Speaking in Tongues a Cessationists’ View

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Paul and Ananias were both commissioned by Christ. This was a mark of an Apostle.

In which case it is quite possible for people to be commissioned by Christ today... and impart the gift(s) in the same way as these did.

 

[Albion]

Neither is listening to someone else making sounds and convincing oneself that it is not a supernatural gift.

Not a very good answer since the question is whether or not the sounds are actually the same as the tongues referred to in the New Testament. If they cannot be shown to be so, all that is left is wishful thinking and a doctrine that is not Bible-based .

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Not a very good answer since the question is whether or not the sounds are actually the same as the tongues referred to in the New Testament. If they cannot be shown to be so, all that is left is wishful thinking and a doctrine that is not Bible-based .

My apologies for misunderstanding you.

On the other hand we can have a doctrine that is Bible-based, what we can't prove is that the tongues spoken today are the same as those spoken 2000 years ago, but we can't prove that it isn't either so that actually leads us nowhere.

 

[Albion]

My apologies for misunderstanding you.

On the other hand we can have a doctrine that is Bible-based,

In principle, that probably is so. However, that would mean that the charismatic Christian would have no evidence that it is so, but just that he believes it to be so.

I think that much of the friction between the two sides comes from the insistence on the part of most charismatics that they CAN prove it--as well as (in the case of some people) that the original tongues never ceased--although they cannot prove it.

Of course, they would want to prove it from Scripture since they are Bible-believing people, but when it comes to this most characteristic belief of theirs, the Bible doesn't offer that proof.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

In principle, that probably is so. However, that would mean that the charismatic Christian would have no evidence that it is so, but just that he believes it to be so.

I think that much of the friction between the two sides comes from the insistence on the part of most charismatics that they CAN prove it--as well (in the case of some people) that the original tongues never ceased--although they cannot.

Actually there are plenty of points of friction even among those that do agree on tongues.

My point is that one cannot prove to another person that one is saved, even if one knows it to be true, one can provide evidence but that is the best one can do. It is ALL based on faith and anyone who says they can prove any of it is on dodgy ground.

On the other hands, tongues can be traced back to at least Edward Irving in the early 19th century and before that many comments might suggest other occurrences, though it is too easy to read tongues into vague comments.

We now have evidence 200 years of people speaking in other languages, whether it is like the NT experiences or not. It is not going to go away just because someone wishes it to. Which is why most of us who speak in tongues think it is authentic, whether we can prove it or not. My concern now is with trying to get what is happening to Christians today to line up with Paul's concerns (principally) but also the experiences of those receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts.

 

[Albion]

On the other hands, tongues can be traced back to at least Edward Irving in the early 19th century and before that many comments might suggest other occurrences, though it is too easy to read tongues into vague comments.

Personally, I don't think this fact means much. As you know, the movements founded by Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Charles Taze Russell date back to about the same time period but that doesn't make their teachings true.

We now have evidence 200 years of people speaking in other languages, whether it is like the NT experiences or not.

Well, I am of the impression that it matters a lot to Pentecostals and Charismatics that their practices be thought to be the same as described in the New Testament. It is the critics who say that it is just an imitation of something we read about in the Bible.

 

[Saint Steven]

Just a minute. That doesn't mean that they did not cease.

The historic record shows that tongues gradually became less and less in evidence and then ceased -- for centuries on end. The fact that some people in rather recent times were moved to restart the use of tongues does not mean that they had not ceased prior to that.

Did it never occur to Cessationists that the decline, if any, was due to their teaching that it was a demonic practice? Lay the blame where it belongs.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

In principle, that probably is so. However, that would mean that the charismatic Christian would have no evidence that it is so, but just that he believes it to be so.

Actually he has the evidence that he is speaking in tongues. Unless he knows it to be somehow fraudulent, then it is evidence that is including in reasoning on the matter of tongues

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Personally, I don't think this fact means much. As you know, the movements founded by Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Charles Taze Russell date back to about the same time period but that doesn't make their teachings true.

As does the movement founded by William Booth. The time period is meaningless. Irving did not speak in tongues he just presided over a church where members did. Irving did not found a heretical sect.

Well, I am of the impression that it matters a lot to Pentecostals and Charismatics that their practices be thought to be the same as described in the New Testament.

Well of course it matters. Pentecostals and Charismatics are also Christians and they want their Christian life to be Biblically based. It is not as though they are proposing that believers do something that is not in the accepted canon of scripture.

It is the critics who say that it is just an imitation of something we read about in the Bible.

And how do the critics know that it is an imitation... presumably they have experienced the real thing and can therefore judge that the Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues are really an imitation. Except none of them seem to be able to share this experience that is authentic, whereas the 'imitation' is still around and blessing millions of people worldwide, something the critics are not doing.

 

[Saint Steven]

If you could prove your position from scripture we would not be dragging this out as long as we have.

I have already done that many times.
No response from you yet. You need to address this.

Acts 2:38-39
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- You (the believers at Pentecost)
- Your children (children of the believers at Pentecost)
- All who are far off (still available to EVERYONE in the future)
- All the Lord our God will call (are we still being called today?)

What is the promise?

Acts 2:33
Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is "what you now see and hear"?

Acts 2:4
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thanks, Oscarr.

This raises a general question I have about the forum. And, I'll admit that I didn't handle this well. However...

Even though this place is by name a "Christian Forum", I have encountered some strange and dangerous characters here. Especially in this Controversial Christian Theology section. What I would consider a "bad neighborhood". I think one of them was put on involuntary vacation, while I being the new guy, was given a wrist slap. (clarification of the rules)

Therefore, I am not comfortable with someone I can identify only by username, showing up and calling me brother while they squat on the door mat of my church. (claiming my practice is of pagan origin) I find this quite offensive. (I know, I know... all up in my flesh, admittedly...)

So, here's the question.
Is there any reason why I should embrace an unknown poster as a "brother" simply because they showed up on a "Christian Forum"? Personally, I think someone should earn that honor through familiarity and trust. I believe it dilutes the richness of the title to throw it to any dog that shows up at your door. (pardon the rough analogy)

Is the term "brother" a meaningless greeting, or should it stand for something?

The question is for anyone to answer. Anyone...

In every good church there are a few goofballs. My church has only 30 people in it, so I might the the only goofball there!

In the same way, a good Christian forum like this one will have all sorts of people in it - the good, bad, and the ugly. That's life, and we must all cope with it. I have been on this forum since the early 2000s, and have experienced all types. Yep. I have made some very carnal responses at times and got some satisfaction out of them. I have been warned more than once when I have thought, "What an idiot! I'll fix him!" and have gone over the top. But I've had to turn around and apologise afterward. When I encounter someone who has negatively attacked me with "you" messages, I now ask the Lord, "What do you want me to say to this person?" And so I am able to make a better response from the Word.

I think that returning good for evil is the best way to counter any attacks. If they are on the real nasty side, then they can be reported and let the moderators deal with them. However, it is really sad when a good and fun thread is closed down by a moderator because of the unChristlike nastiness gets too much. We are to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

I have learned that when I am secure in what I believe, then the attacks go off like water off a duck's back. If you always give good, Biblical answers every time, it is the "invisible" readers who hardly ever post but who read every post who benefit from good, faithbuilding answers. If you treat the forum as ministry and fellowship, to share what God has given you for the benefit of others, then you will enjoy the forum as I have and do. I find it a great outlet for expressing and testing the ideas and revelations I get from time to time.

 

[Saint Steven]

The line as you call it must be and can only be the qualifications which are listed in the Bible for an apostle as they are...……
A witness of Jesus Christ, (Jn 15:27).
Chosen personally by Christ(Lk 6:13),.
A Personal Student of Christ(Lk. 6:13).

It is also duly noted as a matter of fact that all of Jesus’ apostles were Jews and men. No woman or Gentile was ever considered for an apostleship. The apostles were a special group of carefully selected messengers. Only those who meet the qualifications given in the New Testament can rightly serve as apostles of Christ. No one today meets those qualifications. No not one! Therefore, let us guard against those whom Paul warns are “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13).

Here are the apostles according to Dave L.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, what do we have?
- The Apostles (the 12)
- The apostle Paul (can't forget him)
- Ananias (yet another apostle appointed by Dave L)
- The elders at Timothy's church
- Barnabas (called an apostle in Acts 14:14)
- Add Timothy laying hands, but "not suddenly" (per Dave L)

What's to say that the gifts could not have continued given the pattern we see here? Where does your ever-widening circle stop?

 

[Albion]

Did it never occur to Cessationists that the decline, if any, was due to their teaching that it was a demonic practice? Lay the blame where it belongs.

Cessationists ordinarily do not think that glossolalia is demonic. Most simply think it is an emotional overreaction or else that the practitioner has been told by some church or pastor that a real Christian (not a baby Christian!) will do it, sometimes even being coached in how to do it, and that it is a gift from the Holy Spirit. So they make the sounds.

As for the decline in antiquity, there is good reason for thinking that the reason the gifts were a feature of the early church was so that the believers could spread the faith. Today's charismatics attest to this too. Naturally, when the purpose was mainly accomplished, the gifts became progressively less in evidence.

 

[Saint Steven]

Cessationists ordinarily do not think that glossolalia is demonic. Most simply think it is an emotional overreaction or else that the practitioner has been told by some church or pastor that a real Christian (not a baby Christian!) will do it, sometimes even being coached in how to do it, and that it is a gift from the Holy Spirit. So they make the sounds.

As for the decline in antiquity, there is good reason for thinking that the reason the gifts were a feature of the early church was so that the believers could spread the faith. Today's charismatics attest to this too. Naturally, when the purpose was mainly accomplished, the gifts became progressively less in evidence.

Just curious. Have you ever spoken in tongues?

 

[Albion]

And how do the critics know that it is an imitation... presumably they have experienced the real thing and can therefore judge that the Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues are really an imitation.

If there is no real thing, they certainly are not going to be making comparisons. But many studies and my own experience has shown that pastors coach people about how to talk in tongues. That right there proves that is it phony because a gift is just that...a gift, not something learned.

Also, why is it that the one gift mentioned in Corinthians that is the easiest to replicate is the one that is the focus of this experience? Why are not healings nearly as often claimed as tongues-speaking? Because it is not that easy to heal someone if you do not have the gift of healing. But anyone can make repetitious sounds.

And there are many other indications that the languages are not languages at all. For example, people with Southern accents or Bostonian accents speak in tongues with the accents they came in with. But these are supposed to be other languages miraculously being spoken by someone who does not have any ability in them otherwise.

So that is where the charismatic starts to switch his explanation to talk of angelic or ecstatic tongues instead. I don't want to be offensive, but you want the answer, and this is a start.

 

[Hillsage]

I have already done that many times.
No response from you yet. You need to address this.

Acts 2:38-39
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- You (the believers at Pentecost)
- Your children (children of the believers at Pentecost)
- All who are far off (still available to EVERYONE in the future)
- All the Lord our God will call (are we still being called today?)

The error here, which I believe is also not understood by even Charismatics is this. The gift OF the Holy Spirit or the Promise OF the Holy Spirit is NOT the Holy Spirit. The promise is power from/OF the Spirit being manifested through disciples. That is the contextual understanding of verse 33

ACT 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear.

What was 'seen and heard' was supernatural power being manifested from the Holy Spirit and 'through' the disciples. The PROMISE FROM the Father and Holy Spirit was always holy spirit power not the Holy Spirit person.

Jesus prophesied what would be received FROM the Holy Spirit in Luke with no mention of 'the Holy Spirit' from which it would come.

LUK 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."

The promise of the Father wasn't 'the Father', it was a promise of 'power' which would be poured out FROM the Holy Spirit on His church, on the day of Pentecost.

Jesus confirmed this promise issue again.

ACT 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Were these apostles saved/born again when Jesus was talking to them? YES! Had they probably been baptized 'correctly' in accordance to the mandate from Jesus at His accession by this time, if not before? I'm going to assume so. If that's what gets people the Holy Spirit living in them, as most or all believe here (both 'haves' and have nots') then why didn't the disciples have HIM?

 

[Saint Steven]

The error here, which I believe is also not understood by even Charismatics is this. The gift OF the Holy Spirit or the Promise OF the Holy Spirit is NOT the Holy Spirit. The promise is power from/OF the Spirit being manifested through disciples. That is the contextual understanding of verse 33

ACT 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear.

What was 'seen and heard' was supernatural power being manifested from the Holy Spirit and 'through' the disciples. The PROMISE FROM the Father and Holy Spirit was always holy spirit power not the Holy Spirit person.

Jesus prophesied what would be received FROM the Holy Spirit in Luke with no mention of 'the Holy Spirit' from which it would come.

LUK 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."

The promise of the Father wasn't 'the Father', it was a promise of 'power' which would be poured out FROM the Holy Spirit on His church, on the day of Pentecost.

Jesus confirmed this promise issue again.

ACT 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Were these apostles saved/born again when Jesus was talking to them? YES! Had they probably been baptized 'correctly' in accordance to the mandate from Jesus at His accession by this time, if not before? I'm going to assume so. If that's what gets people the Holy Spirit living in them, as most or all believe here (both 'haves' and have nots') then why didn't the disciples have HIM?

Great minds think alike.
I just finished modifying my post to say the same thing.

 

[Saint Steven]

Dave,

I find it odd that you would quote from Paul, when Paul clearly disagrees with you: two verses earlier he says: "One who speaks in tongues speaks not to men, but to God... no one understands him..."

And yet in that not understanding somehow the tongues speaker is edified. Paul clearly does not use the word as requiring understanding. So your desire that tongues requires understanding does not agree with Paul.

Agreed.
I am personally edified by tongues being spoken, even without interpretation. It edifies me just to know that the Spirit is moving in power. And tongues-speakers edify themselves as well. Nothing to do with knowledge.

1 Corinthians 14:4
Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.

 

[Saint Steven]

The manifestations of the Holy Spirit lead to a life of power in God. Without which we are powerless. Preach the gospel, not with human wisdom and eloquence, not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power. So that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. - Amen

1 Corinthians 1:17-18
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:4-5
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power,
5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

 

[swordsman1]

The error here, which I believe is also not understood by even Charismatics is this. The gift OF the Holy Spirit or the Promise OF the Holy Spirit is NOT the Holy Spirit. The promise is power from/OF the Spirit being manifested through disciples. That is the contextual understanding of verse 33

ACT 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear.

What was 'seen and heard' was supernatural power being manifested from the Holy Spirit and 'through' the disciples. The PROMISE FROM the Father and Holy Spirit was always holy spirit power not the Holy Spirit person.

Jesus prophesied what would be received FROM the Holy Spirit in Luke with no mention of 'the Holy Spirit' from which it would come.

LUK 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."

The promise of the Father wasn't 'the Father', it was a promise of 'power' which would be poured out FROM the Holy Spirit on His church, on the day of Pentecost.

Jesus confirmed this promise issue again.

ACT 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Were these apostles saved/born again when Jesus was talking to them? YES! Had they probably been baptized 'correctly' in accordance to the mandate from Jesus at His accession by this time, if not before? I'm going to assume so. If that's what gets people the Holy Spirit living in them, as most or all believe here (both 'haves' and have nots') then why didn't the disciples have HIM?

No, that which was poured out at Pentecost was the Holy Spirit himself, not simply his power.

Act 2:17 “‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

Acts 2:18 "Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days,"

Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit"​

The 'gift of the Holy Spirit' is given to all believers upon repentance - v38. If the gift was simply power then we would expect thousands of believers in Acts (and billions since) to be performing signs and miracles. But there is no evidence of that. There were only a select few that possessed such abilities.

No, the Holy Spirit himself is the gift, given by the Father:

Acts 10:45-46 "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also....Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did"

John 14:17 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth."

Acts 5:32 "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

1 Cor 6:19 "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God"​