Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Error.
Not at all. Don's position is, did Paul do any or all of the things he listed?
Actually no. Paul is comapring the practice of BOTH tongues of men and tongues of angels without love to that with love. The same point (that without love one becomes as a clanging cymbal or gong) applies equally to both tongues of men and tongues of angels in the absence of love.
Again it is not required that Paul have actually doen these things, only that it be possible. That's the point of the mild hypothetical. Certainly it is true that we have the One whom can lead us into all knowledge and understanding. So it is possible. That's all that is required.
That Paul did not do it is not an argument that he did not have that faith. And Jesus words should not be taken to say that if you have that faith you must move mountains, or that moving mountinas is the only prrof of that kind of faith. that would be like saying that tnguees are the only real eidence of salvation. Finally, given all that Paul did, will you argue that Paul did not have that measure of faith? Can you prove that? I maintina that it is possible, and the possibility is all that is required to establish the reality of the tongues of angels.
Again as long as it is possible then we can inffer reasonably (at the very least!)that tongues of angels are possible. It is not required for Paul to have done any of these things for his point to be made.
No you can't. If it is a charism, then men can speak it under the urging of the Spirit. 1Co 13:1 is the very proof of it.
No you didn't. You were just doing what we are commanded to do and that is to rightly divide the word of truth, and questioning a claim I had made. You were right to question it and did indeed prove that I can not prove that angels do not speak their own tongue. Instead of being dogmatic I should have simply stated their is no evidence that they do exist. This verse simply does not prove either point of veiw.
What is your point? I was pointing out that your argument that single scripture cannot be used to build a doctrine is not valid since it is already done in the case of the Milelnium. If you accept that there is amillenium you do so on no more evidence than that which I point to in supporting the existence of tongues of angels. Certainly when we are dealing with a question where there is a paucity of evidence eiher for or against we should be cautious. But the fact of paucity is not grounds for denying something outright.
It is not a specualtion without support and is in fact accepted by major exegetes. It is based on the text and what we know of he Cornithian situation. As to your claim that it does not support tongues of angels, there you are wrong. Does the fact that Paul does not use the specific phrase tongues of angels in 1Co 14 prove anything? No. It is as likely that he is simply referring to tongues generically, which would include both those of men and angels. That is consistent with the context. Besides, to use silence in 1Co 14 to ignore what IS said in 1Co 13 is improper. Apply that principle consistently and you'd be surprised what doctrines you'd have to gie up on, like the Mllenium, just for example.
This ignores the context. There is no reason to even mention tongues of angels unless it was an issue. As you read through 1Co. you see an unusual emophasis oin thngs angelic. Since Paul's letters are occasional, meanig they adress actual situations, it makes sense of the context to infer that he mentions it because they did first.
This is not true. I got the reconstructionfrom scholars, not charismatic extremists. The fact is that belief in tongues of angels ws common at the time. The rabbinic literature of the day confirms this.
The answer is yes. He did do at least some of them. Bt the premise is stil flawed. The argument does not require that any of them be done for the cogency of Paul's argument to be maintined. The things need only be possible. Even if Paul did not or could not do any of the things mentioned the problem of a lack of love would still be true.
The proof is there. They exist. But that is a separate (if related) issue from the question of whether what some are practicing is an authentic example of what is referred to in 1Co 13.
I would ask that you actually read 1Corinthians. I am not trying to be snide here. But read it. The entire reason for Paul writing is in response to the Corinthian situation. See 1:11; 3:2,3; 5:1, 9(proof that there was a "covnersation" bnetween Paul and the Corinthians; 6:12, which is taken to mean that Paul is responding to a slogan of someoone he disagrees with; 7:1; 8:1,4; 11:2,17 where Paul is responding to reports both postive and negative, 12:1 which leads us into chpater 13.
See for example the Tetsament of Job, 48-50; F.F. Bruce (Nw Century commentary) and Craig keener (Bible background Commentary (NT)) both refer to this as well as other extant literature. Both are up front as to the relative merits of this literature. It is not ironclad proof but cannot be ignored either.
Please bear with me; I know you're dealing both Lorelei and me both, and we're not exactly following the same paths.
It is obvious that, at the very minimum, the issue was a loveless exercise of charismatic gifts. The fact that tongues is the first on the list, and is discussed for some time afterward, is evidence that tongues are the main issue. The fact that angelism is prominent in other problems in Corinth makes it very likely that the mention of angels in this context is not for no reason. The evidence sugests then that angelic tongues are an issue.
Not necessarily. Paul need only be making parallel arguments using other exampes to make his main point that the loveless use of charismata is bad.
Saying "it seems that" is only being honest. The reconstruction is not absolutelty certain. To speak as though it were would be improper. Similarly to label it as mere speculation, when there is no alternative offered, and supporting evidence is given, is to misrepresent things. Particulalrly off base is your line about my assumptions. Nowhere in my presentation did I say anything that relied on the prior assumption of angelic tongues. I worked strictly from the text.
That isn't entirely true. You'll find references to it in various places in church history, though it isn't easy. Certainly though you won't find anythng like the concentrartion of it until the last century or two.
The issue was the paucity of evidence. If paucity were as important as all that then millenialism would have to be disqualified as well.
Again the paucity of evidence is not a point that eliminates the existing evidenc from consideration. Besiuds, in comapring all scripture there is nothing that can be said to deny the possibility of angelic tongues.
