Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[pescador]

Actually, my problem with people who speak to me in other languages that I do not understand (tongues, as it were) is that they fail to communicate with me, unless there is an interpreter who is fluent in both languages, which has been my experience in China.

I do believe that if a person resides in a country on a permanent basis he ought to become fluent in the language of that country. Thus, I have a problem with immigrants who remain marginalized because of their inability or refusal to learn the language of the country.

You're joking, right? Maybe we should build a wall (for billions!) to keep out rapists and murderers?

BTW, perhaps you should ask for the gift of speaking in the language of angels, or do you prefer the inability or refusal to learn the language?

 

[pescador]

I will certainly try to entertain your question. However, I think that we both know that you will not accept any explanation given to you.

1 Corth 13:8............
“Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.”


“Love never fails”

1)
This could be the closing of the previous verses and mean “Love is never defeated, never brought down and persists even when faced with opposition”

2)
This statement “Love never fails” could be starting a new paragraph which will contrast the three verbs that follow:
"Pass away” (13:8)
“cease” (13:8)
“remain” (13:13)

In this second case it would mean: “Love never comes to an end or becomes invalid like the charismata”.

Correct exegesis says that Paul is still focused on charismata and lists three of them here.

“they will cease” “katargethesontai” or literally “they will be abolished”.

1.) future indicative passive
2). means “to render inoperative, to make ineffective
3). the active voice means “they will be made to stop by someone or something else.”

“they will be stilled” “pausontai” or literally “they will cease”.

1). future indicative middle
2). means “to cause to rest, to cause to cease”
3). the middle voice means “they shall make themselves cease or automatically cease of themselves.”

“it will pass away” “katargethesetai” or literally “it will be abolilshed”

1). same as above only singular

13:9............
“For we know in part and we prophesy in part.”

“in part” “merous” or literally “For in part”

1). means “partially”
2). The gifts are a part of the work of the church that leads to the completion

13:10.................
“but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.”

“comes” “elthe”

“perfection” “teleion” or literally “perfect THING’.’
Greek Grammer here does NOT ALLOW THE MEANING TO BE A person OR A place BUT INSTEAD A THING!

“teleion” mean s“end, fulfillment, completeness, maturity”

“teleion” is contrasted with the phrase “in part” which would tend to make the correct translation of “teleion” the counter side of “part” such as “whole”, “full”, “complete”

“imperfect” “to ek merous” or literally “the thing in part”

“disappears” “katargethesetai” or literally “will be abolished”

same as above
future, indicative, passive

I am relating to you my understanding as it is the Classical (or "Weak") cessationists in that the "sign gifts" such as prophecy, healing and speaking in tongues ceased with the apostles and the finishing of the canon of Scripture. They only served as launching pads for the spreading of the Gospel; as affirmations of God's revelation. However, I certainly do believe that God still does miracles today, such as healings or divine guidance.

John Chrysostom (c 347-407)
Concerning the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians:...... “This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to, and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place”
(“Homilies on 1 Corinthians,” Vol. XII, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Hom 29:2).

Thomas Watson (c 1620-1686).........
“Sure, there is as much need of ordination now as in Christ's time and in the time of the apostles, there being then extraordinary gifts in the church which are now ceased” (The Beatitudes, 140).

Matthew Henry (1662-1714) Speaking of the ‘gift of tongues,’ he said.............
“These and other gifts of prophecy, being a sign, have long since ceased and been laid aside, and we have no encouragement to expect the revival of them; but, on the contrary, are directed to call the Scriptures the more sure word of prophecy, more sure than voices from Heaven; and to them we are directed to take heed, to search them, and to hold them fast ...” (Preface to Vol IV of his Exposition of the OT & NT, vii).

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)...........
“Of the extraordinary gifts, they were given 'in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of Scriptures has been completed, and the Christian church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased” (Charity and its Fruits, 29).

George Whitefield (1714-1770) .........
"the karismata, the miraculous gifts conferred on the primitive church ... have long ceased ...” (Second Letter to the Bishop of London, Works, Vol. IV, 167).

James Buchanan (1804-1870) ..........
“The miraculous gifts of the Spirit have long since been withdrawn. They were used for a temporary purpose” (The Office and Work of the Holy Spirit, 34).
When did tongues and the sign gifts cease

Anyone can cherry pick quotations to try to prove a point, but cutting-and-pasting doesn't impress anyone, least of all me.

The Bible says what it says: when perfection comes, then (and only then) the gifts will cease.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I have no idea as to what God thinks of your tongues, do you?

What do you believe God thinks about someone coming to Him in faith and obedience. And what do you believe He thinks about someone who refuses to use their faith and obedience.

 

[pescador]

I have no idea as to what God thinks of your tongues, do you?

I know what God thinks of my speaking in tongues. He loves it, just as he loves me. I speak to God spiritually (hence a verbal language that is not understood) using the gift he gave me. I know exactly what I am saying spiritually; so does he.

Here is an example which may help you to understand: people attend a sporting event, and voice their approval by clapping and yelling or disapproval by booing and gesturing. The players know what is being communicated even though no intelligible words are spoken.

Again, what is your real objection to people speaking in tongues?

 

[1stcenturylady]

I know what God thinks of my speaking in tongues. He loves it, just as he loves me. I speak to God spiritually (hence a verbal language that is not understood) using the gift he gave me. I know exactly what I am saying spiritually; so does he.

Here is an example which may help you to understand: people attend a sporting event, and voice their approval by clapping and yelling or disapproval by booing and gesturing. The players know what is being communicated even though no words are spoken.

Again, what is your real objection to people speaking in tongues?

Pes, do you have the gift of interpretation of tongues, so as to know what you are saying? I don't. I wish I did.

 

[Biblicist]

I always smile when I encounter the word, unchurched. What does that actually mean?

I was churched since I was born, but it was not until I was born again that I was saved. Hell will be filled with plenty of churched people.

The term the unchurched is a way of referring to people who have not had the opportunity to be instructed in the principles of a system of belief. It is simply a way of describing people who have no discernible ingrained bias one way or the other – other than having a fallen nature of course.

In my situation, as a teenager who was being introduced into the things of the Lord, when I began reading about the role of the Holy Spirit within the Scriptures, particularly within Acts and First Corinthians, I had no prior bias one way or the other. In fact, as I was being nurtured within a somewhat spiritually naive congregation, who knew little if anything of the Ministry of the Holy Spirit, my ‘knowledge’ or lack of understanding with the things of the Spirit kept me on much the same level as my unsaved friends who had not had any opportunity to hear the Gospel.

From memory, I cannot recall ever hearing even part of a Sunday message or a mid-week teaching session that spoke of cessationism or Continuism, so when I came across passages about tongues, even though I understood nothing about these ‘strange things’, I still knew that they were apparently for today and that they were not spoken human languages, other than with the singular event of the Day of Pentecost.

So when I was invited to attend an FGBMFI meeting on a Saturday morning, maybe 2 years after I ‘became churched’ and 18 months after I was Born Again, I was more than ready to accept the invitation as I was looking forward to having a few questions finally resolved.

So, in my opinion, we could obtain about a dozen unchurched individuals, where we provide them with a list of non-leading questions, then have them read Acts 2 and 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 where I have little doubt that they would gain an understanding that would allow them to correctly instruct and correct a number of seasoned hard-core or aggressive cessationist leaders. I am of the strong view that hard-core cessationism is a system of unbelief that is forced upon the unsuspecting church-goer or Believer.

 

[Major1]

Anyone can cherry pick quotations to try to prove a point, but cutting-and-pasting doesn't impress anyone, least of all me.

The Bible says what it says: when perfection comes, then (and only then) the gifts will cease.

Correct!

The ONLY "THING" which is perfect that has come is the Word of God/Bible.

Jesus is perfect but He is not a THING.
Heaven will be perfect but again it is not a THING.

What else can you think of that is Perfect.

 

[Major1]

You're joking, right? Maybe we should build a wall (for billions!) to keep out rapists and murderers?

BTW, perhaps you should ask for the gift of speaking in the language of angels, or do you prefer the inability or refusal to learn the language?

What is the language of angels?????

Could you be referring to 1 Corth 13:1.......
"Tongues....of angels"?

With all due respect, Paul’s reference affords no evidence for the so-called “Pentecostal experience,” in which the uttering a series of rapidly-spoken, indiscernible syllables is alleged to reflect a “heavenly” tongue of an inexplicable variety. The following lines of evidence discredit the Pentecostal theory.

In an effort to exhort the Corinthian Christians toward a greater level of concern for one another in their use of “spiritual gifts,” Paul wrote this admonition. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become a sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1).

If it can be established that the term “tongues,” when employed with reference to men, has to do with intelligent communication (and such can be demonstrated: see the article referenced above), then it must be conceded that the word “tongues,” when used of angels, similarly signifies an understandable language.

In order for the “Pentecostal” view to be valid, there would have to be some compelling contextual evidence to indicate that the term “tongues” is used in two different senses in this passage, and there simply is none.
What Are the "Tongues of Angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1?

 

[1stcenturylady]

I always smile when I encounter the word, unchurched. What does that actually mean?

I was churched since I was born, but it was not until I was born again that I was saved. Hell will be filled with plenty of churched people.

How did you know you went from churched to born again? What was different?

 

[Major1]

I know what God thinks of my speaking in tongues. He loves it, just as he loves me. I speak to God spiritually (hence a verbal language that is not understood) using the gift he gave me. I know exactly what I am saying spiritually; so does he.

Here is an example which may help you to understand: people attend a sporting event, and voice their approval by clapping and yelling or disapproval by booing and gesturing. The players know what is being communicated even though no intelligible words are spoken.

Again, what is your real objection to people speaking in tongues?

Personally, having grown up in the Pentacostal religion, done everything you hold dear, always had troubled with this question which was said every time some one came to the church to visit............

"Are you born again, WITH THE EVIDENCE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES"????

As I grew older and was able to learn the Scriptures
it became clear that when Paul states rhetorically in 1 Cor.12:29........
" are all prophets are all apostles and teachers? Answer is NO! Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak in tongues?" the answer is NO!

In Chapter 14 he says he'd rather they prophecy and in vs.5:.......
“I wish you all spoke in tongues but even more that you prophesied."

At the beginning of Chpt.12 he states the Lord gives out the gifts as he wills and that they are all different gifts not everyone has the same gift vs.11. the gift of tongues is listed last.

In Rom.12 and Eph.4 it is not mentioned at all, giving us the impression that it is a insignificant gift compared to the others.

Tongues were never intended to be the common denominator of spiritual gifts to all believers, to make this as such is divisive.

Jesus said you shall be my witnesses, literally martyrs. What if we were to give the same credence to being killed for Christ as a measure of spirituality. This certainly would clear the air about being spiritual. Imagine someone saying “ you don't have salvation because you haven't died for him”.
Tongues as the evidence

Whether YOU personally ask that question is not the point. The denomination itself does and has..............

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/pentecostaltongues.html

 

[Explorer55]

Ok.

 

[swordsman1]

If you insist on interpreting scripture like that, then your rules should work everywhere, including in the words of Jesus, like when he spoke to the apostles about ALL TRUTH.
John16v13But when He the, Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth. For He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He may hear, He will speak. And He will declare to you the things coming.
Did all apostles get ALL God's truth.
Did the Spirit of Truth declare to them EVERY SINGLE WORD he heard in the Throne Room of Heaven?
Did the Spirit of Truth declare to them ALL the things coming ahead in world future?

When Paul talks about all mysteries and all knowledge, he is no more claiming omniscient than Jesus is promising omniscience to the apostles in John16v13.
In both scriptures, it shows that the Holy Spirit gives all truth, reveals all mysteries, and all knowledge only as is required for that time. Jesus himself said there were things hidden from him by the Father!
So there was no need for exaggeration in Paul's words because they simply paralleled what Jesus had already promised.

The hyperbole you mention, originates in you alone.

So are you suggesting that wherever the word "all" appears in scripture, it doesn't really mean "all"? I've heard it all now. To answer your question about John 16:13, it says "He will lead you into all truth", not truths (plural). Of course the Spirit will teach all truth. Do you think he would ever lie?

When you've got a moment, go read the OT prophets. You will see plenty of miracles that equate in magnitude to moving mountains.
Here's a good place to start.-
Exodus14v21Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, so the waters were divided. 22The sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on the dry land, and the waters were like a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.

You've proved my point. Are miracles such as parting the Red Sea or removing mountains the normal everyday operation for someone with the spiritual gift of faith? If not then neither is speaking the tongues of angels the normal operation of the gift of tongues.

This is the early church for goodness sake, I suspect most people there knew of people who had given everything including life itself!
Millions have given up everything to go forth with the gospel, and it still happens today. Jackie Pullinger being just one among many in modern times.
And people still die in doing so.

Did those people give away absolutely everything they own (including their own clothes)? And is giving away everything you own the normal operation of the gift of giving? Is giving up your own life the normal operation of the gift of giving? If not, then neither is speaking the tongues of angels the normal operation of the gift of tongues.

Total garbage. There is nothing whatsoever in those verses to say their tongues were exactly the same.

If it was something different we would have been told. Otherwise it is pure unwarranted presumption - a very poor exegetical argument indeed.

I never said the Cornelius spoke in tongues of angels. From the beginning I have just repeated what Paul said, the gift of tongues was of men or angels. I have no clue who spoke what.

So why did you bring up Cornelius' household in your post #2066 in response to me pointing out the only description of tongues is foreign human languages. If you are now saying you don't know whether they spoke human languages or not, then that's fine, we can move on.

There is no mention of the gift of tongues being the same type or the same operationally as Pentecost.

And why would there be? Luke has already given us a lengthy description of tongues in a few chapters earlier. It was miraculously speaking foreign languages. He doesn't need to repeat himself every time he subsequently mentions the phenomenon. He would only need to give us a re-definition if the tongues at Cornelius' household was materially difference. But there is none. In the absence of any redefinition it must be presumed to be the same.

In Cornelius's house, the hearers were all Jews, ie. One language!
You are planting your garbage in the text again.
Acts10v46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and magnifying God.
Unless Luke had used the gift of interpretation, he would have no idea what language is spoken, human or angelic.

That doesn't mean the gentiles spoke in a non-human language. The gentile tongue may well have been Hebrew. And who said everyone in Peter's party only knew one language? Someone could quite easily have known Latin, or another language if they were well traveled.

Firstly, I never ever said tongues were non-human language, those are your words.
Secondly, I have never claimed that all tongues are any language. I simply keep repeating what Paul says -that tongues can be of men or angels.

I wish you'd make up your mind.

 

[swordsman1]

Mmmm
The Pharisees walked by reason.
The fishermen walked by Spirit.

Saul, another high minded Pharisee, also walked by reason, until he stumbled to a halt along the Damascus road, suddenly discovering exactly how blind his reasoning was.

Fortunately for Saul, there was a local fool around named Ananias who very unreasonably listened to God.

Acts10v10................ The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”
“Yes, Lord,” he answered.

11The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

For a brief moment, Ananias starts using his reason to quiz God's wisdom.
13“Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

But unlike many Christians today, Ananias knew when to shove his human reason back in its box.

And because of Ananias's unreasonable behaviour, Saul became Paul, and also decided it was time to shackle his human reasoning powers.​

So you think when we become Christians we should abandon our God given ability to reason and apply sound exegesis and instead rely on subjective feelings and mystical experiences? Let's see what scripture says:

Isa. 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” says the Lord,

1 Cor 14:20 "in your thinking be mature."

Matthew 22:37 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind."​

No, God is a logical being and He wants His people to be logical and reasonable as well. As Jonathan Edwards said, "God wants to reach the heart, but he never bypasses the head along the way."

 

[Major1]

Using your analogy that means, "all" of the Spiritual gifts have ended too, and they no longer are in operation today.

Tell me, which year, month, and day did they suddenly stop? Which year did the Lord suddenly decide to stop using the Spiritual gifts?

So those standing in line waiting to be healed at the hands of an Apostle were suddenly turned away at 1:07pm in the afternoon and told, "Sorry buddy, you're out of luck, Scripture has now been cannozied!"

When did he stop the gift of Prophecy?
Of Serving?
Of Teaching?
Of Exhortation?
Of Giving?
Of Leadership?
Of Mercy?
Of Word Of Wisdom?
Of Word Of Knowledge?
Of Word Of Faith?
Of performing Miracles?
Of Discernment Of Spirits?
Of Interptretation of tongues?
Of Helps?
Of Administrations?

That is not the case. The "SIGN GIFTS" that were given to the apostles is what I have been talking about.

The Scriptures in Mark 16:14-18 are the Great Commision given to the 11 Apostles.
"Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

That was given to the ELEVEN Apostles and there is not ONE single Bible verse which says that the Apostolic position was one of succession. When John died, the SIGN GIFTS ended and the canon of Scriptures was compete.

 

[1stcenturylady]

So you think when we become Christians we should abandon our God given ability to reason and apply sound exegesis and instead rely on subjective feelings and mystical experiences? Let's see what scripture says:

Isa. 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” says the Lord,

1 Cor 14:20 "in your thinking be mature."

Matthew 22:37 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind."​

No, God is a logical being and He wants His people to be logical and reasonable as well. As Jonathan Edwards said, "God wants to reach the heart, but he never bypasses the head along the way."

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

To hear your personal eisegesis of the above scripture, you believe it means no one is present who understands naturally the language spoken. That is not sound biblical exegesis.

 

[swordsman1]

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

To hear your personal eisegesis of the above scripture, you believe it means no one is present who understands naturally the language spoken. That is not sound biblical exegesis.

Yes it is. The first 3 rules of bible exegesis are (1) context, (2) context, and (3) context. The context of the whole of 1 Cor 14 is Paul addressing the problem of the Corinthians speaking an unrecognized tongue in the congregation. So in v2 he says the person who is speaks an unrecognized tongue is not speaking to men because no one in the congregation understands him. He is only speaking to God, who understands all languages. That doesn't mean it was a non-human language. If someone was speaking say Persian in a small house church in Greece then it is no surprise that no one understands him.

 

[Fidelibus]

Just an observation. I peeked in on this thread just so see whats being discussed. What I noticed, is what Catholics within this forum have been saying is true right here on this page #108. That being, without any authority, there is discord as seen here, which equals to the fact of disunity and why there are tens of thousands of different Protestant/ Evangelical/ Fundamental/ Non-Denominational churches and sects throughout the globe. I am willing to wager that if I were to ask any of the posters, (pescador, 1rstcenturylady, Biblicist, Explorer55, swordsman1, bbbbbbb, and Major1) if the're interpretations of the Scripture passages they are commenting on was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so they have to be correct, they would say yes.

If that is the case, why the disagreements? Surely, you all would agree there is no possible way the Holy Spirit could be in error..... right? So...... after this observation, the question to you all is, which of you are in error, and which one of you thinks they're not?


Thanks in advance

 

[1stcenturylady]

Yes it is. The first 3 rules of bible exegesis are (1) context, (2) context, and (3) context. The context of the whole of 1 Cor 14 is Paul addressing the problem of the Corinthians speaking an unrecognized tongue in the congregation. So in v2 he says the person who is speaks an unrecognized tongue is not speaking to men because no one in the congregation understands him. He is only speaking to God, who understands all languages. That doesn't mean it was a non-human language. If someone was speaking say Persian in a small house church in Greece then it is no surprise that no one understands him.

But you believe the interpretation must be natural. That is where your human reasoning is getting in the way of exegesis.

 

[swordsman1]

But you believe the interpretation must be natural. That is where your human reasoning is getting in the way of exegesis.

I never said that. Can I smell straw again?

 

[1stcenturylady]

I never said that. Can I smell straw again?

No straw, that's what you have been saying. If not, how do YOU believe we understand speaking in tongues?