Tongues & the cessationists.

Gregory Thompson · Mar 12, 2019

swordsman1 said:
Yes, but that doesn't preclude correcting false teaching.

This is true.

In everything there is a balance, a man who fears God avoids extremes.

Gregory Thompson · Mar 12, 2019

When I began speaking tongues it was outside of a pentecostal/charismatic context. I found it to be an intercessory gift. If you're at a loss of how to disciple tongues speakers, you may want to begin with intercession .. can't go wrong with more prayer.

swordsman1 · Mar 12, 2019

And expounding scripture, to determine whether our practices are biblical.

Gregory Thompson · Mar 12, 2019

swordsman1 said:
And expounding scripture, to determine whether our practices are biblical.

In the same way that my body has different functions and priorities on the skin versus the intestines, so it is with the body of Christ.

Bible Highlighter · Mar 12, 2019

Alithis said:
I believe in all the types of tongues.
Refer back to the op .
That is the topic.

He that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks Not to man but to God for no man understands....

It is not, in that case, a human intelligable tongue .it is of the Holy Spirit.

Tongues or language of the Spirit
Is foriegn to man .

Try watching the Kundalini Warning video by Andrew Strom at YouTube.
This video really opened my eyes to the truth big time.

May God bless you.

Gregory Thompson · Mar 12, 2019

Kundalini Warning... hmm. Am I right in assuming all those against tongues associate the manifestation with shamanism/witchcraft?

Butch5 · Mar 12, 2019

Alithis said:
Wasnt sure where to post this.

In Almost all (if not all) threads on this topic it will invariably come down to the claim (usually spoken irreverantly) that Tongues today are just babble and not tongues at all.

The same argument will be used repeatedly to shore up this unwise claim.
The cessationist will say
"In acts when they spoke in tongues it was an intelligible language that others can understand.
And if its not- its not real tongues.

[ In this post i first want to state -Tongues are Not a validation of rightouesness .i.e. Not everyone who speaks in tongues automatically goes to heaven . ]
Now.....
To make this claim many words in Pauls letters are fully ignored .

E.g - he states there are a diversity of tongues . there are more then only one "type " of tongues. He is not speaking about different languages but different types of language.
In the nateral a language is the means of communicating between two or more parties.
(Sign language's is a language which doesnt use the tongue.)

To cut to the point...
This claim that if it is not an intelligible language its not tongues of the holy spirit is Fully refuted BY SCRIPTURE well Before cessationists made the claim.

Its simply this.. In his explanations and instructions around the topic of tongues and prophecy Paul makes an astounding statement.

....For he that speaketh in an
[unknown] tongue speaketh
not unto men, but unto God:
for no man understandeth
[him]; howbeit in the spirit he
speaketh mysteries..... 1 Corinth 14 v2..

Now i have left the parenthesis In on purpose. They are not in the greek but added -for transliteration .

But what IS in the greek i will now HIGHLIGHT in bold red.

.....For he that speaketh in an
[unknown] tongue speaketh
not unto men, but unto God:
for no man understandeth
[him]; howbeit in the spirit he
speaketh mysteries....

For me .this ENDS any cessationist argument saying if its not a humanly intelligible language its not real tongues.

In Fact.. When one is talking to GOD ( not men) if men could understand it. It would not be real tongues.
For he tHat speaks in tongues does not speak to Men ...but to God and NO MAN UNDERSTANDS..

I don't see how this makes your argument. The reason no man understands him is because he's speaking a foreign language which no on in the Church knows.

However, it's a moot point since Tongues ceased long ago. Paul said that Tongues was a sign to unbelievers. He said, 'it is written'. If you go back and look where, 'it is written' you'll find that the unbelievers Isaiah is talking about are the Jewish leadership. It was a sign to them.

Alithis · Mar 12, 2019

Butch5 said:
I don't see how this makes your argument. The reason no man understands him is because he's speaking a foreign language which no on in the Church knows.

However, it's a moot point since Tongues ceased long ago. Paul said that Tongues was a sign to unbelievers. He said, 'it is written'. If you go back and look where, 'it is written' you'll find that the unbelievers Isaiah is talking about are the Jewish leadership. It was a sign to them.

i note the dishonest approach by adding "no one in the church" but it does not say that.
And the moot point argument is already disproved...
He never says have ceased
He say "will cease".. With future tense.

But since 100's of thousands presently speak in tongues we know it has not yet ceased.
Which brings us to the point in this thread.
The cessationist tries to say those who speak in tongues are not doing so because it should be an intelligable language.
But if its an intelligable language why is the spiritual gift if interpretation of tongues given ?
And in the Op is quoted the verse where he DOES state...
"He that speaks in an (unknown) tongue does NOT SPEAK TO MAN but speaks to God and
NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM...

no matter which way the cessationist twists and turns it. the proof is there.
Tongues have differing types and not all are intelligable languages of the flesh.

One cannot come to the conclusion that spiritual gifts have ceased by reading the bible.
That conclusion has always been taught to them and passed on by an unbelieving 3rd party.

Alithis · Mar 12, 2019

Michael Collum said:
Kundalini Warning... hmm. Am I right in assuming all those against tongues associate the manifestation with shamanism/witchcraft?

The humor in that is that many experiencing demonic encounters in new age andveastern practices infiltrating western churches... Do not speak in tongues by those experiences..
Some did prior to those experiences.
But i know of none that have spontaniously burst into tongues upon receiving those false impartations. (I hope to do a thread soon on impartation)

swordsman1 · Mar 12, 2019

Alithis said:
i note the dishonest approach by adding "no one in the church" but it does not say that.

Neither does it say "no one on the face of the earth". So we look at the context to see who the "no one" is referring to. The context of the passage is church meetings. No one in the meeting understands an unrecognized tongue.

Alithis said:
He never says have ceased
He say "will cease".. With future tense.

Future to the time of Paul's writing to the Corinthians, which was around 60AD.

Alithis said:
But since 100's of thousands presently speak in tongues we know it has not yet ceased.

Today people think they speak in NT tongues as that is what they have been taught. But the modern practice doesn't match the biblical description (foreign languages). What people call 'tongues' today is the natural linguistic phenomenon of glossolalia where the speech organs go into auto-pilot. Anyone, including non-Christians, can discover the technique. Which is why we see the same phenomenon in pagan religions.

Alithis said:
But if its an intelligable language why is the spiritual gift if interpretation of tongues given ?

If someone spoke a foreign language it had to be interpreted so that the whole church could be edified (1 Cor 14:4).

Butch5 · Mar 12, 2019

Alithis said:
i note the dishonest approach by adding "no one in the church" but it does not say that.
And the moot point argument is already disproved...
He never says have ceased
He say "will cease".. With future tense.

But since 100's of thousands presently speak in tongues we know it has not yet ceased.
Which brings us to the point in this thread.
The cessationist tries to say those who speak in tongues are not doing so because it should be an intelligable language.
But if its an intelligable language why is the spiritual gift if interpretation of tongues given ?
And in the Op is quoted the verse where he DOES state...
"He that speaks in an (unknown) tongue does NOT SPEAK TO MAN but speaks to God and
NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM...

no matter which way the cessationist twists and turns it. the proof is there.
Tongues have differing types and not all are intelligable languages of the flesh.

One cannot come to the conclusion that spiritual gifts have ceased by reading the bible.
That conclusion has always been taught to them and passed on by an unbelieving 3rd party.

It's not a dishonest approach. If you had read the entire section you'd see that he is talking about what happens in the church. Thus my statement, no one in the church understands him.

Yes, he said, will cease, future tense. It was future tense from his point in time. They did end after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians so it was in the future that it happened.

It doesn't matter that 100's of thousands speak in tongues today, that doesn't mean it's from God.
The argument that tongues are always real languages isn't negated simply because you misunderstand what Paul said. He's talking about what happens in their church. I someone speaks in a foreign language and no one there understands the language, then it's like Paul said, no understands him and he speaks to God. God is the only in their church that understand the foreign language. The gift of interpretation is given to interpret the language for the congregation. If you go into a church and someone starts speaking Spanish, if you don't speak Spanish, you'll need an interpreter.

Yes, one can come to the conclusion that the gifts have ceased from studying the Bible. The key is "studying" not pulling a sentence from here and there and claiming the Bible teaches xyz. The gift of Tongues in the Scriptures had a specific purpose. That purpose was served long ago.

Alithis · Mar 12, 2019

swordsman1 said:
Neither does it say "no one on the face of the earth". So we look at the context to see who the "no one" is referring to. The context of the passage is church meetings. No one in the meeting understands an unrecognized tongue.

Future to the time of Paul's writing to the Corinthians, which was around 60AD.

Today people think they speak in NT tongues as that is what they have been taught. But the modern practice doesn't match the biblical description (foreign languages). What people call 'tongues' today is the natural linguistic phenomenon of glossolalia where the speech organs go into auto-pilot. Anyone, including non-Christians, can discover the technique. Which is why we see the same phenomenon in pagan religions.

If someone spoke a foreign language it had to be interpreted so that the whole church could be edified (1 Cor 14:4).

No man... Means no man .
Just as All men means .. All men .

Alithis · Mar 12, 2019

Butch5 said:
It's not a dishonest approach. If you had read the entire section you'd see that he is talking about what happens in the church. Thus my statement, no one in the church understands him.

Yes, he said, will cease, future tense. It was future tense from his point in time. They did end after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians so it was in the future that it happened.

It doesn't matter that 100's of thousands speak in tongues today, that doesn't mean it's from God.
The argument that tongues are always real languages isn't negated simply because you misunderstand what Paul said. He's talking about what happens in their church. I someone speaks in a foreign language and no one there understands the language, then it's like Paul said, no understands him and he speaks to God. God is the only in their church that understand the foreign language. The gift of interpretation is given to interpret the language for the congregation. If you go into a church and someone starts speaking Spanish, if you don't speak Spanish, you'll need an interpreter.

Yes, one can come to the conclusion that the gifts have ceased from studying the Bible. The key is "studying" not pulling a sentence from here and there and claiming the Bible teaches xyz. The gift of Tongues in the Scriptures had a specific purpose. That purpose was served long ago.

Nothing youve said here changes the validity of the OP point.
And everthing else you say here..is not written in scripture.it is someones opinion passed on to you from out side of scripture.

I will just stick to what IS written.

Alithis · Mar 12, 2019

swordsman1 said:
Neither does it say "no one on the face of the earth". So we look at the context to see who the "no one" is referring to. The context of the passage is church meetings. No one in the meeting understands an unrecognized tongue.

Future to the time of Paul's writing to the Corinthians, which was around 60AD.

Today people think they speak in NT tongues as that is what they have been taught. But the modern practice doesn't match the biblical description (foreign languages). What people call 'tongues' today is the natural linguistic phenomenon of glossolalia where the speech organs go into auto-pilot. Anyone, including non-Christians, can discover the technique. Which is why we see the same phenomenon in pagan religions.

If someone spoke a foreign language it had to be interpreted so that the whole church could be edified (1 Cor 14:4).

If some one spoke a foriegn language and some one there could understand it.
It would not be a foreign language .
The cessationist contradictions keep on rolling.

Alithis · Mar 12, 2019

Jason0047 said:
I am only referring to the different versions of tongue speaking that I have witnessed today that I and other Charismatics do not agree with. For example: The shaking of heads, the making of animal noises, being thrown back on the ground, screaming on the ground, etc. is something that I and other Charismatic friends of mine do not agree with.

The things youve described here are what youve described here.
Thats not "speaking in tongues"
Thats "The shaking of heads, the making of animal noises, being thrown back on the ground, screaming on the ground, etc"
Such things are often the manifestation of devils and when they manifest We drive them out .

But here in this thread im talking about the fact that Paul states when a man speaks in an (Unknown) tongue (he is of course referencing the gifts of the Holy spirit ...spiritual Not phyfical abilities of the flesh) he does Not speak to man but to God (who IS spirit) and .no man understand him.

swordsman1 · Mar 13, 2019

Alithis said:
No man... Means no man .
Just as All men means .. All men .

First, no modern translation says "no man". That is antiquated KJV language which you are dishonestly mixing with modern English to make it appear that that no human understands. The Greek word is oudeis, and it is translated "no one".

Strongs Concordance
oudeis and outheis, oudemia, ouden and outhen: no one, none
Original Word: οὐδείς, οὐδεμία, οὐδέν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: oudeis and outheis, oudemia, ouden and outhen
Phonetic Spelling: (oo-dice')
Definition: no one, none
Usage: no one, none, nothing.

Now "no one" does not necessary mean no one in the whole world. The scope is determined by the context. To see what I mean let's look at a couple of other examples of that word elsewhere in scripture. For instance the same word appears in Mat 22:46 "and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions". That doesn't mean no one in the whole world dared ask Jesus any more questions, but rather the Pharisees whom the context is referring to. Similarly in Mark 5:4 "No one was strong enough to subdue him". That doesn't mean the demon possessed man of the Gadarenes was the strongest human that ever lived. It means no one in the local vicinity was strong enough to restrain him. The context determines the scope. And the context of 1 Cor 14 is local church meetings.

Alithis · Mar 13, 2019

swordsman1 said:
First, no modern translation says "no man". That is antiquated KJV language which you are dishonestly mixing with modern English to make it appear that that no human understands. The Greek word is oudeis, and it is translated "no one".

Strongs Concordance
oudeis and outheis, oudemia, ouden and outhen: no one, none
Original Word: οὐδείς, οὐδεμία, οὐδέν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: oudeis and outheis, oudemia, ouden and outhen
Phonetic Spelling: (oo-dice')
Definition: no one, none
Usage: no one, none, nothing.

Now "no one" does not necessary mean no one in the whole world. The scope is determined by the context. To see what I mean let's look at a couple of other examples of that word elsewhere in scripture. For instance the same word appears in Mat 22:46 "and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions". That doesn't mean no one in the whole world dared ask Jesus any more questions, but rather the Pharisees whom the context is referring to. Similarly in Mark 5:4 "No one was strong enough to subdue him". That doesn't mean the demon possessed man of the Gadarenes was the strongest human that ever lived. It means no one in the local vicinity was strong enough to restrain him. The context determines the scope. And the context of 1 Cor 14 is local church meetings.

Stretchy thin rubber theology there
.it means no man /no one.
he says ..he does Not speak to Man..but to God. Its a weak ploy to begin dissecting the verse down into single words then try to discredit a single word because the verse hisproved the cessationist claim before cessationists existed.

The verse is that posted in the OP .

notreligus · Mar 13, 2019

Tongues are called a gift, and the gift is from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God and He does not take vacations or sabbatical leaves.

swordsman1 · Mar 13, 2019

Alithis said:
Stretchy thin rubber theology there
.it means no man /no one.
he says ..he does Not speak to Man..but to God. Its a weak ploy to begin dissecting the verse down into single words then try to discredit a single word because the verse hisproved the cessationist claim before cessationists existed.

The verse is that posted in the OP .

Not at all, it is following the standard rules of hermeneutics, otherwise known as rightly dividing the word of truth. It means not taking verses out of context and other exegetical fallacies, as you are doing in an attempt to give credence to wayward pentecostal/charismatic doctrines.

Alithis · Mar 13, 2019

swordsman1 said:
Not at all, it is following the standard rules of hermeneutics, otherwise known as rightly dividing the word of truth. It means not taking verses out of context and other exegetical fallacies, as you are doing in an attempt to give credence to wayward pentecostal/charismatic doctrines.

And them you took one word..out ..a..ad tried to discredit it.
Inconsistant and contradictory.
And still the point stands firm .

....when a man speaks in an (unknown) tongue he speaks NOT TO MAN {so there is no need for man to understand} but to God and edifies himself and speaks Mysteries in the Spirit (mysteries - things unexplained and unrevealed to other men. )

So we see plainly.
The cessationist Cannot say that tongues are not real just because its not an intelligable language by man.
The scripture state there are a diversity of tongues. = types/kinds
And that in this case.. No man understands because in the spirit the praying person speaks NOT to man but to GOD.

Sorry but no amount of chasing down irrelavant rabbit holes red herrings of ambiguity and strawmen arguments will change it.

Tongues & the cessationists.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Newbie

Disciple of Jesus .

Disciple of Jesus .

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Disciple of Jesus .

Disciple of Jesus .

Disciple of Jesus .

Disciple of Jesus .

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus .

Member

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus .

Similar threads