- Mar 28, 2005
- 21,816
- 10,795
- 76
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
Paul explained it in 1 Corinthians 14. He compares it to the Assyrians who invaded Israel as part of the judgement of God for Israels idolatry. The Assyrian language was a foreign language that sounded like stammering gibberish to them. Israel was God's promised land to them and the presence of foreign invaders with a gibberish language signaled God's judgement on their idolatry and unbelief.How is tongues a sign to unbelievers? If an unbeliever hears people talking and can't understand what they are saying, how is this a sign? It's not a sign of anything except they cannot understand what is said. When Paul is using the word "sign," he is talking about pointing the unbeliever to God and telling him that a miracle is happening. How can an unbeliever know it is a miracle, unless that unbeliever understands what is being said (as they did in Acts 2)?
Because the tongues at Acts 2 were understandable languages, they did not fit the "sign for unbelievers" model, because the languages they heard were not foreign to them.
The "sign for unbelievers" description of tongues is not that unbelievers understand what is being spoken, but that they don't understand it because it is foreign to them in the same way as the gospel is foreign to those who are blinded in their unbelief by the god of this world.
Therefore, tongues without interpretation was and is not appropriate in believers' meetings because it is not a sign to believers when a tongues message is spoken followed by an interpretation.
[/quote]If an unbeliever hears tongues and can't understand it, they will say "you're crazy" because from their point of view, you are trying to communicate something to them that makes no sense. [/quote]
True!!
Tongues which are understandable by believers is not a sign at all. This is mere guesswork.That's no sign at all. It's only a sign if the language spoken is unlearned by the speaker, and it proves to be a miracle (thus, miraculous sign) by either the unbeliever knows the language (like Acts 2), or the language is interpreted so that the unbeliever understands that what was spoken was from God. The point is, it is only a 'sign' if it points to God by being proven a miracle (like Acts 2).
You don't know that, because you have no practical knowledge of the gift of tongues and are influenced by teachers who are prejudiced against it.Modern tongues gibberish doesn't do that.
You don't have the level of knowledge to make that statement. It is just not credible.With that said, let us examine carefully the context of 14:21-24
This whole context was fulfilled in every way on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. But let us examine it in the context of the Corinthian church:
v. 21: Paul is setting up his statement in v. 22 by quoting the law. Incidentally this is Hebrew law, not gentile law, yet Paul has to have a basis for his teaching, and so he uses the OT.[/quotes]
Proves nothing.
You are twisting Paul's words and making nonsense out of them. He never said that at all.v. 22: He is not teaching the gentile believers in Corinth to speak gibberish to unbelievers as a sign here. His point in saying tongues are a sign for unbelievers is to contrast with prophecy, that prophecy is the greater act. Prophecy is for believers because believers can discern what is real vs. what is false by the words spoken. If God speaks prophecy through a prophet, the words are received by believers. But believers don't need a sign to authenticate the message, because they can discern if a message is from God. Unbelievers need a sign that a message is from God because they don't have the discerning Spirit working in them to confirm that the message is from God, this is why they need the sign.
I can live with that one. Although I wasn't turned away by everyone speaking in tongues when I visited a tongues-speaking church for the first time. I found it exciting and fascinating.v. 23: If the Corinthian church lets the disorder go on, where people are speaking in tongues without an interpretation, any unbeliever present will say they're crazy, because their tongues isn't hitting home. It's just a bunch of babbling to them, because they don't understand anything. Believers know what's going on, because they already know that what is spoken is a gift of the Spirit (howbeit, they won't be edified because there is no translation, thus Paul's rebuke). But also Paul is rebuking the Corinthians because unbelievers also won't be edified by the truth, but rather they will be turned away by the disorder.
I can live with that one too.v. 24: That is why Paul concludes with this statement, that the unbeliever will be convicted of his sin and of his unbelief, if there is interpretation or prophecy that he understands what is being said. First the sign of tongues, then the message of truth that convicts the sinner, and the unbeliever will more likely become a believer because of the word of truth that convicts him, authenticated by the sign of miraculous tongues.
These verse do not demand that tongues be a human language. Paul never said that. Your statement about it pushing away unbelievers is historically false because the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches have the highest rate of unbelievers becoming believers than all the traditional churches combined. I think that anti-Pentecostals are motivated more by jealousy because they have more converts and better church growth then they do, and by envy, because Pentecostals and Charismatics have greater love, peace and joy in their worship than any other and they feel gutted that they can't achieve the same life in their services that would attract unbelievers to their Christian "clubs".This is how scripture fits perfectly together. But if you interpret it your way (you are trying to claim that v. 23 means that an unbeliever is confirmed in his unbelief by the tongues), this is a contradiction to v. 24 when prophecy (or interpretation) becomes the very thing that conquers the unbeliever's doubt. This makes your modern gibberish tongues to be something that pushes away unbelieving souls, rather than speaks truth to them. These very verses demand that tongues be a human language, so that the message given to the unbeliever has the authenticating miraculous sign that the message is from God.
Maybe, and then maybe not.The point is, your "negative sign" theory is preposterous. The Jews got the fulfillment of the quote in v. 21 on the day of Pentecost, and some believed and some didn't. So even when the miraculous sign is obvious as it was in Acts 2, some Jews still didn't listen.
I can live with this one.This principle would stand in a gentile setting as well. If an unbelieving gentile hears his own language spoken (or hears the interpretation of the message) in a miraculous setting, and that message convicts him of sin, he has the authenticating miraculous sign that the message is from God. If he doesn't listen then, he remains a confirmed unbeliever. But God will not let His word fail to accomplish His purpose. The other unbeliever sitting beside him also hears the message and receives it.
[quoteAll this is why the modern tongues movement is not authentic, because there is no power in it. It doesn't authenticate anything, because it is not miraculous.
TD
Upvote
0