Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[DamianWarS]

And that is the whole point I have been saying from the beginning. Actually you are sounding a whole lot like what we who do not accept speaking in tongues have been saying.

Anyone who says that they attend a church who follows the Biblical directions given in the Scriptures is IMO being "very creative" in their explanation.

As I have said, I was brought up in the Pentecostal church and have attend more of them than I can remember and I have NEVER seen tongues done Biblically!

That alone was the key to my looking at WHY they were not done Biblically. I have concluded that IMO it is because of the emotions of those who want to speak in tongues. My witness is that those really wonderful Christian believers get so caught up in heir emotions and their worship experience that it bubbles over into them using their tongues in a way which edifies' them instead of spreading the Gospel.

I have witnessed tongues being manifested in very scriptural ways and I've witnessed them not following what is detailed in Corinthians. The thing here the Corinthian church had abuse and seems to desire tongues to what seems to be abuse levels... can you think of an example of that today? sure we all can, yet Paul still concludes to "do not forbid speaking in tongues" I have no time for abuse and just as Paul says let us too not forbid the speaking of tongues simply because there is abuse but rather use this as a cause to uphold biblical practices.

 

[DamianWarS]

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

do we use examples of a falling out in history to explain doctrine now?

 

[1stcenturylady]

In my view it is not a case of malpractice and abuse of genuine gifts, but a case of them not being genuine gifts to start with. What people today call the gifts of tongues, prophecy and healing do not match the biblical descriptions of those gifts.

This is where you and Major1 agree, but not with scripture. Paul already said the opposite of your beliefs that they "were not genuine." They were, and Paul says so, no matter what you believe.

1 Corinthians 1:4-9 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given to you by Christ Jesus, 5 that you were enriched in everything by Him in all utterance and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[DamianWarS]

Of course words have multiple meanings. "Ball" can mean a round thing you throw about, or it can mean a dancing party. We use the context to determine which one it is: "He threw the ball into the grass", "We are going to the ball".

Here is the Mounce Lexicon entry for teleios with its various meanings and usage examples:

- brought to completion; fully accomplished, fully developed, Jas. 1:4a;

- fully realized, thorough, 1 Jn. 4:18;

- complete, entire, as opposed to what is partial and limited, 1 Cor. 13:10;

- full grown of ripe age, 1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:13; Heb. 5:14;

- fully accomplished in Christian enlightenment, 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15; Col. 1:28;

- perfect in some point of character, without shortcoming in respect of a certain standard, Mt. 5:48; 19:21; Col. 4:12; Jas. 1:4b; 3:2;

- perfect, consummate, Rom. 12:2; Jas. 1:17, 25;

- compar. of higher excellence and efficiency, Heb. 9:11*​

Of those different definitions 'completeness' fits the context best in my view for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

this may come to a surprise to you but ball ("a round thing you throw about") and ball ("a dancing party") are two different words.

hom·o·nym: each of two or more words having the same spelling but different meanings and origins

not 1 word with 2 meanings but 2 words that have the same spelling with different meanings.

hom·o·graph: each of two or more words spelled the same but not necessarily pronounced the same and having different meanings and origins

again not 1 word with 2 meanings but 2 words that sound the same but have different meanings.

I can assure you however there are no homonyms/homographs for teleion. the word is what the word is and although context will have slight nuances especially in greek with different morphology the word is far more constant that you give it credit but translations can be more flexible. All these lexicons are in english and they are reflecting an english grasp on the word not a original greek context of the word.

 

[1stcenturylady]

do we use examples of a falling out in history to explain doctrine now?

..

 

[tdidymas]

do we use examples of a falling out in history to explain doctrine now?

The history and the doctrine fit together like a hand in a glove.

Seriously, the historical lesson is simply to point out what actually has happened. I take doctrine from the scripture.

I guess I need to start spreading around my challenge and question, as I haven't had any favorable response to it:
Prove the authenticity of your glossalalia:
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

Please explain in detail how you are edified:
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
TD

 

[DamianWarS]

The completion of the canon is not an obscure concept. Paul and his readers would already be familiar with such a concept seeing as they already had one completed canon, the Old Testament. They knew that they were now under a new covenant. So it is quite reasonable for them to be expecting a completed New Testament to guide them in the new covenant age.

If you think seeing the completed canon in this passage is cryptic, then the continuist interpretation is even more cryptic seeing that neither Christ nor his return is mentioned in the passage. Nowhere in scripture does the Greek word teleios ever refer to the return of Christ, the eternal state or anything eschatological. Nor does it fit the analogy of child maturing into an adult. Nor does it work with faith, hope & love outlasting the 3 gifts, if the faith and hope cease at the Parousia.

The doctrine of cessationism is not based solely on this passage. There are many other passages that support it such as Eph 2:20 where it says the church was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone". Foundations are only built once at the beginning of the structure, not when it is nearly complete. If apostles ceased at the end of the apostolic age, and few people would dispute that, then so did NT prophecy. Apostleship was also gift, so there is one gift that most people agree has ceased - so why not others that are also foundational?

Then there is the obvious fact that the charismatic gifts did actually cease shortly after the apostolic age. The writings of the church fathers testify to that, and the doctrine of cessationism was widely accepted up until the start of the twentieth century with the rise of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements when people claimed that these gifts were now being restored. However these claimed gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing do not match the biblical descriptions of those gifts.

the concept is not obscure but the alleged biblical support for it is. it is perfectly reasonable that the 1st century church had the ability to conceive of such a canon but it is irresponsible to use biblical support to predict this event.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The history and the doctrine fit together like a hand in a glove.

Seriously, the historical lesson is simply to point out what actually has happened. I take doctrine from the scripture.
TD

Tertullian spoke in tongues around 200 A.D.

All we have to do is look at ancient history. Eli was not a good high priest, and his sons were even worse. That is why in 1 Samuel 3 it says "Now the boy Samuel ministered to the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no widespread revelation.

The same could be said of the Church. They grew cold and even added paganism practices and attire to the Bride of Christ! Is it any wonder that the gifts of the Spirit were rare. But God always had a remnant, even through the darkest ages of the Church.

Today, now close to the end of time, there are people of the Philadelphian church age who are hungry for God and keep His whole Word. That is why the Holy Spirit is no longer rare, but constant in those who are on fire for God.

I find it hysterical that grown people would use our church history as a basis for what is true in the Word of God, instead of the other way around!

 

[tdidymas]

I'm not disagreeing that they are real intelligible languages. Did you think I was? Where? If I went into a Chinese restaurant and went into their kitchen, do you think I would be able to understand anything they were saying to each other? No, but that doesn't mean they weren't speaking an intelligible language, just because I didn't understand, nor were they talking to me.

And by the way, I do not come from a traditional anything! I teach both Pentecostals and Cessationists.

And Acts was not the fulfillment of Mark, but of Joel 2. But it was the BEGINNING, not the END.

You seem to think that today is different from the 1st century. That everyone would be able to understand the gift of tongues? Is that what you are saying? I don't want to put words in your mouth like everyone is doing to me.

I don't want to put words in your mouth like everyone is doing to me

Actually, that's about 50% of what you did to me in this thread!!

Did you think I was? Where?

I'm not going to scan back to get links, but several times you responded in a way that confused real languages from false tongues, even after I explained in detail that I was talking about false tongues (at the time I was calling it gibberish). I think I called you on it at least once. You complained that I was being derogatory on the "gift of God" as you called it, even though I was clearly talking about false tongues which I have heard from Pentecostals.

It is quite apparent to me that your hostility toward skeptics like myself hinders you from thinking things through and giving helpful responses.

And as always, my challenge still stands, as no one has addressed it yet.
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Tertullian spoke in tongues around 200 A.D.

All we have to do is look at ancient history. Eli was not a good high priest, and his sons were even worse. That is why in 1 Samuel 3 it says "Now the boy Samuel ministered to the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no widespread revelation.

The same could be said of the Church. They grew cold and even added paganism practices and attire to the Bride of Christ! Is it any wonder that the gifts of the Spirit were rare. But God always had a remnant, even through the darkest ages of the Church.

Today, now close to the end of time, there are people of the Philadelphian church age who are hungry for God and keep His whole Word. That is why the Holy Spirit is no longer rare, but constant in those who are on fire for God.

I find it hysterical that grown people would use our church history as a basis for what is true in the Word of God, instead of the other way around!

Yet more evasion of the OP and the issue I am addressing.
Prove the authenticity of your glossalalia:
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

Please explain in detail how you are edified:
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
TD

 

[DamianWarS]

The history and the doctrine fit together like a hand in a glove.

Seriously, the historical lesson is simply to point out what actually has happened. I take doctrine from the scripture.
TD

then let's use scripture to prove scripture not history. this is where the problem is, the Corinthians text is reversed interpreted by looking at post-biblical historical account then superimposing it over this verse to say this is what Paul meant.... or as you put it "fit together like a hand in a glove"

history does not shape doctrine like a hand shapes a glove nor does it prove/disprove doctrine. Any number of heresies can be propped up by looking at a historical account as our main source of verification. Since this is a matter of doctrine scripture should confirm scripture and a historical account should agree with it by observing this doctrine but the doctrine is not dependant upon a historical observation... history itself proves that.

 

[tdidymas]

then let's use scripture to prove scripture not history. this is where the problem is, the Corinthians text is reversed interpreted by looking at post-biblical historical account then superimposing it over this verse to say this is what Paul meant.... or as you put it "fit together like a hand in a glove"

history does not shape doctrine like a hand shapes a glove nor does it prove/disprove doctrine. Any number of heresies can be propped up by looking at a historical account as our main source of verification. Since this is a matter of doctrine scripture should confirm scripture and a historical account should agree with it by observing this doctrine but the doctrine is not dependant upon a historical observation... history itself proves that.

I disagree, because history and archaeology are often used to verify what is taught in scripture. If you don't know the historical timeline of the expression of miracles, and use that as at least a partial guide or one aspect of your hermeneutic, then you can get off track. Such has happened plenty of times. Your claim (i.e. the claim of Charismatics) is that the churches always had the gifts of the Spirit in full operation because of your slant on scripture interpretation, and my point is that history proves that slant wrong.

Have you ever heard of the "historical-grammatical" method of hermeneutics? I'm sure you have, as it has been used for centuries. This method is a major obstacle to the typical method of Charismatic interpretation, as it focuses on history and scripture only, whereas the Charismatic method tries to match scripture meaning with personal subjective experience. If you assume that the tongues movement we have today is the same as Biblical tongues, then all your interpretations will be slanted to that. Therefore, I'm not going to leave history out. Sorry to disappoint you.

Instead of redebating all this, why not just cut to the chase? Simply meet my challenge and question:
Prove the authenticity of your glossalalia:
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
Please explain in detail how you are edified:
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
TD

 

[1stcenturylady]

Actually, that's about 50% of what you did to me in this thread!!


I'm not going to scan back to get links, but several times you responded in a way that confused real languages from false tongues, even after I explained in detail that I was talking about false tongues (at the time I was calling it gibberish). I think I called you on it at least once. You complained that I was being derogatory on the "gift of God" as you called it, even though I was clearly talking about false tongues which I have heard from Pentecostals.

It is quite apparent to me that your hostility toward skeptics like myself hinders you from thinking things through and giving helpful responses.

And as always, my challenge still stands, as no one has addressed it yet.
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
TD

The sign and gift of tongues are legitimate languages made by God, as are all languages. It is NOT meaningless to God as if it was just your "gibberish." It is to Him we pray to, and all that matters is that He understand. That is 1 Corinthians 14:2, and Mark 16:17, and what happened on the Day of Pentecost.

But the sister ability can also be used to receive messages FROM God, and that is the Gift that requires interpretation, and verse 6 tells us what those interpretations could be. These are what is in 1 Corinthians 12, and because it is used in Church and only a few 2-3 are to speak in tongues with one who has the gift of interpretation of tongues to interpret so all can understand, not everyone is given these two gifts. We know there are two, because there are two directions - TO AND FROM. One requires interpretation, whereas the first does not as God already knows what is being said and it is TO Him, not to man.

But EVERYONE who believes has the ability to pray supernaturally to God, praying perfect prayer to see His will come to pass in the world and in the Church. Again, that is 1 Cor. 14:2 and Mark 16:17, Acts 2 and Eph. 6:18.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Yet more evasion of the OP and the issue I am addressing.
Prove the authenticity of your glossalalia:
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

Please explain in detail how you are edified:
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?
TD

I'm not sure there is a way to prove it to you that you would accept.

Your question is like the atheists asking us to prove God. If the overwhelming evidence doesn't prove it to you, nothing will.

All I can tell you is I would rather be in a church among Christians who have direct contact with God, than in a dead church where you leave the same way you came in. I am thankful that we believe in going to Christ for healing. I'm thankful for the miracles I've seen on par with water into wine. And most of all I'm thankful for having power over sin where I know the reality of 1 John 3:9.

 

[Biblicist]

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.

I should point out that very few contemporary charismatics believe in the position of subsequence, though classic-Pentecostals such as the AoG certainly do and non-classic Pentecostals such as myself do not.

When it comes to being able to pray in the Spirit (tongues), this is certainly something that all Believers can choose to do and if some choose not to allow the Holy Spirit to pray through them to the Father then I guess that this is there prerogative.

 

[Biblicist]

Please explain in detail how you are edified:
Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

As many consistent Calvinists (and some Reformed) reject the Biblical position that a Child of God can both pray to the Father and that we can see certain events altered as a result, then if you do not hold to the Calvinist/Reformed views then why would you ever say that when we pray to the Father that we are not edified - can you explain why prayer is of no edification for the Saints.

 

[Biblicist]

I hope this is the last time I will have say this. The sign and gift of tongues are legitimate languages made by God, as are all languages. . .

As our prayer language is always spoken to the Father in a non-human (angelic) tongue, are you equating our heavenly tongue with that of a [human] language?

 

[1stcenturylady]

As our prayer language is always spoken to the Father in a non-human (angelic) tongue, are you equating our heavenly tongue with that of a [human] language?

God is the creator of all languages. Because Paul mentioned the tongues of men and of angels, I don't hold to the angelic tongue only belief. However, the language spoken is not of any person present. Like if I spoke Russian, a Russian doesn't have to be present for the gift of interpretation of tongues to be understood.

I only use "heavenly language" as meaning through the Holy Spirit, not necessarily the tongues of angels only.

I know I've spoken in more than one language. Once it was Native American but I don't know what I said. Normally, it sounds like one of the more musical languages, but I only know English, and have never received the gift of interpretation.

 

[Biblicist]

God is the creator of all languages. Because Paul mentioned the tongues of men and of angels, I don't hold to the angelic tongue only belief. However, the language spoken is not of any person present. Like if I spoke Russian, a Russian doesn't have to be present for the gift of interpretation of tongues to be understood.

I only use "heavenly language" as meaning through the Holy Spirit, not necessarily the tongues of angels only.

I know I've spoken in more than one language. Once it was Native American but I don't know what I said. Normally, it sounds like one of the more musical languages, but I only know English, and have never received the gift of interpretation.

Thanks for the qualification and I might leave it alone for now.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Thanks for the qualification and I might leave it alone for now.

Yes, we may not be on the same page, but it only matters to God what language we are speaking. He's the creator of it, so if He wants to give someone the tongues of angels only, I'd love to hear it.