Quote
J Edwards says:
Now putting aside Ireneaus’ false interpretation of Paul’s statement, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” (for one is “perfect” in Christ without tongues, for not all spoke in tongues—1 Cor 12:30), why would Ireneaus need to defend this “doctrine” in Against Heresies?
J Edwards

Assuming the translation is accurate and Ireneaus really did say what he meant to say, if Ireneaus believed that perfect Christians spoke in tongues, that would be a strange interpretation to hold to indeed if neither he, nor Polycarp, nor any of the saints he knew spoke in tongues. I do not believe in the initial evidence doctrine, and maybe I should keep this Ireneaus quote from those who do. J


Quote
J Edwards says:Whom is he trying to appease? What was the purpose in his statement? (1) observe that Irenaeus does not say he spoke in tongues, (2) he does not categorize those close to him as having the gift, for he uses the plural we do also hear (the old Latin uses the perfect audivimus, we have heard), and of course point (3) because of Irenaeus' association with the Montanists. Remember, while Irenaeus was still a presbyter, he was sent to Rome with a letter for the bishop, Eleutherus. This was a letter written by a group of Montanists to try to persuade Eleutherus to have a kind attitude toward them. Robertson is right in saying, "His [Irenaeus’] rather vague statement may rest on some report as to the Montanists of Asia Minor…." From these things it is concluded that Irenaeus had at some past time heard of things like those in the Montanists circles. Thus, all this quote reveals is that the Montanists (a cult), condemned for heresy, spoke in other languages! I am not alone in the belief that tongues has ceased! J Edwards


Do you have a source for Irenaeus delivering a letter to Rome to persuade the Eleutherus to have a kind attitude toward the Montanists? In the preface to one of the translations of Irenaeus I read, it said that Irenaeus was trying to persuade Eleutherus against the Montanists. Are you reading the works of a controversial re-intepreter or history with a cessationists axe to grind?


Some of Irenaeus work seems to be directed against the Montanists, if the commentators on the translations above are correct.


The other quotes I have supplied compiled by Eusebius show that Christian leaders in Montanus’ day accepted the gift of prophecy as genuine in the church, but reject Montanus’ version of it.

To all,

I have read of numerous other incidents of various gifts of the Spirit in Ante-Nicene and later times. Can I find an unbroken line of tongues speakers? No, but tongues is not the only gift. Many of the references to gifts of the Spirit are references to miracles, prophecy, visions, and things of that nature. It is one thing to say that you reject the numerous references to certain gifts of the Spirit because of your belief system. It is quite another to say that there are no references.


An interesting work that gives a little light to this subject is Michael Green’s book Evangelism in the Early Church. It is not a book on the gifts per se, but it does deal with several of the references to prophecy, miracles, and exorcism as they related to evangelism in the early centuries of Christianity. I think Green may go to some kind of Presbyterian or Reformed church, if he is still alive.
Quote
J Edwards says:
Now putting aside Ireneaus’ false interpretation of Paul’s statement, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” (for one is “perfect” in Christ without tongues, for not all spoke in tongues—1 Cor 12:30), why would Ireneaus need to defend this “doctrine” in Against Heresies?
J Edwards


Assuming the translation is accurate and Ireneaus really did say what he meant to say, if Ireneaus believed that perfect Christians spoke in tongues, that would be a strange interpretation to hold to indeed if neither he, nor Polycarp, nor any of the saints he knew spoke in tongues. I do not believe in the initial evidence doctrine, and maybe I should keep this Ireneaus quote from those who do. J


Quote
J Edwards says:Whom is he trying to appease? What was the purpose in his statement? (1) observe that Irenaeus does not say he spoke in tongues, (2) he does not categorize those close to him as having the gift, for he uses the plural we do also hear (the old Latin uses the perfect audivimus, we have heard), and of course point (3) because of Irenaeus' association with the Montanists. Remember, while Irenaeus was still a presbyter, he was sent to Rome with a letter for the bishop, Eleutherus. This was a letter written by a group of Montanists to try to persuade Eleutherus to have a kind attitude toward them. Robertson is right in saying, "His [Irenaeus’] rather vague statement may rest on some report as to the Montanists of Asia Minor…." From these things it is concluded that Irenaeus had at some past time heard of things like those in the Montanists circles. Thus, all this quote reveals is that the Montanists (a cult), condemned for heresy, spoke in other languages! I am not alone in the belief that tongues has ceased! J Edwards


Do you have a source for Irenaeus delivering a letter to Rome to persuade the Eleutherus to have a kind attitude toward the Montanists? In the preface to one of the translations of Irenaeus I read, it said that Irenaeus was trying to persuade Eleutherus against the Montanists. Are you reading the works of a controversial re-intepreter of history with a cessationists axe to grind?


Was this letter originally written in Latin? I recall that in one of his writings, Ireneaus apologized for his Greek since he had been speaking other languages for some time.


Some of Irenaeus work seems to be directed against the Montanists, if the commentators on the translations above are correct.


The other quotes I have supplied compiled by Eusebius show that Christian leaders in Montanus’ day accepted the gift of prophecy as genuine in the church, but reject Montanus’ version of it.


As for their being false tongues in cults, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? There have been false prophets throughout the ages. There were false prophets of Baal in the Old Testament. That does not make the Biblical prophets false. False tongues do not make the tongues of the disciples at Pentecost false. They do not make modern tongues or prophecies false either.