Cessationism- have tongues and prophecy ceased, or are they still active?

[FreeGrace]

Parroting isn't really evidence. Because it would actually be impossible for Paul to be referring to a canon of new testament scripture when there was no such thing at the time.

I think Peter would disagree with this. He wrote this in 2 Pet 3:15,16
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Even in Peter's day, there were those (ignorant people) who took what Paul wrote and distorted it.

 

[FreeGrace]

“The article in v10 is anaphoric, referring back to the twofold ἐκ μέρους [in part] of v9. It is as if Paul said, “when the perfect comes, the ‘in part’ will be done away.” The point is that with the coming of the perfect (most likely the return of Christ), both the gift of prophecy and the gift of knowledge will vanish.”

Greek Grammar - Beyond the Basics, Daniel B. Wallace, p236

“It may be significant that with reference to prophecy and knowledge, Paul used a different verb and put it in the passive voice. ... Yet he does not speak about tongues being done away “when the perfect comes.” The implication may be that tongues have “died out” of their own before the perfect comes.”

p422​

​

Thanks. I always appreciate your scholarly work.

 

[chessman]

BTW, this thread is an example of the benefit(s) afforded participants in these Theological debates (at least if one lets them be beneficial and properly debated). I’ve not thought about nor studied in detail this particular passage/section of Scripture and the various implications thereof, until now. Probably would not have either were it not for this thread.

 

[gr8grace3]

BTW, this thread is an example of the benefit(s) afforded participants in these Theological debates (at least if one lets them be beneficial and properly debated). I’ve not thought about nor studied in detail this particular passage/section of Scripture and the various implications thereof, until now. Probably would not have either were it not for this thread.

I was just talking with my wife on this. This kind of stuff(thread's like this) makes me go deeper. What are people saying? What are people thinking? What are people studying? It has been a while since I have went in detail(in my studies) on these passages.

 

[FreeGrace]

chessman said:
"BTW, this thread is an example of the benefit(s) afforded participants in these Theological debates (at least if one lets them be beneficial and properly debated). I’ve not thought about nor studied in detail this particular passage/section of Scripture and the various implications thereof, until now. Probably would not have either were it not for this thread."

gr8grace3 said:
"I was just talking with my wife on this. This kind of stuff(thread's like this) makes me go deeper. What are people saying? What are people thinking? What are people studying? It has been a while since I have went in detail(in my studies) on these passages."

It seems others just dig in deeper into their own views, and ignore whatever facts are brought forth. Sad.

However, I think Paul's attitude toward the gift of tongues in 1 Cor 14 is the key.
1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy.
2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.
4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.
5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.
6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?
12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.
13 For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say.
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
20 Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.
28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

1. These verses show that Paul's view of the gift of tongues was that it was a lesser gift than other communication gifts (v.1,12). There were other gifts that people should desire more.
2. Any public speaking in tongues MUST have an interpreter, otherwise, KEEP QUIET in the church. (v.5,13,27,28)

However, what is the current general situation in churches that have people speaking in tongues? No interpreters. Unbiblical where that happens.

From this thread, it seems a general view of those claiming to speak in tongues that this gift is somehow special and indicates some advanced spiritual status or something. Yet Paul said to desire "especially prophesy" gifts. And he downplayed tongues.

That's it. Over and out.

 

[gr8grace3]

“The article in v10 is anaphoric, referring back to the twofold ἐκ μέρους [in part] of v9. It is as if Paul said, “when the perfect comes, the ‘in part’ will be done away.” The point is that with the coming of the perfect (most likely the return of Christ), both the gift of prophecy and the gift of knowledge will vanish.”

Greek Grammar - Beyond the Basics, Daniel B. Wallace, p236​

This is the realm of where I have been coming from or debating from.

I agree that the article in vs 10 is referring back to (in part.) And that is what the neuter gender of "the complete" signifies. It doesn't refer back the "knowing" or 'prophesy.' It strictly refers back to 'in part'........making it quantitative.

They had parts(the gifts of knowledge and prophesy only gave parts of revelation). When all the parts come together, they will have a complete part.......the finished parts, neuter gender a thing or item in this phrase. And then the 'parts' will be done away.

And now faith(doctrine from the completed parts), hope(from the completed faith) and love abide. But love never fails.

Hope and faith fail/are done away at the coming of the Lord/ or our death.

“It may be significant that with reference to prophecy and knowledge, Paul used a different verb and put it in the passive voice. ... Yet he does not speak about tongues being done away “when the perfect comes.” The implication may be that tongues have “died out” of their own before the perfect comes.”

p422

I agree with this. Tongues 'will cease' is in the middle voice. indicating that they cease when their purpose is finished......most likely in 70 AD when they fulfilled their 'sign' of impending discipline for Israel.

New American Standard Bible
So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

1 Cor 14:21~~New International Version
In the Law it is written: "With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people(Israel), but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord."

 

[chessman]

1. These verses show that Paul's view of the gift of tongues was that it was a lesser gift than other communication gifts (v.1,12).

And an unnecessary gift between two or more people that speak the same tongue or have a translated Bible in their own tongues or for God to communicate with you or for you to communicate with God.

On the otherhand, if an unbelieving person speaks a tongue unknown by a missionary standing in front of him/her (as was the case at Pentecost and God performs a miracle of allowing the missionary to speak to the unbeliever(s) in his native tongue, so be it. Or foreign language courses work pretty well too.

I agree with this. Tongues 'will cease' is in the middle voice. indicating that they cease when their purpose is finished..

Tongues’ purpose is for communication to unbelievers.

 

[gr8grace3]

Tongues’ purpose is for communication to unbelievers.

Yes, and the impact of this gift is geared towards unbelieving Israel.

1 Cor 14~~ 21In the Law it is written, “BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE(unbelieving Israel), AND EVEN SO THEY(unbelieving Israel) WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME,” says the Lord. 22So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

Isaiah 28~~
11Indeed, He will speak to this people
Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,

12He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,”
And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen.

13So the word of the LORD to them will be,
“Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there,”
That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive(70AD/Jerusalem destroyed).

14Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers,
Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,

 

[MarkT]

I have no way of looking up what you're asking. I consult a Greek lexicon to parse words. If the lexicon says the word is feminine, then I accept it. If it says it's neuter, I'll accept that. If it says the word is masculine, then I'll accept that.

I don't have to recognize the Greek word or know the word, as it seems you're suggesting. I only have to be able to understand what the lexicon says about the word.


The Greek word means "complete".

NT:5046 teleios (tel'-i-os); from NT:5056; complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with NT:3588) completeness:

KJV - of full age, man, perfect.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


Notice that the lexicon doesn't have "perfect". That comes from the KJV. The lexicon has "completeness" in the neuter.

You're suggesting he would have used another word, but you don't know what the word is. That's great. I have to conclude that there is no such word.

 

[MarkT]

Let's not go down that road again. Nowhere in Scripture is the covenant with Israel described or called a gift or a call.

It's a method of expression like saying the stars and stripes for the flag.

Paul uses the same method when he says, 'when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.' When the perfect comes for when the Lord returns. The perfect for perfect knowledge.

 

[FreeGrace]

You're suggesting he would have used another word, but you don't know what the word is. That's great. I have to conclude that there is no such word.

What was asked is what the masculine form of the word was. It doesn't matter what the form is. What we have is the neuter gender. Not the masculine nor the feminine.

I do not deal in the "what if's...", but rather, the "what is". And the "what is" here is the neuter gender.

A better challenge is to find any example in Scripture where the action of a male is in the neuter gender, rather than the masculine gender.

That would lessen the argument about the neuter gender being about the canon.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said:
"Let's not go down that road again. Nowhere in Scripture is the covenant with Israel described or called a gift or a call."

It's a method of expression like saying the stars and stripes for the flag.

Says who? Other than you.

 

[1Genesis]

I think Peter would disagree with this. He wrote this in 2 Pet 3:15,16
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Even in Peter's day, there were those (ignorant people) who took what Paul wrote and distorted it.

Are you aware that there has been scholarly debate over the authenticity of 2nd Peter and for years?

 

[Sister Christian]

I think Peter would disagree with this. He wrote this in 2 Pet 3:15,16
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Even in Peter's day, there were those (ignorant people) who took what Paul wrote and distorted it.

Of all the many many versions of the bible that are available, it is enlightening that someone finds a version that calls people unstable and ignorant as they distort scripture.

I imagine the rules of this site would punish if a member actually called another member those things in free writing. But going through over two dozen versions to find 2 Peter 3:15 and 16, so that it states that toward the member intended without risking rebuke for rule violation is a deep admission.

The new testament canon did not exist during Paul's time. Nor were Paul's letters collected in order to arrive at the canon councils that would occur in future. The argument that insists Paul is speaking about a canon, when a canon cannot be perfect but our Lord is, is deeply personal. And deeply wrong. But then again, why not? When vulgar insults toward those opposed to someone's errant point of view are sought out in crude translations of our Lord's word so as to use them against one of our Lord's daughters.

 

[Sister Christian]

Depends. At the completion of the canon, all the knowledge that God intended to reveal to mankind was complete.

My that's a scary suggestion.

 

[Sister Christian]

Are you aware that there has been scholarly debate over the authenticity of 2nd Peter and for years?

I don't think that fact will be received well at this juncture sister. The question of 2nd Peter's authenticity as to a true writing by the Apostle has been at issue since the early church.
Good that you interjected that into this discourse for all the good we can hope it will do given the tenor of this topic at this point.

 

[gr8grace3]

Are you aware that there has been scholarly debate over the authenticity of 2nd Peter and for years?

Can you please name a few scholars that reject the authenticity of 2nd Peter? ..........And That state their proof?

If you would like.......start a thread on all these scholars that reject 2nd Peters authenticity, with their proof. That would be a good debate.

 

[Sister Christian]

Can you please name a few scholars that reject the authenticity of 2nd Peter? ..........And That state their proof?

If you would like.......start a thread on all these scholars that reject 2nd Peters authenticity, with their proof. That would be a good debate.

There are many resources to consider. Yes, I think it would be a great discussion. Bear in mind that it is not just 2nd Peter that has been in dispute. Itself since the early church as mentioned. There are other NT books that have been disputed. Maybe not for as long but very near.
As an example here till I can compile enough to make a proper thread,
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html

2Pet 3:4 states that the apostles (and Elders, the 1st generation of christians) ('fathers') were all dead. If they are all dead (and tradition says that John lived the longest), how can this be from Cephas?

 

[gr8grace3]

https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/2 Pet 3.4

2 Pet 3:4 states that the apostles (and Elders, the 1st generation of christians) ('fathers') were all dead. If they are all dead (and tradition says that John lived the longest), how can this be from Cephas?

2 Pet~~ 3Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4and saying(the mockers), “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”


Notice In 2 Peter 3....... that is what the MOCKERS were saying. And the mockers were essentially saying," Hey Peter, all the OT prophets are dead and He Has not come yet. How can YOU stoopid Christians be saying this stuff!!!"

I don't know of ONE scholar or even a diligent student of the Word......that interprets that verse as Peter, personally saying, that all the apostles are dead at the time of writing His Epistle.

 

[gr8grace3]

There are many resources to consider. Yes, I think it would be a great discussion. Bear in mind that it is not just 2nd Peter that has been in dispute. Itself since the early church as mentioned. There are other NT books that have been disputed. Maybe not for as long but very near.
As an example here till I can compile enough to make a proper thread,
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html

So, are you and 1Genesis the same person?