# 1 Corinthians 12-14 - Tongues and Interpretation



## Eoghan

I would be interested in the thoughts of others on precisely what the message of tongues was. From Acts 2 and Acts 10 it would seem to be general declarations about God. (Likewise with Saul prophesying in 1 Samuel) The emphasis in Corinthians seems to be on a need to interpret, suggesting that while in control of the language or dialect, the speaker was not conscious of it's content. I am interested because it suggests a type of prophesy which is more exhortation than exposition. The reason I am probing this distinction is because women were allowed to prophesy but not to teach. In order for this to be a manageable rule of the church there must have been a clear distinction between teaching and prophesying in this context.


----------



## Leslie

I wasn't aware that women were allowed to prophesy. On what basis do you conclude that? Pardon my ignorance.


----------



## Peairtach

Eoghan said:


> I would be interested in the thoughts of others on precisely what the message of tongues was. From Acts 2 and Acts 10 it would seem to be general declarations about God. (Likewise with Saul prophesying in 1 Samuel) The emphasis in Corinthians seems to be on a need to interpret, suggesting that while in control of the language or dialect, the speaker was not conscious of it's content. I am interested because it suggests a type of prophesy which is more exhortation than exposition. The reason I am probing this distinction is because women were allowed to prophesy but not to teach. In order for this to be a manageable rule of the church there must have been a clear distinction between teaching and prophesying in this context.



The individual speaker of unknown languages did understand what they were saying. This is made clear in I Corinthians 14:16-18, where if someone gives thanks in an unknown language, he is edified but his hearers aren't. The Apostle's argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that there is no edification by speaking gifts without understanding. The gift of translation was necessary to confirm the prophetic message in the unknown language in an inspired, infallible and prophetic way. The fact that tongue-speakers in the first century understood what they were saying is enough to show that modern tongue-speaking is a counterfeit miracle, as modern tongue-speakers claim that their edification is irrational, without understanding.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Scott1

In the I Cor. 12 context, speaking in an unknown tongue and interpretation of an unknown tongue were companion gifts, used for corporate worship, as special revelation of God, the canon of Scripture not yet having been completed.

To speak in a tongue not known to the hearers would be of little value without an interpretation. cf I Cor. 14:13-14.

(Which is one of the reasons that these two gifts, as part of corporate worship are fulfilled in the completed canon).


----------



## lynnie

Leslie said:


> I wasn't aware that women were allowed to prophesy. On what basis do you conclude that? Pardon my ignorance.



Leslie, Phillip had four daughters with the gift of prophecy. He was one of the original seven deacons. 

Because scripture does not contradict itself, I would guess they may have been like Anna in the temple, who spoke to people about Jesus:

_*There was also a prophet, Anna*, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37and then was a widow until she was eighty-four.e She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem._

There is no reason to think any of the women spoke during the weekly gathering when the apostles taught. I would assume the four daughters spoke powerfully by the Holy Spirit to many people about Jesus the redeemer, just like Anna, but we don't really know. 

By the way, scripture is clear that tongues and prophecy are different gifts. The OP suggestion of tongues as a type of prophecy I don't think fits with scripture.


----------



## Eoghan

Leslie said:


> I wasn't aware that women were allowed to prophesy. On what basis do you conclude that? Pardon my ignorance.



Eh... ... the prophet Joel?


----------



## Eoghan

Peairtach said:


> The individual speaker of unknown languages did understand what they were saying. This is made clear in I Corinthians 14:16-18, where if someone gives thanks in an unknown language, he is edified but his hearers aren't. The Apostle's argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that there is no edification by speaking gifts without understanding. The gift of translation was necessary to confirm the prophetic message in the unknown language in an inspired, infallible and prophetic way. The fact that tongue-speakers in the first century understood what they were saying is enough to show that modern tongue-speaking is a counterfeit miracle, as modern tongue-speakers claim that their edification is irrational, without understanding.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2



Hodge is quite clear that the speaker had no knowledge of what he was saying, it was a foreign language to him as much as his audience. His mind was inactive in the composition of the sentences as it were.

[BIBLE]1 Corinthians 14:14[/BIBLE]

I notice that while the spirit is being exercised there is no hint of edification of the unlearned language speaker (tongues).


----------



## timmopussycat

Leslie said:


> I wasn't aware that women were allowed to prophesy. On what basis do you conclude that? Pardon my ignorance.



In addition to Joel 2:28 and Acts 21:9, there is also 1 Cor. 11:5 which presumes that women were prophesying in the NT assemblies.


----------



## timmopussycat

Peairtach said:


> The individual speaker of unknown languages did understand what they were saying. This is made clear in I Corinthians 14:16-18, where if someone gives thanks in an unknown language, he is edified but his hearers aren't. The Apostle's argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that there is no edification by speaking gifts without understanding. The gift of translation was necessary to confirm the prophetic message in the unknown language in an inspired, infallible and prophetic way. The fact that tongue-speakers in the first century understood what they were saying is enough to show that modern tongue-speaking is a counterfeit miracle, as modern tongue-speakers claim that their edification is irrational, without understanding.



Actually v.14 of that chapter "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" suggests that the tongues speaker does not know the meaning of what he is saying. 

VV. 21 and 22 do however establish the point that biblical tongues were known languages not glossolalia. If any tries to reject this on the basis of 1 Cor. 13:1's "If I speak in the tongue of men and angels . . . " one merely replies that Paul may be engaging in "trumping" the Corinthians tongues speaking with a hypothetical possibility.


----------



## Peairtach

timmopussycat said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The individual speaker of unknown languages did understand what they were saying. This is made clear in I Corinthians 14:16-18, where if someone gives thanks in an unknown language, he is edified but his hearers aren't. The Apostle's argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that there is no edification by speaking gifts without understanding. The gift of translation was necessary to confirm the prophetic message in the unknown language in an inspired, infallible and prophetic way. The fact that tongue-speakers in the first century understood what they were saying is enough to show that modern tongue-speaking is a counterfeit miracle, as modern tongue-speakers claim that their edification is irrational, without understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually v.14 of that chapter "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" suggests that the tongues speaker does not know the meaning of what he is saying.
Click to expand...


O.Palmer Robertson points out that the "spirit" in Scripture includes the rational faculty. E.g. Mark 2:6-8. In context the Apostle is saying that the individual truly prays because he has understanding of what he is saying in his own spirit, but his own understanding does not bear fruit in those around him, the hearers, because they don't have a clue as to what he is saying. 

This ties in with the Apostle's overall argument that edification depends on understanding.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Leslie

Peairtach said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The individual speaker of unknown languages did understand what they were saying. This is made clear in I Corinthians 14:16-18, where if someone gives thanks in an unknown language, he is edified but his hearers aren't. The Apostle's argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that there is no edification by speaking gifts without understanding. The gift of translation was necessary to confirm the prophetic message in the unknown language in an inspired, infallible and prophetic way. The fact that tongue-speakers in the first century understood what they were saying is enough to show that modern tongue-speaking is a counterfeit miracle, as modern tongue-speakers claim that their edification is irrational, without understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually v.14 of that chapter "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" suggests that the tongues speaker does not know the meaning of what he is saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O.Palmer Robertson points out that the "spirit" in Scripture includes the rational faculty. E.g. Mark 2:6-8. In context the Apostle is saying that the individual truly prays because he has understanding of what he is saying in his own spirit, but his own understanding does not bear fruit in those around him, the hearers, because they don't have a clue as to what he is saying.
> 
> This ties in with the Apostle's overall argument that edification depends on understanding.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


Edification depends on the understanding of the hearer. The hearer's understanding does not necessarily imply the speaker's understanding. Tongues phenomena occur in non-Christian contexts as well as Christian. In both contexts the speaker might speak a known language and make sense to a native speaker, but he does not understand what he is saying except in a general way (he is probably aware of the subject from the context). In Acts 2 the passage is consitent with this phenomenon; the apostles did not necessarily understand the words and sentences they were uttering, though they were obviously gospel messages. 

An analagous phenomenon might occur with demonization, where the person speaks in a voice not his/her own and not according to his/her volition. Yet what comes out is a known language. 

An interesting book on this phenomenon is They Speak in Other Tongues. While the conclusions of the book are faulty, some of the factual background of the glossolalia is presented in an objective manner. The author (forget his name) was a journalist who set out to objectively describe the phenomenon. I hope the moderators don't negate this suggestion. Presumably the board members are mature enough to read the book with discretion and not to buy into the movement.


----------



## Peairtach

We cannot be edified by a discourse in a language we don't understand, whether it is the person speaking or the hearer who does not understand.

This is a basic reformational principle, which explains e.g. why our services aren't in Latin, and why our Bibles are in English, rather than Hebrew and Greek.

It is unwarranted and unwise to be taking analogies from demonisation in order to understand a gift of God rather than trying to understand what the Scriptures say about this gift.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Scott1

timmopussycat said:


> VV. 21 and 22 do however establish the point that biblical tongues were known languages not glossolalia.



But not known language to the hearers, that's why there needed to be interpretation with it. The context here is public (corporate worship). One of the Apostle's main points is that it is not beneficial to have only speaking in an unknown tongue, without an interpretation. Else, how would the special revelation coming outside of Scripture, which is what was at stake, be of benefit. Viz a viz, prophecy (preaching the revealed Word) was of great value because it could be understood. Cf v. 2-5.


----------



## Eoghan

Peairtach said:


> O.Palmer Robertson points out that the "spirit" in Scripture includes the rational faculty. E.g. Mark 2:6-8. In context the Apostle is saying that the individual truly prays because he has understanding of what he is saying in his own spirit, but his own understanding does not bear fruit in those around him, the hearers, because they don't have a clue as to what he is saying.
> 
> This ties in with the Apostle's overall argument that edification depends on understanding.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2



I think this may go too far in accommodating unnecessarily the Charismatic understanding, that praying in tongues at home builds them up. They do not know exactly what they are saying and so must pray for interpretation which is the gift to understand what they are saying. I think on this point the understanding of Charles Fox Parham that it removed the need for missionaries to learn languages was both correct in theory - that the original tongues were genuine languages but wrong in the sense that they were sign gifts to Israel, not really evangelism. That modern tongues (replicated amongst muslims, hindus and mormons) were not real languages apparently was discovered by missionaries in the field.


----------



## Leslie

That the glossolalia of the charismatics are not real languages is evident to any linguist. It doesn't even require a lot of skill. By and large this is the case in charismatic churches. But sometimes they are real languages. And sometimes they are understood by native speakers who happen to be present. Note also that interpretation is not the same as translation, at least not in English. Is there a difference in Greek?


----------



## Timobe

The man that speak in tongue doesn't know what he is saying nor the others (1 Co 14, 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.) ; his gift comes from the Lord. I won't add much of what is discussed here apart the fact that Paul call for order in relation to that gift in 1Co 14, 7-12 ; the peoples that have that gift have to be quiet, to speak for themselves. 

I have many stories that glorify God in relation to that gift. For example, one day a french jew that was against the church came to a church because he was "dating" a woman from that church. When he was there, a woman from that church began to speak in tongue in hebrew ! The message was obviously for him and he convert. And there are some others times where the tongue speaking was interpreted for the benefit of all. It's not the most important gift but it's a kind one if he is used for the benefit of all or for the person who have it as long as the person speak quietly, for herself.


----------



## Peairtach

Timobe said:


> The man that speak in tongue doesn't know what he is saying nor the others (1 Co 14, 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.) ; his gift comes from the Lord. I won't add much of what is discussed here apart the fact that Paul call for order in relation to that gift in 1Co 14, 7-12 ; the peoples that have that gift have to be quiet, to speak for themselves.
> 
> I have many stories that glorify God in relation to that gift. For example, one day a french jew that was against the church came to a church because he was "dating" a woman from that church. When he was there, a woman from that church began to speak in tongue in hebrew ! The message was obviously for him and he convert. And there are some others times where the tongue speaking was interpreted for the benefit of all. It's not the most important gift but it's a kind one if he is used for the benefit of all or for the person who have it as long as the person speak quietly, for herself.



I think it's more profitable to first study what the Word of God says on tongues, rather than mix that study with anecdotes which may or may not be true, Timobe 

Whether or not the anecdotes are true, garbled or false, may depend upon what we learn from God's Word by which we judge them.

I think it is plain from Scripture that real tongues-speakers understood what they themselves were saying. Is it likely that the Apostle Peter would preach a sermon on Pentecost after having given a prophecy thst he himself did not understand? Would that be good preparation for addressing an audience or congregation? "I've just addressed you in words of which I have no understanding, and still have no understanding, but now I will continue to address you with that my ignorance of the meaning of the prophecy I gave to you hanging over the rest of what I say."

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW

To "interpret" one language into another is to translate it. John 1:41.

The "tongues" of the NT were certainly real languages. "Unknown tongues" were languages unknown to the speaker or hearer. 1 Cor. 14:11.

1 Cor. 14:2 provides no instruction relative to tongue-speaking other than the preference for prophesying because of its intelligibility and tendency to edification. What the apostle says about tongue-speaking is argumentum ad hominem, that is, arguing according to the way the Corinthians understood what they were doing by speaking in tongues. He later corrects their understanding when he speaks about the mind (intelligence) being unfruitful. The idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit had already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.

Going back to the OP, taking 1 Cor. 11-14 as an unit, the apostle addresses the women praying and prophesying uncovered. In chap. 11 his comments are concerned with the head-covering aspect, and in chap. 14, when he comes to address prophesying, he then addresses their prophesying and forbids the women to speak. This indicates that prophecy was forbidden to women in the assembly as equally as teaching men was forbidden in 1 Tim. 2.


----------



## JimmyH

I've always found this to be a confusing topic. One the one hand, it seems plain that the tongue speaking of Pentecost was purposeful and intelligible to specific foreign hearers receiving the Gospel message through the tongue speakers. On the other hand we have Paul saying that he speaks in tongues more than any of you, but would rather speak one word understandable to those listening than 10,000 words in a tongue. So the assumption is that the "unknown tongues" that the Charismatics practice are the tongues the great Apostle is referring to in that passage.

The gentile believers who Peter is preaching to in Acts 10:44-46 are filled with the Holy Spirit and begin speaking in tongues. Paul at Ephesus, chapter 19:5-7 lays hands on the 12 men who had not yet received the gift of the Holy Spirit and they begin speaking in tongues and prophesying. I suppose these occasions don't necessarily mean that they were speaking in an unknown tongue, but I have the impression that they were.

I only began attending church at 36 years old, and in a Assemblies of God, Pentecostal congregation. I made up my mind that like it or not I would attend for 3 months and did. Speaking in tongues was a regular feature amongst a few of the parishioners and the language, if it was a language, was certainly unknown to me. I found the practice so disturbing that when the three months was up I searched for and found a Baptist congregation where I felt quite at home. I cannot help but feel that 'tongues' is one of those gifts that has ceased.


----------



## timmopussycat

Peairtach said:


> I think it is plain from Scripture that real tongues-speakers understood what they themselves were saying. Is it likely that the Apostle Peter would preach a sermon on Pentecost after having given a prophecy thst he himself did not understand? Would that be good preparation for addressing an audience or congregation? "I've just addressed you in words of which I have no understanding, and still have no understanding, but now I will continue to address you with that my ignorance of the meaning of the prophecy I gave to you hanging over the rest of what I say."



All Peter would have needed to go ahead with his sermon is the God given insight into what was going on - the tongues of fire descending on each to the 120 would have been a strong indicator that the promised Holy Spirit had come: he may not have needed to understand the specific praises being uttered. Or he and he alone may have received miraculous understanding of the other languages on this occasion (and possibly again later at Cornelius' house).


----------



## timmopussycat

Leslie said:


> That the glossolalia of the charismatics are not real languages is evident to any linguist. It doesn't even require a lot of skill. By and large this is the case in charismatic churches. But sometimes they are real languages. And sometimes they are understood by native speakers who happen to be present. Note also that interpretation is not the same as translation, at least not in English. Is there a difference in Greek?



Could you please elaborate on your comment that interpretation is not the same as translation. What are the differences?


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> To "interpret" one language into another is to translate it. John 1:41.
> 
> The "tongues" of the NT were certainly real languages. "Unknown tongues" were languages unknown to the speaker or hearer. 1 Cor. 14:11.
> 
> 1 Cor. 14:2 provides no instruction relative to tongue-speaking other than the preference for prophesying because of its intelligibility and tendency to edification. What the apostle says about tongue-speaking is argumentum ad hominem, that is, arguing according to the way the Corinthians understood what they were doing by speaking in tongues. He later corrects their understanding when he speaks about the mind (intelligence) being unfruitful. The idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit had already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.



How does 1 Cor. 12: 2,3 rule out speaking "mysteries in the spirit?" What appears to be ruled out in these verses is simply the idea that the Holy Spirit will be behind doctrinal falsehood.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> How does 1 Cor. 12: 2,3 rule out speaking "mysteries in the spirit?" What appears to be ruled out in these verses is simply the idea that the Holy Spirit will be behind doctrinal falsehood.



A contrast is set up between being carried away unto dumb idols and being able to intelligently discern what is spoken by the Spirit of God. The word translated "dumb" is used again in 14:10-11, with specific reference to tongue speaking and being unable to ascertain the meaning of the speech.


----------



## Peairtach

Palmer Robertson takes the references to "mysteries" as evidence that Biblical tongues were new prophetic revelations. The speaker of the revelation knew what he was saying and was therefore edified, but anyone listening who did not know the language, did not understand and thus was not edified. For tongues to function properly and to edify everybody they had to have an inspired and infallible translation confirm the prophetic message.

Tongues were a sign that people of all nations would be incorporated into the Israel of God (Acts 2) and that judgment was coming upon Israel as it had previously through the Chaldeans (I Cor.14:20-22) After the end of the theocracy they were superfluous.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does 1 Cor. 12: 2,3 rule out speaking "mysteries in the spirit?" What appears to be ruled out in these verses is simply the idea that the Holy Spirit will be behind doctrinal falsehood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A contrast is set up between being carried away unto dumb idols and being able to intelligently discern what is spoken by the Spirit of God. The word translated "dumb" is used again in 14:10-11, with specific reference to tongue speaking and being unable to ascertain the meaning of the speech.
Click to expand...


Actually the word aphona is used in two different senses in the two chapters. In Ch 12:2 it is used in the sense of mute or dumb to describe idols: in ch. 14 Paul uses it of human languages to tell us that none of them are without meaning (aphonon). Since the word is demonstrably used to describe two different things, neither of which specifically is the phenomenon of the biblical tongues (whatever they may have been), a better explanation for the claim that 1 Cor 12:2, 3 rules out speaking "mysteries in the spirit" is needed, especially since BAGD comment on 14:2's use of "mysteries" is "the one who speaks in tongues utters secret truths which he alone shares with God."


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Actually the word aphona is used in two different senses in the two chapters.



The only difference is between the general and the particular. The word association connects the particular act of unintelligible tongue-speaking to the general course of action which they were accustomed to pursue as "Gentiles."


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the word aphona is used in two different senses in the two chapters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference is between the general and the particular. The word association connects the particular act of unintelligible tongue-speaking to the general course of action which they were accustomed to pursue as "Gentiles."
Click to expand...


The difference is not between general and particular. It is between two different senses of the same word spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking spaced over two chapters apart and separated by other subjects and without any hint to the original readers to make a link between them. If you try to support the assertion that 



armourbearer post #19 said:


> the idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit has already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.



without any further support than you have provided, you may be able to get away with that kind of eisegesis within ill-informed Reformed circles where your argument is not tested, but if you try it with a Charismatic who has access to an intelligent and informed mentor from within that perspective, they will easily spot the same holes in the argument I did with the result that the unsoundness of your argument will only convince them of the rightness of their errors.


----------



## Leslie

timmopussycat said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the glossolalia of the charismatics are not real languages is evident to any linguist. It doesn't even require a lot of skill. By and large this is the case in charismatic churches. But sometimes they are real languages. And sometimes they are understood by native speakers who happen to be present. Note also that interpretation is not the same as translation, at least not in English. Is there a difference in Greek?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please elaborate on your comment that interpretation is not the same as translation. What are the differences?
Click to expand...


There is a distinction in English. I ran into this all the time in clinic. I would tell a patient, "I'm sorry I can't help you." My "translator" would say, "There is nothing wrong with you," which would send me into a controlled burn. (My understanding is much better than my speaking.) That's an interpretation, not a translation. It can be more subtle. My son might tell someone who comes to see me on Saturday, "Mary isn't here today." That is an interpretation of my statement, made on Thursday, that I'm going to Addis. Usually we stay for 3 days, so it's a reasonable interpretation, but then I might have returned on Friday. Likewise, I'm wondering in the Greek if there is a distinction. If so, it could explain someone giving an extensive message in tongues, but the interpretation's being short. The message might have been a long song and dance about all the sins someone did, but the interpretation could be a simple, "Repent."

Something I don't understand. If the speaker necessarily understood everything he/she was saying, and if interpretation is the same as translation, why would anyone have to pray for interpretation? Any speaker could just repeat in the local trade language what he just said in an unknown language. This whole Corinthians passage becomes a muddle to me if the speaker in the unknown tongue knew exactly what he was saying, i.e. he could precisely translate. There is also (what seems to be) the contrast between praying in the spirit and praying with understanding. This makes a lot more sense if the speaker/pray-er can't translate his utterance.


----------



## Eoghan

Peairtach said:


> Palmer Robertson takes the references to "mysteries" as evidence that Biblical tongues were new prophetic revelations. The speaker of the revelation knew what he was saying and was therefore edified, but anyone listening who did not know the language, did not understand and thus was not edified. For tongues to function properly and to edify everybody they had to have an inspired and infallible translation confirm the prophetic message.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2



Can you explain to me where the idea that, *tongue / foreign language + interpretation = prophesy* comes from?

I picked this idea from my time in the charismatic movement, but free of that, I am struggling to find a biblical justification. It seems a very circuitous way of giving a prophesy - especially if the office of, well, prophet was operational?


----------



## Timobe

@Peairtach and the others too. 
What the Word say of that gift is clear : 1 Co 14, 13 "Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret." That imply that the people who have this gift are not sure to understand what they are saying. All the Christians, fully and faithfully in Christ, that i know and that have that gift (and i know many) say the same : speaking in tongues is one thing, to be able to interpret is an other thing. But like Paul said, the people that have that gift have to pray to be able to interpret their gift continually because in some church that i have visited, the Christians that have that gift (real Christians not mystics with false doctrines like in some churches in which the people are falling on the ground or i don't know what else) usually speaks in tongues but forgot to pray to be able to interpret... Because with that gift, they builds up themselves so well (1 Co 14, 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself) and are bringing into adoration so well that they usually forgot to pray to be able to interpret their gift in order to edify the whole church. 

Fortunately, i know some protestant churches that practice that gift without "falling" into the problems that may result of his "utilization". The most simple is that the person that have that gift speak quietly for herself like Paul said and if she receive interpretation, as she may speak for the entire church.

But, most of all, pursue love because science, speaking in tongues, prophecy and all that are temporals things that are destinate to disappear one day ; but not love !


----------



## PaulMc

Eoghan said:


> Can you explain to me where the idea that, *tongue / foreign language + interpretation = prophesy* comes from?
> 
> I picked this idea from my time in the charismatic movement, but free of that, I am struggling to find a biblical justification. It seems a very circuitous way of giving a prophesy - especially if the office of, well, prophet was operational?



I think 1 Cor 14:4-5 would be used to justify this, where it seems that prophecy is counted as more profitable than tongues unless there is an interpreter.
'Greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, _except he interpret_, that the church may receive edifying.'

Also, in Acts 2:16-18, Peter shows that the disciples' speaking in tongues at Pentecost after the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is the fulfilment of Joel's prophecy - 'this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel... I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall _prophesy_.'
Although in this case there wasn't need for interpretation of the tongues, as the people gathered could understand the languages spoken (v.11). However, it seems to still fit in with 1 Cor 14 and Joel's prophecy, that tongues, when understood = prophecy.


----------



## Peairtach

Eoghan said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palmer Robertson takes the references to "mysteries" as evidence that Biblical tongues were new prophetic revelations. The speaker of the revelation knew what he was saying and was therefore edified, but anyone listening who did not know the language, did not understand and thus was not edified. For tongues to function properly and to edify everybody they had to have an inspired and infallible translation confirm the prophetic message.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain to me where the idea that, *tongue / foreign language + interpretation = prophesy* comes from?
> 
> I picked this idea from my time in the charismatic movement, but free of that, I am struggling to find a biblical justification. It seems a very circuitous way of giving a prophesy - especially if the office of, well, prophet was operational?
Click to expand...


The word "mystery" or "musterion" (Greek) in the New Testament refers to something previously unknown but now revealed by God's Spirit.

You could do worse than listen to O. Palmer Robertson's "Tongues for Today?" and "Prophecy for Today?" which I believe may still be at monergism.com.

See also what Paul says above. Tongues were clearly foreign languages in Acts 2, and were linked to Joel's prophecy about the prophetic gift.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Peairtach

Timobe said:


> @Peairtach and the others too.
> What the Word say of that gift is clear : 1 Co 14, 13 "Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret." That imply that the people who have this gift are not sure to understand what they are saying. All the Christians, fully and faithfully in Christ, that i know and that have that gift (and i know many) say the same : speaking in tongues is one thing, to be able to interpret is an other thing. But like Paul said, the people that have that gift have to pray to be able to interpret their gift continually because in some church that i have visited, the Christians that have that gift (real Christians not mystics with false doctrines like in some churches in which the people are falling on the ground or i don't know what else) usually speaks in tongues but forgot to pray to be able to interpret... Because with that gift, they builds up themselves so well (1 Co 14, 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself) and are bringing into adoration so well that they usually forgot to pray to be able to interpret their gift in order to edify the whole church.
> 
> Fortunately, i know some protestant churches that practice that gift without "falling" into the problems that may result of his "utilization". The most simple is that the person that have that gift speak quietly for herself like Paul said and if she receive interpretation, as she may speak for the entire church.
> 
> But, most of all, pursue love because science, speaking in tongues, prophecy and all that are temporals things that are destinate to disappear one day ; but not love !



Timobe, 

You're presuming that what you are experiencing at Pentecostal churches is genuine "tongues". The historic Reformed position is that tongues came to an end. One reason why we would reject modern tongues as counterfeit and self-delusion is that throughout I Corinthians 14, the Apostle links understanding with edification. If someone cannot understand they will not be edified. We're not saying these people are unconverted because they "speak in tongues" but that they have got erroneous teaching on this particular subject and have been deluded, and deluded themselves, into thinking they have the real deal.

The Apostle indicates that the tongue-speaker himself is edified while the ones hearing the tongue are not. Therefore, the tongue-speakers understood what they were saying.

Why was the gift of interpretation/translation then needed? Because in order to transmit the prophecy in a foreign tongue accurately in the native language of the hearers and in order for it to be confirmed accurately, it was not enough that the tongue-speaker had an understanding of what he was saying. He needed another revelation from God in the native language.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Peairtach

Leslie said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the glossolalia of the charismatics are not real languages is evident to any linguist. It doesn't even require a lot of skill. By and large this is the case in charismatic churches. But sometimes they are real languages. And sometimes they are understood by native speakers who happen to be present. Note also that interpretation is not the same as translation, at least not in English. Is there a difference in Greek?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please elaborate on your comment that interpretation is not the same as translation. What are the differences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a distinction in English. I ran into this all the time in clinic. I would tell a patient, "I'm sorry I can't help you." My "translator" would say, "There is nothing wrong with you," which would send me into a controlled burn. (My understanding is much better than my speaking.) That's an interpretation, not a translation. It can be more subtle. My son might tell someone who comes to see me on Saturday, "Mary isn't here today." That is an interpretation of my statement, made on Thursday, that I'm going to Addis. Usually we stay for 3 days, so it's a reasonable interpretation, but then I might have returned on Friday. Likewise, I'm wondering in the Greek if there is a distinction. If so, it could explain someone giving an extensive message in tongues, but the interpretation's being short. The message might have been a long song and dance about all the sins someone did, but the interpretation could be a simple, "Repent."
> 
> Something I don't understand. If the speaker necessarily understood everything he/she was saying, and if interpretation is the same as translation, why would anyone have to pray for interpretation? Any speaker could just repeat in the local trade language what he just said in an unknown language. This whole Corinthians passage becomes a muddle to me if the speaker in the unknown tongue knew exactly what he was saying, i.e. he could precisely translate. There is also (what seems to be) the contrast between praying in the spirit and praying with understanding. This makes a lot more sense if the speaker/pray-er can't translate his utterance.
Click to expand...


Leslie, 

see the post above for an explanation as to why an accurate revelation from God was necessary to translate a tongue-prophecy accurately so that it would be just the words that the Holy Spirit wanted and nothing else, rather than just a general and fallible "interpretation". The Holy Spirit wanted something more than an interpretation or loose translation of His words, but prophetic accuracy. Hence the need for a special revelatory gift of translation of tongues.

Re the tongue-speaker's "spirit praying", you seem to have assumed that "spirit" refers to an irrational or emotional facility cut off from the intellect or mind. My reference to the use of the word "spirit" in the Gospels a few posts back, shows that this is not the case.

Paul is saying that the tongue-speaker prayed genuinely in the spirit, with understanding, but that the understanding of his mind did not bear fruit in the hearers, because there can be no edification without understanding, and they didn't understand.

The whole passage on tongues in I Corinthians is a great testimony to the supernatural in the first century church.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tirian

JimmyH said:


> On the other hand we have Paul saying that he speaks in tongues more than any of you, but would rather speak one word understandable to those listening than 10,000 words in a tongue. So the assumption is that the "unknown tongues" that the Charismatics practice are the tongues the great Apostle is referring to in that passage.



As Jimmy says - what of all these other tongues (more than any of you)?


----------



## timmopussycat

Peairtach said:


> The Apostle indicates that the tongue-speaker himself is edified while the ones hearing the tongue are not. Therefore, the tongue-speakers understood what they were saying.



The apostle Paul explicitly contradicts your contention that tongues speakers understood what they were saying when he writes "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, _but my mind is unfruitful._" (1 Cor. 14:14). Robertson's argument is pure speculation, because in context the unfruitful mind is the unused mind. Paul will pray and sing with the mind in v.15.


----------



## Peairtach

Tirian said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand we have Paul saying that he speaks in tongues more than any of you, but would rather speak one word understandable to those listening than 10,000 words in a tongue. So the assumption is that the "unknown tongues" that the Charismatics practice are the tongues the great Apostle is referring to in that passage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Jimmy says - what of all these other tongues (more than any of you)?
Click to expand...


I don't think the Apostle was rabbiting-on unintelligibly when he used this gift otherwise he would have been contradicting himself. He'd either get someone to translate or have the gift of translation himself, and use it, or he would be speaking in tongues to those foreigners who knew what he was saying. This is a sign of the reversal of Babel not of Babel in the Church. All he is saying here is that this gift that the Corinthians think is so important and which they abuse, he is given and uses more than them, and in the proper manner, in the godly order.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Peairtach

timmopussycat said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Apostle indicates that the tongue-speaker himself is edified while the ones hearing the tongue are not. Therefore, the tongue-speakers understood what they were saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apostle Paul explicitly contradicts your contention that tongues speakers understood what they were saying when he writes "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, _but my mind is unfruitful._" (1 Cor. 14:14). Robertson's argument is pure speculation, because in context the unfruitful mind is the unused mind. Paul will pray and sing with the mind in v.15.
Click to expand...


I think Robertson would say that the above interpretation makes the Apostle to contradict himself, since the Apostle's whole argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that edification presumes understanding. If we do not understand what the trumpet means it is of no edification to us in the battle. He says that e.g. the person saying grace - "giving thanks" - in a tongue is edified, while the person listening is not. Why is the person listening not edified? Because he does not understand. So the person giving thanks must understand what he is saying, if the Apostle's argument is to hold water. Otherwise the Apostle is saying you cannot be edified without understanding, but sometimes you can be.

How is the tongues speaker edified without understanding what he is saying, or the person listening to the tongues speaker, or the person reading the Bible in Greek, or the person attending a service in Latin?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## timmopussycat

Peairtach said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Apostle indicates that the tongue-speaker himself is edified while the ones hearing the tongue are not. Therefore, the tongue-speakers understood what they were saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apostle Paul explicitly contradicts your contention that tongues speakers understood what they were saying when he writes "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, _but my mind is unfruitful._" (1 Cor. 14:14). Robertson's argument is pure speculation, because in context the unfruitful mind is the unused mind. Paul will pray and sing with the mind in v.15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Robertson would say that the above interpretation makes the Apostle to contradict himself, since the Apostle's whole argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that edification presumes understanding. If we do not understand what the trumpet means it is of no edification to us in the battle. He says that e.g. the person saying grace - "giving thanks" - in tongue is edified. So the person giving thanks must understand what he is saying, if the Apostle's argument is to hold water.
> 
> How is the tongues speaker edified without understanding what he is saying, or the person listening to the tongues speaker, or the person reading the Bible in Greek, or the person attending a service in Latin?
Click to expand...


Robertson's argument presumes that understanding is the only route to Christian edification, something I believe to be incorrect. Although God's primary means of spiritually strengthening his people is through the teaching and the understanding of His word, this is not the only way he builds us up. Sometimes God gives Christians experiences of himself which are not knowledge based although Scripture does teach us how we are understand them - and that we are not to go overboard in seeking them! - and how we are to live when God does not give them. A human analogy might be the encouragement and strengthening one feels when experiencing a spouse's love for oneself in the impact of a glance and a smile without a word being said. "Tasting" the goodness and greatness of God, strengthens our hearts even more, as any who have encountered the sense of his presence in prayer will know. So it is not unreasonable to suppose that something similar may have been going on in the experience of a Corinthian tongues speaker.


----------



## PaulMc

Peairtach said:


> The Apostle indicates that the tongue-speaker himself is edified while the ones hearing the tongue are not. Therefore, the tongue-speakers understood what they were saying.



It's not just Robertson that takes this view. Hodge, Gill, Barnes and the Matthew Henry commentary all agree that the tongues speaker understood what they were saying, and that 'his understanding being unfruitful' refers to the people listening. 
Calvin seems to have a different view in some ways: 'I answer, that Paul here, for the sake of illustration, makes a supposition, that had no reality, in this way: “If the gift of tongues be disjoined from the understanding, so that he who speaks is a barbarian to himself, as well as to others, what good would he do by babbling in this manner?” '


----------



## timmopussycat

The fundamental problem with any view that asserts that Biblical tongues speakers somehow knew the meaning of what they were saying is that it makes the Apostle Paul overlook the obvious solution to the problem of correctly managing tongues in the Corinthian assembly. If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, likely their native language, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.

The argument that because the tongues speaker received words from God, a more accurate translation than the tongues speaker could provide was required presumes either that the tongues speaker did not receive exact knowledge of what he or she was speaking, which has adverse implications for God's ability to communicate effectively with his people, or the tongues speaker was unable to express what he or she had received accurately in what was likely their native language. If a tongues speaker received an accurate understanding of the tongue in their native language, why would not the mere giving forth of that understanding in the very words in which it was received not be a valid God-given prophecy?


----------



## Scott1

timmopussycat said:


> If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the meaning of the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.



Not to derail the conversation here, Tim,
but that is _precisely_ why we are not NOW to seek special revelation outside of Scripture (e.g. by speaking in unknown tongues and interpretation of unknown tongues) now that Scripture IS completed until the end of the age....


----------



## Peairtach

timmopussycat said:


> The fundamental problem with any view that asserts that Biblical tongues speakers somehow knew the meaning of what they were saying is that it makes the Apostle Paul overlook the obvious solution to the problem of correctly managing tongues in the Corinthian assembly. If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, likely their native language, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.
> 
> The argument that because the tongues speaker received words from God, a more accurate translation than the tongues speaker could provide was required presumes either that the tongues speaker did not receive exact knowledge of what he or she was speaking, which has adverse implications for God's ability to communicate effectively with his people, or the tongues speaker was unable to express what he or she had received accurately in what was likely their native language. If a tongues speaker received an accurate understanding of the tongue in their native language, why would not the mere giving forth of that understanding in the very words in which it was received not be a valid God-given prophecy?



Could that not have possibly led to loose translations, interpretations and a garbled or at least a fallible prophetic message?


----------



## timmopussycat

Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the meaning of the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to derail the conversation here, Tim,
> but that is _precisely_ why we are not NOW to seek special revelation outside of Scripture (e.g. by speaking in unknown tongues and interpretation of unknown tongues) now that Scripture IS completed until the end of the age....
Click to expand...


I fully agree that today's church is not to _seek _special revelation (I think 1 Cor 12:31 was intended by Paul to specifically correct the Corinthian abuse of the lower gifts, not as a general principle for all churches at all times to practice: this latter view essentially denies the sovereignty of the Spirit in the distribution of the gifts). But that's not really the problem most of us face. Instead, our problem is how do we judge claimed incidents of accurately interpreted tongues speaking or prophecies. Do we reject them all as spiritually counterfeit (cessationists), do we accept them uncritically (charismaniacs/some charismatics) or do we adjudge them on a case by case basis according to the Scriptural guidelines for doing so? (occasionalists and some charismatics). Some here argue the former, I suggest the latter.


----------



## timmopussycat

Peairtach said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental problem with any view that asserts that Biblical tongues speakers somehow knew the meaning of what they were saying is that it makes the Apostle Paul overlook the obvious solution to the problem of correctly managing tongues in the Corinthian assembly. If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, likely their native language, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.
> 
> The argument that because the tongues speaker received words from God, a more accurate translation than the tongues speaker could provide was required presumes either that the tongues speaker did not receive exact knowledge of what he or she was speaking, which has adverse implications for God's ability to communicate effectively with his people, or the tongues speaker was unable to express what he or she had received accurately in what was likely their native language. If a tongues speaker received an accurate understanding of the tongue in their native language, why would not the mere giving forth of that understanding in the very words in which it was received not be a valid God-given prophecy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that not have possibly led to loose translations, interpretations and a garbled or at least fallible prophetic message?
Click to expand...


At worst such a message could have been no more imperfect than an adequate translation of Scriptures (NEV, NASB KJV) is today. 

Most of our translators today have an advanced second language knowledge of Greek, but a native speaker's knowledge of English. The Corinthian tongues speaker was different. He or she was likely a native speaker of, and everyday thinker in, koine Greek and they would have supernaturally received their understanding of their tongue's message in that same language. Thus that understanding is, in itself and by definition, a word from God. Why should God give an inadequate understanding of the message to the tongues speaker only to give an adequate understanding to an interpreter?

Also, if an interpreter translated the message any differently than the tongues speaker received his or her native language understanding of their tongued message, wouldn't the tongues speaker have had to challenge the accuracy of such inexact interpretations? And how would the assembly know whether the interpreter was exact and the tongues speaker's understanding was fallible, or perhaps vice versa, in any given case? Paul does not tell us any guidelines for the assembly to follow.


----------



## Scott1

timmopussycat said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the meaning of the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to derail the conversation here, Tim,
> but that is _precisely_ why we are not NOW to seek special revelation outside of Scripture (e.g. by speaking in unknown tongues and interpretation of unknown tongues) now that Scripture IS completed until the end of the age....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully agree that today's church is not to _seek _special revelation
> Glad to hear you say this, but then look what you assert next....
> 
> 
> (I think 1 Cor 12:31 was intended by Paul to specifically correct the Corinthian abuse of the lower gifts, not as a general principle for all churches at all times to practice: this latter view essentially denies the sovereignty of the Spirit in the distribution of the gifts).
> 
> Yes, the I Cor. 12 gifts were being "abused" (misused) at that time. Sin abounded then, deliberate, in ignorance, etc. as it does today, and will until our Lord returns. But the underlying special revelation coming that way was fulfilled when Scripture was completed. We are not now to seek special revelation (e.g. by unknown tongues and interpretation of unknown tongues) now. We are not to seek this revelation outside of Scripture (today).
> 
> We know this by a biblical theology where Scripture interprets Scripture and tells us, that the Word is given to fulfill the special revelation role that tongues/interpretation was one part of in I Cor. 12 and 14. It was given in anticipation of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. Given, as it is, as the supreme rule of faith and practice for the Christian, and the church until the end of this world. (Our Lord returns).
> 
> So things have changed.
> 
> Because God gave His Word until His return. Period.
> 
> There is no competition.
> 
> Now, I would allow that there might be miraculous, extraordinary occurrences today of a I Cor. 12 type gift but not to be sought for special revelation, not in private, nor public worship(as pentecostal/charismatic practice does). Perhaps as a faith building, or special purpose type miracle, someone miraculously given a language they never learned to communicate with someone who spoke that language, etc.
> 
> But that's a far cry from what you assert.
> 
> It's not a matter of "balance" using I Cor 12 tongues and interpretation without misuse today. It's a matter of being fundamentally wrong in seeking special revelation outside of Scripture now that the Holy Scriptures have been given.
> 
> It's one reason there is such disorder in pentecostal/charismatic communions.
> 
> While miracles are always, by their nature, hard to judge, its not so much a matter of judging whether an "incident" is a counterfeit as knowing that God is not ordinarily providing special revelation outside of Scripture. Moreover, it is SIN to seek such.
> 
> Yes, seeking such extra biblical revelation devalues the place God has given His Word, and man in his darkened, rebellious understanding is constantly seeking special revelation outside of God's Word, which is a first order offense against a Holy God.
> 
> It's why the Word (not tongues/interpretation) is what the reformers call an ordinary means of grace, the way a sovereign God has ordained to provide for the strengthening of the faith of His people.
> 
> But that's not really the problem most of us face. Instead, our problem is how do we judge claimed incidents of accurately interpreted tongues speaking or prophecies. Do we reject them all as spiritually counterfeit (cessationists), do we accept them uncritically (charismaniacs/some charismatics) or do we adjudge them on a case by case basis according to the Scriptural guidelines for doing so? (occasionalists and some charismatics). Some here argue the former, I suggest the latter.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## timmopussycat

Scott1 said:


> Now, I would allow that there might be miraculous, extraordinary occurrences today of a I Cor. 12 type gift but not to be sought for special revelation, not in private, nor public worship(as pentecostal/charismatic practice does). Perhaps as a faith building, or special purpose type miracle, someone miraculously given a language they never learned to communicate with someone who spoke that language, etc.
> 
> But that's a far cry from what you assert.



On the contrary, that is exactly what I am trying to assert. And notice how you misunderstand me by continually misunderstanding my thoughts about how we are to address *CLAIMED *incidents of prophecy and tongues today. When I wrote: 



tp #46 said:


> But that's not really the problem most of us face. Instead, our problem is how do we judge claimed incidents of accurately interpreted tongues speaking or prophecies. Do we reject them all as spiritually counterfeit (cessationists), do we accept them uncritically (charismaniacs/some charismatics) or do we adjudge them on a case by case basis according to the Scriptural guidelines for doing so? (occasionalists and some charismatics). Some here argue the former, I suggest the latter.



you misunderstood me as advocating seeking the gifts.



Scott1 said:


> t's not a matter of "balance" using I Cor 12 tongues and interpretation without misuse today. It's a matter of being fundamentally wrong in seeking special revelation outside of Scripture now that the Holy Scriptures have been given.





Scott1 said:


> It's one reason there is such disorder in pentecostal/charismatic communions.



Of course. And since many cessationist arguments can be rejected by charismaniacs as unBiblical traditionalism, the best way to minimize that disorder quickly is to challenge those communions to follow the Apostle Paul's rules for exercising those gifts they claim to have.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> The difference is not between general and particular. It is between two different senses of the same word spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking spaced over two chapters apart and separated by other subjects and without any hint to the original readers to make a link between them.



Commentators deal with 12-14 as an unit. They also generally concur that 12:1-3 is introductory of the tongue-speaking issue that shall be dealt with in particular in chapter 14. To quote Gordon Fee,



> The problem is almost certainly an abuse of the gift of tongues. This is made clear first of all by the structure of the argument itself, which is basically in three parts, following the A-B-A pattern noted in previous sections (and roughly corresponding to our current chapter divisions). This section begins with *a more general word* (chap. 12), which is followed by a theological interlude (chap. 13) and *a very specific response* to the matter in hand (chap. 14)... Since this is unquestionably the focus of chap. 14, it is reasonable to assume that the argument in chaps. 12 and 13 leads to these correctives...



On 12:2, Fee comments,



> In keeping with his Jewish heritage, Paul scorns the idols as mute because they cannot hear and answer prayer; nor can they speak—in contrast to the Spirit of God who can. But he has also argued earlier that the mute idols represent demons (10:20-21) — who can and do speak through their devotees. Most likely, therefore, he is reminding them of what they well know, that in some of the cults "inspired utterances" were part of the worship, despite the "mute idols." If so, then his concern is to establish early on, as v. 3 seems to corroborate, that it is not "inspired speech" as such that is evidence of the Spirit. They had already known that phenomenon as pagans. Rather, *what counts is the intelligible and Christian content of such utterances*.



The early fathers understood it in this light also. The ancient Christian commentary provides the following two examples:

Chrysostom: "What Paul means is that if anyone in a pagan temple was at any time possessed by an unclean spirit and began to divine, he was led away by that spirit like a man in chains and *had no idea what he was saying*. For it is peculiar to the soothsayer to be beside himself, to be under compulsion, to be pushed, to be dragged, to be greeted as a madman. But the prophet is not like this, because he has a sober mind and composed temper and *knows exactly what he is saying*."

Severian of Gabala: "Paul shows that there is a very big difference between Christian prophecy and pagan soothsaying. Pagans do not address the unclean spirit but are possessed by it and *say things which they do not understand*. The soothsayer's soul is darkened, and he *does not know what he is saying*, whereas the prophet's soul is enlightened and reveals what *the prophet has learned and understood*."


----------



## Scott1

timmopussycat said:


> you misunderstood me as advocating seeking the gifts.



I really do believe you are understanding more the inconsistency in the way you argue these points.

Advocating that special revelation comes extrabiblically through tongues/interpretation is what is meant by the (made-up) term "continuationism" which you advocate repeatedly. It's not a technical distinction of seeking vs. believing that the extrabiblical revelation "continues...."

It's being wrong about the purpose of I Cor. 12 tongues/interpretation being fulfilled when God completed His Word. God has specially superintended His Word, and will until the end of the age. The Holy Spirit speaking in it. Give careful attention to it.

(Not maintain continuationism of some sort as competition with it....)



> the best way to minimize that disorder quickly is to challenge those communions to follow the Apostle Paul's rules for exercising those gifts they claim to have.


No,
it's not a matter of exhorting modern day people to 'prove' that the unknown tongue (which they WERE seeking in public worship) is genuine by demanding an interpretation (also being sought in corporate worship).

It's a matter of correct biblical teaching, scripture interpreting Scripture, that the purpose of this is fulfilled now that the Word is completed, which was always God's plan. The Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, complete, and sufficient for you.

It's error to be seeking it in public worship as speaking in an unknown tongue and it's an error to be seeking it as interpretation of an unknown tongue, just like it would be to try and conjure up a pre-incarnate appearance of our Lord.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is not between general and particular. It is between two different senses of the same word spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking spaced over two chapters apart and separated by other subjects and without any hint to the original readers to make a link between them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commentators deal with 12-14 as an unit. They also generally concur that 12:1-3 is introductory of the tongue-speaking issue that shall be dealt with in particular in chapter 14. To quote Gordon Fee,
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is almost certainly an abuse of the gift of tongues. This is made clear first of all by the structure of the argument itself, which is basically in three parts, following the A-B-A pattern noted in previous sections (and roughly corresponding to our current chapter divisions). This section begins with *a more general word* (chap. 12), which is followed by a theological interlude (chap. 13) and *a very specific response* to the matter in hand (chap. 14)... Since this is unquestionably the focus of chap. 14, it is reasonable to assume that the argument in chaps. 12 and 13 leads to these correctives...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Nothing I said challenges the certainty that the broad theme of chapters 12 to 14 is an abuse of the gift of tongues. Rather I challenge your claim on a narrower issue, to wit that: 



armourbearer said:


> 1 Cor. 14:2 . . . What the apostle says about tongue-speaking is argumentum ad hominem, that is, arguing according to the way the Corinthians understood what they were doing by speaking in tongues. He later corrects their understanding when he speaks about the mind (intelligence) being unfruitful. The idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit had already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.



While Fee recognizes that, for Paul, "it is not inspired speech as such that is evidence of the Spirit . . . rather what counts is _the intelligible and Christian content _of such utterances" (Fee, 1 Corinthians, 578) that distinguishes such utterance from pagan counterfeits, he does not share your conclusion that Paul is arguing ad hominem at this point and will later reject the idea that the tongues speaker utters mysteries with his spirit. For, as he writes on 14:2, Paul "does not disparage the gift itself; rather he seeks to put it in its rightful place." Paul recognizes that the tongues speaker as has a valid gift of "communing with God by the Spirit". The word mysteries "more likely . . . carries here the sense of that which lies outside the understanding, both for the speaker and the hearer. . . Although one may wonder how 'mysteries' that are not understood even by the speaker can edify, the answer lies in vv. 14, 15. Contrary to the opinion of many, spiritual edification can take place in ways other than through the cerebral cortex of the brain. Paul believed in an immediate communing with God by means of the S/spirit [Fee's expression for the Holy Spirit and our spirits working in concert] that sometimes bypassed the mind and in vv. 14, 15 he argues that he will have both [sorts of edification]. But _in church_ he will have what can also communicate to other believers through their minds." (Fee, 1 Corinthians loc. cit. italics his).


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Nothing I said challenges the certainty that the broad theme of chapters 12 to 14 is an abuse of the gift of tongues.



You had said, "spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking."

It is very difficult to communicate with a person who feels free to change his mind from one post to the next.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> While Fee recognizes that, for Paul "it is not inspired speech as such that is evidence of the Spirit . . . rather what counts is _the intellegable and Christian content _of such utterances" that is distinguishes such utterance from pagan counterfeits, he does not share your conclusion that Paul is arguing ad hominem at this point.



I didn't quote Fee as sharing in my conclusion, but as supporting the premise which leads to my conclusion, namely, the requirement of "intelligent" content. As the "mysteries" spoken in tongues are unintelligible without an interpretation, it follows that they do not meet the criteria set down in 12:2-3.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I said challenges the certainty that the broad theme of chapters 12 to 14 is an abuse of the gift of tongues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had said, "spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking."
> 
> It is very difficult to communicate with a person who feels free to change his mind from one post to the next.
Click to expand...


I am not changing my mind. It appears from your comment, however, that you need to learn to distinguish between the subjects of a word in the paragraphs where the words occur and the major theme of a multi-paragraph passage, even when both subjects were (twice!!) specifically identified as NOT being that major theme. For I wrote: 



tp #27 said:


> Actually the word aphona is used in two different senses in the two chapters. In Ch 12:2 it is used in the sense of mute or dumb to describe idols: in ch. 14 Paul uses it of human languages to tell us that none of them are without meaning (aphonon). Since the word is demonstrably used to describe two different things, neither of which specifically is the phenomenon of the biblical tongues (whatever they may have been), a better explanation for the claim that 1 Cor 12:2, 3 rules out speaking "mysteries in the spirit" is needed, especially since BAGD comment on 14:2's use of "mysteries" is "the one who speaks in tongues utters secret truths which he alone shares with God."



and 



tp post #29 said:


> The difference is not between general and particular. It is between two different senses of the same word spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking spaced over two chapters apart and separated by other subjects and without any hint to the original readers to make a link between them.



I'll try again. You claim that 



armourbearer said:


> 1 Cor. 14:2 provides no instruction relative to tongue-speaking other than the preference for prophesying because of its intelligibility and tendency to edification. What the apostle says about tongue-speaking is argumentum ad hominem, that is, arguing according to the way the Corinthians understood what they were doing by speaking in tongues. He later corrects their understanding when he speaks about the mind (intelligence) being unfruitful. The idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit had already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.



You support this by claiming that 



armourbearer said:


> A contrast is set up between being carried away unto dumb idols and being able to intelligently discern what is spoken by the Spirit of God. The word translated "dumb" is used again in 14:10-11, with specific reference to tongue speaking and being unable to ascertain the meaning of the speech.



What is at issue is whether, after being positively predicated of idols, the mere second appearance of the word translated "dumb" when negatively predicated of human languages at 14:10 is enough in itself to prove that Paul is engaging in argumentum ad hominem that entirely rejects the idea of "in his spirit he speaks mysteries" that he appears to approve at 14.2. I say you will need a stronger argument than the one you have provided to justify that conclusion since, in both cases, the words in question were not written in direct reference to the main theme of the passage. 

To put the matter in logical form: the two occurrences of the word dumb are as follows
All A (idols) is B (silent) 
All C (human languages) is D (meaningful)

And the conclusion you apparently want to draw from these premises is: 

No E (tongues speaking) is F (approved by Paul)
which is not a logically sound syllogism. 

I hope this makes my concern clear.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Fee recognizes that, for Paul "it is not inspired speech as such that is evidence of the Spirit . . . rather what counts is _the intellegable and Christian content _of such utterances" that is distinguishes such utterance from pagan counterfeits, he does not share your conclusion that Paul is arguing ad hominem at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't quote Fee as sharing in my conclusion, but as supporting the premise which leads to my conclusion, namely, the requirement of "intelligent" content. As the "mysteries" spoken in tongues are unintelligible without an interpretation, it follows that they do not meet the criteria set down in 12:2-3.
Click to expand...


As previously noted, others would not accept that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises given.


----------



## timmopussycat

Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> you misunderstood me as advocating seeking the gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really do believe you are understanding more the inconsistency in the way you argue these points.
> 
> Advocating that special revelation comes extrabiblically through tongues/interpretation is what is meant by the (made-up) term "continuationism" which you advocate repeatedly. It's not a technical distinction of seeking vs. believing that the extrabiblical revelation "continues...."
Click to expand...


I didn't make up the term continuationism, I learned it on this board where it was used to refer to broadly Reformed believers who were either experiencing present day parallels to or advocating the present day reality of all the spiritual gifts. (Outside the broader reformed tradition, such people would be called charismatics and that's the background I come from.) 

When assessing any theological viewpoint, the first step is to see it accurately. In order to assess continuationism one must see it as it is. If we don't do so, when we try to help such people, we immediately discredit ourselves in their eyes since we appear not to know what we are talking about. One of the key differences between continuationists / the sort of charismatics I came from and the people I call charismaniacs is that the latter reject any biblical controls on what they think of as spiritual gifts. Another is that most continuationists deny that any "prophecy" that could occur today would have canonic status. Those two differences have to be faced squarely in dealing with people within continuationist circles. Outside their groups we may think say, the latter claim impossible, but they (and I mentioned Grudem as an example and I could have also mentioned Fee), have no trouble recognizing that canonic revelation will have ceased while remaining open to "prophetic" words that exhort individuals or groups in tactical ways and require testing by the biblical criteria for such claims. Nor do they see, 



Scott1 said:


> continuationism of some sort as competition with . . .


 Scripture, but as a form of spiritual guidance under it. 

Do not confuse an accurate representation of a cessationist position with advocacy for it. 



Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the best way to minimize that disorder quickly is to challenge those communions to follow the Apostle Paul's rules for exercising those gifts they claim to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not a matter of exhorting modern day people to 'prove' that the unknown tongue (which they WERE seeking in public worship) is genuine by demanding an interpretation (also being sought in corporate worship).It's a matter of correct biblical teaching, scripture interpreting Scripture, that the purpose of this is fulfilled now that the Word is completed, which was always God's plan. The Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, complete, and sufficient for you.
> 
> It's error to be seeking it in public worship as speaking in an unknown tongue and it's an error to be seeking it as interpretation of an unknown tongue, just like it would be to try and conjure up a pre-incarnate appearance of our Lord.
Click to expand...


Scott, the problem the Reformed face, like it or not, is that the evidence shows that the usual cessationist arguments to support your claim are not convincing in the majority of cases. In many countries of the world the Pentecostal/Charismatic varieties of Christianity are doubling evangelical growth, and more than doubling Reformed growth. On the basis of sheer compassion for our neighbours we need to make sure we have the most biblical arguments possible to help them avoid the spiritual tragedies that all too many of them will face in such settings. 

And those of us who want to be confessional face an additional challenge. If we argue that no spiritual gifts occur today while others argue that they do, the WCF mandates that since "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" therefore we must prove our contention that all the gifts have expired by either statements "expressly set down in Scripture, or [by conclusions that] by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." I think the utter failure of reformed teaching to prevail against charismatic errors argues strongly that our arguments need renewed testing by this standard and replacement where found faulty. 

Meanwhile, whether or not that challenge is taken up or not, I can guarantee that anyone introducing a charismatic/continuationist to the biblical guidelines for tongues and prophecy will be providing information that could if applied, keep that person from being a direct victim of the kind of spiritual tragedy that too often happens.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> I am not changing my mind. It appears from your comment, however, that you need to learn to distinguish between the subjects of a word in the paragraphs where the words occur and the major theme of a multi-paragraph passage, even when both subjects were (twice!!) specifically identified as NOT being that major theme.



I think you need to learn how word-associations work in standard hermeneutics. Your original objection involved a denial that there is a connection between the two passages with reference to tongue-speaking. My response and quotation from Fee cancelled out your denial. Once the connection between the two passages is accepted the negative connotations of the word in the first passage carry through into the second passage. As Leon Morris comments, "Paul is making a play on words. His point is that there is no real difference between being unintelligible and being dumb. The whole point of language is to communicate meaning."


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> And the conclusion you apparently want to draw from these premises is:
> 
> No E (tongues speaking) is F (approved by Paul)
> which is not a logically sound syllogism.
> 
> I hope this makes my concern clear.



It makes clear that you like to beat down straw men of your own constructing. At no point have I said that no tongue speaking was approved by Paul. My focus has been on unintelligible communication from the beginning. Tongue-speaking which cannot be understood is the point at issue.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not changing my mind. It appears from your comment, however, that you need to learn to distinguish between the subjects of a word in the paragraphs where the words occur and the major theme of a multi-paragraph passage, even when both subjects were (twice!!) specifically identified as NOT being that major theme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to learn how word-associations work in standard hermeneutics. Your original objection involved a denial that there is a connection between the two passages with reference to tongue-speaking. My response and quotation from Fee cancelled out your denial. Once the connection between the two passages is accepted the negative connotations of the word in the first passage carry through into the second passage.
Click to expand...


You are assuming a conclusion that does not necessarily follow. Two paragraphs may be related as subunits of a larger passage - even with a common theme without presupposing that their mere presence in such a passage will force two recurrences of a word to a) take the same meaning in both occurrences in the larger passage despite being separated by several changes of subtopic or b) cumulatively prohibit something that neither refers directly to. If such a relationship carrying prohibitive force exists it is a different kind of relationship, one that remains to be proven.

I am, of course, fully aware that standard hermeneutics sometimes recognizes that multiple-meaning words sometimes keep the same meaning in successive appearances: in my book on Bahnsen, I argue at some length with reference to the two appearances of _parelthe_ in Matt. 5:18 that both words have the same meaning "disappear." But in that case_ the two instances of the parallel word occurred in the same immediate context. _But I know of no hermeneutics textbook that asserts that multi-meaning words must *always* be presumed to maintain a common meaning in successive appearances when a) the two recurrences are so far apart and b) are referring to different subjects. Can you adduce one? And if you could, it would be clear that the author of that text has failed to reckon with Berkhof's blunt statement that "It is precarious to assume that a word always has the same meaning in the word of God." For, he continues, "there are a few exceptions to the rule. In a few passages a word is repeated with a change of meaning. But these cases are of such a kind that . . . the context makes it sufficiently clear that the word does not have the same sense in both cases" something which I have already pointed out is true of the two cases in question. Not to mention cases such as the provably different meanings Paul intended the word "head" to be understood in at 1 Cor 11:3 and 5 which completely disprove the contention that the mere recurrence of the word means that the repeated word must always carry the same meaning. 

When you rely solely on the repetition to prove Paul intended to "shun" (your word) tongues speaking, where a man "in his spirit he speaks mysteries," when Paul claimed to engage in the practice himself, you are making an exegetical overreach. 




armourbearer said:


> As Leon Morris comments, "Paul is making a play on words. His point is that there is no real difference between being unintelligible and being dumb. The whole point of language is to communicate meaning."


With reference to which specific verse does Morris make that comment? 

The quote as given apparently misunderstands the differences between the two occurrences of the word. The first time we see it, it may mean either dumb or unitelligible but at its second occurrence the word clearly has a different sense that of not "without meaning" which is clearly different from unintelligible or dumb.

And what is at issue whether Paul is not whether Paul is prohibiting the use of tongues in the church because they don't communicate meaning to others which is the only way others can be edified, but whether Paul was intending to prohibit personal and private use of the gift for self edification, about which Morris's cited comment says nothing.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the conclusion you apparently want to draw from these premises is:
> 
> No E (tongues speaking) is F (approved by Paul)
> which is not a logically sound syllogism.
> 
> I hope this makes my concern clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes clear that you like to beat down straw men of your own constructing. At no point have I said that no tongue speaking was approved by Paul. My focus has been on unintelligible communication from the beginning.
Click to expand...


An innocent misunderstanding is not always a straw man construction. Please review the discussion from the start. We have been reviewing how you justified your your view that "1 Cor. 12: 2,3 rule out speaking "mysteries in the spirit?" and whether that justification is or is not methodologically valid.

My apologies for misunderstanding you. I drew item F from your post: 



armourbearer said:


> 1 Cor. 14:2 provides no instruction relative to tongue-speaking other than the preference for prophesying because of its intelligibility and tendency to edification. What the apostle says about tongue-speaking is argumentum ad hominem, that is, arguing according to the way the Corinthians understood what they were doing by speaking in tongues. He later corrects their understanding when he speaks about the mind (intelligence) being unfruitful. The idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit had already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.



The problem is with your last sentence. If "The idea of speaking 'mysteries in the spirit' (which Paul claims is true of tongues speakers in 14:2 and which he will claim of himself as he practices tongues vv. 14,15) has "already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2,3," it makes you appear have to Paul repudiating all uses of tongues not just uninterpreted tongues. So what did you intend to that last sentence to mean if not what it appeared to mean? 

And finally, even if the F in my conclusion is not what I thought it was, the logical form of your expressed justification for your position remains remains problematic for now the syllogism appears to be:

All A (idols) is B (silent) 
All C (human languages) is D (meaningful)

leading to the conclusion

No E (tongues speaking) is F (is permitted in assembly if uninterpreted*) *presumably your intent as derived from your first paragraph above.

The above is not a logically valid syllogism since a) there is no middle term b) no term, instead of the required two terms occurs twice, and c) the predicate of the conclusion occurs in neither of the premises.


----------



## Eoghan

armourbearer said:


> I think you need to learn how word-associations work in standard hermeneutics. Your original objection involved a denial that there is a connection between the two passages with reference to tongue-speaking. My response and quotation from Fee cancelled out your denial. Once the connection between the two passages is accepted the negative connotations of the word in the first passage carry through into the second passage. As Leon Morris comments, "Paul is making a play on words. His point is that there is no real difference between being unintelligible and being dumb. The whole point of language is to communicate meaning."



I am intrigued by the word *dumb* - this to me suggests someone incapable of speech and is not mute. Mute to me means incapable of any sound. Does this subtle distinction occur in the greek though?


----------



## Scott1

responses below.



timmopussycat said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> you misunderstood me as advocating seeking the gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really do believe you are understanding more the inconsistency in the way you argue these points.
> 
> Advocating that special revelation comes extrabiblically through tongues/interpretation is what is meant by the (made-up) term "continuationism" which you advocate repeatedly. It's not a technical distinction of seeking vs. believing that the extrabiblical revelation "continues...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make up the term continuationism, It isn't the point whether you made up the term, you use it, and it means extrabiblical special revelation despite _sola scriptura_. You must know that. And not say you believe it one one hand, not believe it on the other as you go back in forth on this in your posts. I learned it on this board where it was used to refer to broadly Reformed believers who were either experiencing present day parallels to or advocating the present day reality of all the spiritual gifts. (Outside the broader reformed tradition, such people would be called *charismatics and that's the background I come from*.)
> 
> A-hah! (Kidding).
> 
> Many of us had significant pentecostal/charismatic exposure as well. Now we can see the many serious errors of its doctrine and practice, including the seeking of special revelation outside of Scripture. And know our God is offended by His misrepresentation by His creatures.
> 
> When assessing any theological viewpoint, the first step is to see it accurately. In order to assess continuationism one must see it as it is. If we don't do so, when we try to help such people, we immediately discredit ourselves in their eyes since we appear not to know what we are talking about. One of the key differences between continuationists / the sort of charismatics I came from and the people I call charismaniacs is that the latter reject any biblical controls on what they think of as spiritual gifts. Another is that most continuationists deny that any "prophecy" that could occur today would have canonic status. Those two differences have to be faced squarely in dealing with people within continuationist circles. Outside their groups we may think say, the latter claim impossible, but they (and I mentioned Grudem as an example and I could have also mentioned Fee), have no trouble recognizing that canonic revelation will have ceased while remaining open to "prophetic" words that exhort individuals or groups in tactical ways and require testing by the biblical criteria for such claims. Nor do they see,
> 
> This is the point you are missing, you are almost getting to it, but not quite. It's not a matter of "controls" on seeking extrabiblical special revelation. It's a matter that the Scripture is now, and was always intended to replace, at least in any ordinary sense, e.g. I Cor. 12 speaking in an unknown tongue/interpretation of an unknown tongue as the special revelation of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> continuationism of some sort as competition with . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scripture, but as a form of spiritual guidance under it.
> 
> Do not confuse an accurate representation of a cessationist position with advocacy for it.
> 
> There you go again. You were for it before you were against it. You don't agree with the term but you agree with what the term means. Tim, we all need to pray for clarity and lack of confusion. God's Word is perspicuous, and He will be understood.
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> the best way to minimize that disorder quickly is to challenge those communions to follow the Apostle Paul's rules for exercising those gifts they claim to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not a matter of exhorting modern day people to 'prove' that the unknown tongue (which they WERE seeking in public worship) is genuine by demanding an interpretation (also being sought in corporate worship).It's a matter of correct biblical teaching, scripture interpreting Scripture, that the purpose of this is fulfilled now that the Word is completed, which was always God's plan. The Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, complete, and sufficient for you.
> 
> It's error to be seeking it in public worship as speaking in an unknown tongue and it's an error to be seeking it as interpretation of an unknown tongue, just like it would be to try and conjure up a pre-incarnate appearance of our Lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scott, the problem the Reformed face, like it or not, is that the evidence shows that the usual cessationist arguments to support your claim are not convincing in the majority of cases. In many countries of the world the Pentecostal/Charismatic varieties of Christianity are doubling evangelical growth, and more than doubling Reformed growth. On the basis of sheer compassion for our neighbours we need to make sure we have the most biblical arguments possible to help them avoid the spiritual tragedies that all too many of them will face in such settings.
> 
> Cults, heresy and false teaching and error is spreading like wildfire. It did in biblical times, it does in our time. (cf Rev. 1-3 about the 7 churches). You could use your logic to say since 75% of the world does not profess to be Christian, we need to re-think if Christianity is true. That's where that logical premise takes you.
> 
> As you are aware, the term "cessationist" is really a term imposed by the other side. It's like the dispensationalist saying that covenant theology is against God fulfilling His promises to (political? ethnic?) Israel. The promises were, are and forever shall be about Christ. The promises to political Israel as Messiah were in Christ. There is nothing to be added to His excellency, for Israel or anyone else.
> 
> It's not that I Cor. 12 spiritual gifts ceased as opposed to continued. It's about the word of God coming into focus as God established His Word for His people for all time.
> 
> And those of us who want to be confessional face an additional challenge.
> 
> Don't just want to be, just be.
> 
> If we argue that no spiritual gifts occur today
> 
> That's not a completely accurate description of the reformed position, nor does WCF Chapter I., which you cite below respond directly to your assertion. In fact, the opposite. Scripture (not extrabiblical special revelation through speaking in an unknown tongue and interpretation of an unknown tongue) is what we seek for final authority. What you cite goes against your premise (once again).
> 
> The reformed position would allow more leeway (not what you are advocating), but beyond "no spiritual gifts occur today." While I would not argue it dogmatically, it seems to be quite possible that forms of I Cor. 12 gifts occur as miracles in a faith building or edification capacity or a circumstantial miracle role. NOT as an ordinary means of grace, not as a center of worship, not as something to be sought for revelation, etc. etc.
> 
> while others argue that they do, the WCF mandates that since "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" therefore we must prove our contention that all the gifts have expired by either statements "expressly set down in Scripture, or [by conclusions that] by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." I think the utter failure of reformed teaching to prevail against charismatic errors argues strongly that our arguments need renewed testing by this standard and replacement where found faulty.
> 
> Found faulty by who?
> Joel Olsteen?
> 
> Meanwhile, whether or not that challenge is taken up or not, I can guarantee that anyone introducing a charismatic/continuationist to the biblical guidelines for tongues and prophecy will be providing information that could if applied, keep that person from being a direct victim of the kind of spiritual tragedy that too often happens.
> 
> Thankfully, the same God who ordains things that seem tragic from our standpoint, uses them for His Honor and His glory. And works them together for the benefit and good of the elect, too. (Romans 10:28)
> 
> What will direct the victims away, speaking in terms of secondary causes, is centering on the HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING IN SCRIPTURE.
> 
> Not to signs, wonders, or special revelation OUTSIDE of it.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Leslie

Certainly the supernatural gifts have ceased by and large from the church, as a matter of objective fact. Even in frontier missions where there are signs and wonders and epiphanies, there does not seem to be routine giftings in corporate worship. But whether these gifts have ceased forever is another matter. If radical cessationism is on the basis of scripture, what scripture? If it is on the basis of a person or a confession speaking ex cathedra, then what does one do with the book of Revelation where the 2 witnesses prophesy? A radical cessationist logically has to be a preterist, but that's deemed heretical.


----------



## Scott1

Thoughts below.


Leslie said:


> Certainly the supernatural gifts have ceased by and large from the church, as a matter of objective fact.
> 
> There are many stories, though, often second hand, unconfirmed that continue about miracles. I'm not sure of whether there are more in this generation compared to say, the last generation. Maybe not.
> 
> Even in frontier missions where there are signs and wonders and epiphanies, there does not seem to be routine giftings in corporate worship.
> 
> The gifting would primarily be through the teaching office, a man specially qualified by God to carefully and clearly handle teaching and preaching His Word.
> 
> 
> But whether these gifts have ceased forever is another matter.
> 
> Here's where we have to be careful. Make sure we are using the same terms with the same meanings. Many "gifts" do continue, e.g. prophecy is the right preaching of the Word, etc. And, the Westminster Confession recognizes miracles.
> 
> Again, miracles can and do happen because of the nature of the God who does them. We might say a missionary in a remote (destitute) region might supernaturally speak in the tongue of the tribe he is visiting and it might be understood by the tribe or interpreted by someone there as a miracle. It's quite possible, and virtually all reformed would agree.
> 
> But it is not, in any ordinary sense, an ordinary means of grace for receiving special revelation. And even to teach that it is very serious error.
> 
> 
> 
> If radical cessationism is on the basis of scripture, what scripture?
> 
> No such thing as "radical cessationism."
> 
> If it is on the basis of a person or a confession speaking ex cathedra, then what does one do with the book of Revelation where the 2 witnesses prophesy? A radical cessationist logically has to be a preterist, but that's deemed heretical.
> 
> "Ex cathedra" has to do with a false doctrine of papal infallibility, preterism with the second coming already have occurred, neither with I Cor 12 gifts extrabiblical special revelation now that Scripture is given.


----------



## timmopussycat

Leslie said:


> Certainly the supernatural gifts have ceased by and large from the church, as a matter of objective fact.



Your sentence presumes that Corinth was the NT norm. Paul's statement that the Corinthians "come behind in no gift" argues that their situation was, in fact, exceptional.



Leslie said:


> Even in frontier missions where there are signs and wonders and epiphanies, there does not seem to be routine giftings in corporate worship.



And that is a very good observation. The compression of the NT documents gives worship giftings the appearance of routine, but it is worthwhile remembering that the timespan between Paul's first visit to Corinth and his writing of 1 Corinthians, and in which all these gift manifestations occurred was about five years.


----------



## timmopussycat

Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't make up the term continuationism,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't the point whether you made up the term, you use it, and it means extrabiblical special revelation despite _sola scriptura_. You must know that.
Click to expand...

 
Scott, it is a sheer fact that all the Reformed leaning continuationists I am aware of deny that continuationism involves extrabiblical special revelation at the level of canon and require all claimed instances of “prophecy” to be tested against Scripture, a treatment which places all claimed “prophecies” in a category below special revelation. I am hesitant to provide representative samples of such statements on the board lest I be charged with advocating a view that I don’t hold, but if you google “reformed charismatic Vincent” then look for the information page for the “Reformed Charismatic Discussion Group” you will find one such.



Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> When assessing any theological viewpoint, the first step is to see it accurately. In order to assess continuationism one must see it as it is. If we don't do so, when we try to help such people, we immediately discredit ourselves in their eyes since we appear not to know what we are talking about. One of the key differences between continuationists / the sort of charismatics I came from and the people I call charismaniacs is that the latter reject any biblical controls on what they think of as spiritual gifts. Another is that most continuationists deny that any "prophecy" that could occur today would have canonic status. Those two differences have to be faced squarely in dealing with people within continuationist circles. Outside their groups we may think say, the latter claim impossible, but they (and I mentioned Grudem as an example and I could have also mentioned Fee), have no trouble recognizing that canonic revelation will have ceased while remaining open to "prophetic" words that exhort individuals or groups in tactical ways and require testing by the biblical criteria for such claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point you are missing, you are almost getting to it, but not quite. It's not a matter of "controls" on seeking extrabiblical special revelation. It's a matter that the Scripture is now, and was always intended to replace, at least in any ordinary sense, e.g. I Cor. 12 speaking in an unknown tongue/interpretation of an unknown tongue as the special revelation of God.
Click to expand...


And the point you are missing is this: to a continuationist, the idea that Scripture was intended to normatively eliminate either unknown tongues or NT prophecy, as they define it, remains a premise yet to be biblically proven. My major concern in this whole discussion is that since many arguments intended to prove the normative elimination of these gifts by Scripture simply do not meet the WCF’s “good and necessary consequence” standard of proof, there is something to be said for that view. 



Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not confuse an accurate representation of a cessationist position with advocacy for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again. You were for it before you were against it. You don't agree with the term but you agree with what the term means.
Click to expand...

 
I don’t agree with your definition of what the term continuationist means. I think there is a real difference that you are not seeing between the continuationist position as its advocates see it and your understanding of it. 

(To get the distraction of my own position out of the way: I would not call myself a continuationist for two main reasons. 1) Continuationists (together with all Charismatics, Charismaniacs and many Cessationists read the New Testament situation and presume that the plethora of gifting found in Corinth was a phenomenon equally present in the other churches of the era. I believe Paul’s comment “You come behind in no gift” implies that the Corinthian situation was exceptional even by the standards of the NT era. 2) Most continuationists (Grudem) tout a reduced view of the standards for testing NT prophecy that I find does not match the biblical evidence. 

Where I stand on the subject of contemporary spiritual gifts is this: If a contemporary parallel to a NT spiritual gift occurs it is an instance of WCF V. III. Such should not be sought, nor overemphasized, nor rejected but accepted as and when they occur after being tested by any applicable biblical criteria.)



Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, the problem the Reformed face, like it or not, is that the evidence shows that the usual cessationist arguments to support your claim are not convincing in the majority of cases. In many countries of the world the Pentecostal/Charismatic varieties of Christianity are doubling evangelical growth, and more than doubling Reformed growth. On the basis of sheer compassion for our neighbours we need to make sure we have the most biblical arguments possible to help them avoid the spiritual tragedies that all too many of them will face in such settings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cults, heresy and false teaching and error is spreading like wildfire. It did in biblical times, it does in our time. (cf Rev. 1-3 about the 7 churches). You could use your logic to say since 75% of the world does not profess to be Christian, we need to re-think if Christianity is true. That's where that logical premise takes you.
Click to expand...

 
If it can be shown, and it can, that many cessationist arguments don’t meet the “good and necessary consequence” standard required by the confession for reaching theological conclusions, then our situation vis a vis continuationism is not analogous to your claim.



Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we argue that no spiritual gifts occur today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a completely accurate description of the reformed position,
Click to expand...

 
Some reformed do push matters that far. Feel free to insert “either regularly or at all” after “today” to cover both groups. 



Scott1 said:


> nor does WCF Chapter I., which you cite below respond directly to your assertion. In fact, the opposite. Scripture (not extrabiblical special revelation through speaking in an unknown tongue and interpretation of an unknown tongue) is what we seek for final authority. What you cite goes against your premise (once again).


 
And once again I note that continuationists place their version of tongues and prophecy on a level below Scripture and require their version of tongues and prophecy to be tested by Scripture. Which is why what I cite does not go against my premise.



Scott1 said:


> The reformed position would allow more leeway (not what you are advocating), but beyond "no spiritual gifts occur today." While I would not argue it dogmatically, it seems to be quite possible that forms of I Cor. 12 gifts occur as miracles in a faith building or edification capacity or a circumstantial miracle role. NOT as an ordinary means of grace, not as a center of worship, not as something to be sought for revelation, etc. etc.



Which is exactly where I am coming from. In addition some continuationists could echo your statement in good conscience too. 



Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . the WCF mandates that since "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" therefore we must prove our contention that all the gifts have expired by either statements "expressly set down in Scripture, or [by conclusions that] by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." I think the utter failure of reformed teaching to prevail against charismatic errors argues strongly that our arguments need renewed testing by this standard and replacement where found faulty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Found faulty by who?
> Joel Olsteen?
Click to expand...

 
Reformed continuationists in addition to many charismatic leaning evangelicals (Piper) or WCF compliant occasionalists such as Lloyd-Jones. (Contrary to charismatic propaganda and cessationist rejection, this position is where the Doctor belongs). 



Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, whether or not that challenge is taken up or not, I can guarantee that anyone introducing a charismatic/continuationist to the biblical guidelines for tongues and prophecy will be providing information that could if applied, keep that person from being a direct victim of the kind of spiritual tragedy that too often happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, the same God who ordains things that seem tragic from our standpoint, uses them for His Honor and His glory. And works them together for the benefit and good of the elect, too. (Romans 10:28)
> 
> What will direct the victims away, speaking in terms of secondary causes, is centering on the HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING IN SCRIPTURE.
> 
> Not to signs, wonders, or special revelation OUTSIDE of it.
Click to expand...

 
And what will be the relevant portions of Scripture to a continuationist? Those Scriptures that set the controls for biblical evaluation of claimed “gifts.” If you want to argue that there are relevant portions of Scripture that teach the normative replacement of such gifts by Scripture, then you are obliged to ensure that your case for that view meets the WCF’s “good and necessary consequence” standard of proof.


----------



## timmopussycat

Eoghan said:


> I am intrigued by the word *dumb* - this to me suggests someone incapable of speech and is not mute. Mute to me means incapable of any sound. Does this subtle distinction occur in the greek though?



According to Baur's Lexicon (BAGD) that distinction is one that appears in the Greek. BAGD's distinctions are 1) "silent, mute of idols" and 2) "incapable of speech" human speech as in 2 Pt. 2:16 or "incapable of conveying meaning as a language normally does" 1 Cor. 14:10.


----------



## Scott1

Tim, you have now invented a new term as well as re-defined "continuationism" (yet again).



timmopussycat said:


> I am hesitant to provide representative samples of such statements on the board lest I be charged with advocating a view that I don’t hold,



What on earth is 



timmopussycat said:


> Reformed leaning continuationists I am aware of



Does that mean they "lean" _sola scriptura_?

What are you asserting "good and necessary consequences" in Westminster Chapter I. Of Holy Scripture has do with tongues and interpretation?


----------



## timmopussycat

Scott1 said:


> Tim, you have now invented a new term as well as re-defined "continuationism" (yet again).
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am hesitant to provide representative samples of such statements on the board lest I be charged with advocating a view that I don’t hold,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth is
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed leaning continuationists I am aware of
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean they "lean" _sola scriptura_?
> 
> What are you asserting "good and necessary consequences" in Westminster Chapter I. Of Holy Scripture has do with tongues and interpretation?
Click to expand...


1) It added reformed leaning to emphasize the point that these folk claim to buy into the 5 solas. I shouldn't have bothered having already pointed out that the continuationists, as the term was previously used on this board, as those who accept the normativity of the spiritual gifts while holding to reformed orthodoxy in other areas.
2) GNC deductions from Scripture are what the WCF requires to authoritatively settle theological disputes arising over issues where Scripture has no explicit statements settling the matter. In the case of continuationists and spiritual gifts, they rightly see that such proofs are needed for the cessationist thesis to hold.


----------



## Scott1

timmopussycat said:


> 1) It added reformed leaning to emphasize the point that these folk claim to buy into the 5 solas. I shouldn't have bothered having already pointed out that the continuationists, as the term was previously used on this board, as those who accept the normativity of the spiritual gifts while holding to reformed orthodoxy in other areas.
> 
> Very confusing to follow.
> Are you saying the other (non reformed leaning) continuationists do not "buy into" the 5 solas? If so, how could they even be Protestants? If so, how do these non-buyers interpret continuationism? Do they have a different meaning for continuationism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) GNC deductions from Scripture are what the WCF requires to authoritatively settle theological disputes arising over issues where Scripture has no explicit statements settling the matter. In the case of continuationists and spiritual gifts, they rightly see that such proofs are needed for the cessationist thesis to hold.



This is somewhat amazing.

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I, "Of Holy Scripture" begins with a paragraph (emphasis added)


> . Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] t*hose former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.*[6]



In paragraph 3, (emphasis added)


> VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is *either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture*: unto *which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit*, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]



It summarizes Scripture to say Scripture or good and necessary consequence from it are the means of special revelation.

Yet you assert that the good and necessary consequence, somehow, is the reason us reformed (or those reformed leaning, those who "buy into" the 5 solas) must accept what you call continuation of special revelation through I Cor. 12 gifts. Yet, paragraph 1 says those ways have ceased, and in the same paragraph, 3, it specifically says nothing is added "by new revelations of the Spirit."

Your argument is logically inconsistent. The WCF specifically excludes "continuationism" here yet you cite "GNC" as requiring it.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> When you rely solely on the repetition to prove Paul intended to "shun" (your word) tongues speaking, where a man "in his spirit he speaks mysteries," when Paul claimed to engage in the practice himself, you are making an exegetical overreach.



I don't rely on the bare repetition of the word, but on the repetition of the word in the flow of the argument and with the same focus on "intelligibility." Following Fee's analysis of the BAB structure of the passage (a structure which is also seen in chaps. 8-10), it is clear that the apostle addresses the problem of "speaking" in general terms in 12:2-3, and then comes to specifics in chap. 14 after he has provided the necessary theological motivations in chap. 13. As Fee points out, 12:2-3 establishes the test of intelligibility and Christian content. I point out, on top of this, that 14:2-19 is also concerned with intelligibility.

A dictionary is helpful to grasp the range of meanings of a word within a variety of contexts, but it does not bring out the full impact of words in the flow of a discourse. There is a wide range of literary devices and rhetorical nuances that a dictionary is not going to account for.

That the apostle spoke in tongues is not in dispute. That there was a genuine gift of tongues is also not in dispute. The purpose of the passage, however, is to correct the Corinthians as to the nature and function of spiritual gifts and to set forth criteria for discerning and using them aright. Speaking "mysteries" does not meet the criterion of intelligibility and edifying oneself does not conform to the standard of profiting everyone.

It appears you have confounded "speaking mysteries" with "speaking in tongues" in my opening statement. My original statement pertained to "speaking mysteries." The Corinthians believed this is what they were doing when they spoke in tongues. The apostle's test, however, demonstrates that this was not a valid use of the gift.


----------



## MW

Eoghan said:


> I am intrigued by the word *dumb* - this to me suggests someone incapable of speech and is not mute. Mute to me means incapable of any sound. Does this subtle distinction occur in the greek though?



I think the word "dumb" is being used in the sense of "mute," and both fairly represent the Greek thought. It is important to note in 12:2 that this is what the Corinthians were being carried away *unto* in their former state. The passive verb conceals the agent of the action, and this appears to be deliberate. It indicates that the "effect" is the main point of concern regardless of the agency employed to bring it about. Tongue-speaking without interpretation was having the same effect. The negative use of the word in chapter 14 makes the connection explicit.


----------



## Peairtach

*Tim*


> Meanwhile, whether or not that challenge is taken up or not, I can guarantee that anyone introducing a charismatic/continuationist to the biblical guidelines for tongues and prophecy will be providing information that could if applied, keep that person from being a direct victim of the kind of spiritual tragedy that too often happens.



Well you could do a "damage limitation" exercise, whereby you tell people that from your reading of Scripture, you don't believe that the modern tongues are the real deal because they were for a particular point in redemptive history, like certain aspects of the Mosaic administration, but that if they will follow the Scriptural principles laid down by the Apostle in using the counterfeit tongues, they will minimise confusion, trouble, and error in their lives and churches.

How would that work? Like managing the use of illegal drugs by providing clean needles?

I wonder if the biblical principles were enforced in the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches, the whole modern "tongues" movement would die out?


----------



## timmopussycat

Peairtach said:


> *Tim*
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, whether or not that challenge is taken up or not, I can guarantee that anyone introducing a charismatic/continuationist to the biblical guidelines for tongues and prophecy will be providing information that could if applied, keep that person from being a direct victim of the kind of spiritual tragedy that too often happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you could do a "damage limitation" exercise, whereby you tell people that from your reading of Scripture, you don't believe that the modern tongues are the real deal because they were for a particular point in redemptive history, like certain aspects of the Mosaic administration, but that if they will follow the Scriptural principles laid down by the Apostle in using the counterfeit tongues, they will minimise confusion, trouble, and error in their lives and churches.
> 
> How would that work? Like managing the use of illegal drugs by providing clean needles?
Click to expand...


You don't even need to make such an announcement as you describe. If you're a pastor in a cessationist church, you simply teach your flock on the principles that governed the use of those gifts then, and point out that nothing in Scripture has abrogated these principles: they have not been superseded so this is how any claimed manifestation of the gifts in charismaniac, charismatic or continuationist circles should be judged today. If you are a layman in that church you can then ask your continuationist / charismatic leaning or practising friend, relative or acquanitance if the church they attend observes the biblical rules for managing the gifts. When they say no, you take them through your pastor's sermons. Thus prepared, your friend family member or acquaintance will be able to compare their church practices with biblical guidelines for gift management. Such information has the potential to steer people away from the most dangerous charismaniac and minimally controlled charismatic or continationalist circles. 



Peairtach said:


> I wonder if the biblical principles were enforced in the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches, the whole modern "tongues" movement would die out?



I have good reason to suspect you are correct. 

My own experience, travelling through 3 charismatic churches in 2 denoms over 18 years, (all of which enforced some or all of the biblical principles for gift management) demonstrates rather strongly that if the biblical principles of gift management were enforced in Pentecostal / Charismatic churches coupled with an emphasis on exegetical preaching, that the following will occur: the focus would move from the gifts to the giver, reported incidents of claimed gifts in operation would drop to a relatively low rate compared with unregulated situations, and that serious abuses of the gifts would almost entirely disappear. I only saw one incident that might have been biblical tongues and interpretation (I can't say yea or nay on this for certain because I can't identify all human languages on first hearing but what I heard did not sound like the usual glossolalia, of which I had previously heard a good deal). I also was present at one incident of claimed prophecy and the latter was in an outside conference setting - the conference was on spiritual gifts - not the church meeting, and the prophecy rebuked attendees for an overemphasis on the spiritual gifts in very strong terms. 

The Pentecostal situation is different and my exposure to it is minimal - and, I think atypical - but I think the same thing would happen there. It is worth noting that I was recently informed that a major local Pentecostal church some years ago has rejected the view that glossolalia is biblical tongues.


----------



## timmopussycat

Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) It added reformed leaning to emphasize the point that these folk claim to buy into the 5 solas. I shouldn't have bothered having already pointed out that the continuationists, as the term was previously used on this board, as those who accept the normativity of the spiritual gifts while holding to reformed orthodoxy in other areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very confusing to follow.
> Are you saying the other (non reformed leaning) continuationists do not "buy into" the 5 solas? If so, how could they even be Protestants? If so, how do these non-buyers interpret continuationism? Do they have a different meaning for continuationism?
Click to expand...

 
Let’s review the differences among those who advocate for the contemporary validity of the spiritual gifts (SG’s) as if Corinth was the norm both then and now. NB Pentecostals are not included in the following list since their tradition doesn't easily fit on the arc between full cessationist and charismaniac. 

Charismaniacs – people who accept no biblical controls on the exercise of what are claimed to be SG’s. Examples (Vinyard, Word of Faith, Hinn and further out)

Charismatics – people who accept some or all of the biblical controls on the exercise of claimed SG’s. Examples: Calvary Chapel in the 1980's, the Church of England / Canadian Anglican axis (i.e. Watson, Harper, Green) of the 80's and 90's.

Continuationists – people who claim either adherence to the reformed solas and / or Calvinistic soteriologyin addition to accepting some or all biblical controls on the exercise of claimed SG’s. (Examples: Grudem, Vincent, and perhaps Piper) 

Now we can answer your question about those who accept contemporary Spiritual Gifts but not the 5 solas. The are either Charismatics or Charismaniacs. 

And to complete the picture we have:

Occasionalists – those who accept that sometimes contemporary incidents of SG’s do occur but deny that they ever were or are a normative experience for any and every church fellowship, (Example: Lloyd Jones)

Cessationists - those who believe that something at the end of the church age changed the status of the SG's from normative to occasional, (Example: Confessional Westminsterians), and 

Full Cessationists - those who deny that any SG occurs today.



Scott1 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) GNC deductions from Scripture are what the WCF requires to authoritatively settle theological disputes arising over issues where Scripture has no explicit statements settling the matter. In the case of continuationists and spiritual gifts, they rightly see that such proofs are needed for the cessationist thesis to hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is somewhat amazing.
> 
> Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I, "Of Holy Scripture" begins with a paragraph (emphasis added)
> 
> 
> 
> . Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] t*hose former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.*[6]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In paragraph 3, (emphasis added)
> 
> 
> 
> VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is *either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture*: unto *which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit*, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It summarizes Scripture to say Scripture or good and necessary consequence from it are the means of special revelation.
> 
> Yet you assert that the good and necessary consequence, somehow, is the reason us reformed (or those reformed leaning, those who "buy into" the 5 solas) must accept what you call continuation of special revelation through I Cor. 12 gifts. Yet, paragraph 1 says those ways have ceased, and in the same paragraph, 3, it specifically says nothing is added "by new revelations of the Spirit."
> 
> Your argument is logically inconsistent. The WCF specifically excludes "continuationism" here yet you cite "GNC" as requiring it.
Click to expand...


First of all it is not my argument. I am simply setting out the continuationist position so that it can be accurately assessed. Second, the problem with your response is that it is simply a reiteration of the usual cessationist understanding of the cited clauses of the WCF and it suffers from the shortcoming of not dealing with the continuationist argument that challenges that understanding. I previously posted one version of this argument in a reply to you in post 150 of the following thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/jo...e-reformed-continuationists-81096/index4.html

and I'll repost it here for convenience. 



RB Vincent said:


> _ The entire first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith is relevant to this topic, in particular Paragraphs One, Six and Ten.
> 
> "Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased" (WCF, I, i).
> 
> "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed" (WCF, I, vi).
> 
> "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" (WCF, I, x).
> 
> A facile reading of these paragraphs, particularly the last clause of the first one, outside of their historical contexts, has lead some Presbyterians actually to believe that the Confession teaches Cessationism. However, an examination of the teachings of the theologians who helped to produce the document should give us sufficient pause that we slow down and read these paragraphs more carefully.
> 
> If we look more carefully at these three paragraphs we will see what it is that is no longer being revealed to the Church. Paragraph One states, "those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."
> 
> Most people lift that clause out of its grammatical moorings, and distort what it is stating. However, one must notice how it is part of a larger statement and must be understood in its context: "his will" refers back to "the same," which points back to "that his will unto his church," which refers to "that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary for salvation."
> 
> In other words, we do not need the "traditions" of an infallible Church or the "new revelations" of the Antinomians to tell us what is necessary for salvation. All that we need to know about what is necessary for salvation has been written in the Bible, where the Apostolic gospel has been deposited once and for all. As such, this clause is stating that the canon is completed and that the Bible gives us all we need to know in order to go to heaven. It is not denying God's continued use of certain methods of guidance, only that he is not using them to impart further propositions to the Christian faith or in such a way that what is communicated is universally binding on the Church. As Jude affirmed, the corpus of Christian truth, the Faith, has been "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).
> 
> Paragraph Six expands this understanding:
> 
> "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit (against the Antinomians) or traditions of men (against Roman and Anglo Catholicism)" (WCF, I, vi).
> 
> The Westminster theologians understood that both the traditions of men and new revelations of the Spirit were being presented as God's truth to bind the Church. As over against such, they lifted up the Scripture as the infallible Word of God, with nothing on its par and nothing to be added to it.
> 
> Pragraph Ten sums up the Reformed position:
> 
> "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Matt. 22:29, 31; Acts 28:25; I John 4:1-6)" (WCF, I., x).
> 
> We should understand the phrase "all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men" as referring to the "traditions of men" in Paragraph Six, while "private spirits," points back to the "new revelations of the Spirit" mentioned there. The proof texts corroborate this, because the Westminster theologians listed 1 John 4:1-6 there, which says:
> 
> "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood."
> 
> John, writing at the end of the first century, does not tell us to reject continuing directions; he tells us to test these things by the Yardstick, or canon, of Truth, the Apostolic Faith, which is now contained in its entirety in the Holy Scriptures alone.
> 
> This understanding is corroborated by reading the Westminster Confession within its historical context as well. Consider, for example, these words written by one of the most influential theologians at that assembly, Samuel Rutherford. Pastor Rutherford published the following during the time that the Westminster Confession of Faith was being adopted in London. Standing in the Reformed tradition, Rutherford affirmed that the gift of prophecy, including foretelling the future, continues on after the closing of the canon of Scripture. However, he distinguishes between immediate inspiration, which produced the Bible, and this other guidance which was not infallible.
> 
> "Of revelations extraordinary of men in our ages not immediately inspired and how they are charactered from Satanicall Revelations
> 
> "There is a 3 revelation of some particular men, who have foretold things to come even since the ceasing of the Canon of the word, as Iohn Husse, Wickeliefe, Luther have foretold things to come, and they certainely fell out, and in our nation of Scotland, M. George Wishart foretold that Cardinall Beaton should not come out alive at the Gates of the Castle of St. Andrewes, but that he should dye a shamefull death, and he was hanged over the window that he did look out at, when he saw the man of God burnt, M. Knox prophecied of the hanging of the Lord of Grange, M. Ioh. Davidson uttered prophecies, knowne to many of the kingdome, diverse Holy and mortified preachers in England have done the like . . . .. These worthy reformers tye no man to beleeve their prophecies as Scriptures .. . . they never gave themselves out as organs immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost . . . yea they never denounced Iudgement against those that beleeved not their predictions, of these particular events & facts . . . .." (_sic_. throughout) (Samuel Rutherford, _A Survey of the Spirituall Antichrist Opening the Secrets of Familisme and Antinomianisme in the Antichristian Doctrine of Iohn Saltmarsh, and Will. Del, the Present Preachers of the Army Now in England, and of Robert Town, Tob. Crisp, H. Denne, Eaton, and Others. In Which Is Revealed the Rise and Spring of Antinomians, Familists, Libertines, Swenck-feldians, Enthysiasts, & c. The Minde of Luther a Most Professed Opposer of Antinomians, is cleared, and Diverse Considerable Points of the Law and the Gospel, of the Spirit and Letter, of the Two Covenants, of the Nature of Free Grace, Exercise Under Temptations, Mortification, Justification, Sanctification, are Discovered_, (London, 1648), p. 42) (Wow! Did those authors like huge titles! I have this interesting work in my library; it and many other out of print works can be obtained through University Microfilms of Ann Arbor, Michigan, A survey of the spiritvall Antichrist : Opening the secrets of Familisme and Antinomianisme in the antichristian doctrine of John Saltmarsh, and Will. Del., the present preachers of the army now in England, and of Robert Town, Tob. Crisp, H. Denne, E).
> 
> Because the Bible is the only revelation from God which he has left to the Church as an infallible and authoritative rule, only its teachings can be imposed on other people. Here, says Samuel Rutherford, is the difference between the Reformers and the Enthusiasts: both believed that God was directing them, but the Reformers never presented their prophecies to people as something that was infallible or binding on the consciences of believers. The Enthusiasts, on the other hand, claimed the same kind of immediate inspiration as that of the authors of Scripture and therefore demanded that their prophecies be received on a par with Scripture (_Ibid._, p. 43).
> 
> _Sola Scriptura_ is a vital truth -- indeed, one may say it is the fundamental of fundamentals of Presbyterianism and the Reformed Tradition -- that the Bible is infallible and only its teachings can be imposed on people. This is what separates Reformed people from many other Christians: we allow for true liberty of conscience and forbid all non-biblical rules, and not simply anti-biblical rules, from the life of the Church. We believe that the Church is limited to the written Word in what it requires of people.
> 
> As a Presbyterian minister, I stand within the historic, mainstream, which affirms that God can still speak today -- indeed, which understands that still speaks in preaching, which is the primary way that God confronts people with his Word -- but which also affirms that there is but one rule or standard for how we ought to believe and how we ought to live, Holy Scripture.
> 
> Presbyterians are the heirs of godly ministers such as the "prophet," Alexander Peden, who foretold numerous future events. I would submit that Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Calvinism, particularly involving the Scots and the French -- the French Reformed Church, the Huguenots, who experienced the gift of tongues centuries ago -- was much more liberated with regard to the work of the Holy Spirit than some in the modern American branch of the Presbyterian stream. In many quarters of the Reformed world, we have lost a measure of our heritage and sold a bit of our birthright for a mess of intellectualistic porridge, producing an intellectually sound Church, but one that often seems to offer its adherents little more than stoical resignation in the face of the tidal wave of chaos that is coming on the Western world._


 
This refutation argues that the Confession was not intended to be read as you read it above. I cite this argument not necessarily because I accept it as valid, but because it presents us with a perfect example of the challenge that continuationists presents to those who disagree with them on the point. How must this argument be dealt with? Can it be shown that his grammatical analysis (which is the heart of his argument) is in error? If error at that point cannot be demonstrated, his argument will stand by default. 

How should one respond to arguments like these? One may merely reassert the traditional ceassationist reading as if Rev. Vincent has said nothing to change matters. Or, one may respond with irrelevant ad hominem arguments. Many do one or the other. But that leaves the field wide open for either the earnest inquirer or the continuationist, charismatic or charismaniac proponent (whichever one is encountering at the moment) to say: “Notice how these so-called reformed folks are copping out and not living up to their confessional commitments by not addressing the challenge to their understanding that argument x presents.” 

There are two ways one can go about refuting Rev. Vincent’s understanding that do not suffer from the aforementioned liability. One may attempt to demonstrate that his grammatical analysis of the text is incorrect or show that he has not taken relevant scriptural data into account. If one attempts the former, only the use of standard grammatical tools is required, but if one attempts the latter, than one’s deduced Scriptural proof must meet the WCF’s “good and necessary consequence” standard, not because I say so, but because, if one's proof doesn’t do so, then the continuationist one is talking to can rightly point out that proofs of a less rigourous standard fall short of the standard the Confession requires to settle theological disagreements. (Note well that while educated charismatics and charismaniacs *may *recognize the challenge they can wield by deploying the confessional standard, we must presume, however, given their background in the reformed tradition, that continuationists *will *do so.)

Reformational Christians of all stripes recognize that our churches cannot afford to ignore either apologetics or the major cults today. The best of us don’t teach our people to parrot our positions, we explain them so our people can understand them and share them with families friends and neighbours. In dealing with a cult, many of us are being trained to assess their positions as they are, then deploy Scripturally and grammatically sound arguments against them. If any want to challenge continuationalist arguments, they will need to do likewise.


----------



## Scott1

timmopussycat said:


> Continuationists – people who claim either adherence to the reformed solas and / or Calvinistic soteriologyin addition to accepting some or all biblical controls on the exercise of claimed SG’s. (Examples: Grudem, Vincent, and perhaps Piper)


??


----------



## Scott1

timmopussycat said:


> Charismaniacs – people who accept no biblical controls on the exercise of what are claimed to be SG’s. Examples (Vinyard, Word of Faith, Hinn and further out)


----------



## Scott1

timmopussycat said:


> Cessationists - those who believe that something at the end of the church age changed the status of the SG's from normative to occasional, (Example: Confessional Westminsterians), and



"Cessationism" is about extrabiblical special revelation through I Cor. 12 gifts being fulfilled in the completion of Scripture. What ceases is special revelation in that way, in any ordinary way. (Reformed believes the church age includes Israel in the Old Testament).


----------



## Scott1

timmopussycat said:


> “Notice how these so-called reformed folks are copping out and not living up to their confessional commitments by not addressing the challenge to their understanding that argument x presents.”



It seems rather, this has been settled for the 350+ years since the Confession, but some x arguments just refuse to accept it.


----------



## MW

Scott1 said:


> It seems rather, this has been settled for the 350+ years since the Confession, but some x arguments just refuse to accept it.



Yes; the "challenge" is a little like a small boy swinging his fists at a grown man while the grown man places his hand on the small child's head and smiles.


----------



## Free Christian

armourbearer said:


> Yes; the "challenge" is a little like a small boy swinging his fists at a grown man while the grown man places his hand on the small child's head and smiles.


  I like that one.
To me I see the issue like this.
When the Jewish people were lead into the wilderness they did not have natural means of survival, food or water in any abundance or supply, so they needed special miracles from God to supply their needs. When they reached the promised land they then had these in natural supply. Like Christians, in the early days they had little of what God wanted them to know and do, compared to us, many needs were met with the supernatural means, miracles and gifts. But today and before us Gods will and guidance became known, we reached the promised land, the supernatural was not needed as it was. We then had the natural. Why supply us with food from God when we can grow our own or get it from a shop. I know some might think along with other things but hey what about people starving or those who don't have access to Bibles? But my response is not a definitive answer but a simple my style explanation based upon what I see in Gods Word. A way of myself explaining it. How something once happened that did not always forever happen.
God revealed all we needed to have revealed through His living Word. A Word that lives for ever more. I can read a passage that I have read a dozen times or more and yet today still see it unfold Gods truths like I have just started reading it. His Living Word.
Like a wise man who has something wise to tell you each time you speak. 
Is Gods Word not complete that I need extra, something more revealed through some one speaking in tongues? Something that His Word does not teach me? Or cannot that it needs to be told to me that way?
Many things happened in Gods Word that happened in a particular time that were not repeated in others. Like many of the Gifts.
My thoughts only.


----------



## Ben_Ives

Best sermon on this topic you will ever hear: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=42008957246

Sent from my RM-941_apac_australia_new_zealand_236 using Tapatalk


----------

