Speaking in Tongues a Cessationists’ View

swordsman1 said:

The forbidding warned against in 1 Cor 14:39 was directed at members of the same congregation and was addressed to a church in which tongues was still active. If tongues was still active today and present in my church then of course I wouldn't forbid it.

If you think that today's practice is genuine NT tongues and wish to continue in it despite the biblical evidence to the contrary, then go right ahead. There, I'm not forbidding you.

It is interesting to note that even Pentecostalism's most respected theologian is unwilling to affirm that today's practice is genuine NT tongues. The most he is willing to say is that it is something analogous to NT tongues.

Gordon Fee - God’s Empowering Presence, p890
The question as to whether the “speaking in tongues” in contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic communities is the same in kind as that in the Pauline churches is moot – and probably somewhat irrelevant. There is simply no way to know. As an experienced phenomenon, it is analogous to theirs, meaning that it is understood to be a supernatural activity of the Spirit, which function in many of the same ways, and for many of its practitioners has similar value to that described by Paul.​

Click to expand...

Paul's discussion on tongues is applicable to the whole church. It's not as if he gave his words only for the benefit of the Corinthian church. Most of his letters were passed on and circulated for the teaching of others as well. There is nothing in it that wouldn't apply to the church today. Would anyone claim, "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud." only applies to the love of the Corinthians? Of course not. All scripture is God breathed and useful.

"Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many." I Cor 12:7-14

This wisdom is not restricted by Paul just to the Corinthians. Rather, he is informing them 'so they will not be misinformed' about how the Spirit operates within the whole body of Christ, the church.

People today can "claim" a specific gift has ended, but that doesn't change that it is up to the Spirit and not mankind as to what gifts are distributed to who.

As I mentioned before in another post, there is a lot of misuse of tongues (just like there is misuse of preaching, prophesy, knowledge, and other gifts.) But Paul didn't say, "Forbid people from using tongues because it keeps getting misused" - rather, he clarified how they can use it properly.

Many cessationist church groups *do* outright ban tongues. Other church groups go the other extreme and encourage everyone to talk in tongues (even though it isn't a gift everyone is given, so this leads to many people either deliberately faking or being deceived that glossolalia is the same as tongues. This happens a lot in charismatic and hyper-charismatic churches.) And then there are the church groups which do it properly - allowing someone to speak in tongues with interpretation so everyone can be edified.

Church groups can make allowance for the gift to be used (such as allowing opportunity for people to speak in a tongue if led to do so in a portion of service or Bible study) but still put the guidelines around it that Paul suggests: only one at a time, no more than two or three in a service, and *always* with interpretation if in public.

Oscarr said:

In actual fact, believers who speak and pray in tongues are the normal ones. Those who don't are the goofy ones!

Click to expand...

No, those who don't just have different spiritual gifts. No one is more 'normal' or more 'goofy' for having a different gift than someone else.

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts." I Cor 12:27-31

Dave L said:

Apart from the two outpourings, the charismatic gifts came only through the hand of the Apostles. The gifts confirmed their authority. The gifts expired with them. They were the last and only Apostles.

Click to expand...

I disagree, of course.

Let's look at my list. (see below)
- On Pentecost the gifts did not come only through the hand of the Apostles.
- Saul was prayed for (and received the Spirit/gifts) by Ananias, who was not an Apostle.
- Cornelius household manifested prior to being baptized, therefore not through the hand of the Apostles.

1) Pentecost: Water baptism followed by receiving the "promised Holy Spirit"
2) Samaria: The Apostles were sent to lay hands on the new believers who had ONLY been baptized in water. (Acts 8:14-16)
3) Saul: Ananias of Damascus (not an Apostle) lays hands on Paul (Saul) to receive the Holy Spirit, followed by water baptism. (Acts 9:17-18)
4) Cornelius: The gentiles were filled with the Spirit prior to water baptism. (Acts 10 and 11)
5) Ephesus: The Apostle Paul encounters disciples of John the Baptist. They are water baptized in Jesus' name and Paul lays hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:1-7)

swordsman1 said:

Grudem explains this.

Pentecost and Samaria were the only two instances in the whole of Acts where the HS was received subsequent to conversion. Obviously Pentecost was unique because that was the first time the HS was poured out on anyone. Samaria was unique because it was the first time that non-Jews were converted.

Out of all the other conversions in Acts, none record the HS being received subsequent to conversion, and water baptism was always subsequent to that. 1 Cor 12:13 says all believers are baptized in the Spirit, so either scripture is wrong or those 2 events were exceptions, not the rule.

Click to expand...

What all this tells us is that you can't really put the Spirit in a box.
But there are definitively two experiences. Salvation and the baptism with the Holy Spirit as two separate events in a believer's life.

1) Pentecost: Water baptism followed by receiving the "promised Holy Spirit"
2) Samaria: The Apostles were sent to lay hands on the new believers who had ONLY been baptized in water. (Acts 8:14-16)
3) Saul: Ananias of Damascus (not an Apostle) lays hands on Paul (Saul) to receive the Holy Spirit, followed by water baptism. (Acts 9:17-18)
4) Cornelius: The gentiles were filled with the Spirit prior to water baptism. (Acts 10 and 11)
5) Ephesus: The Apostle Paul encounters disciples of John the Baptist. They are water baptized in Jesus' name and Paul lays hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:1-7)

Jennifer Rothnie said:

Paul's discussion on tongues is applicable to the whole church. It's not as if he gave his words only for the benefit of the Corinthian church. Most of his letters were passed on and circulated for the teaching of others as well. There is nothing in it that wouldn't apply to the church today.

Click to expand...

Actually, while other espistles are addressed to the wider church, Paul's letter to the Corinthians was addressed only to them.


In his letter Paul addresses problems that were unique to the Corinthian church - taking each other to court, getting drunk at the Lord's table, incest within the congregation, etc. Clearly the elders of the church had written to Paul seeking his advice on the specific problems in Corinth (Paul mentions this letter several times in his epistle). The problems with tongues that Paul addresses in Ch.12-14 were no exception. Paul's invariably uses to word "you" to mean the Corinthians, not the universal church. That is not to say that other churches and believers should not comply with Paul's instructions where they apply.

Jennifer Rothnie said:

And then there are the church groups which do it properly - allowing someone to speak in tongues with interpretation so everyone can be edified.

Click to expand...

Are the 'proper' tongues spoken in these churches foreign human languages or strings of unintelligible syllables? If it is the former it would be easy for the language to be identified by a linguist to determine whether it is genuine (to my knowledge none have been identified as such). If it is the latter then it does not match the biblical description of the gift. Nowhere in scripture does it say tongues is a non-human language.

swordsman1 said:

1 Cor 12:7 says that every beleiver is given a gift. It doesn't say that it must be one of those listed in the subsequent 2 verses, nor does it say those gifts listed must endure throughout the church age. There are 3 other lists of spiritual gifts which are equally as valid. Those other lists include the gift of apostleship and other gifts not mentioned here. Clearly at least one spiritual gift, apostleship, was withdrawn. And if one gift ceased, why not others that are also stated to be foundational to the church.

Click to expand...

.... it doesn’t say those gifts don’t endure through the church age or stop at any time... that’s the point ‍also apostleship was a position... a calling not a gift of the Spirit.
Ephesians 4:11-16 King James Version (KJV)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers

Saint Steven said:

What all this tells us is that you can't really put the Spirit in a box.
But there are definitively two experiences. Salvation and the baptism with the Holy Spirit as two separate events in a believer's life.

1) Pentecost: Water baptism followed by receiving the "promised Holy Spirit"
2) Samaria: The Apostles were sent to lay hands on the new believers who had ONLY been baptized in water. (Acts 8:14-16)
3) Saul: Ananias of Damascus (not an Apostle) lays hands on Paul (Saul) to receive the Holy Spirit, followed by water baptism. (Acts 9:17-18)
4) Cornelius: The gentiles were filled with the Spirit prior to water baptism. (Acts 10 and 11)
5) Ephesus: The Apostle Paul encounters disciples of John the Baptist. They are water baptized in Jesus' name and Paul lays hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:1-7)

Click to expand...

I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion when 1 Cor 12:13 states that all believers are baptized in the Spirit, and there are only 2 unique historical events in Acts which differ from that rule (both for very obvious reasons).

JESUS=G.O.A.T said:

.... it doesn’t say those gifts don’t endure through the church age or stop at any time... that’s the point

Click to expand...

Not in that particular verse, but it does elsewhere. Nobody can deny that at least one of them, apostleship, has ceased. And church history demonstrates that another, tongues, also ceased - only to be supposedly restored (in a different form) at the beginning of the twenthieth century.

JESUS=G.O.A.T said:

also apostleship was a position... a calling not a gift of the Spirit.

Click to expand...

So the lists in 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11 and are not spiritual gifts? Teacher, helps, administration, evangelist, etc are not giftings? Of course they are. Seeing as numerous gifts are repeated across all 4 lists they are clearly ad hoc. In each list Paul gives a number of samples from the whole range of gifts.

Jennifer Rothnie said:

No, those who don't just have different spiritual gifts. No one is more 'normal' or more 'goofy' for having a different gift than someone else.

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts." I Cor 12:27-31

Click to expand...

We need to take notice of what the Bible says. All of the 120 in the Upper Room spoke in tongues when the Holy Spirit came. This included all the Apostles and Mary, plus everyone else who was in that room. Praying in tongues was the norm in the Early Church. When Paul taught the Corinthians about tongues, he was correcting them over the misuse of it. All the other churches were praying in tongues and using it correctly along with interpretation. You need to look at the context in which Paul asked, "Do all speak in tongues"?

28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, and those with gifts of healing, helping, administration, and various tongues. 29Areall apostles? Are all prophets? Are allteachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?…(1 Corinthians 12:28-30).

As you can see, the context is in the ministry gifts in the church, not the personal ability to pray in tongues as part of the individual prayer life. Paul is saying that everyone should pray in tongues at home. "I would that you all spoke in tongues" (1 Corinthians 14:5) and then he said that he would rather have them prophesy. If he was talking about private prayer, did that mean that they prophesy to themselves at home? Don't you see that it is nonsense, unless Paul was talking about public church activity, not private prayer! Don't you see how people descend into fantasy and nonsense when they don't actually read what Paul is actually saying and not what they want to believe that he said???

And:

18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19But in the church, I would rather speak five coherent words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.(1 Corinthians 14:18-19).

What is he saying? He says that he speaks in tongues more than them all, and he would they all spoke in tongues as he does - in private prayer, BUT IN THE CHURCH!!!!!! he would have them prophesy in understandable language so that they IN THE CHURCH be built up. He says that private prayer tongues builds up the individual believer, and prophecy builds up the corporate group of believers when they come together to fellowship and worship God!

So if folks decide that they don't want to pray in tongues, they can't use the Bible as their excuse. It is because they frankly just don't believe that part of the Bible where it says that they can, and should speak in tongues to be a basically normal Christian believer! If one does not believe parts of the Bible and say it does not apply to him or her, then that person is not normal. We either believe the whole Bible, or none of it!

Dave L said:

Apart from the two outpourings, the charismatic gifts came only through the hand of the Apostles. The gifts confirmed their authority. The gifts expired with them. They were the last and only Apostles.

Click to expand...

In addition to Steve's great points:

1) Scripture never claims gifts come only by the Apostles or that the original Apostles are necessary to be present. Conversely, it says the *Spirit* chooses how to distribute gifts, including the gifts of apostleship, teaching, etc.

"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them." I Cor 12:4

"Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,a and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines." I Cor 12:7-11

2) Scripture never makes distinction between 'charismatic' gifts and 'other' gifts. It's special pleading to claim special categories and then claim that one category is now 'gone.'

3) The given purpose of prophecy (and tongues with interpretation) is to edify the church. (I Cor 14:4) Has the need to edify the church ceased?

4) There were other Apostles besides the original 11 (not counting Judas here) and Paul.

Explicitly mentioned are the 70/72 (Luke 10:1-17) - Mark the evangelist was probably among these; James the brother of the Lord (Gal 1:19); Barnabas (Acts 13:2, Acts 14:4); Jesus (Heb 3:1); Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7,) and Matthias (Acts 1:20-26.)

Now, certainly, there are no more of the foundational Apostles nor anyone still living who walked with Christ on Earth. But the gift of apostleship is still active. An apostle is 'one who is sent' - such as for mission work, to share the gospel, plant churches, encourage believers, etc. We see husband/wife teams, and even teams of women, going out and doing this work to this day! It is a primary, necessary gift by the Spirit for the spread of the church and it's edification.

5) Claiming certain gifts do not exist does damage to the church, as it dismisses or even vilifies Christians who have been given those gifts by the Spirit. How are they to edify the church when many church groups ban them from practicing their gifts or try to convince them that the gifts the Spirit has given them are fake?

DamianWarS said:

I am undecided as to the meaning of the text but 120 were present during the day of pentecost and if each of the 120 spoke a different language then it would be extremely hard to decipher what a single 1 would be saying even if spoken in your native tongue. This doesn't seem to be an issue on the day of Pentecost as it seems easily understood by the travelling jews present.

the text says:
"Behold, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how do we hear, each one of us, in our own native language?"

so the hearers are amazed that 1) Galileans are speaking their native tongue and also 2) saying "each one of us" so each language represented among the Jews is heard by the native speaker of that tongue.

This text can be consistent with an understanding that each Jew present only heard their own language and we can't just say this didn't happen. We are talking about a supernatural event so we need to allow both speaker and hearer to be possibly affected by the supernatural. What is also possible is that each of the travelling Jews may have had special ability to be tuned into the 1 that spoke their language. I think was is important is it seems very likely the hearers also had a supernatural experience as well and if we are to draw upon the biblical revealed manifestations of the Holy Spirit than interpretation would be consistent but manifested hearing ability would not be.

The opposing argument is the hearer were not supernaturally affected and only heard what was natural for them to hear. The text however seems intentional to say that all heard in their own tongue then it goes into lengths to describe not the tongues but the geographic areas present which each area may represent a myriad of languages.

Click to expand...

As I understand it. This interpretive hearing at Pentecost theory is a new idea. It has no historical precedent. Why has no one written about this until now? If it happened at Pentecost then there should be some historic discussion of the event or testimony to attest to it.

Saint Steven said:

As I understand it. This interpretive hearing at Pentecost theory is a new idea. It has no historical precedent. Why has no one written about this until now? If it happened at Pentecost then there should be some historic discussion of the event or testimony to attest to it.

Click to expand...

There is. Luke's book of Acts. He did meticulous research and carefully interviewed all the eye witnesses to the event. Acts is just as reliable a history as any other. Luke was an educated man who knew the importance of a good research basis for what he wrote.

Oscarr said:

We need to take notice of what the Bible says. All of the 120 in the Upper Room spoke in tongues when the Holy Spirit came. This included all the Apostles and Mary, plus everyone else who was in that room. Praying in tongues was the norm in the Early Church. When Paul taught the Corinthians about tongues, he was correcting them over the misuse of it. All the other churches were praying in tongues and using it correctly along with interpretation. You need to look at the context in which Paul asked, "Do all speak in tongues"?

28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, and those with gifts of healing, helping, administration, and various tongues. 29Areall apostles? Are all prophets? Are allteachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?…(1 Corinthians 12:28-30).

As you can see, the context is in the ministry gifts in the church, not the personal ability to pray in tongues as part of the individual prayer life. Paul is saying that everyone should pray in tongues at home. "I would that you all spoke in tongues" (1 Corinthians 14:5) and then he said that he would rather have them prophesy. If he was talking about private prayer, did that mean that they prophesy to themselves at home? Don't you see that it is nonsense, unless Paul was talking about public church activity, not private prayer! Don't you see how people descend into fantasy and nonsense when they don't actually read what Paul is actually saying and not what they want to believe that he said???

And:

18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19But in the church, I would rather speak five coherent words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.(1 Corinthians 14:18-19).

What is he saying? He says that he speaks in tongues more than them all, and he would they all spoke in tongues as he does - in private prayer, BUT IN THE CHURCH!!!!!! he would have them prophesy in understandable language so that they IN THE CHURCH be built up. He says that private prayer tongues builds up the individual believer, and prophecy builds up the corporate group of believers when they come together to fellowship and worship God!

So if folks decide that they don't want to pray in tongues, they can't use the Bible as their excuse. It is because they frankly just don't believe that part of the Bible where it says that they can, and should speak in tongues to be a basically normal Christian believer! If one does not believe parts of the Bible and say it does not apply to him or her, then that person is not normal. We either believe the whole Bible, or none of it!

Click to expand...

The context of 1 Cor 12:28 is the body of Christ (v27), the universal church. Not the local church. Local assemblies are not mentioned until Ch.14.

Paul makes no mention of praying in tongues at home in private. To do so would be an abuse of a spiritual gift which should only be used for the benefit of others:

swordsman1 said:

Actually, while other espistles are addressed to the wider church, Paul's letter to the Corinthians was addressed only to them.

Click to expand...

I'm not speaking of his initial audience, but who the letter is applicable to. Paul's words clearly are applicable to anyone who is part of the 'body of Christ' as that is the context for his special instruction to the Corinthians. Again, who would claim that 'love is patient, love is kind' is only for the Corinthians? The words are useful to anyone. And despite that the Corinthians are the audience, that doesn't mean his rules for good order or other commands are only for the Corinthians - as again he is giving them instruction in how the church works and how spiritual gifts work and how they should be used properly. Paul isn't going to go to the church group down the road and say, "well, you guys can forbid tongues. And for you guys, love is selfish. And for you, feel free to discriminate against others with different gifts," etc.

In his letter Paul addresses problems that were unique to the Corinthian church - taking each other to court, getting drunk at the Lord's table, incest within the congregation, etc. Clearly the elders of the church had written to Paul seeking his advice on the specific problems in Corinth (Paul mentions this letter several times in his epistle). The problems with tongues that Paul addresses in Ch.12-14 were no exception. Paul's invariably uses to word "you" to mean the Corinthians, not the universal church. That is not to say that other churches and believers should not comply with Paul's instructions where they apply.

Click to expand...

Are his instructions about the Lord's Supper not applicable to the church at large? Was Paul OK with other churches treating it as a drunken revelry and not sharing with others - or was it just Corinth who has to follow the guidelines? Again, his words *apply* anywhere there is a breach. So a church group forbidding tongues *would* need to look at his instruction, just as a church group allowing tongues without interpretation in a babbling mess would need to take his instructions to heart.

Are the 'proper' tongues spoken in these churches foreign human languages or strings of unintelligible syllables? If it is the former it would be easy for the language to be identified by a linguist to determine whether it is genuine (to my knowledge none have been identified as such). If it is the latter then it does not match the biblical description of the gift. Nowhere in scripture does it say tongues is a non-human language.

Click to expand...

I've encountered tongues that were both an actual language as well as one's that were languages I could not recognize that others or I were able to interpret at the time. I've also heard missionary stories of them personally being able to speak in tongues for a sermon or even a short time to communicate with people in remote villages, and stories from other Christians about giving a tongue in another language which was confirmed by someone else in their church group to be a specific language. Scripture doesn't demand spiritual gifts be confirmed by scientific means though, and the interpretation of tongues is treated as a spiritual gift not just happening to know the same language as the tongue is given in.

'Nonsense syllables' sounds more like the problem of glossolalia, (frequently mistaken for tongues in church groups that insist everyone speak in tongues or hyper-spiritualize it or preach that one can develop a prayer language) - which is just nonsense syllables with no syntax or real grammar to speak of. It's generally fairly obvious since the speaker tends to only use phonemes he is familiar with (sounds native to his own language.) So a native English speaker might say something like "Torrib-E-ka notol-sorvin" or "Ablieth Somer Me Logan" - just rearranging English syllables into a nonsense phrase. It's doubtful one will hear syllables specific to Mandarin or German or Russian, etc. unless the speaker has also had training with those languages, whereas someone speaking in tongues is likely to use non-native phonemes.

No one can translate Glossolalia - not someone with the gift of interpreting tongues, no native speaker, etc. because it doesn't mean anything at all. In the majority of cases I've encountered glossolalia the speaker 'thought' they were really speaking in tongues (because their church group encouraged it and gushed over it,) not realizing that glossolalia is something many people (believers and unbelievers) can pick up and is a hallmark of many world religions that highlight personal experience, meditation, or states of ecstasy. In a few cases the people legitimately knew they were faking.

Perhaps the most tragic case I encountered was a girl who spoke glossolalia during group prayer time but never English, so she wasn't really being edified and no one else was either. I prayed silently that 'if she was being deluded and speaking falsely' (which I knew she was) that God would take the glossolalia away so she could pray genuinely. She did immediately stop using glossolalia that prayer time and I never heard her use it after, but the next few times I encountered her she was more and more emotional. Unable to use glossolalia, she was having trouble praying at all since she did not want to pray in English. She felt like God was 'rejecting' her since she suddenly couldn't do it but all her friends still could. (Suffice to say that incident taught me the importance of actually following up with people when I pray for them and not going for easy fixes...)

swordsman1 said:

The context of 1 Cor 12:28 is the body of Christ (v27), the universal church. Not the local church. Local assemblies are not mentioned until Ch.14.

Paul makes no mention of praying in tongues at home in private. To do so would be an abuse of a spiritual gift which should only be used for the benefit of others:

1 Cor 12:7 "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good"
1 Pet 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others"​

Click to expand...

When Paul was writing to the Corinthians, he was writing to a local church. He would have had no real conception of a universal Church as we do today. He saw the Church as a group of local churches and so when he referred to "the church" he was talking about the local church fellowship meeting. I don't think you can overlay 21st Century Church conceptions on 1st Century knowledge. Anyone who does not want to believe a part of the Bible that does not suit him can use all sorts of excuses to justify his belief. But it all comes down to "if I believe it, therefore it is true", rather than "It is true because the Bible says it."

swordsman1 said:

Not in that particular verse, but it does elsewhere. Nobody can deny that at least one of them, apostleship, has ceased. And church history demonstrates that another, tongues, also ceased - only to be supposedly restored (in a different form) at the beginning of the twenthieth century.



So the lists in 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11 and are not spiritual gifts? Teacher, helps, administration, evangelist, etc are not giftings? Of course they are. Seeing as numerous gifts are repeated across all 4 lists they are clearly ad hoc. In each list Paul gives a number of samples from the whole range of gifts.

Click to expand...

It’s clear you’re set on this to the point that you will put positions/callings in the same category as a gift of the Spirit.... pastor ship in your world is the ewuilivant of interpretation tongues... although clearly one is a position and the other a gift... so I’ll just end it here. Besides you have enough people that disagree with you to deal with right now. Was a good discussion

Jennifer Rothnie said:

I'm not speaking of his initial audience, but who the letter is applicable to. Paul's words clearly are applicable to anyone who is part of the 'body of Christ' as that is the context for his special instruction to the Corinthians. Again, who would claim that 'love is patient, love is kind' is only for the Corinthians? The words are useful to anyone. And despite that the Corinthians are the audience, that doesn't mean his rules for good order or other commands are only for the Corinthians - as again he is giving them instruction in how the church works and how spiritual gifts work and how they should be used properly. Paul isn't going to go to the church group down the road and say, "well, you guys can forbid tongues. And for you guys, love is selfish. And for you, feel free to discriminate against others with different gifts," etc.

Are his instructions about the Lord's Supper not applicable to the church at large? Was Paul OK with other churches treating it as a drunken revelry and not sharing with others - or was it just Corinth who has to follow the guidelines? Again, his words *apply* anywhere there is a breach. So a church group forbidding tongues *would* need to look at his instruction, just as a church group allowing tongues without interpretation in a babbling mess would need to take his instructions to heart.

Click to expand...

If there is an application that can be made, then of course we should make it. But clearly certain things are not applicable to us. Eg Instructions regarding slaves and masters, women's hair coverings etc. And if there are no longer tongues to forbid, then that instruction does not apply to us either.

Jennifer Rothnie said:

I've encountered tongues that were both an actual language as well as one's that were languages I could not recognize that others or I were able to interpret at the time. I've also heard missionary stories of them personally being able to speak in tongues for a sermon or even a short time to communicate with people in remote villages, and stories from other Christians about giving a tongue in another language which was confirmed by someone else in their church group to be a specific language. Scripture doesn't demand spiritual gifts be confirmed by scientific means though, and the interpretation of tongues is treated as a spiritual gift not just happening to know the same language as the tongue is given in.

'Nonsense syllables' sounds more like the problem of glossolalia, (frequently mistaken for tongues in church groups that insist everyone speak in tongues or hyper-spiritualize it or preach that one can develop a prayer language) - which is just nonsense syllables with no syntax or real grammar to speak of. It's generally fairly obvious since the speaker tends to only use phonemes he is familiar with (sounds native to his own language.) So a native English speaker might say something like "Torrib-E-ka notol-sorvin" or "Ablieth Somer Me Logan" - just rearranging English syllables into a nonsense phrase. It's doubtful one will hear syllables specific to Mandarin or German or Russian, etc. unless the speaker has also had training with those languages, whereas someone speaking in tongues is likely to use non-native phonemes.

No one can translate Glossolalia - not someone with the gift of interpreting tongues, no native speaker, etc. because it doesn't mean anything at all. In the majority of cases I've encountered glossolalia the speaker 'thought' they were really speaking in tongues (because their church group encouraged it and gushed over it,) not realizing that glossolalia is something many people (believers and unbelievers) can pick up and is a hallmark of many world religions that highlight personal experience, meditation, or states of ecstasy. In a few cases the people legitimately knew they were faking.

Perhaps the most tragic case I encountered was a girl who spoke glossolalia during group prayer time but never English, so she wasn't really being edified and no one else was either. I prayed silently that 'if she was being deluded and speaking falsely' (which I knew she was) that God would take the glossolalia away so she could pray genuinely. She did immediately stop using glossolalia that prayer time and I never heard her use it after, but the next few times I encountered her she was more and more emotional. Unable to use glossolalia, she was having trouble praying at all since she did not want to pray in English. She felt like God was 'rejecting' her since she suddenly couldn't do it but all her friends still could. (Suffice to say that incident taught me the importance of actually following up with people when I pray for them and not going for easy fixes...)

Click to expand...

Well yes, we've all heard Pentecostal hearsay. But have any been verified by a linguist as genuinely speaking a foreign human language that someone has never learned? Why shy away from external verification? Jesus never objected to his miracles being verified. Think how much more effective such miracles would be if they were proven beyond doubt to be genuine. They would make headline news.

I would agree with your remarks on glossolalia. Hundreds of samples of Pentecostal tongues have been analysed by professional linguists and all have proved to devoid of syntax or linguistic structure. That's why they affirm that today's tongues is fundamentally not a language. The most respected is by Dr. William Samarin of the University of Toronto who did a 10 year study of Pentecostal tongues. Here are some excerpts from his study:

swordsman1 said:

I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion when 1 Cor 12:13 states that all believers are baptized in the Spirit, and there are only 2 unique historical events in Acts which differ from that rule (both for very obvious reasons).

Click to expand...

You are misquoting/misunderstanding that scripture.
It means we are all baptized by the SAME Spirit, so as to form ONE body. We are all given the SAME Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Oscarr said:

There is. Luke's book of Acts. He did meticulous research and carefully interviewed all the eye witnesses to the event. Acts is just as reliable a history as any other. Luke was an educated man who knew the importance of a good research basis for what he wrote.

Click to expand...

If that is true then there should be tons of other writing from the early church about this. Got any?

Oscarr said:

When Paul was writing to the Corinthians, he was writing to a local church. He would have had no real conception of a universal Church as we do today. He saw the Church as a group of local churches and so when he referred to "the church" he was talking about the local church fellowship meeting. I don't think you can overlay 21st Century Church conceptions on 1st Century knowledge. Anyone who does not want to believe a part of the Bible that does not suit him can use all sorts of excuses to justify his belief. But it all comes down to "if I believe it, therefore it is true", rather than "It is true because the Bible says it."

Click to expand...

So in all these instances of 'church' Paul was referring to a local church?

Eph 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church"

Eph 2:25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"

Col 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church"

Col 1:24 "for the sake of his body, which is the church."

1 Cor 15:9 "because I persecuted the church of God."

Gal 1:13 "how intensely I persecuted the church of God"

Eph 1:22 "And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,"

Eph 3:10 "His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms"

Phil 3:6 "as for zeal, persecuting the church"