Where and why?
Some languages have less consonant sounds that English (e.g. No 'J' in Greek).
Also the very first time I spoke in tongues it was tonal.
Empirically speaking, I don't see an abundance of real Spirit-inspired speech today (whether prophecy or tongues). However, unlike Cessationists, I don't base my doctrine primarily on empirical experience.It's not just accent. For example, English has a limited range of consonant sounds compared to, say, Hindi:
English "tongue speakers" only use the English consonant sounds.
Some English consonant sounds never occur at the start of English words, although they do in other languages. English "tongue speakers" never put those consonant sounds at the start of "words."
Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Thai, and many other languages are tonal. The "languages" of English "tongue speakers" are never tonal.
And so forth...
To follow up, prayer need not be linguistic in an eloquent sense. Possible examples of non-eloquent prayer:It's not just accent. For example, English has a limited range of consonant sounds compared to, say, Hindi:
English "tongue speakers" only use the English consonant sounds.
Some English consonant sounds never occur at the start of English words, although they do in other languages. English "tongue speakers" never put those consonant sounds at the start of "words."
Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Thai, and many other languages are tonal. The "languages" of English "tongue speakers" are never tonal.
And so forth...
Bible Highlighter:
"5.We can see that after the book of Acts, the gifts no longer operated in Paul’s life like they once had. The sign gifts, tongues, prophecy, the gift of healing, etc. were operating all through the Book of Acts, and these gifts are mentioned in the letters that Paul wrote during the Acts period. But when we turn to the letters written after the Book of Acts—the 4 Prison Epistles, and the 3 Pastoral Epistles, we find that the sign gifts either aren’t mentioned at all or we see—as with the gift of healing—that they were no longer operating in Paul’s life. What he could do in Acts 28, he could no longer do in Philippians, or in 1 and 2 Timothy. He could heal all the sick on the island in Acts 28:9, but he couldn’t heal any of his closest co-workers—Timothy, Epaphroditus, Trophimus—after the close of the Book of Acts (See this article here for the full explanation)."
On the contrary, I strongly suspect that one purpose of tongues is to foster prayer unburdened with eloquence.
(2) The Holy Spirit must agree to being examined under a microscope!
Are potluck dinners biblical? Are church choirs biblical? Can we definitively rule out such things as unbiblical? Given the biblical emphasis on prayer, let's tread cautiously on prayer-in-tongues. And look at what Paul said:That might indeed fit with empirical data. But is that a Biblical concept of prayer?
Perhaps you missed my point. Spirit-inspired speech isn't abundant right now. On the day(s) that a linguist has decided to do his study, what if the Spirit - perhaps being offended by the inspection - abstains? Or limits it to individuals who are not being recorded that day? Or even goes so far as to corrupt the recording?That's not an issue. The speech, when uttered, is physical reality, which can be recorded and studied. Whether it is a foreign language or not can be tested.
let's tread cautiously on prayer-in-tongues
"For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful" (14:14).
That seems to express God's commitment to non-eloquent prayer - at least privately.
Spirit-inspired speech isn't abundant right now.
That's a powerful argument. I'm not denying that. But it's probably less decisive than you think. The verse is sometimes translated:Yes indeed.
Matthew 6:7: When you pray, don’t babble like the Gentiles, since they imagine they’ll be heard for their many words.
Unlikely extrapolation. Here's a Pentecostal reading:Well, no. In the very next verse, Paul tells people not to do that, but to pray with our mind also:
1 Corinthians 14:15: What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.
And if I'm wrong, the utterly disastrous consequence would be - more non-eloquent prayer?You seem to be saying that there's so much fakery that researchers might miss genuine tongues. But the sheer quantity of fakery might also suggest that it's all fakery.
"Overly-presumptuous" might be a better term than "fakery". Look, I for one don't even accept modern church government. I only accept Paul's definition of a church:You seem to be saying that there's so much fakery that researchers might miss genuine tongues. But the sheer quantity of fakery might also suggest that it's all fakery.
Picture your own infant child reaching out to you with his fingers, hands, and babbling.
(2) Paul did not say, "Shut up if there is no interpreter", but rather, "The speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God" (verse 14:28).
Suppose you grab your wife's hand and initiate some dancing steps. There's no music playing but you decide to hum a tune. Nothing eloquent in the sounds emitted from your mouth. Does that fact invalidate the fellowship?Infant children reach out with the best speech they've got.
I see where you mentioned one possible reading of Paul. I fail to see where you addressed the objections that I raised against that interpretation.If people followed what Paul said, we would never hear anyone "pray in tongues."
I
4. The three greatest prophets and miracle workers in the Bible are Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. We see that the miracles that they performed were a way to authenticate them as a messenger from GOD and the Word of God that they provided (that would be immortalized into Scripture). We notice that after each of these prophets, there was a time of silence where no miracles were done. Just like with the prophets Moses, Elijah, and Jesus, miracles authenticated the apostles' message as from God. "And they (apostles) went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the Word with signs (tongues, prophecies, healing, etc.) following. Amen." Mark 16:20. Today the need for tongues and miracles has ceased. God has authenticated the apostles and the New Testament that they penned. This proves the temporary nature of tongues and miracles.
Miracles still happen
It's a response to a specific claim that was made by Bible Highlighter. So I'm glad you agree with my assessment that BH's reasons for cessationism are not valid.Nobody is saying that they don't.
The Continuationist/Cessationist debate is about "sign gifts," not about miracles.
I can only assume that this comment means that you have no defence for Continuationism.
Is it really all that black and white? This guy has a PhD from Dallas Theological seminary:Nobody is saying that they don't.
The Continuationist/Cessationist debate is about "sign gifts," not about miracles.
Why is the burden of proof on us? Based not on Scripture but on a facile analysis of history, right? Scripture itself is heavily saturated with charismatic themes. In the first chapter of Mark alone - and that's just one chapter - one easily finds a dozen verses referencing the supernatural (prophecy, healings, casting out devils, and so on). Therefore I see no burden of proof on us.I can only assume that this comment means that you have no defence for Continuationism.
Why is the burden of proof on us?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?