Speaking in Tongues a Cessationists’ View

[redleghunter]

The discussion about tongues need not include accusations of tongues-speakers being under demonic influence.

I agree.

That's a declaration of war, not a discussion.

Yes such poisons the well.

We could easily make the same accusation, but we aren't going there.

As you should not. Be the bigger person in the thread.

 

[Anto9us]

1Co 14:4
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

The speakers at Pentecost were not speaking to edify themselves -- I submit that whatever ecstasy they may have felt that made many think they were drunk had them in a state of being EDIFIED ENOUGH -- they were not speaking TO GOD, or to edify themselves, they were communicating to other people the gospel in a language those people knew but the speakers did not -- this is #5 in Steve's 'types of tongues' -- the tongues in 14:4 above are of a different sort.

I seek to show that ACTS 2 is by no means "the only kind of tongues described in the Bible" -- far from it

 

[Major1]

I've already posted this once today...

The first 3 rules of biblical interpretation are:
1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

The context of the whole of chapter 14 is Paul addressing the problem of the Corinthians speaking an unrecognized tongue in church meetings. The "no one" is not referring to no one on the face of the earth, but to no one in the meeting. So v2 should be read "For one who speaks in an [unrecognized] tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one [in the congregation] understands." That doesn't mean it was a non-human language. If someone was speaking say Persian in a small Greek house-church then it is no surprise that no one understands him. Only God, who understands all languages, knows what was spoken.

BTW the word 'unknown' is not in the original Greek. The KJV translators added this in an attempt to make it clear that it was an unrecognized language.

100% correct. It was a letter of "Correction"!

 

[Major1]

Co 14:2
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.

Here we have a reference to speaking in tongues which is not at all what we had at Pentecost -- at Pentecost MEN were spoken to - here Paul describes what many of us call 'prayer language'; it is TO GOD -- it is not to Parthians, Medes, Cretans, Pamphylians, et al -- it is to God.

As you refuse to direct your comments to anyone, I for one will not be able to respond to your comments any further.

It is only proper and acceptable that we do so so that the correct debate can take place.

I am sad to have to do this as I can see that you are a learned and committed believer and we could grow from each other.

Blessing to you my brother.

 

[swordsman1]

1Co 14:4
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

The speakers at Pentecost were not speaking to edify themselves -- I submit that whatever ecstasy they may have felt that made many think they were drunk had them in a state of being EDIFIED ENOUGH -- they were not speaking TO GOD, or to edify themselves, they were communicating to other people the gospel in a language those people knew but the speakers did not -- this is #5 in Steve's 'types of tongues' -- the tongues in 14:4 above are of a different sort.

I seek to show that ACTS 2 is by no means "the only kind of tongues described in the Bible" -- far from it

The disciples were not communicating the gospel. They were "declaring the wonders of God". ie Praise.

1 Cor 14:4 says nothing about the language spoken.

 

[redleghunter]

That's great question. Hopefully this will shed some light on the subject. Your question contains a common misconception that we can explore here and now.

The short answer, of course, is no. I can't understand someone else's tongues with an interpretation. But you are not correctly understanding the situation. I will explain.

The common anti-tongues view is to point at 1 Corinthians chapter 14 and claim that NO ONE should speak in tongues at church unless there is interpretation. This assumes that there is only one kind of tongues. This is not correct. See my list of five kinds of tongues at the bottom of this post.

The Apostle Paul was not prohibiting tongues without interpretation. He was saying that a word in tongues delivered to the entire congregation (#3 in the list below) is not edifying unless it includes an interpretation. The last thing he said in the chapter was not to forbid tongues. But what is Cessationism about? The forbidding of tongues.

Therefore, the person next to me in service is not delivering a prophetic word to the whole congregation, they are engaged in corporate worship. I have no need to understand WHAT they are saying. I am edified just knowing that the Holy Spirit is moving in the service.

Essentially, it all boils down to who is being spoken to. Is the worshiper speaking to God? Our is God speaking to the church?

I hope that helps. Continue with the respectful questions if you want to know more. Thanks.

Five Different kinds of tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic prayer language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

Thank you. I saw your previous posts on the differing types. I was specifically asking about prayers I believe. You answered the question, thanks again.

 

[Anto9us]

I wonder if you would agree that there was actually no argument between Continueists and Cessationist until about 100 or so years ago with the rise of the Charismatic Holiness Movement faith and Keswick theology.

It seems to me that there was no discussion on sign gifts and tongues until then.

I do not agree with that, Major1 -- in this thread there have been NUMEROUS quotes from Early Church Fathers both pro and con regarding continuationism/cessationism.

Augustine was the most recent example of an early church father discussing tongues and their alleged cessation.

BTW, if I do not specify someone's name by either spelling it out or putting one of their quotes right above my comments -- I am addressing ANYONE WHO MIGHT BE READING THIS THREAD!!

THEY the unnamed passer-by in the thread may be the most important recipient of my thoughts of all, after all, most of those actually posting here have an opinion which they are not going to change anyway, so here in this public venue we charismatics are subject to accusations of voo-doo-ism, opening ourselves to evil spirits, doing tongues just to 'get a high off of it', etc.

BTW the word 'unknown' is not in the original Greek. The KJV translators added this in an attempt to make it clear that it was an unrecognized language.

Thank you for bringing that up, Swordy, anyone who looks at an Interlinear easily sees the word UNKNOWN is not there in the Greek, but not everyone uses Interlinears, and you make a valid point that should be known.

 

[redleghunter]

Explain why you think it is a requirement. Thanks.

Five Different kinds of tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic prayer language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

1 Corinthians 14: NASB

4One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. 5Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

Purpose here is for the edification of the church.

 

[Traveling teacher]

the problem i have with the cessationist view is:

which gifts are done away.....
ok tongues...but what else.....
there are 20-30 diferent gifts spoken of in the NT....
what about these:
knowledge...
prophesies...
deliverence...casting out of demons.....
helps....
mercy gifts.....
healings......
miracles.....
gift of faith.....
1 corinthians 12

i will say it can be kinda freaky these 2 gifts:
tongues and deliverence......

not every one has the gift of deliverence...tough ministry...
but some do.....

if you dont understand these gifts dont just throw them out...
go visit a Spirit Filled /charismatic, pentecostal church for 1 year...
observe what they do then take it back to the bible.....

This word of God is not made just to study from a distance but to be obeyed....thats how we learn.....

we all have diferent gifts in the body...
just cause I dont operate in someones gift doesnt mean I throw it out cause I dont understand it.....

1 Corinthians 12:12
12Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.

 

[Anto9us]

1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God

1Co 14:4
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

14:4 would be Steve's type#1

Pentecost would be his #5

 

[redleghunter]

Now that I think about it, if the body can communicate one's mind through body language, why wouldn't our spirits display what we are about to any spiritually observant person.

I read a article in one of my churches magazines that talked about this pedophile that walked up to a mother and daughter and started a pleasant conversation. The Mom was completely duped but the kid told her Mom that was a 'bad man'. She must have noticed the spiritual posture of the man. I imagine our prayers must have a spiritual posture, and they might even be able to pray without using Broca's and Wernicke's area of the brain where semantic language is processed. But we couldn't be conscious of it in a verbal sense, but maybe we could feel it.

Children can be very discerning.

 

[Saint Steven]

Thank you. I saw your previous posts on the differing types. I was specifically asking about prayers I believe. You answered the question, thanks again.

Here's another thing you might find interesting. The standing/sitting thing.
Apparently they did church the opposite of what we do. Look at verse 30 below.

The "first" speaker gives way to the one sitting down.
It seems the congregation stood while the leaders were seated.
When a revelation came to a leader (seated) the first speaker (standing) should stop.

1 Corinthians 14:29-33
Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.
30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.
31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.
32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.
33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

 

[Saint Steven]

1 Corinthians 14: NASB

4One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. 5Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

Purpose here is for the edification of the church.

But which type of tongues is it referring to?
Tongues is being compared to prophesy. So that would be number 3 in my list below.

Five Different kinds of tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic prayer language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

 

[Hillsage]

You left out most of chapter 14 where the concern is the edification of the church. Paul concluded with what you posted above.

Therefore you have just returned vitriol for vitriol. Maybe we should all turn back to chapter 13 and see what Paul teaches there.

You know what? I think Dave L's post, just two down from yours telling me how vitriol I am, is more worthy of your rebuke than it was to me. But I've scanned the next two pages with NADA a word from you to him. Seems like similar 'doctrinal blood BACK' supersedes a 'spiritual relationship UP'. At least I admitted your side can BE Christians, while Dave's judgment against me absolutely denies that I am. And your silence is just sad IMO. What can I say, but God forgive him even as I forgive him. Yeah, that sounds less vitriol to me, hopefully you agree. and again I say

And yes chapter 13 is very important. It is like the 'FRUIT of the Spirit' sandwiched between the 'gifts of the Spirit' in chapters 12 and 14. Which is the NT spiritual reality, of the OT shadow of a physical 'bell and a pomegranate and a bell' on the hem of the blue priestly garments representative of holy spirit ministry. And in the NT symbolic of the fact we need both supernatural fruit and supernatural power to be complete. Unfortunately most major on the fruit and put down the gift of supernatural power. So while we get called spiritual fruitcakes, you all seem a bit like those 'looking a gift horse in the mouth'.

EXO 28:34 a golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, round about on the skirts of the robe. 35 And it shall be upon Aaron when he ministers,

 

[Albion]

I wonder if you would agree that there was actually no argument between Continueists and Cessationist until about 100 or so years ago with the rise of the Charismatic Holiness Movement faith and Keswick theology.

It seems to me that there was no discussion on sign gifts and tongues until then.

Thoughts?

I hesitate to speak as having any authority on this, but everything I read about the movement and its leaders--and by its early leaders--seems to have certain characteristics.

The tongues which were a bombshell development, Earth-shattering we might say, were described as being known languages, languages that nations actually spoke. That is also what these people believed the Pentecost experience as recorded in the NT was all about.

Missionaries to primitive lands a hundred or so years ago were reported to have been endowed with the gift of tongues to speak to the local peoples IN those peoples customary language. This theme is constant. By the way, the claim is also made that some believers received the gift while others did not.

There is some talk about being in ecstasy and of needing translators, and of the experience being overwhelming and liberating. But that is said along with the claim that these were real languages.

My conclusion is that you are right about the continuationist/cessationist controversy of recent times. I find nothing of that in the literature about and from the earlier period. I also think that many more claims that are today common among continuationists have developed in similar fashion. That is to say, they are adaptations necessitated in order to have a response to the points made by cessationists.

One example is the argument that tongues did not cease for over 1000 years. God merely blinded the rest of society to it. Or the RCC destroyed all record of the phenomenon. Even the word itself (cessationist) exists only because Pentecostals felt the need for a term to pin on their opponents.

 

[Anto9us]

I posted before that I saw FIFTEEN different possible languages among the 'visitors to Jerusalem' on day of Pentecost.

I am very interested in just what occurred there - for I don't see 12 apostles by themselves conveying the message to fifteen nationalities -- nor am I sure all of the 120 disciples were involved, and scenarioes switch between an Upper Room, to a house, until ultimately -- we are in a scenario where all the various tongue-talkers yield to Peter alone, and Peter is SOMEWHERE in an area where at least 3000 people hear him. I have seen a re-enactment of Pentecost where Solomon's porch is the scene - but just looking at the Bible alone is what I want to do. I am glad I don't remember much about the re-enactment, I was quite young.

Pentecost itself is very important to understand exactly what went on, but again, Acts 2 is not the only kind of Tongues in the Bible.

 

[Dave L]

QUOTE="Saint Steven, post: 73024330, member: 411086"]Where does your ever-widening circle stop?

You claim that the charismatic gifts only came by way of the two outpourings, or the Apostles' hands. There was a third outpouring, but let's ignore that for now. (Acts 4:31)

Who are the Apostles?
- There were the Twelve of course. (Judas out, Matthias in Acts 1:24-26)
These were the 12 Apostles. (capital "A")
- The Apostle Paul is then added as an apostle. (small "a")
Is that where we draw the line on apostles?
This creates the possibility for apostles to be added beyond the original twelve.

- What about Apollos? ​

- And Barnabas? (also called an apostle)

Then we see Ananias, the elders at Timothy's church, and finally
Timothy distributing gifts by the laying on of hands.

Where does it end? It doesn't.
There is no way to contain apostleship and the
Holy Spirit gift-giving by the laying on of hands.[/QUOTE]
“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,” (Romans 1:1)

“Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” (Galatians 1:1)

“Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1)

“And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:23–26)

 

[Dave L]

No. I'm saying that:
- Ananias was NOT an Apostle
- The elders at Timothy's church were NOT Apostles
- Barnabas was NOT an Apostle (capital "A")
- Timothy was NOT an Apostle

But Jesus personally appointed Ananias to minister the Holy Spirit to Paul. And one of the requirements for Apostleship was seeing the Lord personally. Paul calls Barnabas an Apostle. The elders laid hands on Timothy who already had the gifts imparted to him by Paul. And Paul was an Apostle who distributed the gifts through his hands.

 

[redleghunter]

But which type of tongues is it referring to?
Tongues is being compared to prophesy. So that would be number 3 in my list below.

Five Different kinds of tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic prayer language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

In the setting of 1 Corinthians chapter 14 it would include any such public speaking in tongues. The theme in that chapter is not the type, but what is edifying for the body or church. That was my main point in brining it up.

 

[Saint Steven]

But Jesus personally appointed Ananias to minister the Holy Spirit to Paul. And one of the requirements for Apostleship was seeing the Lord personally. Paul calls Barnabas an Apostle. The elders laid hands on Timothy who already had the gifts imparted to him by Paul. And Paul was an Apostle who distributed the gifts through his hands.

The question remains. Where do we draw the line on apostles?

As soon as the apostle Paul was added, the floodgates were opened. There is no end to apostleship now. And as you pointed out, Ananias was next in line to administer gifts. Though nowhere is he considered an apostle. (except in your mind)

Continuation is the only logical conclusion.