Speaking in Tongues a Cessationists’ View

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Many of your fellow Pentecostals say otherwise.

I had that view for many years, and then I studied the Scripture more closely and realised that in all the examples, the Holy Spirit came into people at the point of being born again - Pentecost, Cornelius, and the Ephesus disciples. I could not see anywhere that the Holy Spirit came as a subsequent event. I then realised that Pentecostals used the Ephesus disciples as their basis for a subsequent experience, a "second blessing" if you will. But these disciples weren't born again. They were believers with just the baptism of repentance under John the baptist. It was only when Paul shared the gospel of Christ that they received Him, and immediately they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Notice that Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit yet. Then once he knew that they needed to hear the gospel of Christ, that's what he shared. So, in my mind, Paul is saying to them that receiving the Holy Spirit and being born again are the same thing. This is why the Scripture says that those who don't have the Spirit of Christ are none of His. This is because those who don't have the Spirit of Christ (ie; the Holy Spirit) are not born again, because being born again involves receiving the Holy Spirit as well.

So, why do believers need to be encouraged to receive "the baptism with the Spirit?" as is taught in Pentecostal churches? I believe it is not a separate infilling of the Spirit because that has already happened at conversion. It is more to allow the Holy Spirit to flow out of them in whatever way He chooses.

Tongues is not the only way that can happen. 1 Corinthians 12 lists a whole lot more in terms of ministries and gifts that could flow out of a believer.

I trust that clarifies my position. It may not be a Pentecostal one, but it is Biblical.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Wow - lotta posts since I went to sleep.
Thx for contributing, redleghuner.

I don't know where to start - but, no, I don't understand what someone next to me is praying in tongues -- and that is the type of tongues where it is NOT a "message to the congregation" that needs to be interpreted.

As far as who does interpreting, it is usually someone OTHER THAN the one who gave the message in tongues, but sometimes it is the one who gave the message in tongues interpreting his own tongues, I have seen it both ways in the charismatic Episcopal church that went strictly BY THE BOOK, I mean, there was never there any of the "everybody does prayer language at once, lifting hands and praying/singing in tongues." To rule that out is a bit much to me -- charismatics know the difference between a message in tongues to the congregation and 'everybody doing prayer language in praise', but like I said, the Episcopal church was determined to abstain from any appearance of evil or disorder.

As far as me bringing up the concept of blaspheming the Holy Spirit early in this thread, I submit that it was legitimate to mention it, I did not specifically accuse any individual of doing so, people need to know about it. In the same vein, when it was mentioned about "non-verbal" tongues (an oxymoron) there is need for a warning against things akin to automatic writing, which could be demonic.

I am not a big fan of Augustine, and I don't know why it's such a BIG DEAL about "who can find the real reference that those E-ville pentecostals quote" that Augustine said tongues existed in his day. but I will keep looking. So far I have found stuff about Augustine's arguments with Donatists (which went on for decades) wherein it was said that Donatists held tongues to be a part of their beliefs and Augustine was against them and it. I will keep looking for stuff about Augustine, he is unique in that he wrote a bunch of books and also later wrote RETRACTIONS, where he reversed some things he had earlier said.

Ya know, I have not witnessed any "bad stuff" or 'non-genuine tongues' like some people here have mentioned, though there was one bad experience with Word of Knowledge -- given under this "someone in the congregation has been healed of _______" which is a pretty bogus way of delivering a Word of Knowledge IMO.

A humorous incident in the Charismatic Episcopal church -- someone gave a message in Tongues, and usually only a moment went by before an interpretation was given, by someone else or by the original speaker -- but this time Time dragged on and on with no interpretation, everyone wondered.

Then coincidentally - a cell phone rang in a pew near where the speaker was - and moments later an Interpretation was given; some of us with our warped sense of humor joked that the interpretation came in by cell phone, but of course it was just a coincidence.

I think the scaremongering story about someone speaking blasphemies while speaking in tongues was made up by a cessationist and after it was spread around, the origin of the story could not be found, therefore there was no evidence that the story was actually true.

It is true that occultists can speak in their own version of tongues, but it is very ritualistic and takes place only as incantations. These people are not praying to any god, nor do these tongues come with interpretation. There is no sense of worship with these tongues. It is quite true that the pagans also had their own version of tongues, but they were the same as practiced by the occultists. If someone heard one of these speaking in what seemed like tongues but was an understandable language full of blasphemies, then it was not tongues at all but an occultist speaking a foreign language mistaken for tongues, and by the time the "chinese whispers" of gossip and repeated accounts got around, it became a totally different account from the original.

My interpretation of the cell phone ringing would be: "God is on the phone...er..ah..I mean...on the Throne!"

 

[Albion]

Be careful that you do not belittle other groups of believers by calling them false. Read the forum rules. You can disagree with the charismatic gifts but you are out of order on this forum by calling other Christians false believers because they believe in them.

Read the post you are quoting from again. He does not call other Christians false believers there; he says that certain CLAIMS made for the charismatic gifts are false.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

https://charlesasullivan.com/3662/an-analysis-of-augustine-on-tongues-and-the-donatists/

A bit on Augustine vs the Donatists, who indeed did practice tongues in that day.

The characteristic of that group were basically the same as modern day Charismatics. But they were suppressed by the established Church in the same way that Charismatics are persecuted and put down today. The only real evidence of them is seen through the accounts of their enemies, which have put a bias on them and made us believe that the Donatists were heretics. They were only heretics in the view of the established Church, not necessarily from the standpoint of the Bible. Augustine was a product of the Established Church and therefore any criticism of them from him would have to be biased. Anyway, Augustine was just a human being like all the rest of us, and has an incomplete view just like the rest of us also.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Even voodoo practitioners do this. Many cultures get a buzz speaking in tongues but it is not genuine biblical tongues.
http://www.dana.org/News/Speaking_in_Tongues__Glossalalia_and_Stress_Reduction/

When the two different types of tongues are carefully studied, voodoo tongues are radically different from Charismatic tongues. Voodoo tongues are just incantations to activate the evil spirits, not to make communication to any god. Charismatic tongues do not activate any sensory experience of the presence of God, because the presence of God is already there. The tongues are communication to God through the Holy Spirit. The whole characteristic of Charismatic tongues and the purpose of it, is so different from Voodoo tongues that there is absolutely no comparison. I know because I did a paper on traditional religions for my MDiv degree, and pagan religions were part of that study. So I know what I am talking about.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Mark 16:14-16
"Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues".

Whether we like it or not the Lord Jesus Himself said those words TO THE ELEVEN. He gave them, the APOSTLES the "sign gifts" so that they would have the ability to continue His mission.

2 Cor. 12:12...……..
"Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds."

That verse clearly teaches that signs and wonders followed the apostles.

Eph. 2:20 …………….
"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone".

That verse clearly teaches that the apostles were necessary for the foundation of the church, and thus are no longer needed today. Combining these two scriptures leads to the argument that since signs and wonders were characteristic of apostles, and since apostles were only necessary for the foundation period of the church, signs have ceased together with the office of the apostle.

There is NOT ONE SINGLE BIBLE SCRIPTURE that validates, mandates or even suggests the continuation of the "Apostolic sign gifts".

It should be understood by all who read it that Eph. 2:20 teaches the temporal nature of apostles and prophets. I would also think that it would be clear that miraculous signs were characteristic of all who were apostles.

Since NO ONE qualifies as an apostle today, simple common sense along with the Scriptures should allow us all to understand that tongues and "sign gifts" ended when the last apostle died.

We now have the written Word of God and the Gospels.

My understanding of foundations is that once in place they stay where they are permanently. Therefore once the house is built on the foundations, the whole building includes the foundations as well. Take the foundations away from a completed building and the building will collapse. So it is all in the way your interpret the word "foundation" and how you decide to use it. You use it one way and I use it another, and both are correct definitions of the word.

Yes, we do have the written Bible and the gospels, but we don't see the thousands of pagans coming to Christ these days as they were when the gifts were common in the early Church.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Eph 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

How in the world does someone get a "temporal nature" of the apostles and prophets from that verse?

My definition of "foundation" is that it is a permanent component of the whole building. Take the foundation away and the Church will collapse.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Is the foundation of the church still being built? Do we still have apostles today? If apostles ceased after the foundation (and few dispute they did) then so did prophets. And if prophets ceased then so did tongues (1 Cor 13:8).

The foundation of the Church was built in the first Century with the Apostles. The foundation was finished and the Church continued to be built on it. The foundation is still there undergirding the building. Without the foundation, the building could not stand. When a house is built, we don't continue building the foundation. Anyone with a brain would know that. Just talk to a builder and try and convince him that once the house is built we have to continually work on the foundation. He would look at you as if you had two heads! Christians have better brains than that. Just because we go to church, doesn't mean that we leave our brains at home!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Read the post you are quoting from again. He does not call other Christians false believers there; he says that certain CLAIMS made for the charismatic gifts are false.

He is saying that charismatic tongues originates from a pagan source. This implies that charismatics who speak in tongues are actually practicing paganism. Because light cannot fellowship with darkness, either one is totally Christian or totally pagan. What is being implied is that charismatics, although Christian in belief, are pagan in practice. I think that this goes to the borderline between keeping and breaking the rules of this forum. A person can say that pagan tongues existed and may sound in some ways similar to Christian tongues, as I did, but he or she cannot say that they ARE pagan. That breaks the forum rules by stating that a group of believers are pagan and not genuinely Christian.

 

[Dave L]

When the two different types of tongues are carefully studied, voodoo tongues are radically different from Charismatic tongues. Voodoo tongues are just incantations to activate the evil spirits, not to make communication to any god. Charismatic tongues do not activate any sensory experience of the presence of God, because the presence of God is already there. The tongues are communication to God through the Holy Spirit. The whole characteristic of Charismatic tongues and the purpose of it, is so different from Voodoo tongues that there is absolutely no comparison. I know because I did a paper on traditional religions for my MDiv degree, and pagan religions were part of that study. So I know what I am talking about.

Today's charismatic tongues are not genuine. You must learn how to speak in tongues. It was spontaneous in Acts. Also it is sectarian today. Also those who spoke in tongues knew what they were saying. Understanding what was said was the basis for edification. Today you might get a buzz like any group of heathen who speak in tongues do, but you still do not know what you are saying.

 

[Dave L]

Be careful that you do not belittle other groups of believers by calling them false. Read the forum rules. You can disagree with the charismatic gifts but you are out of order on this forum by calling other Christians false believers because they believe in them.

I said Charismatic claims are false in this area. I did not say Charismatics are not Christians.

 

[Dave L]

What proof do you have that Ananias of Damascus ever saw the Lord personally?
Or the apostle Paul, for that matter.

“And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.” (Acts 9:10–12)

The rest is history that might or might not be true. But Christ personally sent Ananias to Paul.

 

[Dave L]

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.

An Apostle had to be an eye witness of Christ's resurrection. Paul was (on the road to Damascus) as was Ananias when Jesus sent him to Paul.
“Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” (Acts 1:22)

 

[Major1]

He is saying that charismatic tongues originates from a pagan source. This implies that charismatics who speak in tongues are actually practicing paganism. Because light cannot fellowship with darkness, either one is totally Christian or totally pagan. What is being implied is that charismatics, although Christian in belief, are pagan in practice. I think that this goes to the borderline between keeping and breaking the rules of this forum. A person can say that pagan tongues existed and may sound in some ways similar to Christian tongues, as I did, but he or she cannot say that they ARE pagan. That breaks the forum rules by stating that a group of believers are pagan and not genuinely Christian.

Oscar. History is history and facts are facts and what we think and want to believe are diametrically different. I am, just as you adapt in understanding the spiritual concerns that you stated, however you must realize that in every situation and every church there are people who are doing carnal and unrighteous practices.

The epistle of Corinthians itself records these historical conditions which can not be talked or spiritualized away.

The truth as recorded in the epistle itself tells us that The city of Corinth was filled with paganism.

It was Unfortunately known as a historical the city was best known for its sexual immorality.

Fact.... There was a temple to Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, above the city.

Fact...…Every evening 1000 priestesses, who were sacred prostitutes, would descend to the streets of Corinth to practice their trade.

Fact......The city became so well known for such immorality that the very name was made into a verb. To "corinthianize" literally meant to go to bed with a prostitute.

Perhaps you are wondering what all of this has to do with the subject at hand.

• 
  
  • 
    a. The Corinthian church was made up of a core of Jewish believers but many of its members were saved out of this paganistic background.
    
    b. Unfortunately, many brought these pagan practices into the local church.
    
    c. Consider some of the problems that Paul had to deal with in this first epistle.
    
    • 
      1) There were divisions, personality cults, and cliques.
      
      2) Carnality outweighed spirituality.
      
      3) Sexual perversion, fornication, incest, and adultery were commonly practiced and accepted.
      
      4) Pride, worldliness, and materialism reigned within.
      
      5) Church members were taking one another to court.
      
      6) There was rebellion against apostolic authority.
      
      7) There was a failure to discipline members had fallen into sin.
      
      8) Marital conflict and mis- understanding concerning those who were single were evident.
      
      9) There were abuses of liberty.
      
      10) There were abuses of God's intended roles for husbands and wives.
      
      11) They were failing to properly observe the Lord's Supper.
      
      12) It is not hard to understand how there could also be serious perversion of the spiritual gifts.
      
      13) There were also heresies concerning the resurrection.
      
      
      

 

[Saint Steven]

“And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.” (Acts 9:10–12)

The rest is history that might or might not be true. But Christ personally sent Ananias to Paul.

Seen in a vision does not equal seen personally. I could See Abraham Lincoln in a vision. Does that mean that I met the man in person? Nope.

 

[Dave L]

Seen in a vision does not equal seen personally. I could See Abraham Lincoln in a vision. Does that mean that I met the man in person? Nope.

Visions are not hallucinations. But in Acts they are personal contacts either between an angel or Christ himself. Was Stephen hallucinating when he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God?

 

[Saint Steven]

An Apostle had to be an eye witness of Christ's resurrection. Paul was (on the road to Damascus) as was Ananias when Jesus sent him to Paul.
“Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” (Acts 1:22)

You adjust your doctrine to accommodate our reasonable objections. The apostle Paul was NOT an eye witness of Christ's resurrection. His encounter was after Christ\s ascension.

 

[Dave L]

You adjust your doctrine to accommodate our reasonable objections. The apostle Paul was NOT an eye witness of Christ's resurrection. His encounter was after Christ\s ascension.

If Christ had not risen, Paul would not have seen him on the road to Damascus.

 

[Saint Steven]

Visions are not hallucinations. But in Acts they are personal contacts either between an angel or Christ himself. Was Stephen hallucinating when he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God?

He was the only one who saw the vision. And in the case of Saul, the Lord spoke to him. As I recall, the only thing seen was a blinding light flashing around him. Not the same as seeing the Lord personally after his resurrection. (before his ascension)

 

[Saint Steven]

If Christ had not risen, Paul would not have seen him on the road to Damascus.

No. If Christ had not ascended, Paul would not have HEARD him. Not the same as seeing the Lord personally after his resurrection. (before his ascension) Paul did not see the resurrected Christ.