Speaking in tongues

I don't have a problem with any of that, because those who worship demons may be empowered by those demons with superhuman abilities. There are examples within Scripture (Pharaoh's magicians, the slave girl in Acts, etc.).

The entire context of 1 Corinthians 12-14 is gifts given/empowered by the Holy Spirit. Mere human abilities (like learning languages) was not the context.

If you want to make a coherent argument that "speaking in tongues" is merely speaking in languages unfamiliar to the local people, then you must also provide a naturalistic explanation for prophesying, discerning spirits, and working miracles. You must also account for those newly baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 and 19 to be speaking in tongues. If all they were doing was speaking in their native languages, it would be nothing special and unworthy of being recorded in Scripture.

I laughed out loud at your title for Irenaeus writings. But something tells me you weren't joking, that maybe you are just really confused. If that's a joke, it's an irresponsible one because on a forum like this, someone is bound to believe you. Irenaeus was not against tongues. Where do you get the idea that 'and tongues' was added on the name of the book 'Against Heresies.' I've never seen anyone add that on the title in English or Greek.

Why don't we actually look at quotes from Irenaeus, and his clearly non-cessationist statements about the situation at that time, including raising the dead:


This is about people, in the late second and/or early third century casting out demons, having foreknowledge, seeing visions, giving prophecies, healing by laying on of hands, and raising the dead.
Here is one about speaking in tongues.
Source:
Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
From the New Advent website.

Warfield really had to grasp at straws to try to put a case together that Ireneaus was honest but basically did not know what he was talking about.

I have a number of Warfields tomes. Tough reads all of them.

Just have a look at the map in the Wikipedia article on provential languages of the Roman Empire. There were quite a number of languages spoken. If you consider the number of dialects, there would have been quite a number of them just based on what scholars know of. Some language groups may not have left any written record, writing only in Greek, for example.

Whoever put together the Wikipedia map disagreed if your assertion is that no Celtic tongue was spoken in Asia Minor. But there seems to be good evidence that Paul may have been written to south Galatia, calling them Galatians because they were a part of that province. The province's border was moved to the north, north of the first-missionary-journey churches after the first century, leading to confusion about where Biblical Galatia was.

If your guesswork about all the languages being wiped out (and other scholars apparently have evidence that disagrees) and if the converts happened to be just from the Greek speaking lands (provinces that apparently had diverse languages are dialects are mentioned in Acts 2, then you might have a chance at this theory being true? What you hold to is a very convoluted interpretation of a straightforward text. Ireneaus, for example, lived in the Roman world and interpreted it in a conventional manner, as did several others.

Many people who refer to tongues as ‘prayer language’ hold that they are, or sometimes can be, a real rational language. Hebrew and Aramaic seem to be the two main “go to” languages. Unfortunately, all such claims are anecdotal at best.
What is your training? Do you have an advanced degree? Do you have a kind of broad undergrad degree (like I do. I focused a bit more on historical linguistics/classical philology type courses.)

Do you think Jesus and the apostles were just like pagan shaman, too? Tertullian pointed out that Christians cast what pagans thought were gods out of people when they cast out demons. The stick Moses threw down that turned into a snake swallowed up the ones the magicians threw down.

On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis
is the correct name of the work written by Irenaeus.

This is beyond stupid. Obviiously you have chosen some website that tries to support the sign gifts so you get what you want from it.

Notice a pattern here. You do not do your researcher and say what pops into your head as fact--and with a sassy, negative attitude at that. Are you about 19 years old? I hope you grow out of it soon.

You can look up those quotes in other sources and translations and they say basically the same thing. I would not be surprised if that site was Roman Catholic. If the Ethereal library or whatever the other site was called is up you can check that out.


There are blog posts written by Charismatics that quote actual primary sources on this. I did not even quote Justin Martyr arguing with a Jew that prophecy and other gidts were now done by Christians.

As far as speaking in tongues go, there are a number of quotes related to it. Chrysostom and Augustine talked or wrote about it as gaving occurred in the past. But Chrysostom was not a cessationist-- attributing the lack of miracles to the state of the church. And Augustine later recorded a number of healings in his older years.

There are plenty of accounts of prophecy, visions, healing, and miracles throughout church history. The church accepted prophecy as a gift in the 2nd century and did not become cessationist.

Eusebius' treatment of Montanism, made largely of quotes that went before, shows that church leaders accepted and affirmed the gift of prophecy, but that many rejected the legutimacy of Montanus' prophecies. After Montanus died, Eusebius records a debate in which a Montanist argued that prophecy had ceased but the debater from the church argued that the apostle taught prophecy would continue until the Lird return-- possibly thinking of I Christians 13 or I Corinthians 1:7.

Irenaeus Against Heresies of Marcus describes modern speaking in tongues. Musical worship was always mixed up with charismatic women gladly following men who claimed to be inspired. The songs were speaking in tongues or magical incantations often repeating magical words or numbers over and over. The goal was always to lead weak men and women to look for God only through his agents.

Charismatic gibberish does not appear in the Bible except in two instances: First, the "lord, lord" sayers were musical prophesiers. They might be singing Hallelujah, Hallalujah over and over as a meaningles song. Jesus said "I don't even know your name."

Secondly, the uncovered women in 1 Cor 11:5 were usually "just out of paganism." They believed that imitating the gibberish of the Oracles of, say Delphi under Apollo, Abbadon or Apollyon, was speaking the truth. Paul said that he taught the same things in all of the churches. Furthermore, 1 Cor 13 identifes music with the lifeless instruments or carnal weapons of the soothsayers and warriors.

Thirdly, the word "charismatic" in the Greek and Latin resources are always identified with sexual perversion: all priesthoods had their "children piping in the marketplace.

hmmmmm

Unlike you who have read ALL of these early church writings in their entirety...in the original language,......poor me I must rely on others to translate them for me. Truly pentecostals are blessed beyond other Christians and we poor unblessed (which is most of believers today) must carry on as well as we can. (sigh)

Well definitions change over time. Gay used to mean happy or silly and queer meant counterfeit. I was taught Charismatic meant spirit filled like Pentecostals' or Assemblies' of God on one hand or sort of hypnotic in speech and appeal like Hitler or Mussolini on the other. Liberals stood for progress and change and conservatives stood against it. Lincoln was a liberal and Davis was a Dixiecrat that believed in non-biblical slavery. Car makers related efficiency with horsepower per cubic inch. Full gospel ministries believed of gifts like healing and speaking in tongues. (30 years ago.)

My question would be: Do you believe the Holy Spirit is still alive and well and still performs miracles today?

I think the catholic web sitte is "advent"
I use Ethereal

Are you about done with the slander?

If anyone says all who speak in tongues are fakes and 1 person truly speaks from or to the Holy Spirit in tongues, the person that said they all are fakes committed a sin that not even Jesus will forgive, Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

I don't speak in tongues but I am not willing to risk my salvation by calling names or making false accusations. Life is temporary. Hell is eternal!

You present the name of a document but no link, no quotes attributed to it, and no support for your assertions. In other words, you've provided nothing of substance to support your position.

Kindly either back up your assertions with actual evidence, or refrain from posting them.

Since the apostles spoke in tongues, that would be a foolish statement for people to make indeed. Is saying something is fake the same thing as blasphemy, or just bearing false witness? I dont' know where the lines are drawn, but would not what to do either.

Foolish being the key word. Amen!

Yes from personal experience.

It's funny how something that has ceased, when done as prescribed by scripture, still produces the result scripture says it will produce.

Imagine that.

You want research, I can give you PAGES of it.
I noted that your abuse of the early father's writings were so egregious that they did not warrant any response.
But if you really want pages and pages I can give you their ACTUAL quotes.
Whom shall I start with?