Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[Major1]

Well, I have to say that I believe the word "gibberish" is very derogatory, and I hate when people say that is all Pentecostal tongues is. It actually hurts my heart that they are criticizing God's gift. That is NOT the fear of the Lord as I see it. I don't care if people use their gift or not, but I hate their dishonor of God and ridicule of brothers in sisters in Christ.

I agree. It is a derogatory word. However, what is the word that you would use to describe the noise made from those in a Pentecostal service?????
Please watch this video and tell me what you would want us to call what is taking place.................

We can debate are argue all day, but a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You spoke in a foreign human language you had never learned?

Yes.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Actually it means that a lost person who was encouraged to attend a church, enters and sees the confusion, leaves the same way he came in......LOST!

Right. It seems that the Corinthians received all the gifts, however, they were displaying them all at once, including their prayer and praise language. That had never been seen before in history until the Church received this ability. And tongues is such an unusual gift that if everyone were all speaking different languages at once, there would be such a cacophony of sounds...well you can imagine the confusion that would create. Paul taught them order as to not cause people to leave in fear or contempt.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I agree. It is a derogatory word. However, what is the word that you would use to describe the noise made from those in a Pentecostal service?????
Please watch this video and tell me what you would want us to call what is taking place.................

We can debate are argue all day, but a picture is worth a thousand words.

You can call it what the church fathers called it, ecstatic utterances.

 

[tdidymas]

the verb in question is συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος (synepimartyrountos) it comes from the root for "with" and "testify" used a sort of portmanteau way. In the text it is in the present tense active participle and it should agree with the tense of the context which in the aorist (completed tense) which is seen in previous verbiage like "...confirmed to us by those who heard him..." if συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος means testifying-with and agrees with the previous aorist tense a translation like the NASB "God also testifying with them..." captures this.

What does this mean? The tense of the verb, while it agrees with tense of the context (aorist tense) it does not render these actions as finished that we should no longer expect them, which I would suggest is out of scope of the passage. It is a contextual reference where the author is showing that when these things happen they were ordained by God. Showing that these signs and wonders have ceased is simply not what this text is about and if the author intended to say this he does so very obscurely.

And yet, he makes no claim of doing any miraculous act himself, as he excludes himself from that activity. At the very least this verse ought to prove that anyone who claims that tongues is for every believer doesn't know what they are talking about.

It is not so obscure if you know the timelines of church history. This logic makes sense when you see that there were prolific miracles at first, and gradually dropped off for the first 20 years or so, until toward the end of the 1st Century there was hardly mention of any.
TD

 

[swordsman1]

You can call it what the church fathers called it, ecstatic utterances.

The church fathers called them foreign human languages.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The church fathers called them foreign human languages.

No, in the Bible, they were called the tongues of men and of angels. They were both. But after the Bible, the church fathers called them ecstatic utterances, no matter what the language.

 

[tdidymas]

Well, I have to say that I believe the word "gibberish" is very derogatory, and I hate when people say that is all Pentecostal tongues is. It actually hurts my heart that they are criticizing God's gift. That is NOT the fear of the Lord as I see it. I don't care if people use their gift or not, but I hate their dishonor of God and ridicule of brothers in sisters in Christ.

I agree that sometimes the truth hurts. So certain terms might sound derogatory to you. Ok, then what about false tongues? Does this sound more acceptable to you? I have yet to hear any tongues or interpretation that was Biblical. My challenge and question still stand, and no one has attempted to give answer as of yet.
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
TD

 

[swordsman1]

No, in the Bible, they were called the tongues of men and of angels. They were both. But after the Bible, the church fathers called them ecstatic utterances, no matter what the language.

Nobody spoke in the tongues of angels in the bible. That was Paul using an exaggerated hypothetical example to make the point that even having the gifts to the highest degree conceivable would be worthless without love.

The church fathers, speaking immediately after the apostolic age, called them foreign human languages:

Augustine
With a view to this fellowship they to whom He first came spake with the tongues of all nations. Because as by tongues the fellowship of mankind is more closely united; so it behoved that this fellowship of the sons of God and members of Christ which was to be among all nations should be signified by the tongues of all nations; that as at that time he was known to have received the Holy Ghost, who spake with the tongues of all nations.

John Chrysostom
And as in the time of building the tower [of Babel] the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak divers languages.
...
And so each began to speak, one in the tongue of the Persians, another in that of the Romans, another in that of the Indians, or in some other language. And this disclosed to outsiders that it was the Spirit in the speaker.

Gregory of Nazianzus
They spoke with foreign tongues, and not those of their native land; and the wonder was great, a language spoken by those who had not learned it.

Theodoret of Cyrus
But for anyone speaking in Corinth it was pointless to use the languages of the Scythians or Persians or Egyptians, since the Corinthians could not understand them. That is why the apostle says that one who speaks in tongues speaks not to men but to God. For he adds this: for no one understands him.​

Nobody used the term 'ecstatic utterences' until around the start of the twentieth century.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I agree that sometimes the truth hurts. So certain terms might sound derogatory to you. Ok, then what about false tongues? Does this sound more acceptable to you? I have yet to hear any tongues or interpretation that was Biblical. My challenge and question still stand, and no one has attempted to give answer as of yet.
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
TD

The problem is, tongues can be mimiced. Just like someone can give a false prophecy. Or a false doctrine based on the Word of God with man's interpretation. None of that means the Word of God on these is false. Or that the Holy Spirit has stopped working now that the Bible has been printed, as many would like to claim - a false doctrine. No one who has not been baptized in the Spirit is able to speak in true tongues of the 1st century. So some who are still seeking God may want it so badly they mimic what they've heard others who do have the Spirit speak.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Nobody spoke in the tongues of angels in the bible. That was Paul using an exaggerated hypothetical example to make the point that even having the gifts to the highest degree conceivable would be worthless without love.

The church fathers, speaking immediately after the apostolic age, called them foreign human languages:

Augustine
With a view to this fellowship they to whom He first came spake with the tongues of all nations. Because as by tongues the fellowship of mankind is more closely united; so it behoved that this fellowship of the sons of God and members of Christ which was to be among all nations should be signified by the tongues of all nations; that as at that time he was known to have received the Holy Ghost, who spake with the tongues of all nations.

John Chrysostom
And as in the time of building the tower [of Babel] the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak divers languages.
...
And so each began to speak, one in the tongue of the Persians, another in that of the Romans, another in that of the Indians, or in some other language. And this disclosed to outsiders that it was the Spirit in the speaker.

Gregory of Nazianzus
They spoke with foreign tongues, and not those of their native land; and the wonder was great, a language spoken by those who had not learned it.

Theodoret of Cyrus
But for anyone speaking in Corinth it was pointless to use the languages of the Scythians or Persians or Egyptians, since the Corinthians could not understand them. That is why the apostle says that one who speaks in tongues speaks not to men but to God. For he adds this: for no one understands him.​

Nobody used the term 'ecstatic utterences' until around the start of the twentieth century.

The Bible gives examples of what happened, but doesn't mention every time someone spoke in tongues and what language it was, whether of men or of angels. But the tongues of angels was mentioned. Just because YOU don't believe Paul, that he was just exaggerating a false example is just you, quoting you. I'm sorry you believe Augustine's words were inspired. I take it you are Catholic.

 

[swordsman1]

The Bible gives examples of what happened, but doesn't mention every time someone spoke in tongues and what language it was, whether of men or of angels. But the tongues of angels was mentioned. Just because YOU don't believe Paul, that he was just exaggerating a false example is just you, quoting you. I'm sorry you believe Augustine's words were inspired. I take it you are Catholic.

You can tell Paul was exaggerating by looking at the subsequent 2 verses. There are 5 parallel exaggerated examples of gifts.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You can tell Paul was exaggerating by looking at the subsequent 2 verses. There are 5 parallel exaggerated examples of gifts.

Nothing he wrote was not true. It still would have been an "exaggeration" if he had said, it I could speak the tongues of every nation, or tongues of man and animals. Why say angels, if they didn't have a distinct language that God understands. What you fail to understand is that the tongues were not meant to be understood by anyone present. The understanding only came through the supernatural gift of interpretation of tongues. It wasn't someone who naturally understood every language and interpreted the tongues naturally. So tongues are not meant to be understood by you or anybody else, or even a linguistic. God makes foolish the wisdom of men.

 

[tdidymas]

The problem is, tongues can be mimiced. Just like someone can give a false prophecy. Or a false doctrine based on the Word of God with man's interpretation. None of that means the Word of God on these is false. Or that the Holy Spirit has stopped working now that the Bible has been printed, as many would like to claim - a false doctrine. No one who has not been baptized in the Spirit is able to speak in true tongues of the 1st century. So some who are still seeking God may want it so badly they mimic what they've heard others who do have the Spirit speak.

some who are still seeking God may want it so badly they mimic what they've heard

And why do you think this is so prolific in Charismatic circles? It is because of the false doctrine that has traditionally been taught, namely: "tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit," and further confirmed by the false idea that "every person who is baptized in the Spirit speaks in tongues". Such false ideas are not supported by the scripture and is one of the main reasons why we are here debating the subject.

You commonly judge others based on your pet doctrines, but whenever someone judges you based on doctrine, you get upset, which is hypocritical. It appears to me that you just want to argue to try to win an argument or get the last word in, rather than receive the truth, because every time we say something that makes Biblical and hermeneutical sense, you avoid it like the plague. You either go to judgment, or nitpick at what you think is wrong, or try an evasion by diverting attention to something else. The only thing I have seen you concede to is some statement that could be construed as agreeing with your Charismatic doctrine.

I'm here to say "stop the nonsense!" I have a clear challenge and question up that no one seems to want to address so far:
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
TD

 

[swordsman1]

Nothing he wrote was not true. It still would have been an "exaggeration" if he had said, it I could speak the tongues of every nation, or tongues of man and animals. Why say angels, if they didn't have a distinct language that God understands.

Because that was the highest conceivable example of tongues Paul could imagine. You can tell he is speaking hypothetically because of the word "IF" and the wild exaggerated examples such as having the gift of prophecy to such a degree that you know all mysteries and all knowledge (omniscience); of having faith to such a degree as removing mountains; of giving to such a degree that you give away all your possessions and even give up your own life. Those are all clearly extreme hypothetical examples to make the point that having the gifts, even to the highest degree conceivable, would be worthless without love.

Nowhere does it say tongues is a non-human language.

 

[1stcenturylady]

And why do you think this is so prolific in Charismatic circles? It is because of the false doctrine that has traditionally been taught, namely: "tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit," and further confirmed by the false idea that "every person who is baptized in the Spirit speaks in tongues". Such false ideas are not supported by the scripture and is one of the main reasons why we are here debating the subject.

You commonly judge others based on your pet doctrines, but whenever someone judges you based on doctrine, you get upset, which is hypocritical. It appears to me that you just want to argue to try to win an argument or get the last word in, rather than receive the truth, because every time we say something that makes Biblical and hermeneutical sense, you avoid it like the plague. You either go to judgment, or nitpick at what you think is wrong, or try an evasion by diverting attention to something else. The only thing I have seen you concede to is some statement that could be construed as agreeing with your Charismatic doctrine.

I'm here to say "stop the nonsense!" I have a clear challenge and question up that no one seems to want to address so far:
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
TD

You cannot be saved without receiving the Holy Spirit, right? What is the purpose Jesus gives us the Holy Spirit? To speak in tongues? No! To kill the flesh. To have power not to sin. Without holiness, no one will see God.

The gifts are on top of that main reason. What is the reason for the "best" gifts, such as the "hearing" gifts. We hear a word of wisdom, we hear a word of knowledge, we hear prophecy, we hear the interpretation of tongues. It is for fellowship with God, and the building of faith. Prayer is no longer a one way conversation, like a telegram. It is a telephone. But one thing about prayer. What if the prayer is not God's will? What then? Does He even hear us? I've thought about this, and dwelt on 1 John 5:14-15

14 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him."

In other words, God is faithful to positively answer our prayers that are according to His will. The false idea that God sometimes says, "No" is false. The burden is on us to pray according to His will. It is the Spirit of God who knows the will of God. This is the main reason for speaking in tongues. To pray perfect prayer. Therefore, I will pray with the Spirit, and I will pray in my understanding.

Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

So who does the uttering? WE DO! They are ecstatic utterances.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints

Now the debate should be is there two kinds of tongues or just one. I have learned there are two. Praying TO God perfect prayer and praise - the one He gives to all who believe and is baptized - Mark 16; and receiving messages FROM God, that require supernatural interpretation. This is the gift of diverse kinds of tongues of 1 Corinthians 12. And as the end of the chapter says about apostles, prophets, etc. this office of receiving messages in tongues from God as well as those who are given the gift of interpretation of tongues is not given to all, but a few.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Because that was the highest conceivable example of tongues Paul could imagine. You can tell he is speaking hypothetically because of the word "IF" and the wild exaggerated examples such as having the gift of prophecy to such a degree that you know all mysteries and all knowledge (omniscience); of having faith to such a degree as removing mountains; of giving to such a degree that you give away all your possessions and even give up your own life. Those are all clearly extreme hypothetical examples to make the point that having the gifts, even to the highest degree conceivable, would be worthless without love.

Nowhere does it say tongues is a non-human language.

I disagree. It is ANY language that God creates, and of ANY being that God created, which includes angels.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Because that was the highest conceivable example of tongues Paul could imagine. You can tell he is speaking hypothetically because of the word "IF" and the wild exaggerated examples such as having the gift of prophecy to such a degree that you know all mysteries and all knowledge (omniscience); of having faith to such a degree as removing mountains; of giving to such a degree that you give away all your possessions and even give up your own life. Those are all clearly extreme hypothetical examples to make the point that having the gifts, even to the highest degree conceivable, would be worthless without love.

Nowhere does it say tongues is a non-human language.

Yes, the chapter is on love which is the highest fruit of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tdidymas]

Now the debate should be is there two kinds of tongues or just one. I have learned there are two. Praying TO God perfect prayer and praise - the one He gives to all who believe and is baptized - Mark 16; and receiving messages FROM God, that require supernatural interpretation. This is the gift of diverse kinds of tongues of 1 Corinthians 12. And as the end of the chapter says about apostles, prophets, etc. this office of receiving messages in tongues from God as well as those who are given the gift of interpretation of tongues is not given to all, but a few.

This doctrine that there are different kinds of tongues (and that one kind is what modern Pentecostals is practicing) is not supported by the scripture. It is only supported by a cultic-type bias of interpreting various verses taken out of context. The nature of tongues did not change from Acts to 1 Cor. If it did, the scripture would tell us it did, but it doesn't. The wrong method of interpreting scripture is to try to cram your personal experience into how the scripture reads, and this requires reading the text with a pretext.

The method I use is to simply ask what does the scripture say clearly. If we use Acts 2 as the precedent on the details of tongues, its purpose, how used, and what it looked like, we see it fits perfectly with 1 Cor. You cannot say that because Paul said "he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God" that he means the nature of tongues changed from Acts to 1 Cor., because in Acts the tongues they were speaking were to God, not to men. It was prayer, praise and worship, and declaring the mighty acts of God, and they were directing the prayer to God. The fact that unbelievers heard what they were praying and understood it is the proof that what they did was miraculous.

Now let me interject an experiential hypothesis here: the first moment that a person is filled with the Spirit, do you think that person will speak (or shout, or whatever) to God, or do you think it will be to men? The fact that in Acts 2 it says nothing about them speaking to the crowd, we must assume that they were speaking to God. "Divers tongues" in the 1 Cor. context is the same various languages that were spoken in Acts 2. Your doctrine that there were 2 kinds of tongues is simply not true.
TD

 

[Major1]

You can call it what the church fathers called it, ecstatic utterances.

If Paul was talking about a gift of "unknown tongues," that is, unknown to man and God—a gibberish—he would have supplied the word unknown, but in the Greek manuscripts there is no such word anyplace! If he was writing about ecstatic speech, he should have used the word ecstatic, but neither does this word occur anywhere in the ancient manuscripts of 1 Corinthians 14!