why i stopped talking in tongues

[Gman]

"Throughout the Old Testament there is no indication that angels spoke (on earth) any other language than that of men. Nor any indication of heavenly tongues..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelic_tongues
https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... hians-13-1

[B. W.]

"Throughout the Old Testament there is no indication that angels spoke (on earth) any other language than that of men. Nor any indication of heavenly tongues..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelic_tongues
https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... hians-13-1

Hmm guess Paul was in error in 1 Co 13:1 by mentioning that they there is such a language...

Next, I guess only King James English is spoken by angels and in heaven too

2 Co 12:3, 4... inexpressible words (speech) Words are in fact uttered in heaven and I don't think these would be of any impure variety utter upon this earth... so pure they would inexpressible by such impure human languages...

"olde Enlisfh iseth surif difficulte to understandeth... do thinkest thou?"

Say what you will and post what ever links... I'll stick with the bible on this matter and not the traditions of men...
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Pete wrote:
In 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 Paul told us when the gift of speaking in tongues (and other gifts) would cease, at Jesus' second coming.

Could you show me where in these verses, that it says the gift of speaking in tongues would cease at Jesus' second coming? I just see that it says they will cease. I don't see where it says when.

Paul describes when speaking in tongues - and other gifts of the Holy Spirit - will cease:

8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

"(W)hen the perfect comes", then face to face, then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known - so, what does Paul's description mean? What is this "when" Paul described. I'm aware of four possibilities:

1. The completion of the Bible (or the death of the Apostle John, soon after) - This is the argument made by at least some (many? most? almost all?) Cessationists. This is a case of eisegesis, reading into the text what the persons want it to say. It is based on the fact that the word in verse 10 commonly translated "perfect" also means "complete". There are problems with this understanding. First, Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, and "the completion of the Bible" would/could not be how they would understand his words. [sarcasm] Of course, that assumes Paul and the Holy Spirit wanted Paul's letter to be understood by its recipients. [/sarcasm] Second, Paul said that he would "see" and "know" in that day. Paul died well before the last book of the NT was written. So he did not see the Bible completed (but he will see Jesus' return, and as at least some understand it, will be there). And since Paul wrote to the believers at Corinth and, ultimately, to all believers for all time, we also have not experienced this seeing and knowing. So this possibility fails to fit Paul's description of when speaking in tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit will cease.

2. The death of Paul - At least one book of the New Testament, the prophecy of the book of Revelation, was written after Paul died. It being prophecy, this possibility fails to fit Paul's description of when speaking in tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit will cease. (Brevity is not my spiritual gift, but I'm trying ...)

3. Some undetermined time between John's death and now - No time between when Paul write 1 Corinthians truly fits Paul and Christians generally seeing and knowing as Paul said we would when speaking in tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit cease. So this possibility does not fit Paul's description of that time, either.

4. Jesus second coming - This is the only time that does fit the seeing and knowing as Paul said we would when speaking in tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit cease. And if you think about it from the perspective that the gifts of the Spirit are tools given by God to build up the church and believers - as Scripture states to be the case - the second coming of Jesus is the only time at which the church and believers will no longer need to be built up.

Actually Pete, there is a 5th and that is when the perfect actually has come to pass as mentioned in...

Rev 21:6 And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. NKJV

Does not Rev 21 described the new Heavens and earth - how perfect is that (Rev 21:1,4)?
-
-
-

[Gman]

Hmm guess Paul was in error in 1 Co 13:1 by mentioning that they there is such a language...

Next, I guess only King James English is spoken by angels and in heaven too

2 Co 12:3, 4... inexpressible words (speech) Words are in fact uttered in heaven and I don't think these would be of any impure variety utter upon this earth... so pure they would inexpressible by such impure human languages...

"olde Enlisfh iseth surif difficulte to understandeth... do thinkest thou?"

Say what you will and post what ever links... I'll stick with the bible on this matter and not the traditions of men...
-
-
-

Yes.. But look how the NIV puts 2 Cor 12:4. It's not speaking, but telling..

2 Corinthians 12:4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. NIV

[PeteSinCA]

So, I hear someone speak in tongue and I don't know what was said. Again, I don't know the source. I don't truly know if an interpreter truly is one, nor do I know for sure whether whatever purported revelations or truths are from God or are merely from the person (or from SOME entity) speaking in a tongue. And as our native language is English (or whatever it happens to be), what does it profit us to hear something that we do not understand, not knowing the source, and not certain of any supposed translator - not really sure of the authenticity of EITHER? Why wouldn't God give messages in a language that everyone can understand, unless there is more than one language being spoken and there is no one who knows BOTH of them.

Your questions are reasonable, ptc, but the answer is that this is what God chose to do. Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit, as is interpretation of tongues. And Paul stated in both 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Thessalonians 5 that prophecies (and by implkication, interpreted messages in tongues) must be evaluated. Though Paul did not explicitly state it - maybe he thought it too obvious - that evaluation would not be perfect. IOW, what you see as an objection to speaking in tongues (and interpretation and prophecy) were accepted possibilities within proper usage of those gifts. So the problem is with your expectations, not with the validity of the Spiritual gifts.

But they are highly important and critical questions: So a person speaking in tongues doesn't even know what he's saying - but Pete is intoning that the SPEAKER is in control. So you are supposedly channeling God's Spirit and His messages but the speaker is the gatekeeper for when to let these communications of God out? And how do you KNOW this is from God? How do you KNOW an interpreter has HIS gift?

Yes, I stated that the speaker in tongues does not know what (s)he is saying. And yes, the speaker in tongues has a degree of control, the ability to speak out or not. Though you did not include them in what you quoted, I also provided the Scriptures which demonstrated both to be true. So what seems a contradiction, and what seems to you to be dangerous, are intrinsic in the way God designed speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues and prophecy and giving these gifts to be used by human beings. Which is a long way of stating that this "problem" is between you and God, not with the validity of speaking in tongues as a gift of the Holy Spirit. And guess what? This trust-verification "problem" pervades the church. You trust-but-verify your Pastor's and elders' (or deacons' or whatever they are called in your congregation) decisions for the ministry of your congregation. You trust-but-verify your Pastor's and other teachers' teachings. Perhaps you had not thought of it in that way.

This is an awful lot of trust in something you don't truly seem to understand - be it the source or what was said, and so you must have great faith in the interpreter/his interpretation.

True. You put a lot of trust in your church's leaders and teachers. For that matter, you are putting a lot of trust in God generally and in what Jesus did specifically. There's a reason people speak of Christianity as the Christian Faith. It's not a blind faith, but our faith does extend well beyond our very finite "certain" knowledge.

The Scriptural references in no way prove that tongues are still a gift today.

You may not acknowledge it, but Acts 2:39 makes it quite clear that the gift of the Holy Spirit and His spiritual gifts (such as that which people saw and heard that day of Pentecost) were to be available to all believers for all time:

37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren , what shall we do?" 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

Verse 32 reiterates the fact that what the onlookers heard – the speaking in tongues – was due to Jesus having given the Holy Spirit to His followers. The source of the speaking in tongues was God; that Peter felt it necessary to repeat this indicates that the hearers thought the speaking in tongues “weird” (some hearers sneered that the believers were drunk). Verse 39 gives the “limit” God placed on this gift – the Holy Spirit, as verse 38 states – all believers, wherever, for all time.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see any Scriptural evidence - you know, the standard nuthajason correctly put forward as the standard for evidence/proof in his OP - that certain (but not all) gifts of the Holy Spirit were to cease before Jesus returns. You're making that claim, so where's the Scriptural evidence?

That is debatable - especially since they are so sparsely used across the vast majority of millions of Christians and churches - in which most do not have or use this gift.

I've already pointed out - and linked the source for the statement - that >25% of Christians worldwide are Pentecostals and charismatics. So "vast majority" is simply incorrect. I'm not rubbing it in, just making the response to this particular post a bit more complete.

This and the fact that a highly clever adversary roams the earth with a huge bag of counterfeit toys. And this has to be one easiest things to fool people with.

As I've pointed out before, the "counterfeit gifts" argument against the existence/validity of speaking in tongues fails, because the existence of a counterfeit proves and entails the existence of the real thing. And why, in skeptical regions of the world such as (at the least) North America, EuroLand and Oz would a counterfeit miracle (of any sort, not just speaking in tongues) be "one easiest things to fool people with"? It would be more logical to say that, for those contexts (and we do live in North America, right?), speaking in tongues would be one of the worst ways to try to fool people.

Yes, he said that for his audience OF THE TIME. But the obvious question is, do his words in this matter still apply? That is totally unclear.

Where does Paul qualify his statement as pertaining only to his time? If you are going to read that concept into Paul's statement, how do you defend applying any Scripture to today?! You are claiming speaking in tongues (and other selected gifts) ceased: where's the Scriptural evidence supporting your claim?

And there is clearly a difference between how, at Pentecost, people heard and understood others, of other languages, in their native tongues.

As I've posted time after time after time after ... the incident on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) is unique: in no other instance of speaking in tongues recorded in the book of Acts do people understand what is being said by the speaker in tongues (nor are people unable to understand the ordinary language of the context recorded as being present); 1 Corinthians 12 lists "interpretation of tongues" as a gift of the Spirit, superfluous if the message in tongues will be understood by the one(s) addressed; 1 Corinthians 14 requires that a message in tongues given in a gathering of believers be interpreted, superfluous if the message in tongues will be understood by the one(s) addressed.

And I love my brothers who disagree, but this isn't an rather meaningless issue like "sprinkling vs. dunking."

Take that question to nuthajason who began this pointedly titled thread; take that question to u777, who started this thread; take that question to John MacArthur who wrote a book and held a significant conference attacking his brothers and sisters in Christ (not that he's unique, just the most recent and prominent person to do so)! I'm not going to apologize or weasel about responding to attacks such as MacArthur's!

[PeteSinCA]

Rick, I believe he is referring to 1 Corinthians 13:10.

But read this: http://www.aconqueringfaith.net/2007/08 ... ought.html

I've been working through this thread more or less in chronological order of posting. I responded to the argument at that link, that the Greek word carries the meaning of "complete", before seeing your post, in this post, which also responded to Rick; and in this post, back on December 7 of last year. As my post points out, the context following 1 Corinthians 13:10 shows that verse 10 refers to Jesus' second coming, not the completion of the last book of the NT, John's death or the 4th Century (IIRC) recognition of the canon (any three of which events could be understood as the time the Bible was "completed"). I'll omit the less than respectful adjectives, but this particular example of eisegesis was new to me some time in the early-mid 1970s.

[PeteSinCA]

Rick, I believe he is referring to <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Corinthians%2013.10" class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="1 Corinthians 13.10" data-version="nasb95" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 13:10</a>.

But read this: http://www.aconqueringfaith.net/2007/08 ... ought.html

Yes Philip, that's what I was getting at. I also have a link that I was looking at. It's a little long, but it explains the strengths and weaknesses of different views on "perfect". Certainly at the very least, it's no consensus that the perfect comes at Jesus' second coming.

And Philip, it's interesting that both your link and my link come to the conclusion that "perfect" is best understood as coming at the completion of the biblical canon. Interesting...

I must be the Resident Old Geezer or something. The interpretation that 1 Corinthians 13:10 refers to the completion of the NT has been around, that I know of, since at least the early 1970s. It's probably been around a lot longer than I have. So you two happened to find two sites with a common Cessationist interpretation of the verse.

As I've pointed out, that interpretation doesn't work with the rest of the context (specifically, verses 11 and 12). That it refers to Jesus return is the plain meaning of the text. The Cessationists' interpretation would make no sense to the believers in Corinth reading Paul's letter or to their situation that Paul was addressing. It would also be strangely obscure, out of character for Paul, who was not exactly laconic.

[PeteSinCA]

I responded earlier today to much of the content of this post. This comment by you has the cart before the horse. God did not distribute the gift of tongues (and other gifts) along denominational lines, i.e. only to Pentecostals. The actual historical sequence of events was that God distributed the gifts in several revivals beginning a little over a century ago, those believers were driven from their denominations, and Pentecostal denominations were formed.

But that IS largely where this gift is mostly practiced today - along denominational lines. It really doesn't matter where they historically came from. It's not so much where they are or where they came from as where they AREN'T found - in the vast majority of truly Christian churches, that is perplexing and of concern. Unless we're to believe that there is something unique about tongues or the people practicing them, that is not typical of ALL of the other spiritual gifts and their widespread distribution, that it's practiced in such a small percentage of Christian churches - well, this poses some big questions.

1.) The Pentecostal denominations were formed years after speaking in tongues again became a common practice. IOW, at the time there were no denominational lines for such a divide. 2.) The Pentecostal denominations were formed, not because of a desire to be separate or to create a divide, but because the people who came to be known as "Pentecostal" were driven out of their denominations. So the current divide, to the extent there is one, is of man's creation, specifically by some believers rejecting and driving away other believers. IOW, the modern current divide, to the extent there is one, is of man's creation. 3.) Why do I say, "to the extent there is one"? Because your Denominational Divide theory doesn't match reality. Since at least the 1960s, the charismatic movement began in denominational churches, and while some were driven out (not hyperbole!) or left, others are still there. I've met charismatics who are in all manner of denominational churches (Baptist - not counting myself, BTW - Lutheran and Catholic come quickly to mind).

"... (t)hat is not typical of ALL of the other spiritual gifts and their widespread distribution ..." - addressed in a previous post (made after the post to which I am responding). There are quite a few exceptions to "ALL of the other spiritual gifts". Pretty much any and every obviously miraculous spiritual gift - e.g. tongues, interpretation, prophecy, healing, miracles - is commonly rejected (or innocuously redefined to mean something other than the plain meaning of Scripture) by Cessationists.

[PeteSinCA]

Pete wrote:
In 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 Paul told us when the gift of speaking in tongues (and other gifts) would cease, at Jesus' second coming.

Could you show me where in these verses, that it says the gift of speaking in tongues would cease at Jesus' second coming? I just see that it says they will cease. I don't see where it says when.

The perfect has not come yet, evidences -

We are not perfect,,,

We are to ask for wisdom - if God's spiritual gift of wisdom has ceased then how can any minister preach on Saturday and Sunday and why should we admonished in the NT to seek and ask for it?

The Perfect that comes mentioned in 1 Co 13:10, is not referring to the pages of a codified bible but rather what Revelation 21:6, or for context read Rev 21:3, 4, 5, 6, is referring too.

Any form of language will have its use, but will fade away and cease, and new words need spoken or written, or prayed. We do not have all the words of the Apostle Paul and many things he taught are no more. There is no collective memory of these, nor are the words of those who have passed on, unless a written record was left and in due time, even these will cease.

Interesting, the "end" in Rev. 21:6 is the noun root for the adjective "perfect" ("complete"). Personally, I think the context points to a point in time, which verses 11 and 12 then describe.

The latter part of chapter 13 is contrasting the last quality of faith, hope, and love and the impermanent character of the gifts of the Spirit. A time will come when the gifts - all of them - will no longer be needed. I think it rather audacious and presumptuous to, effectively, say to God, "I'll take teaching, I'll take serving, etc., but I do not want speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.."

[RickD]

Pete wrote:
I think it rather audacious and presumptuous to, effectively, say to God, "I'll take teaching, I'll take serving, etc., but I do not want speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.."

Pete,

I haven't had time to be able to reply to what you have posted, but I wanted to address this part of what you said.
As I mentioned before in this thread, I believe it was jlay(forgive me if it wasn't jlay)who asked God if the gift of tongues is from Him, then he asked God for that gift. And, I prayed that same prayer. I heard and saw people "speaking in tongues". I asked God if those tongues are from Him, that he give me that ability to speak in tongues. I heard nothing. So you certainly can't say that I don't/didn't want the gift of tongues. I didn't just toss "tongues" aside without prayer and God given spiritual discernment.

******edit******

Forgive me, it wasn't jlay, it was Philip here:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... to#p148251
So Pete,
You certainly can't say that Philip nor I "do not want speaking in tongues".

[Philip]

Pete wrote:
I think it rather audacious and presumptuous to, effectively, say to God, "I'll take teaching, I'll take serving, etc., but I do not want speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.."

Pete,

I haven't had time to be able to reply to what you have posted, but I wanted to address this part of what you said.
As I mentioned before in this thread, I believe it was jlay(forgive me if it wasn't jlay)who asked God if the gift of tongues is from Him, then he asked God for that gift. And, I prayed that same prayer. I heard and saw people "speaking in tongues". I asked God if those tongues are from Him, that he give me that ability to speak in tongues. I heard nothing. So you certainly can't say that I don't/didn't want the gift of tongues. I didn't just toss "tongues" aside without prayer and God given spiritual discernment.

Absolutely! And it is extreme to say that, of the number of sincere/true Christians who do NOT speak in tongues, that it is somehow because they have not desired all that God might give them. That is absurd. And such an assertion would also imply that those GIVEN the gift are somehow more spiritual, more receptive, more desirous of God than the rest of the church. I sincerely prayed that same prayer (Jlay?) over 30 years ago. Lot of time gone by, yet I've no more illumination on tongues than back then.

[RickD]

Pete wrote:
I think it rather audacious and presumptuous to, effectively, say to God, "I'll take teaching, I'll take serving, etc., but I do not want speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.."

Pete,

I haven't had time to be able to reply to what you have posted, but I wanted to address this part of what you said.
As I mentioned before in this thread, I believe it was jlay(forgive me if it wasn't jlay)who asked God if the gift of tongues is from Him, then he asked God for that gift. And, I prayed that same prayer. I heard and saw people "speaking in tongues". I asked God if those tongues are from Him, that he give me that ability to speak in tongues. I heard nothing. So you certainly can't say that I don't/didn't want the gift of tongues. I didn't just toss "tongues" aside without prayer and God given spiritual discernment.

Absolutely! And it is extreme to say that, of the number of sincere/true Christians who do NOT speak in tongues, that it is somehow because they have not desired all that God might give them. That is absurd. And such an assertion would also imply that those GIVEN the gift are somehow more spiritual, more receptive, more desirous of God than the rest of the church. I sincerely prayed that same prayer (Jlay?) over 30 years ago. Lot of time gone by, yet I've no more illumination on tongues than back then.

Philip,

It was you that said it not jlay. See my edit on my post above. Sorry for the confusion.

[Philip]

Random points per Pete's posts:

And why, in skeptical regions of the world such as (at the least) North America, EuroLand and Oz would a counterfeit miracle (of any sort, not just speaking in tongues) be "one easiest things to fool people with"? It would be more logical to say that, for those contexts (and we do live in North America, right?), speaking in tongues would be one of the worst ways to try to fool people.

Are you kidding? First of all, the devil has a HUGE tool kit. And we have established that tongues are practiced by a minority of the church (And, yes, I would consider 75% (your estimate) a huge majority). So, IF or WHERE a counterfeit, it would appear to be fooling only a minority. But also look at how many people are fooled by New Age beliefs, "poltergeists," the desperate desire to see "signs" or "proofs" of just about anything - think the display of some mysterious tongue wouldn't intrigue, be able to draw them in, especially, if false. Look at the Heaven's Gate nuts, that thought the comet (back in '97) was going to rapture them, so they committed suicide to help that happen. Many of these guys were Ph.Ds, whom had also been castrated due to their beliefs. So, that a counterfeit would seem "logical" to be used by Satan is not much of an issue. And what numbers of people the devil could fool with which counterfeits or his tools are irrelevant, IF he is doing so. To him, he'll use whichever of his tools works for any given individual or group.

I've already pointed out - and linked the source for the statement - that >25% of Christians worldwide are Pentecostals and charismatics. So "vast majority" is simply incorrect. I'm not rubbing it in, just making the response to this particular post a bit more complete.

Again, I'd definitely consider that a vast majority. I think most would.

You may not acknowledge it, but Acts 2:39 makes it quite clear that the gift of the Holy Spirit and His spiritual gifts (such as that which people saw and heard that day of Pentecost) were to be available to all believers for all time:

But if that is true, then why AREN'T they? You can't answer that, although you have tried. Even to the point of saying people don't want what ONLY God gives. Did God first ASK those who HAVE received tongues whether they wanted them, before giving them? Scripture gives no reason to believe there is anything special about the RECEIVER of tongues or that it was given per anything to do with their desires or spiritual maturity, etc.

The Pentecostal denominations were formed years after speaking in tongues again became a common practice. IOW, at the time there were no denominational lines for such a divide. 2.) The Pentecostal denominations were formed, not because of a desire to be separate or to create a divide, but because the people who came to be known as "Pentecostal" were driven out of their denominations. So the current divide, to the extent there is one, is of man's creation

Wait a minute! You're speaking of historical things. Many millions of Christians have been born across all Christians in ALL churches, and they CONSTANTLY have been. History or tradition does not in any way dictate why tongues are only spread across a minority of churches and a minority of all believers, worldwide. Because, if authentic, GOD places the tongues in whom He so wishes and where He so wishes. Your history lesson doesn't fit with that, of what we see today. What we see today is, mostly, churches that had the tradition of tongues practice them, most which did not, historically, still don't. So regardless of what may have transpired in the past of tongue-speaker migrations/persecutions, that doesn't explain why millions born since such events are still largely segregated along denominational lines and individual churches. But, again, historical traditions, migrations, persecutions, etc. - these have nothing to do with why tongues aren't across all churches, and only across a far smaller minority - because God transcends all of that and it is HE who distributes spiritual gifts.

Because your Denominational Divide theory doesn't match reality. Since at least the 1960s, the charismatic movement began in denominational churches, and while some were driven out (not hyperbole!) or left, others are still there. I've met charismatics who are in all manner of denominational churches (Baptist - not counting myself, BTW - Lutheran and Catholic come quickly to mind).

But we certainly know that the vast majority of churches practicing tongues are Pentecostal and Charismatics. Yes, there are exceptions. I've never seen ANYONE driven out over tongues. I've been aware of the goings on in my parents church for over 50 years. NEVER saw anyone speak in tongues, attempt to, none of that. While I'm sure many have been driven out for tongue use, that certainly can't explain today's divide. Especially as new believers are constantly born. Are we to believe that God IS a respecter of denominations?

"... (t)hat is not typical of ALL of the other spiritual gifts and their widespread distribution ..." - addressed in a previous post (made after the post to which I am responding). There are quite a few exceptions to "ALL of the other spiritual gifts". Pretty much any and every obviously miraculous spiritual gift - e.g. tongues, interpretation, prophecy, healing, miracles - is commonly rejected (or innocuously redefined to mean something other than the plain meaning of Scripture) by Cessationists.

Pete, what you have failed to explain is that there most definitely are gifts God gave, that were used in the New Testament period, that we do not see anymore. This has nothing to do with Scriptural definitions or whether they are rejected today. But it has everything to do with the fact that future predicting, instant healings by one with such a gift, exorcisms - where are they TODAY? Rejected? I think most would find it absolutely joyous for us to still see these things. Such things vanished. They where definitely gifts of the Spirit. So to be consistent about tongues being for all times, that they couldn't have vanished, you have to explain why other things have - not just whether they are accepted or spiritually believed - but WHERE ARE THEY?

"When the perfect comes" - I find this problematic because it can have another meaning. Why wouldn't he just have plainly said, "when Jesus returns?" Then, no mistake. This is a very obscure verse to make a case as has been.

To emphasize, I am not saying unequivocally that modern tongues are not EVER authentic. But I am saying countless millions of Christians have wanted to understand this and yet God has not give us a way to. That is a fact. Theological explanations are insufficient to make this understood. Only God can show ones who do not understand or know the truth about them, and thus they will have to wait until He does so. So far, He has not for most of the church. That He has not has not been explained so far in these many posts. I've read reasons of tradition, persecution, banishment, many Christians aren't spiritual enough - but the problem with all of them is they are man-driven reasons. They offer no satisfactory explanations for why our sovereign God has not given them to the great majority of the Church, or why He has kept that majority in the dark about this issue. Even if God has given them to those who profess to have this gift, I would think He would at least illuminate those without it, as to its authenticity. As right now, these supposed gifts are a divide in the church. And, largely, a divide of either misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge about their supposed truth.

[PeteSinCA]

As I've pointed out, that interpretation (of 1 Corinthians 13:10) doesn't work with the rest of the context (specifically, verses 11 and 12). That it refers to Jesus return is the plain meaning of the text. The Cessationists' interpretation would make no sense to the believers in Corinth reading Paul's letter or to their situation that Paul was addressing. It would also be strangely obscure, out of character for Paul, who was not exactly laconic.

It would be interesting, were we able to interview Paul and ask him to what he referred in these verses. Or, almost as pertinent, how the believers in Corinth understood what Paul wrote (assuming, of course, that Paul intended his letter to be understood). And I realized, last evening, that while such things are in the realm of fantasy, we do have readily available that which could be said to be third best. We have the writings of the early church "Fathers", believers who lived, ministered and wrote in the first few centuries following the death of the Apostle John. Unlike the 1970s, when one could spend a couple of hundred dollars to buy hardback copies of their translated writings (e.g. Eerdsmans' Ante-Nicene Fathers set), one can find these translated writings free, online. Let me briefly set up what follows. First, I do not regard the early church fathers to be inspired or authoritative. I look at what they wrote to be the common understandings and beliefs of believers in the centuries immediately following the writing of the books of the New Testament. Second, I have not read the entire writings of these men. The Eerdsmans set I just mentioned is 9 volumes of several hundred pages each, plus a 10 Index volume. What I have done is to use the section of the Index volume that lists references to a particular scripture passage in the fathers' writings to find references to 1 Corinthians 13:10-12 (or particular verses thereof). I then read the surrounding context to understand what they were writing about, and how they used and understood the verses they cited from 1 Corinthians 13. These men all wrote in the 2nd-4th Centuries, prior to the Council of Nicaea (hence the title of the Eerdsmans set). All in all, an interesting 2 1/2 hours or so.

The general question I was looking to answer, obviously, was, "What did these early Christian writers understand Paul to mean in this passage?" More particularly:

1.) Did they understand Paul to mean the second coming of Jesus?

2.) Did they understand Paul to mean the completion of Scripture?

3.) If they wrote some different understanding, was it analogous to, consistent with or inconsistent those two understandings? Or just something different that isn't relevant to the issue at hand?

The format of what follows is to name the author (where known), the title of the work, and the book/chapter reference to the particular passage, all in a hyperlink, followed by my understanding of what they wrote. By including the hyperlink to the particular page, anyone so inclined can judge for themselves what the writers meant when they cited from those verses in 1 Corinthians 13.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter IX, Section 2 when we will see God face to face

The Stromata (or Miscellanies, Book 1 "putting off of the flesh", i.e. death

The Stromata, Book 7 (or Miscellanies when we see God, "when (we) arrive at the final perfection"

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XIV seeing God face to face (contrasting visions and dreams with truly seeing God)

Origen Against Celsus, Book VI, Chapter XX complete knowledge, seeing God face to face

Origen Against Celsus, Book VII, Chapter XXXVIII seeing God face to face is not a literal seeing of a literal face; now we seem dimly; sort of vague

Origen Against Celsus, Book VII, Chapter L seeing God face to face when we go home to be with the Lord (i.e. after death)

The Treatises of Cyprian, #53 now (3rd Century AD) we see through a glass darkly

Archelaus, The Disputation with Manes, Chapter 36 \ A usage of these verses that spans two pages; in arguing that Manes was not that "Perfect" which
Archelaus, The Disputation with Manes, Chapter 36 / was to come, states that Jesus is that "Perfect", and points directly to Jesus second coming

Methodius, Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Chapter II "... the perfect has not yet come to us; namely, the kingdom of heaven and the resurrection, when "that which is in part shall be done away."

The references below are, IMO, not relevant to the issue at hand, but are included here for completeness and to avoid the potential unpleasantness that might ensue from omitting what I think irrelevant.

The Instructor (or Paedagogus), Book 1, Chapter VI \ Being under the Law, childish,
The Instructor (or Paedagogus), Book 1, Chapter VI / being under the Word (e.g. when Paul became a believer), mature

Tertullian, On Modesty, Chapter I Growth in maturity of knowledge

Tertullian, Appendix 80 our imperfect understanding of God

Archelaus, The Disputation with Manes, Chapter 48 when one matures one leaves behind immature things

I was a bit bemused when starting this survey. Some of the early church fathers were, well, interesting (e.g. Origen). So I was mildly surprised that there were no strange metaphoric or otherwise quirky (or downright weird) usages in all these references to 1 Corinthians 13:10-12. The three usages/understandings I see for these verses are:

1.) Direct references to the second coming of Jesus and the eternal kingdom (two authors);

2.) That these verse speak of our "seeing" God "face to face" after we die (several authors);

3.) Not relevant metaphoric references to maturing from "childhood" to "adulthood".

Additionally, all that spoke of the coming of the perfect or seeing face to face as an event, spoke of it as a future event. These authors all wrote after the writing of the last book of the New Testament. Thus their understanding of the coming of the perfect as yet in the future is directly incompatible with the Cessationists' understanding that "the perfect" refers to the completion of the New Testament.

When, in the following 16 centuries, that interpretation was concocted, I'm not going to try to research. My speculative guess is that it may have been in the early 20th Century, in response to certain early 20th Century events. Regardless of that timing, the interpretation is untenable eisegesis (reading something into the text rather than drawing out of the text what is there), inconsistent with the context of verses 11 and 12, and contradicted by Acts 2:29.

[PeteSinCA]

[sarcasm] Just thought I'd amplify a comment made by John MacArthur, either in his recent book or at the "Strange Fire" conference:

“The (Pentecostal/charismatic) movement itself has brought nothing that enriches true worship.”

Those of you who disapprove of speaking in tongues, Pentecostals, and charismatics who live in English-speaking countries and whose churches use hymnals need to look at the authors index at the back. If you see any song(s) written by Andrae' Crouch, Chuck Girard, Kenn Gulliksen or Jack Hayford, need to speak to your pastoral team. They are all Pentecostals or charismatics. And if you use modern worship music from Hillsong in Australia (or the US), . [/sarcasm]

[sarcasm] Another author/song MacArthurian Cessationists should be concerned about is Annie Herring's "Easter Song". It's used a lot in hymnals and as "special music" during Easter celebration services. Just trying to be helpful ... [/sarcasm]