Really? By whose reckoning?
In your initial post, you stated;
... as I suspect your "research" was really non-existent, and your purpose here is to open a discussion that will undoubtedly deteriorate into a riot when you discover few will support your views.
You then stated rather definitively;
This thread is nothing more than an effort to promote a false teaching.
... when I intended and still do not intend to promote anything. Again, my intention is to gather information and opinions concerning the early church's position on this topic as well as information concerning historical instances related to glossolalia and speaking in tongues prior to 1906 (Charismatic or not, and that would include protestations to heretical instances from the same time period in which they were claimed to have taken place; using the Stone-Campbell Revival that plain_n_simple put forth as an example, I would like to see "cessationist" protestations to the revival as long as they originated from the same time period in which it took place). Again, nowhere did I attempt to promote any teaching whatsoever. The very nature of my OP and subsequent posts were inquisitive, not expository.
Of course he wants no debate. He doesn't want his false belief challenged.
You presumed this even though I stated time and time again my reasoning for not wanting this thread to deteriorate into a cessation debate. You didn't consider those assertions and charged otherwise.
Continue to wait. The content of your last PM was too negative to bother replying.
This is exactly how I felt when you rather definitively presumed the aforementioned about my intentions right off the bat rather than looking or asking for clarification when my initial post seemed equivocal to you. Given your above contributions to this thread I could have immediately dismissed you as too negative to bother with as well, but I don't feel that such a disposition is conductive to the purpose of a discussion board. I'll wait no more on your personal response as I
fully understand why you would not wish to create one.
There is nothing about any of those quotes from my posts that are in anyway antithetical to one another, so your question is irrelevant.
There is a marked difference in the statements "his study
is geared to support x" and "his study
leaves room for the possibility of x". To which do you subscribe?
That may be the way it seems to you, but that is not the case.
When someone says "seems" or "as I understand it", they do usually mean it as a disclaimer. Please don't presume that I use such terminologies inadvertently. I do appreciate your following explication!
Sullivan defends gobbledy-gook, and does so by defending any use of tongues beyond the First Century.
I am still not seeing where Sullivan has defended gobbledy-gook (in which I assume you are referring to glossolalia (so-called heavenly/private prayer languages) and not Biblical tongues [known languages]). He holds that modern glossolalia was a result of the Pentecostal movement having to choose between discrediting itself and fudging the original Pentecostal understanding (which in and of itself seems to have been in violation of 1900 years of precedence) following the late 19th/early 20th century missions crisis. Were I a practitioner of glossolalia I would find this offensive to, not defensive of, my beliefs.
The gift died before John did, therefore any defense of the use of the gift in the post-apostolic church is invalid and unbiblical.
In this I tend to agree with you. Charismatics
in my experience are capable of stretching Biblical semantics to make a case that is rather frustrating and confusing to argue against (as I've seen time and time again in my lurking on this and other boards). I seldom see an appeal to history on either side and the debate usually devolves into a dispute over the semantics of individual words and letters. Thus my interest in this topic and Sullivan's assertion that glossolalic dogma was not formulated until the late 19th century. Here's my contention; arguing via an appeal to history avoids the scriptural semantics spat which is really the only thing I've seen the Charismatic movement appeal to for the basis of their theological positions (other than experience) likely thus the shortage of genuine scholastic information that John of Japan pointed out.
... which fails to take into consideration his insistence elsewhere in his writing that tongues is not now, even today, a "dead gift," as is stated biblically to be the case. Sullivan believes "known language" use of tongues is still valid.
I am curious to see where Sullivan has stated that tongues is not a "dead gift" as I have not seen him indicate such.
I do not, and see biblical evidence to support that view.
I lean in this direction but consider myself to be not quite learned enough on cessationist dogma to adhere to it completely. I will state again; regardless of my hesitance to fully accept cessationism at this point I do hold that
if (IF) tongues are still legitimately in operation today, they must be tongues of known human origin because that is what its Biblical purpose and 1900 years of precedence indicate to be the truth. This is in no way kowtowing to classical Charismatic nor cessationist doctrine. In fact, the argument counters popular Charismatic doctrine without strictly adhering to a cessationist standpoint which is where I stand now in my own convictions. I'm perfectly fine with you believing this to be unbiblical thinking. Perhaps it is indeed.
I am a fallible human being and am not about to accept a particular ideology just because someone else thinks it is right and tells me I should as well. I am in the process of formulating my own conclusion concerning the topic thus my interest. Rest assured that I get the same admonition of unbiblicality from individuals who hold to Charismatic doctrine. I reiterate,
Please do not respond here with the typical cessationist or Charismatic dogma. Anyone may feel perfectly free to write me a personal message concerning their position on cessationism and the like (I would appreciate it!) but classical debate of these topics is not the intended purpose of this thread.
He goes to great lengths in his Origen on the Dogma of Tongues to conclude, illogically, that the great church father wrote extensively, not on the cessation of the gift of tonuges, but of the gift of knowledge, and goes to the greater length of retranslating Origen to prove his point.
I am glad to see that you are at least reviewing his works for the sake of this discussion. This is the kind of input I am looking for. I also reviewed this section of his project and can empathize with your contention. I will be conversing with Mr. Sullivan in the near future to determine if he does hold to the point you believe he is trying to prove. Concerning Sullivan's work on Origen; if you have any sources, examples or information supporting your disagreement with his conclusions (such as writers who came to different conclusions) I would very much appreciate them.
As you cease addressing my concerns here, I will also cease addressing your concerns, though I believe you are reaching illogical conclusions equally severe as Sullivan's.
Perhaps this post will help to clear up some of your concerns. I do realize that the lack of forgiveness in my last PM may be at fault at this point. The absence of forgiveness in my response to your last PM is a result of my predisposition concerning apology. "I'm sorry, but..." does not usually fit the criterion for a worthy apology but is rather a common societal courtesy that I find to be quite patronizing. Reading back over your response to my PM I realize that you may not have meant to patronize my message to you. I do apologize for the presumptuous and judgmental nature of my response and I ask that you would forgive me.
John of Japan said:
So Synan can only be read as a full-fledged defender of all the excesses of the movement.
Thanks for the very useful input, John of Japan. I'll be looking further into Synan's works as another basis for my understanding of Charismatic thought.
