with’ Israel. Israel becoming a nation again seems to be very important to a lot of modern Dispensationalist eschatology. Even in their unbelief God still deals with Israel. Romans 11 does not say otherwise.

3. Even if one accepts your argument, there is no scriptural evidence that tongues have ceased.

Even if one were to make the ‘leap of logic’ and assume that Paul is arguing that tongues was a sign specifically to the Jews, --in spite of the context of I Corinthians 14…..or if one interprets Acts 2 from a preterist standpoint, there is still no scriptural argument to connect the idea of the coming judgment with the ceasing of tongues.

Could tongues have been a sign of judgment of the destruction of the temple, in particular, and still have continued on as a gift in the church? Yes. You have offered no scripture to argue otherwise. Even if you argue that the use of tongues to edify the assembly was secondary, as you have, then there is still no reason to think that they have ceased. You haven’t shown a scriptural connection between the idea of tongues as a sign and the idea that tongues have ceased. The connection you make between these two ideas is based on human reasoning, and not the scriptures.

As one who does not believe in replacement theology, it also makes sense that God could keep an on-going sign of judgment against unbelieving Jews, since God still recognizes them as Jews, and they are still in unbelief. You haven’t shown any reason to think that tongues would not continue as a sign against believers after the destruction of the temple, or whatever unspecified event.

DHK wrote,

********** What the judgement was I will not dogmatically say that it was the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. as Briguy says it is. Perhaps it was the dispersion of the Jews. Perhaps it was the fact that from that time on they were no longer a nation, and did not become one until 1948. Perhaps it was the fact that God took away any Scriptural place for them to worship. Take your choice.********

So you aren’t sure when tongues ceases/ceased from scripture? 1948 could be a date for tongues to have ceased? Well why not the late 60’s when Israel got control of Jerusalem? Why not the rebuilding of the temple in the end times? Why not the time at which Israel ceases to be under judgment, when the Deliverer comes who will remove ungodliness from Jacob? That might put the date at the Second Coming of Christ, which corresponds with the resurrection. If the ceasing of tongues occurred at the Second Coming, that would line up with the idea of prophecy ceasing with the coming of the perfect as well.

……A few additional points.

“In every case in the book of Acts where tongues is mentioned: Acts 2, 10, 19, there were Jews that were present.”

Find me one reference to PREACHING THE GOSPEL in the book of Acts where a Jew was not present. The evangelizers in Acts were Jews. In Acts 10, Peter, one of these evangelizers spoke to Gentiles who spoke in tongues. Btw, those who heard the tongues were believers in Jesus, so how does this fit into your idea that tongues was a sign to unbelieving Jews?

** Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews.**

We see in Acts 10 that they could operate when there were no unbelieving Jews. So why couldn’t they operate in I Corinthians 14 when there were no unbelieving Jews present, or today?

*** They were there to convince the Jews that the message that the Apostles were preaching was from God. "The Jews required a sign." And that sign was tongues. ***

Paul does not say that the sign the Jews required was tongues. Jews wanted a prophet to predict a future event. After Jesus did miracles, the Jews still wanted this kind of sign. Jesus gave them the sign of the prophet Jonah as the only sign—His resurrection. His resurrection was the sign he gave in John 2 for His authority to clear the temple.

Paul gives an example of unbelievers NOT believing when they hear tongues, btw.


***But they didn't listen, and were judged accordingly. By the end of the first century tongues had ceased. History bears this out. Your references to church fathers are spurious at best. No other epistle mentions tongues. The epistles to the Corinthians were two of the earliest epistles to be written. That is no coincidence.***

I detect circular logic here. You believe tongues ceased. Therefore references to the continuing of tongues must be spurious because tongues ceased.

I haven’t shown you ever reference. If you live in the US, you can probably check out The Spirit and the Church: Volume 1 Antiquity by Burgess if you want a nearly exhaustive reference to tongues in the standard so-called church fathers texts up to the Nicean Council. I live in Indonesia and I do not know if there is a copy of that book in this country.

I gave you one reference from a man who is considered a champion of orthodoxy by Protestant and Catholic scholars alike. Ireneaus should be one of those writers who is respected by an orthodox Baptist. After all, he didn’t think the bishop of Rome above correction, and wrote him a letter pointing out what he was doing wrong. He also defended the faith against the false teachings of various Gnostic heresies.


DHK wrote,
**** From the first century to the beginning of the 19th century no one spoke in tongues except for heretical groups of people. So no one had this gift for 1800 years. In the beginning of the 19th century the modern tongues movement suddenly appeared. What a coincidence. It certainly isn't of God, with that kind of timeline.
quote:****

It would probably be hard for you to find a believer during that time period who would not fit into your definition of ‘heretic’ since you use the term loosely to refer to anyone who teaches anything you disagree with. You call replacement theology a ‘heresy’ and do not seem to reserve the term for those who disagree with essential doctrines of the faith like the nature of Christ or teachings that diverge from the historical beliefs of the church as expressed in certain creeds as many theologians do.

I suspect you are making a blanket statement about something you know little or nothing about. Earlier you said there were no references to tongues during the time period, or in the church fathers, or something along those lines, and I showed you a quote from Ireneaus. Then you dismiss the quote out of hand. I have seen articles with numerous references to tongues from time to time throughout history. Btw, I know of no ‘tongues movement’ in the beginning of the 1800’s. I have read of some speaking in tongues in a Methodist revival around that time, and some references before that to speaking in tongues. In the 1830’s there was an outbreak of speaking in tongues and other gifts in a Presbyterian church in the UK which turned into a kind of highly liturgical Charismatic denomination. The Pentecostal movement started around the turn of the 20th century. But there were references to gifts in historical documents before that.

There are plenty of references to gifts like prophecy, miracles, healing and other manifestations throughout history as well. You can look them up yourself if you want to. I could give you some pointers on where to work, but I do not have time to do your homework for you. I doubt you are seriously interested in looking into these things, however.

 

I have to wonder if we'd just learb to 'Bring to a Boil and then simmer until done', instead of turning the heat up until boil-over occurs...

If 'we' of the Charismatic or Penetcostal Persausion would have a greater listening audience?

But, that's probably another thread?

 

If you take this out of context, why not take the rest of the verses in chapter 14 out of context. The context is simple. Paul is laying down various stipulations or conditions under which tongues (genuine foreign languages) could be spoken. He was saying: "Either adhere to these conditions or do not speak in tongues at all." Tongues-speakers of today chafe at the conditions that Paul wrote down because they cannot keep them. They seem to be absurd to them. For example Paul says for the women to keep silence in the church.
1. No woman was permitted to speak in tongues. That was one conditon.
2. Another condition was that only two, at the most three could speak in tongues, and they had to do it in order; turn by turn.
3. If there was no interpreter they could not speak in tongues (foreign languages) at all.
4. This was just another restriction--It was a sign to the Jew (vs.21). Verse 21 alone, taken by itself, teaches that it was a sign to the Jew. One cannot deny that. Taken with verse 22 it narrows it down to the unbelieving Jew. But if you want to keep the two verses separate, then that is fine with me. It still teaches that tongues is a sign to the Jews, and that fact cannot be denied. That is what verse 21 teaches, and that is what Paul was getting across to the Corinthians. Words have meanings. Paul didn't insert that verse in there for his own good, but for the good of the Corinthians. If it was a sign to the Jews, it was useless to speak in tongues unless Jews were present, for it was a sign to them.
This is just one more added stipulation that Paul gave to the Corinthians when they had the idea that they wanted to speak in tongues. They had to abide by all the rules, or not speak in tongues at all.

For argument sake, I will grant you that verse 21 can be divorced from 22 (though I don't agree with that kind of exegesis). But verse 21 remains, and the teaching thereof. The Holy Spirit did not inspire Paul to write that for the good of his health. Tongues are for a sign to the Jews. It is the plain teaching of verse 21; how can it mean any thing else? "Yet for all that they will not hear me." Still, he says, they will not hear." There was unbelief, even after the sign of tongues was given. They did not believe. The inference is that judgement would come upon them, as it always does when a people do not comply with God's commands. And God doesn't wait 2,000 years to judge that people. His judgement came swiftly. It is long stretch, and a ridiculous one to say that God's judgement upon the Jews has not come yet, and therefore tongues are still operative. That is ludicrous. God judged his people; tongues have ceased.

Paul wasn't using a similie or a metaphor about an ox, or any other symbol. He was speaking directly about the nation of Israel that Isaiah referred to in Isa.28:11,12. He quoted the passage, that all were familiar with. He made it plain to them. "This people" the Israelits, would not hear the sign of tongues, and thus would be judged.

Both are true. But the sign, first and foremost is to the Jew. You cannot omit verse 21 from chapter 14. It is there to stay. Tongues are a sign for the Jew, whether or not you consider them saved or not. It is a sign to the Jews. It is also true, as Paul further says, that when any unsaved person walks into a place where a number of believers are all speaking in tongues, that it will seem to be total chaos, and he will think that they are all mad. It happens today all the time. The big difference today is that people today don't speak in tongues (foreign languages); they speak in gibberish. And that in itself is not Biblical.

We can be sure of the argument Paul makes of that passage because Paul states clearly that he is using an allegory. Paul makes no such statement here, and one has no right to say that he is being allegorical in 1Cor.14:21 when he is not. He is quoting from Isaiah 28:11,12, as the New Testament writers were prone to do in much of their writings. There is no good reason to believe this to be an allegory. Was the resurrection an allegory too? How far shall we go with allegories?

I am not reading into anything, and I am not a preterist. It is plain and simple logic. Disobedience to God's command brings judgement. God said it would. You make the ludicrous suggestion that judgement could be postponed for 2,000 years or more. Where would you get that idea. Read the Book of Judges. Almost as soon as Israel turned to idolatry God sent them into captivity, until they turned back to God again. God's judgement was always swift. He is longsuffering, but only to an extent. Reading through the gospels and the Book of Acts, we see how longsuffering God was with the Jews. His patience had run out by the end of the first century, not by the end of the second millennium. Let's use some logic here.

I never said that. Why do you assume that I did?

I also believe the same.

But I don't beleive that, so why are you putting words in my mouth. I have never even indicated such a position.

That is true.

I never said one thing about the Book of Joel. Where do these accusations come from?

We can agree to disagree on that point. He deals with them only in a minor way. In the way that he is calling them back to the nation of Israel, I suppose you could say that he deals with the nation of Israel. But in the larger picture He is not dealing with them, he has set them on a shelf for a temporary period of time.

I have been emphasizing one argument--one of the strongest arguments against tongues for today. But still you do not accept it. I have not even begun to put forth the many other arguments of why tongues have ceased. I have only concentrated on one argument alone.
I listed four above, earlier in this post.
One of the strongest arguments is the evidence of the spiritual gift of healing. Give me evidence that this gift is in operation today as it was in the days of the Apostles. The Apostles could heal all that came to them at certain times in their ministries. But there is no one today that can exercise that gift. Who was there at the Tsunami disaster that could heal all the injured, and cure all the diseases? Why was't there any faith healer on the scene that could fulfill that function? Why doesn't someone step forward who has the supernatural gift of healing and demonstrate that he does. He can't because it, along with all the other spiritual gifts, have ceased. Faith healers of today, along with the tongues speakers of today are frauds. They rely on fleshly experiences that are not of God. They cannot demonstrate that there so-called gifts are the same as the New Testament spiritual gifts.

If tongues were truly of today they would be recognizable foreign languages spoken to groups of people that speak in a foreign language that the speaker doesn't know. It would be interpreted into Hebrew for the sake of any Jews present. That is how it worked. It was a sign for the Jews. Why else would there be any need for an interpreter, if the person had the gift of tongues (foreign languages). If I was given the gift or ability to speak in French, then why would I need an interpreter to interpret into French. What sense does that make? The interpreter interpreted back into Hebrew for the sake of the Jews because it was a sign to the Jews who were scattered over all the known world.
Another argument is the argument given in 1Cor.13:8-13, which I believe is a strong argument for the cessation of tongues, when that which is perfect (the Bible) is come. But I think you are already acquainted with those arguments.
Those are just some of the reasons. There are many more. I have never seen or even heard of any Charismatic service that is able to keep all of the restrictions in 1Cor.14. Why? Because tongues have ceased.

Of course there is. What does the verse say. "And yet for all that they will not hear me." The inference of the not hearing, and not obeying is judgment. That is the result of disobedience.
DHK

 

Well, kinda weighty topic for my first post, but hey, why not.

I voted "other".

"That which is perfect" is the maturity commanded of believers under Christ (Mt 5:48; Mt 19:20-21/1Thess 3:10/James 1:4), both *immediately* in Corinth...

--COMPARE THIS--

(1 Corinthians 13:10-11) when that which is perfect may come, then that which [is] in part shall become useless. When I was a babe, as a babe I was speaking, as a babe I was thinking, as a babe I was reasoning, and when I have become a man, I have made useless the things of the babe

--TO THIS--

(1 Corinthians 14:20) Brethren, become not children in the understanding, but in the evil be ye babes, and in the understanding be ye perfect

--AND THIS--

(2 Corinthians 13:9,11) ...and this also we wish, [even] your perfection...Become perfect



...and also for all believers under the New Covenant system:

--COMPARE THIS--

(1 Corinthians 13:4-8,10-11; 14:20) Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails... when the perfect comes, the partial [imperfect] will be done away...when I became a man, I did away with childish things...Brethren, do not be children in your thinking...in your thinking be perfect

--TO THIS--

(1 John 2:5-6,10) But whosoever keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked...He that loveth his brother abideth in the light

--AND THIS--

(1 Jn 4:8, 11-13, 18) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love....if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another... If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit...Herein is our love made perfect...There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear...He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

 

DHK wrote,

***If you take this out of context, why not take the rest of the verses in chapter 14 out of context. The context is simple. Paul is laying down various stipulations or conditions under which tongues (genuine foreign languages) could be spoken. He was saying: "Either adhere to these conditions or do not speak in tongues at all." Tongues-speakers of today chafe at the conditions that Paul wrote down because they cannot keep them. They seem to be absurd to them… If it was a sign to the Jews, it was useless to speak in tongues unless Jews were present, for it was a sign to them. ***

Are you trying to imply that Paul is forbidding tongues when Jews are not present? If so, that is pure eisegesis. We need to keep the context in mind and that is the point. In the context, Paul isn’t saying anything about tongues for Jews. He is building up a case for the need for all tongues to be interpreted before actually commanding it. He is also building up a case for the superiority of prophecy to tongues (or at least uninterpreted tongues.) This is what Paul is talking about.

By mentioning the Isaiah prophecy, is Paul invoking the idea of tongues as a sign against the Jews? I consider that a remote possibility, but I prefer to be conservative in the way I interpret Paul. Paul quotes the text and then makes his own point from the text—the tongues are a sign to unbelievers. That is clear from the context. If Paul is also trying to point to the idea as a sign of judgment against the Jews, he does not indicate that this is the case in the context. We should let Paul interpret himself. Paul says that tongues are a sign to them that believe not, and he does not qualify it.

I mentioned allegorical interpretation earlier to illustrate that Paul did not always follow the rules some Fundamentalists insist on for interpreting scripture, but I did not say that Paul was using allegorical interpretation in I Corinthians 14. That would not be accurate. ‘Allegory’ is not the term. I am not saying tongues represent Gentiles and lips represent one thing and Jews represent something else. ‘Analogy’ or ‘principle’ are better terms to use. Something along these lines…when God spoke through ‘tongues’ to ‘this people’ they did not believe. So there is a principle that when God speaks in tongues to unbelieving people, they still will not hear. This is not allegorical interpretation.

I see the ‘sign’ as ‘and yet for all that they will not hear me.’ This is a sign in the sense that it is a fulfilled prophecy. Some signs are fulfilled predictive prophecies. The unbeliever who does not believe when he hears tongues can look in scripture and see a sign against him, that predicted that he would not believe when he heard tongues.

**** For example Paul says for the women to keep silence in the church.
1. No woman was permitted to speak in tongues. That was one conditon. ***

The Bible does not teach this. The verse about women keeping silent says to keep silent ___in the church.___

**2. Another condition was that only two, at the most three could speak in tongues, and they had to do it in order; turn by turn.**
A retired Greek and Latin professor I know believes that ‘two or three’ refers to the number of utterances the ‘man’ (‘one’ Gk. ‘tis’) speaks. Btw a lot of churches that believe in tongues make an effort to obey this scripture in accordance with their own interpretation of it. I went to an AOG that believed in a max of two or three messages in tongues per meeting and insisted that tongues not be spoken if no one interpreted. That was their understanding of the passage. Some AOG’s believe this. Not all people who believe in tongues have meetings like TBN shows.

**3. If there was no interpreter they could not speak in tongues (foreign languages) at all. **

This contradicts scripture. If there was no interpreter, one could not speak in tongues IN THE CHURCH. If there is no interpreter, the speaker in tongues is still allowed to ‘speak to himself and to God.’

Nothing in the passage forbids speaking in tongues outside of the assembly, and nothing in the passage forbids women speaking in tongues, praying, or prophesying outside of the assembly.

***4. This was just another restriction--It was a sign to the Jew (vs.21). Verse 21 alone, taken by itself, teaches that it was a sign to the Jew. One cannot deny that.**

Paul does not interpret the passage the way you do when he explains it in I Corinthians 14.

I have asked you for this probably a dozen times, and you have never responded. If tongues is a ‘sign for the Jews’ what logical or scriptural reason is there to say that it could not be used for other purposes when no Jews are around.

God made the sun, moon and starts for ‘signs’ but they serve other purposes. The sun keeps us warm. Also, these heavenly bodies serve as a sign for whom? For man? Can the animals do astronomy or keep track of days? Yet even before man was around, the sun shone on plants and animals. So even though the sun was to serve as a sign, it still was able to function and serve other purposes.

If tongues is a sign for the Jews, we still know it serves another purpose. Just as the sun could shine when no people were around to use it as a sign to keep track of days, so tongues an function when no Jews are around.

So if tongues ceased to be a sign to the Jews for whatever, reason, it does not follow that tongues ceased.

If tongues is a sign to the Jews, does it stand to reason that tongues has tongues ceased to be a sign to the Jews? You say that tongues is a sign of judgment to the Jews, and you wrote,

*** Of course there is. What does the verse say. "And yet for all that they will not hear me." The inference of the not hearing, and not obeying is judgment. That is the result of disobedience.**

So you say that the fact that Jews do not hear and obey is judgment. Let me ask you, do most Jews hear and obey now? Has Israel as a whole received the truth yet? No. There is a small remnant of Jewish believers, but most have rejected the truth. So are they not still under judgment.

You wrote,
******
And God doesn't wait 2,000 years to judge that people. His judgement came swiftly. It is long stretch, and a ridiculous one to say that God's judgement upon the Jews has not come yet, and therefore tongues are still operative. That is ludicrous. God judged his people; tongues have ceased.

*****
And,
**
You make the ludicrous suggestion that judgement could be postponed for 2,000 years or more.
***

Show me where I have suggested that Israel’s judgment were postponed for 200 years. I am not arguing that God has not judged Israel. Where did I ever imply such a thing? Israel was judged and is still under judgment. I think this is clear from Romans 11 and Deuteronomy and the fact that most of Israel has not yet believed in the Messiah that Israel is still under judgment for not believing in the Prophet who is like unto Moses.

What I am saying is that the judgment is ongoing. So why would tongues not be on-going? There is no logical connection between tongues being a sign and tongues ceasing. If tongues was no longer needed as a sign then the purpose of tongues for edification with interpretation can continue all. I Corinthians 12 lists tongues among those gifts given ‘to profit withal.’ Tongues clearly has another purpose besides being a sign to the Jews.

**If it was a sign to the Jews, it was useless to speak in tongues unless Jews were present, for it was a sign to them. **

This assertion contradicts scripture. Paul says that the one who speaks in tongues edifies himself. This is true of both Jews and Gentiles. If a Gentile speaks in tongues alone, he edifies himself, his spirit wells, and he may give thanks well while doing so, but no Jews are present to hear it. If, in a meeting composed only of Gentiles, one speaks in tongues, and another interprets, then the congregation is edified. No Jew has to be present.

This is just one more added stipulation that Paul gave to the Corinthians when they had the idea that they wanted to speak in tongues. They had to abide by all the rules, or not speak in tongues at all.

******
I never said that. Why do you assume that I did?
******
I didn’t say you said that. I said there were preterists who believed that way. I was explaining why preterists might try to argue that tongues wasn’t needed after 70 AD, and how preterist your argument sounds.

Btw, the problem with arguing against tongues based on the Isaiah quote in I Corinthians 14 is that there is nothing linking tongues as a sign with tongues seeking. If tongues are a sign to the Jew, there is no reason to think they have ceased since they had another function other than being a sign.

I wrote,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Even if one accepts your argument, there is no scriptural evidence that tongues have ceased.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***I have been emphasizing one argument--one of the strongest arguments against tongues for today.***

My point is that if you can prove that tongues is a sign for the Jews, that doesn’t mean tongues have ceased. You have yet to show a scriptural reason that tongues being a sign to the Jews would have anything to do with tongues ceasing.

**********
One of the strongest arguments is the evidence of the spiritual gift of healing. Give me evidence that this gift is in operation today as it was in the days of the Apostles. The Apostles could heal all that came to them at certain times in their ministries. But there is no one today that can exercise that gift.
**********

This is an argument from experience, not scripture. Since I have seen a couple of healings done by the laying on of hands, the question I would ask, based on my experience is, “Why do miracles and healings sometimes occur if the gift supposedly ceased?” Your question is a question about your own experience, not about scripture.

If I have never seen anyone clear out a hospital, that doesn’t prove that miracles or healing do not exist. I see no reason to think the apostles ever cleared out the cultural equivalent of a hospital when they went to a Gentile city, anyway.

Many people who do believe in the gifts sometimes wonder why there are not more healings taking place. It reminds me of the story of St. Dominic being taken before the pope. The pope shows him gold and other treasures and says, “Peter can no longer say ‘gold and silver have I none.’ Dominic answers something to this effect, “Neither can you say, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ rise and walk.” If we are lacking in these things, the problem may lie in ourselves.

A lot of people think their kind of church is right. Therefore, if there are no miracles in their church, they go looking for excuses—or theological reasons—to argue why their church is not like the church in the Bible. Other people see that their church is not like the one in the Bible and seek God so that He will change the church to be like it should be according to the Bible.

*** Who was there at the Tsunami disaster that could heal all the injured, and cure all the diseases? Why was't there any faith healer on the scene that could fulfill that function? **

The scriptures say that Jesus could do no mighty miracles in Nazareth because of their unbelief. In this country, the hardest hit by the tsunami are a people group that ran the Christians out of their land. These inhabitants of the ‘Mecca of Indonesia’ are not known for their faith in Christ. I heard a few that were around in the largest city in the region were not allowed to celebrate Christmas in the city by the Mslim populace. So they had an ecumenical Christmas meeting up on a hill or mountain and slept up there for the night—and because of that missed the tidal wave.

I know of some groups going up there to help the people there. If I hear of any miracles up that way, maybe I could let you know. But somehow I doubt that you would be open to believing such reports.

Jesus healed a lot of people. The people who came to Him must have had some measure of faith or expectation, or else they would not have come to Him to hear his teaching or to be healed by Him. Many times, Jesus said for it to be unto someone according to his/her faith.
‘
The fact remains that you have never shown any evidence that healing or miracles, or spiritual gifts in general have ceased. If you are a dispensationalist, you probably believe we are in an age of grace. If we are living in an ‘age of grace’, that is an age of ‘charis’, why would God remove the ‘charismata from the church? The Bible teaches that we receive gifts differing according to the grace given unto us. Gifts (charismatic) are a manifestation of God’s grace (charis.)


***If tongues were truly of today they would be recognizable foreign languages spoken to groups of people that speak in a foreign language that the speaker doesn't know. It would be interpreted into Hebrew for the sake of any Jews present. That is how it worked. It was a sign for the Jews. Why else would there be any need for an interpreter, if the person had the gift of tongues (foreign languages). If I was given the gift or ability to speak in French, then why would I need an interpreter to interpret into French. What sense does that make? The interpreter interpreted back into Hebrew for the sake of the Jews because it was a sign to the Jews who were scattered over all the known world. ****

You need to read some history. A lot of the Jews scattered around the known world didn’t really know Hebrew, and if they learned it, it was as a second language. The synagogues Paul preached in outside of Israel would have spoken Greek, according to what I have read. They read the scriptures in Greek out of some version of the Septuagint, which many of them believed to have been inspired. Even in Judaea, according to Eidersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus Christ, the Jews would have had someone to interpret the Hebrew scriptures and sermon into Aramaic for them.

Many of the Jewish diaspora would not have understood an interpretation into Hebrew, and it might have sounded to them almost like ‘speaking in tongues.’

What you are suggesting doesn’t make sense in context, either. Paul is talking about tongues being translated into a language the church knows, so that the church can understand. Probably only a tiny minority in the Corinthian church would have really known Hebrew.