The gift of Tongues

[Biblicist]

I was describing how I thought St Paul could best be interpreted. I think he would consider speaking in different languages to have been a spiritual gift given that this would make the spread of the gospel much more easy. Yet what he describes in 1 Corinthians 15 I interpret as "Yes, many of you speak many languages, that's wonderful, when you are having Mass you shouldn't let everyone speak at once, you should have one or two and then you should offer interpretations so that the Persian and Egyptian and Jew understand what's going on otherwise no one will understand anything, you'd be speaking only to God and uttering mysteries to everyone else".

The problem that we have with the view that tongues could be used to evangelise unreached people groups, is that we have no examples of this from within the Scriptures, besides Paul also saying that "no man is able to understand what is being said through tongues".

People will often refer to the Day of Pentecost with how the Holy Spirit spoke through the 120 in known human languages; but even here, we are told that they were speaking about the wonders of God, which is the same as the normal use of tongues within the congregational setting where they are also words of praise to the Father. As the result of what the crowd heard was confusion, where they had to approach the 120 to work out what was happening, if Peter had not provided an evangelistic message in Aramaic, then the crowd would have dispersed thinking that these rustic Galileans were maybe only repeating rehearsed sentences about God, which is why their poorly articulated sentences, which were being given in a strong Galilean accent would have given the appearance that they were in some way intoxicated.

 

[Hillsage]

I submit that Paul's point is that the corruptible would put on incorruption, not that corruptible would take off corruption and then put on incorruption. Read closely what he said. That corruption would be overclothed with incorruption. His argument leaves no place for a spirit of man to leave his body as that person.

The bible would seem to disagree....again, I might add;

2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

I'm saying 'my spirit' there. Now don't tell me this is speaking of 'the soul' being "absent from the body" because you believe the 'living soul' is the spirit/body....right?

You didn't address the issue. In one place you said a man consists of all three parts then in another you said, "I am a spirit."

Correct, a human being is a unique creation of the "GOD IS SPIRIT" creation of Genesis. And he was still "GOD IS SPIRIT" in John's gospel.

The passages you gave me don't say that man is triune, you've brought that to the text.

I'm sorry...I'll leave TRIUNE which means THREE out of the fact that those scriptures talk about 'spirit/soul/body' PARTS to total man. I AM A SPIRIT doesn't mean I AM NOT A MAN too.

[/quote]I would submit that there is no prayer tongue that in a language unknown to man. In the letter Paul insists that one interpret the tongue.[/quote]

Which is exactly what I explained when I said I have prayed in English for an interpretation to my prayer tongue. And I've shared that when it for 'corporate "edification/exhortation/comfort"...exactly as defined by that scripture.

1CO 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. BTW Wrong place for you/others to think "PUFFS UP" which is OBVIOUSLY different than "EDIFY".

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but RATHER that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

"UNLEARNED/UNGIFTED" ones do not leave a "RATHER" in their doctrinal view. It's gone, period....along with true 'understanding'.


I do both. I speak unknown tongues to edify me. And if I'm praying "decently and in order", then I'll pray for an interpretation to share with 'the body'...if I have an 'spirit unction' that it is for the body.

KJV Col. 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Deleted the rest for 'lenght' and will address the point you miss. "FLESHLY mind".

]quote[It's not opinion. I gave you the creation of man in Gen 2. After God created the man He breathed into him the breath of life and the man became a living soul. The passage doesn't say that man got a soul, it says he became a soul. So a soul is what he is, not something he has.[/quote]
You forgot to mention one 'little' qualifier to your understanding here. That scripture is interpreted as "LIVING soul". Go look up how many times that 'term' is even used in the whole bible..or bibleS. KJV is most with THREE TIMES. Twice referring to 'creational Adam' and once in Revelation;

REV 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

Then look up in Strong's every time the Hebrew words for "living soul" are used. Guess what....lets just deal with Genesis.

GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living/chay creature/nephesh that moveth,
GEN 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living/chay creature/nephesh after his kind,

GEN 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living/chay soul/nephesh .

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living/chay creature/nephesh, that was the name thereof.

Maybe that's why he named Eve "WOMAN"....just thinking here.

 

[Shane658]

You said...



And I said... That is not biblical!

Go to your post number 226. I had wrote that it ceased and explained my points,No where in that post you quoted in post 226 did I say the Gifts were limited to the Apostles?I then asked you for proof of me saying that and you quoted in post number 232.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

The problem that we have with the view that tongues could be used to evangelise unreached people groups, is that we have no examples of this from within the Scriptures, besides Paul also saying that "no man is able to understand what is being said through tongues".

Examples? I'm saying that this is how I interpret what Paul is saying. You're asking for an example of how I'm interpreting the text... The text is the example and my interpretation is essentially the lens I through the text in.

People will often refer to the Day of Pentecost with how the Holy Spirit spoke through the 120 in known human languages; but even here, we are told that they were speaking about the wonders of God, which is the same as the normal use of tongues within the congregational setting where they are also words of praise to the Father. As the result of what the crowd heard was confusion, where they had to approach the 120 to work out what was happening, if Peter had not provided an evangelistic message in Aramaic, then the crowd would have dispersed thinking that these rustic Galileans were maybe only repeating rehearsed sentences about God, which is why their poorly articulated sentences, which were being given in a strong Galilean accent would have given the appearance that they were in some way intoxicated.

You're confusing various things here... there were two responses to Pentecost: one was that of the "Jews from every nation under heaven" who "heard them speaking in the native language of each", and the "others" who "sneered and said "they are filled with new wine". Those confused were those who did not know the other languages, those who knew the languages weren't confused.

 

[Biblicist]

. . . You're confusing various things here... there were two responses to Pentecost: one was that of the "Jews from every nation under heaven" who "heard them speaking in the native language of each", and the "others" who "sneered and said "they are filled with new wine". Those confused were those who did not know the other languages, those who knew the languages weren't confused.

I've often heard commentators say much the same thing myself, in that those who sneered were the ones who could maybe not hear what was being said or that maybe the Holy Spirit did not speak in the languages of each people group, but this goes against what Luke tells us about the wide geographic reach of those who were present.

But this sounds odd as the Holy Spirit was providing a unique glimpse into the Kingdom of God to the Old Covenant Jews, in that "the Kingdom which is still not yet has now arrived amongst them". Why would the Holy Spirit only speak to some and not the entire crowd and if those who were sneering were unable to hear then they were undoubtedly justified with mocking the collection of motley and rustic Galileans.

The problem that the crowd would have had, is that even though the Holy Spirit was speaking words of wonder about God, where these words were not specifically being addressed to the crowd but more so to God as praise; this does not mean that the Holy Spirit would be able to control their voice inflections or with where they chose to insert breathing marks as we all do when we speak in whatever language we speak in. As such, even though the Galileans were speaking the right words in each language, their syntax would have undoubtedly sounded strange to the point where they even sounded as if they were repeating rehearsed sentences in each of the languages of the Empire.

This would have sounded as if they were indeed intoxicated which is why some were sneering at them. But, even though what they were saying would have seemed a bit odd, there were still many who were able to get around their odd syntax where they twigged that something a bit out of the ordinary was occurring. Once Peter provided an evangelistic message most of them were able to tie things together; if Peter or another had not spoken up, then the entire crowd would have dispersed where they would have mocked the Galileans as being drunks.

Edit: Typo

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

The problem that the crowd would have had, is that even though the Holy Spirit was speaking words of wonder about God, where these words were not specifically being addressed to the crowd but more so to God as praise; this does not mean that the Holy Spirit would be able to control their voice inflections or with where they chose to insert breathing marks as we all do when we speak in whatever language we speak in. As such, even though the Galileans were speaking the right words in each language, their syntax would have undoubtedly sounded strange to the point where they even sounded as if they were repeating rehearsed sentences in each of the languages of the Empire.

How on earth do you get that from the text? This is precisely what the text is saying isn't happening... The crowd were bewildered to hear the Christians proclaiming wonders in their native tongues. That's what the text says.

 

[Biblicist]

How on earth do you get that from the text? This is precisely what the text is saying isn't happening... The crowd were bewildered to hear the Christians proclaiming wonders in their native tongues. That's what the text says.

It's certainly easy for me to say what I have as I have spent years thinking about the various aspects of what we deem to be Pneumatology, which of course directly relates to Acts and First Corinthians in particular.

If we were to hypothetically place ourselves within the crowd who were probably walking within the Temple precinct, where they then come across about 120 Galileans speaking about the wonders of God then we have to look at what dynamics would be at play.

Being someone who has spoken in tongues for 40 years, where I have been in small meetings and massive meetings where thousands have been corporately (and incorrectly) praising God in tongues during times of praise and worship; this means that I have a pretty good understanding of what occurrs during these times.

What we do know is that the Holy Spirit only speaks through the Believer to the Father, but he certainly does not control our voice inflections, our tonal range or most importantly, when we each decide to take a breath break during a sentence. For example, if I were to ask you to learn by rote the Greek passage of 1 Cor 12:1, if you were to concentrate on speaking each word correctly from a lexical perspective, when most were asked to do this they would each speak in a monotone voice where their first break in the sentence would be when they needed to breath; most importantly, unlike the 120, we would also know when to place emphasis with some words as against other words.

This is something that a native speaker would never have problems with, as we would always wait for an appropriate break in the sentence, as with a comma, semi-colon or a full stop.To someone who is competent with the Greek language of Paul's time, most of our valiant attempts would be nothing less than torture to those who have a trained ear.

When we pray to the Father in tongues, we govern our pitch, voice inflections and sentence breaks, not through any sense of their being linguistic rules in play, but with our emotions and most importantly when we need to take a breath so we don’t collapse in a heap.

The only way that the Holy Spirit could have had the 120 on the Day of Pentecost each employing the correct syntax and where they also employed the right tonal inflections and stopped for a breath break is by placing them in a fully ecstatic and catatonic state, which of course thankfully never occurs.

So I could imagine the joyous rapture of the 120 as they were praising God through the indwelling presence of the Eschatological Holy Spirit, where these rustic Galileans probably only ever realised that they were speaking in human languages after the crowd approached them about it all. It would have sounded odd to hear these very excited Galileans (with their heavy accents) speaking in disjointed sentences – I don’t know if they were merely mocking them or laughing at what they probably thought were poor attempts at learning rehearsed sentences in another language, it must have sounded absolutely hilarious.

 

[swordsman1]

Are you being serious - or maybe being desperate! If we were to grab groups of a dozen completely unchurched individuals and place them into a room where they were to at least read Acts and First Corinthians, I could not imagine for a second that there would be anyone who would not be able to understand that when the Holy Spirit prays to the Father through us, that he will always do so in inarticulate-unintelligible angelic tongues.

Even as a new 17 year old Christian, where I came to the Lord within a cessationist congregation, once I began to read through Corinthians it was plain even to me that when Paul was speaking about tongues, that they were some form of angelic language, not that I really understood anything more than this but if it was plain to me then in my view there is no excuse for anyone else to think that he was supposedly speaking about human languages.

And what is your justification for tongues being angelic? 1 Cor 13:1 right? Well let's see if Paul really spoke the language of angels...

This verse forms one of 5 parallel statements to illustrate the importance of love over the spiritual gifts.

1 Cor 13:1-3

• If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
• If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and
• if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
• And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and
• if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

Firstly Paul doesn't say he did any of those things. Each of them is an IF statement. He is saying that even if he did have those kinds of gifts, but not have love, they would be worthless.

Secondly it is quite obvious that in each of these statements Paul is using exaggerated figurative language:

Did Paul really have the gift of prophecy to such a degree that he literally knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge. ie was he omniscient? Obviously not.

Did Paul have the gift of faith to such a degree that he could literally move mountains? No.

Did Paul have the gift of giving to such a degree that he literally gave ALL his possessions to the poor. That would include his clothes. Did Paul walk around naked? No.

Did Paul literally give his own body to be burned? No.

And neither did he speak in the language of angels. He was speaking hypothetically, just like the other statements. None of those parallel statements are meant to be taken literally. What Paul is saying is that even if he possessed spiritual gifts to an impossibly superlative degree, but not have love, they would be worthless.

So if tongues isn't the language of angels then it must be the languages of men, just as Acts 2 describes it.

 

[Biblicist]

. . .
1 Cor 13:1-3

• If I speak with the tongues of men . . .

Firstly Paul doesn't say he did any of those things. Each of them is an IF statement. He is saying that even if he did have those kinds of gifts, but not have love, they would be worthless.

Oh, so now Paul did not speak in the tongues of men, does this mean that he used sign language and that he also had the Scriptures initially transcribed into Brail? Really, some of you chaps really need to think some of your points through a bit more carefully before you post them.

Secondly it is quite obvious that in each of these statements Paul is using exaggerated figurative language:

Did Paul really have the gift of prophecy to such a degree that he literally knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge. ie was he omniscient? Obviously not.

As Paul was given access to all knowable mysteries, then he is more than justified with posing this particular question. Maybe you should take another look into Pauline theology, particularly with Eph 1:9; 3:3, 4, 6, 9;5:32;6:19; Col 1:25-29.

When it comes to prophecy, whatever the Holy Spirit chooses to give to the congregation will always "be knowable", otherwise he would not bother speaking through the prophet in the first place.

Did Paul have the gift of faith to such a degree that he could literally move mountains? No.

Well, yes! Everyone would have realised that he is speaking about "massive obstacles", it would only be a Sunday School pupil who would ever imagine that Paul is speaking about moving physical mountains. You probably need to better understand the differences between recognised figures of speech and hyperbole, the two are not always the same.

Did Paul have the gift of giving to such a degree that he literally gave ALL his possessions to the poor. That would include his clothes. Did Paul walk around naked? No.

That's right, you've cut and pasted these points from a previous thread where I also "tore the clothes off" your points as well. Do you really think that when Jesus told the rich young ruler that he had to give his clothes away and run around naked when he told him to go away and sell all that he owned? These type of questions are nothing less than ridiculous (besides being embarrassingly benign), you really need to learn how to provide sensible questions.

Did Paul literally give his own body to be burned? No.

1Cor 13:3, this is a tricky textual question, did Paul say give my body to "be burned" or "to boast"? If it is "to be burned" then there could be an association with the obedience of Shadrach, Meshach and Abendigo in Dan 3:95 where they offered up their bodies to the flames but where God delivered them. So yes, no matter how we look at this particular verse then it is still a literal form of speech.

And neither did he speak in the language of angels. He was speaking hypothetically, just like the other statements. None of those parallel statements are meant to be taken literally. What Paul is saying is that even if he possessed spiritual gifts to an impossibly superlative degree, but not have love, they would be worthless.

Nowhere did Paul ever say that the Manifestations of the Spirit (aka, gifts) that they would ever be worthless without love, this makes absolutely no sense. What Paul said was that "without love" that when the Holy Spirit ministers through us that WE would not be benefited, which is a vastly different thing to being "worthless".

If someone who operates within the Office of healings were to pray for someone in an attitude that lacked the appropriate level of love, I seriously doubt if the person who was healed would be overly fussed with some form of "love barometer" if they were healed of a life threatening disease.

So if tongues isn't the language of angels then it must be the languages of men, just as Acts 2 describes it.

As I have summarily dismissed each of your points (as I did about a month back) then your premise has now been completely negated.

. . . .

By the way, as a suggestion, the best form of defense against Continuism is silence, where if you don't talk about it then those who are uninformed cessationists will be less likely to realise that cessationism is a legacy worldview that belongs with the dinosaurs.

Edit: Typo

 

[swordsman1]

Oh, so now Paul did not speak in the tongues of men, does this mean that he used sign language and that he also had the Scriptures initially transcribed into Brail? Really, some of you chaps really need to think some of your points through a bit more carefully before you post them.

No, tongues of men is clearly the normal use of the gift, tongues of angels is the hyperbolic theoretical use.

As Paul was given access to all knowable mysteries, then he is more than justified with posing this particular question. Maybe you should take another look into Pauline theology, particularly with Eph 1:9; 3:3, 4, 6, 9;5:32;6:19; Col 1:25-29.

When it comes to prophecy, whatever the Holy Spirit chooses to give to the congregation will always "be knowable", otherwise he would not bother speaking through the prophet in the first place.

You seriously believe Paul was omniscient? (it says if he knows ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge)?

Well, yes! Everyone would have realised that he is speaking about "massive obstacles", it would only be a Sunday School pupil who would ever imagine that Paul is speaking about moving physical mountains. You probably need to better understand the differences between recognised figures of speech and hyperbole, the two are not always the same.

Exactly! You're getting it. Paul was speaking figuratively, not literally. None of those statements were literal.

That's right, you've cut and pasted these points from a previous thread where I also "tore the clothes off" your points as well.

Hardly. You were unable to refute it in the end.

Do you really think that when Jesus told the rich young ruler that he had to give his clothes away and run around naked when he told him to go away and sell all that he owned?

Exactly again! You admit Paul didn't literally give away ALL that he owned. He was speaking figuratively when he said if I give all my possessions to feed the poor.

As you have admitted Paul was speaking figuratively in these parallel statements, surely you can now see that he was also speaking figuratively when he said even if he could speak the language of angels....

1Cor 13:3, this is a tricky textual question, did Paul say give my body to "be burned" or "to boast"? If it is "to be burned" then there could be an association with the obedience of Shadrach, Meshach and Abendigo in Dan 3:95 where they offered up their bodies to the flames but where God delivered them. So yes, no matter how we look at this particular verse then it is still a literal form of speech.

When exactly did Paul give his body to be burned? That's what the verse said he did if you take it literally?

 

[Biblicist]

No, tongues of men is clearly the normal use of the gift, tongues of angels is the hyperbolic theoretical use.

At best, you seem to be very confused with what you have posted and your replies really make no sense. How can you fail to understand (or maybe you are trying to ignore) how you have clearly stated that Paul did not speak in a human tongue. As for the rest of your points they really do not need a reply.

 

[swordsman1]

How can you fail to understand (or maybe you are trying to ignore) how you have clearly stated that Paul did not speak in a human tongue. As for the rest of your points they really do not need a reply.

Paul is giving the normal use of the gift, followed by the figurative theoretical use:

If I speak with the tongues of men (normal use) and of angels (theoretical use)
If I have the gift of prophecy (normal use), and know all mysteries and all knowledge (theoretical use)
If I have all faith (normal use), so as to remove mountains (theoretical use)

As for the rest of your points they really do not need a reply.

Of course not. It can't be refuted.

 

[Hillsage]

I was describing how I thought St Paul could best be interpreted. I think he would consider speaking in different languages to have been a spiritual gift given that this would make the spread of the gospel much more easy. Yet what he describes in 1 Corinthians 15 I interpret as "Yes, many of you speak many languages, that's wonderful, when you are having Mass you shouldn't let everyone speak at once, you should have one or two and then you should offer interpretations so that the Persian and Egyptian and Jew understand what's going on otherwise no one will understand anything, you'd be speaking only to God and uttering mysteries to everyone else".

Of course you were. But had you been anywhere near the Charismatic meetings held at Notre Dame university every year....back in the 70's I'll bet you'd have interpreted it different. Because your experience would have lined up with scripture. But alas, scripture must align with your lack thereof. I had an older friend back then who went...and he was even a Lutheran I believe. I actually quizzed him as to why he'd even do such a thing, but don't remember his response. Upon his return,....I think it was his report....but if not it was still good; "I couldn't tell a Catholic tongue from a Protestant tongue."

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Of course you were. But had you been anywhere near the Charismatic meetings held at Notre Dame university every year....back in the 70's I'll bet you'd have interpreted it different. Because your experience would have lined up with scripture. But alas, scripture must align with your lack thereof. I had an older friend back then who went...and he was even a Lutheran I believe. I actually quizzed him as to why he'd even do such a thing, but don't remember his response. Upon his return,....I think it was his report....but if not it was still good; "I couldn't tell a Catholic tongue from a Protestant tongue."

I think you're presuming that the experience at Notre Dame back in the 70s did align with scripture. ;-)

 

[Biblicist]

Paul is giving the normal use of the gift, followed by the figurative theoretical use:

If I speak with the tongues of men (normal use) and of angels (theoretical use)

Why would Paul ever say that when he spoke in tongues that they were in human languages, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. As Paul is adamant that "NO MAN is ever able to understand" then it is obvious that he is referring to his normal use of Aramaic, Greek and Latin to that of tongues which is why he choose to use "language of angels".

If I have the gift of prophecy

(normal use), and know all mysteries and all knowledge (theoretical use)

You have combined two different things here. I recall where I asked you if you were still a High School student, which would explain your lack of exposure to the theology that undergirds the things of the Spirit.

If I have all faith

(normal use), so as to remove mountains (theoretical use)

Interesting! You have split Paul's single point into two - why?

If I have all faith

(normal use), so as to remove mountains (theoretical use)

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[Hillsage]

You're confusing various things here... there were two responses to Pentecost: one was that of the "Jews from every nation under heaven" who "heard them speaking in the native language of each", and the "others" who "sneered and said "they are filled with new wine". Those confused were those who did not know the other languages, those who knew the languages weren't confused.

OR, those confused and 'IN DOUBT" were those saying 'All who 'claimed' to hear the gospel in their native tongues were "Drunk". But then you probably believe these were mental giants who actually knew every one of the 15-18 different languages being spoke by 'the drunks'. Only then could they have judged these 'tongue talkers' as poorly as you guys do us...today.

 

[Biblicist]

Of course you were. But had you been anywhere near the Charismatic meetings held at Notre Dame university every year....back in the 70's I'll bet you'd have interpreted it different. Because your experience would have lined up with scripture. But alas, scripture must align with your lack thereof. I had an older friend back then who went...and he was even a Lutheran I believe. I actually quizzed him as to why he'd even do such a thing, but don't remember his response. Upon his return,....I think it was his report....but if not it was still good; "I couldn't tell a Catholic tongue from a Protestant tongue."

I've read quite a few articles about those days where the Holy Spirit was apparently moving mightily amongst the Roman Catholics at Notre Dame. Vinson Synon has written about this as well as he was on the organising committee; the conference apparently blew his socks off.

 

[Hillsage]

I think you're presuming that the experience at Notre Dame back in the 70s did align with scripture. ;-)

Touche. I wasn't there I admit. Kinda do wish I had been.

 

[Biblicist]

Touche. I wasn't there I admit. Kinda do wish I had been.

Same here!

 

[Hillsage]

I've read quite a few articles about those days where the Holy Spirit was apparently moving mightily amongst the Roman Catholics at Notre Dame. Vinson Synon has written about this as well as he was on the organising committee; the conference apparently blew his socks off.

Is there anything you haven't read...that was written.?