The first problem we encounter when trying to limit Paul’s instructions to the assembly of the Saints is that Paul says opens up in 1Cor 14:2 with a clear-cut statement, “for nobody understands them since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit”” which of course means “nobody”. As it is the Holy Spirit who is communicating to the Father and to the Father alone, then we also need to ask why we would want to compel the heavenly hosts to speak in a debased mortal language and not of the higher language of the Godhead. It would be similar to compelling someone who enjoys the finer points of classical music to listen to maybe Beethoven while someone is tapping his music on a Morse-code key.
Here again, you are taking it out of context. The
mysteries are mysteries because they are not being revealed by interpretation, as is obvious from the context of the passage. The reason why he is addressing this is because he has received a report that some people in the congregation are speaking tongues without interpretation, and it is doing no good for anyone else. It then is obvious that Paul is using the word
mysteries to emphasize the need for interpretation. If there was interpretation, then it would not be a mystery. But here again, you are obviously coming from a traditional Pentecostal bias in your reading, that you think "nobody understands" and "mysteries" gives you justification for claiming that your natural gibberish you speak is the same kind of "tongues" as what Paul is talking about.
If Paul felt that it was even remotely possible that some from within or from outside of the assembly could understand what is being said (without the Holy Spirit providing an interpretation), then he would have been compelled to address what would be a very difficult issue for the Church to address.
You mean if
you felt. We do not know what was going on in Paul's mind at the time of this writing, therefore, we only have the text to tell us, therefore your statement here is pure speculation. The context tells me that Paul's meaning of "no one" is limited to the assembly and the time of the problem. If people had already been doing what Paul is explaining, then he would not have written it.
If tongues were intended to be spoken in a known human language this would present a number of very serious problems for the Church as it would be very difficult (probably impossible) to know if someone was being empowered to speak in a given language, or if a visitor who secretly knew a specific language that others within the assembly would have known where he could insert a heretical doctrine. The same could also go for a regular member of a congregation who might learn a few sentences in a language that he knew someone or others would know in the attempt to push his own pet doctrine. As Paul was speaking to a highly multicultural society where every known language would have been known or at least passed through their towns, other than with the lingua franca languages of Latin and Greek then there could have been many dozens of secondary languages being known by various members of the Achaean congregations.
You have a very fertile imagination in your speculations. You can dream up all kinds of hypothetical situations to justify your deviation from original intent of the passage. The fact is, the proof of the miracle is in the interpretation (translation) of the tongue (language), not vice-versa. The fact that people generally know who is speaking and what they are speaking shows that someone speaking a miraculous language they didn't learn is obvious to them. Just as it is today, we can assume (speculate) that pastors of the day did not indiscriminately let just any stranger to speak in the assembly (except maybe in the aberrant practice of some Pentecostal circles like I have seen in the past, which results in general chaos, but even that is rare). The fact that it is the interpretation which reveals what is said is the proof that what was said was coming from God. When Paul talks about their tongues, he is assuming it is authentic, and telling them that they must have interpretation, or else no one is edified. When this command is obeyed, it not only eliminates the problem of the Corinthians, but it also eliminates other fleshly activity regarding tongues, including what was practiced among the pagans. The fact that pagans also had their version of tongues is known history.
Glossolalia - Wikipedia. It is also well known that Corinth was a city full of idols.
But where is Paul getting his teaching? Certainly not from the air, and not from new revelation that the other apostles didn't have. He is getting it from the orderly practices of the other churches and the way that the original apostles recognized that the tongues they spoke was from God, beginning in Acts 2. This is certainly evident by the fact that after Peter testified that it was from God, no one questioned it, because it was obvious to them. Therefore, the only way to know that tongues is a miraculous event from God is by interpretation, either from a supernatural gifting, or from someone who knows the language.
We see this problem in other ways within both Continuist and cessationist circles where many will pull the so-called God card where they claim that God has told them to do a certain thing which can be very difficult thing to challenge; it is one thing to use the God card where we claim that we believe that God is leading us in a certain direction but if someone were to speak in a human language that others presumed that he did not know then it would open up the flood-gates to every heretical and pet doctrine known to man; it would be impossible to control which is why we would expect Paul to spend a fair amount of time addressing this very complex and destructive issue, he would probably need an entire chapter in an attempt to handle this question but of course he makes no mention of such a possibility.
It is interesting that the "God card" you speak against is the very thing that your cronies claim modern tongues is evidence of. Do you believe that the tongues you speak is THE initial evidence that you have the Holy Spirit? If so, then this is your "God card."
However, when I say "God told me" I'm not exaggerating. I did hear a voice from heaven, which I recognized as my Personal Shepherd. While I was speaking in "tongues" He said "This is not of Me." Well, He did not say "don't do this" or "tell people not to do this" or any such thing, He simply said "This is not of Me." It then became my responsibility to fear God and to respond accordingly by doing some very serious study in the matter. I'm not willing to go into great detail about it, but suffice it to say that it was God's correction to me which I needed at the time.
Obviously, this begs the question, why doesn't He say this to everyone? Well, perhaps because they aren't asking. Perhaps they are assuming. Or perhaps because they don't need it. Who knows? But I also know others have received the
exact same message, but in other ways.
As to the “misuse of the gift” of tongues, other than rebuking the various churches throughout Achaea for how they (or at least with some of these congregations) were allowing uninterpreted tongues to be utilised within the congregational meetings, we do not know if these congregations had improperly attempted to employ the formula that is still unfortunately common within many contemporary Pentecostal churches with tongues + interpretation = prophecy, where they incorrectly believe that the Holy Spirit will speak to a congregation in tongues and a subsequent interpretation through the speaker or another individual. But as I said, we do not know if this was the case within that particular part of the world.
It is quite obvious from the reading of the text that Paul was addressing a specific problem in the Corinthian church, and that problem was tongues without interpretation, and the reason for the problem was self-righteous pride, as Paul was also addressing in the epistle as an evil motivation for doing what they were doing.
From my POV, the motivation for Pentecostals to do what you are describing is that they are attempting to validate modern "tongues" as a gift from God, because they are unwilling to acknowledge that it might be merely a human psychological phenomenon that is no miracle at all.
Considering that you have apparently had “20 years of Pentecostal and Charismatic experience”, how could you not know what every Pentecostal [should] understand in that the Father has established (1Cor 12:28) the Office/function of tongues within the assembly which includes both tongues and interpretation – this should be Bible101 for even the least knowledgeable Pentecostal and especially for someone who claims “20 years of experience”; but to be fair, I have certainly come across AoG members (including credentialled ministers) here in my own State who after numerous years within Pentecost appear to have gained very little knowledge on the things of the Spirit, which includes a friend of mine who is an associate minister within the AoG/ACC.
In my opinion, any congregation that claims to be Pentecostal and they do not have those who regularly employ both tongues and interpretation within their meetings that they are Pentecostal in name only, where for all intents and purposes they are essentially cessationist in practice. As for the “spontaneity” you refer to, for those who are leaders within a Pentecostal or charismatic assembly where they have not provided the framework for the members of the congregation to regularly pray in the Spirit and prophesy within their meetings, then they need to take a good look at themselves, grow-up and even repent of their fleshly behaviour and allow the Holy Spirit to work within their meetings as he is intended to.
I am actually questioning the whole basis of what Pentecostals, AoG, "Full Gospel", Charismatic, et. al. are doing. I question their interpretations. After 20 years of hearing tongues, interpretations, etc.
the way they practice it, because of my study of the scriptures and experience of real Christianity from people of all denominations and persuasions, I am not convinced that what is commonly practiced today called "tongues and interpretation" is from God, especially since God corrected me in 1985. It has taken about 25 additional years for me to be confident enough even to talk about it, and even the 6 years since then I do so with reservation. One thing I know for sure, though, and that is the doctrine which they commonly teach that if one hasn't spoken in tongues doesn't have the Holy Spirit is a false doctrine, and comes straight from the pits of hell. And if their basis is wrong, then their practice is wrong.
This of course begs the question, what about interpretations that quote scripture (or paraphrase it)? Then why is tongues necessary? Only to get people to believe in tongues? If the scripture quoted is the edification for the church, then tongues isn't necessary, since the scripture itself is available to all, and available for evaluation for that application. Since scripture is already accepted as the inspiration of God, there is no need for any miraculous authentication, except perhaps in some heathen environments. If someone was speaking an authentic miraculous tongue from God, then the interpretation would not be a common thing or general, it would be specific for specific people. In Acts, tongues (and their interpretation) was specific, and for specific people. This did not change by the time Paul wrote 1 Cor.
Let’s see, what would be preferable, the best laid plans of ‘mice-and-men’ or the direct intervention of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, particularly with reference to 1Cor 12:7-11? As for me, even though we need to see the Elders employing carefully thought out messages and teaching, I would much prefer to lay aside much of content of our all to frequent orchestrated sound and light shows that we have today within many of our so called Pentecostal meetings, where many hands throughout the week attempt to present a highly composed Sunday presentation that they try and say is being ‘led and directed by the Holy Spirit’ which is quite often nothing more than an absolute sham.
Agree, agree!! LOL. Well, let's not completely discount it. Some places make entertainment the main event, because they are trying to draw people who are addicted to entertainment just so they can hear the spoken word from the pulpit. God can use anything to save people, even things done out of poor motivations.
However, I need to address your dissing orderly meetings, since you appear to be defending the "lets be spontaneous" idea. By your response here, you apparently think that 1 Cor. 12 is a description of
unplanned spontaneous type of meetings, which is precisely my point about your traditional Pentecostal/Charismatic bias. I differ with you, because the text clearly tells me that lack of planning was the
fault of the Corinthians, and Paul was rebuking them for that. He doesn't have to clearly say "plan your meetings," since that is inherent in the explanation. Teaching about why to do something a certain way is much more effective long-term than just commanding people to do something a certain way. I see careful planning in every statement of 1 Cor. 12-14. We must even plan for
spontaneous error and how we must respond to it.
You should probably employ the word bias as against prejudice.
I tend to be a "tell it like it is" person. But you are probably right here, given that the term
prejudice has evil connotations.
As I’ve said previously in this thread and in others as in recent months, most prudent Evangelical cessationists or even with those who are secretly uncomfortable with their cessationist worldview, since at least the late 70’s most of them are increasingly less prepared to try and openly support the old cessationist position that tongues are supposed to be spoken in known human languages as they have realised that such a notion is impossible to support from within the Scriptures. In fact, I really doubt if any hard-core cessationists on this forum believe this now very dated world view, though they may of course declare it to be so even though it is something that eats away at their own consciences – it simply cannot be defended.
From my POV, I have successfully defended it, even though you aren't convinced. Everyone I talk with in my current circles believes the same. It depends on who you hang out with and their biases or persuasions. I don't know where you are getting your data. Can you show links to statistical surveys, or where you are getting your information?
It would be good to point out that being filled with the Spirit is not the same thing as praying in the Spirit as all Believers are filled (Baptised) in the Spirit even if they do not realise that they can pray in tongues. Of course the classic-Pentecostal position (i.e., AoG) says otherwise but this older understanding is finding less and less support from within Pentecostal and particularly within charismatic scholarship and hopefully the AoG will see fit to alter this erroneous understanding within a decade or so.
I'm glad to hear that they are coming around. But your bias is evident even here, as you claim "they can pray in tongues" (all believers), because Paul is clear that not all believers have that gift.
As for the feelings of ‘ecstasy and exuberance’ you should know from your “20 years of experience within Pentecost” that ecstasy has absolutely nothing to do with praying in the Spirit and even exuberance is probably only experienced while standing among many others who are worshipping their Lord; for that matter, why would the people of God not experience joy and exuberance when they stand before their Father worshipping him in the Spirit???
Hey, that’s why it is an absolute joy to be able to pray in the Spirit as we all have those times when we feel flat and a bit down hearted, so to be able to allow the Holy Spirit to praise the Father by “speaking mysteries in the Spirit” (1Cor 14:2) in the language of the heavens is an absolute joy in itself where this “uplifting” where we “build ourselves up” (1Cor 14:4) certainly helps us to cast away our anxieties and worldly cares; though of course when we worship the Father in the Spirit within the congregational setting we are to always pray quietly to ourselves to the Father (1Cor 14:28) unless we are speaking in tongues so that the word to the Father can be interpreted.
Everyone has their own way of spiritually encouraging themselves and boosting their faith, and it doesn't have to be a supernatural event. In fact, I say that if a person
needs a supernatural event to strengthen their faith, then their faith is small indeed. I'm saying that we need to be very careful of what we claim is coming from God as a miraculous event, otherwise we end up with the general chaos in many Charismatic circles where they are calling
anything a miracle, and even fraudulently inventing them.
All I can say with regard to your “20 years of experience within Pentecost” is that you must have lived in a very small and remote community! As for myself and with the vast thousands that I have heard praying in the Spirit over the years, for 99.9% of these people, even though our heavenly language is exactly that, of the angels, our tongues sound very much ‘language like’. Without wishing to offend any East Asian forum member, to my Anglo-ear, I find that my senses can go into a form of meltdown when I find myself amongst a large number of these people when they are all talking in a highly animated and tonal language – it becomes a virtual assault on my ears and these are legitimate human languages.
It is precisely my point that modern tongues is "language like" in sound, but it is a pseudo-language. In other words, it contains random syllables that have its basis in the native language of the speaker. This is why people are confused. It is unintelligible not because it is a "heavenly language," but because it has
no inherent meaning. It is a
trick of the mind. It is psychological acrobatics. It has been well-proven that anyone can do it if they really try. My point is that it is not the same thing as the obvious miracles which the apostles and the early church were doing, as is described in scripture. I'm simply trying to get people to acknowledge that.
As I live in a highly multicultural society, it is not hard for me to find myself in a crowd where I have absolutely no hope of working out if many of them are speaking in real languages (where of course they are) or if some of them are simply repeating the phonebook in reverse. In fact, as I have the stated Anglo-ear, if I were to move from within a setting where many of my compatriots are all praying in tongues at once and I were to somehow find myself within Europe in possibly an airport where I am encountering numerous European languages, then I would expect that both would sound very similar to my ear.
What you actually find if you do an controlled experiment may be quite different than what you
expect to find. The question is, are you willing to discover truth, even if it contradicts what you currently believe? Are you willing to discover (if it be true) that your tongues-speaking is actually a natural function of your mind, and not a miracle from God, even if it explodes your "vanity balloon"?
The major problem that people have is that when it comes to religion and beliefs that involve their identity and origins, beliefs and practices become an addiction. Especially when they are getting pleasures and other rewards from those practices. I have experienced the same, and it seems a crisis. It's the reason why idolatry had such a hold on the Israelites for so many centuries. People tend to hold on to their beliefs regardless of whether or not some truth to the contrary of what they believe has been "proven" to them. And since most people don't have the skill, perseverance, and commitment to discover truth from the scripture, they tend to follow their leaders. Thus, it might take 10, 20, or 100 years for most Pentecostals to acknowledge other Christians who don't speak the same "tongue", and it may take until kingdom-come for them to realize it is not a miracle from God. It has to literally become a cultural practice. Even then some people will refuse to accept it.
It could be possible that some of the Galileans knew either Latin or Greek but I wonder how many Jews of that time period who lived under the oppressive hand of their Latin (Roman) occupiers would want to learn Latin which was the language of their occupiers or even Greek for that matter. It is interesting that the crowd quickly recognised that these ‘strange people’ on the Day of Pentecost were Galileans which probably came about as a result of their Northern Galilean accent and maybe even with their dress style. This could have been the problem that Peter had when a woman pointed him out as being a follower of Jesus as his Galilean manner (accent and dress) would have made him stand out from the primarily Judean crowd. As Galilee was separated from Judah by the Samaritans then they would have developed a slightly different culture, which is what occurs with probably every other people group who are in similar circumstances.
As I have said previously, the problem with trying to say that tongues are to be given in a known human language simply has no support from within the Scriptures, which is why so many Evangelicals who are not experientially charismatic no longer choose to go down this now very dated understanding. As I regularly read articles on First Corinthians in particular, which is why I own so many commentaries on First Corinthians along with viewing numerous YouTube discussions by cessationists, it is not hard to notice that many of those who are either cessationists, quasi-cessationists or even with those who simply do not know, it is not hard to notice how many of them are uncomfortable with this particular worldview and where they will even admit that they ‘could’ possibly be wrong.
"so many commentaries," - your language appears exaggerative to me. What commentaries? Can you show certain Evangelicals who have changed their stand on this? I don't pay much attention to youtube, as it is an endless factory of untruths.
Of course, true Christians are humble enough to say "I could be wrong," which makes them vulnerable to deception. Even Jesus said "if possible, even the elect" might be deceived, which is an acknowledgement of our vulnerability.
I’ve often wondered if I were to debate the question in a college setting where I had to present the position that tongues were intended to be given in known human languages as to how I would go about doing this. I would probably have to use a bit of deception by twisting the meaning of some Greek words and I would definitely have to try and ignore 1Cor 13:1 and 14:2 but short of pulling every sneaky card I could muster it would not be a task I would relish. In my opinion it would be akin to presenting the view that the earth is flat.
As the cessationist worldview either states that tongues are always to be given in a known human language, or that angelic/heavenly speech ceased either with the death of the Apostles or with the completion of the Canon of Scripture, then your view does unfortunately place you square within the cessationist camp, it’s just the way it is.
Regardless of what "camp" you say I'm in, I hold to Reformation Theology, which is really Augustinian in basis, which is really Pauline Theology. I hold to the generally accepted hermeneutical methods of interpretation which is the grammatical-historical method, which is the method used for centuries, and I oppose the reader-response method of interpretation which is commonly used among Pentecostals and Charismatics.
I'm just saying that what I see described in the scripture as miraculous events, specifically called "gifts of the Spirit" namely miraculous tongues and interpretation, I just don't see it happening. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, or it can't happen, or any such thing. I do believe in miracles, because I've seen them and heard testimonies from people who have received miracles, such as instantaneous healings. What I don't believe is that these things are commonplace. What I don't believe is that events (such as natural healings) which can be categorized as the Providence of God should be called miracles, because miracles are obvious events that are impossible from a natural standpoint. Miracles are events which show that a supernatural power was at work, such as an instantaneous healing from a terminal illness, or a blind person given sight, or parting of waters. Or even speaking in an unknown language (unknown to you), where someone actually understands what you are saying, or someone else speaking an unknown language, and you understand what it means as if they are speaking your native language. That is how I define miraculous events, and I just don't see that happening. What I see is people who are speaking psychological gibberish, and others trying to validate it with an "interpretation" that comes straight from their imagination. It reminds me of the words of Jeremiah "you have hewn out for yourselves broken cisterns that cannot hold water."
I never said "it doesn't happen today" and never meant it (i.e. Biblical tongues and interpretation). I don't know whether it does or not. I'm simply saying that in 20 years and hundreds of times (possibly thousands?) I have never seen or heard a miraculous event of Biblical tongues and interpretation the way I am describing it here. I'm saying there is something wrong with the picture.
TD