Speaking in Tongues a Cessationists’ View

[Saint Steven]

No, it pertains to interpreting (explaining) what those speaking in tongues were saying. They were edified but the rest were not unless they interpreted what was said.

But you said that if a tongues-speaker didn't understand, then it is phony.

1 Corinthians 14:13
For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say.

 

[Hillsage]

If you had studied this a little more thoroughly you would have seen your mistake. Joel's prophecy itself must serve as the authoritative interpretation of Peter's quotation of it. And there is no "of" in Joel 2:28,29. It says plainly "I will pour out My Spirit". All bible translations agree that.

So you're telling us that the Holy Spirit inspires the correct Hebrew shadow but He isn't as good at the Greek heavenly reality? You do remember that the tweaking of the capitalization of the word spirit was also part of what you never have dealt with in the past don't you????

KJV Joel 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
RSV Joel 2:29 Even upon the menservants and maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit.

Since you are sure I'm wrong, why did translators not capitalize spirit in those earlier version?

So I need to ask you 'again' to just deal with my whole post which was pretty short, and answer my grammar question. That would be better than cherry picking rotten cherries thinking you've got me. And since I'm teaching that part to you again, and others maybe for the first time, I really need you to deal with the only question I asked and answer for. I'll copy it again for you.

Pertaining to this verse you quoted post #742 "Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit"

Tell me which "Doctor" in the sentence following is a noun and which one is a verb. And if you're really a sharp sword tell me 'why' that is grammatically so?

"That is a nasty cut, but the doctor is in the office so lets let him doctor it up."

Just answer the grammar question please.

 

[Hillsage]

Yes, still with you. Thanks.

I will agree that any believer has the indwelling Spirit for a measure of power available to them. But those operating in manifestations of the HS see so much more.

We walk in the experiential reality of that 'promise of power'. They do not and therefore can not see what we see. I'm trying to be more 'understanding of their shortcoming'. Working on the FRUIT, if I may.

Based on the verse below, it seems like we are not there yet.

John 14:12
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And frankly, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. In which churches do we see healing and deliverance taking place? If you haven't yet done it, you should read the healing testimonies page on the church website for Bethel, Redding. (link)

I have not, but Kris and Bill are two of my favorite podcast preachers. Bill is absolutely a well of spiritual depth.

 

[Albion]

Again, I would lay a measure of this problem at the feet of the Cessationists that have indoctrinated whole generations against HS manifestations. The church is still in a rebuilding mode in this area. We've been robbed, and we are working to get back on track.

Many receive the manifestation of tongues immediately, but some struggle with it. We help those who struggle to overcome their difficulty. Those who have a mental block of some sort are helped over the hump. Smooth sailing from there.

Pentecostal children typically do not struggle at all to manifest tongues. They didn't grow up in a church that taught that tongues were of the devil. And we see preschoolers praying for the sick, demonstrating incredible faith. This next generation is something else.

2 Timothy 3:5
having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

Your post is reminiscent of others I have read, and the most powerful message in them is that Charismatics cannot explain their ways to mainstream, traditional Christians. So they brush them all aside with a variety of well-rehearsed and insulting self-defense mechanisms.

The critics have been fooled by demons. Other people aren't to be taken seriously since they have not spoken in tongues themselves.

That sort of thing.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Understanding is the basis for edification. And today's tongues speakers do not understand what they are saying = false experience.

Dave,

I think your record is stuck in a groove.

You are repeating yourself without an explanation for how your definition of 'edification' differs from Paul's, since Paul says that no-one understands tongues, but also says it edifies. By logic Paul clearly didn't think understanding was necessary for edification. The original Greek doesn't require understanding either.

So how do you come to your unbiblical conclusion?

 

[Dave L]

Dave,

I think your record is stuck in a groove.

You are repeating yourself without an explanation for how your definition of 'edification' differs from Paul's, since Paul says that no-one understands tongues, but also says it edifies. By logic Paul clearly didn't think understanding was necessary for edification. The original Greek doesn't require understanding either.

So how do you come to your unbiblical conclusion?

I'm offering proof that today's speaking in tongues is not in any way Biblical tongues of the first century.

 

[swordsman1]

So you're telling us that the Holy Spirit inspires the correct Hebrew shadow but He isn't as good at the Greek heavenly reality? You do remember that the tweaking of the capitalization of the word spirit was also part of what you never have dealt with in the past don't you????

KJV Joel 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
RSV Joel 2:29 Even upon the menservants and maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit.

Since you are sure I'm wrong, why did translators not capitalize spirit in those earlier version?

They did. If you had looked at all the other translations of those 2 verses you would see that virtually all of them capitalize Spirit. That is because it is God who is talking during the prophecy. It is God's Spirit who is poured out. Of course there will be the odd exception that stands out like a sore thumb such as the antiquated King James Version.

NASB I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind

NIV I will pour out my Spirit on all people

NKJV I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh

ESV I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh

ASV I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh;

AMP I shall pour out My Spirit on all mankind

BRG I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh

CEV I will give my Spirit to everyone

CSB I will pour out my Spirit on all humanity

GNV I pour out my Spirit upon all flesh

HCSB I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity

ICB I will give my Spirit freely to all kinds of people

ISV I will pour out my Spirit on every person

NET I will pour out my Spirit on all kinds of people

NLV I will send My Spirit on all men

NLT I will pour out my Spirit upon all people

etc

etc​

Notice that none of them have an "of". So that's another theory of yours debunked.

So I need to ask you 'again' to just deal with my whole post which was pretty short, and answer my grammar question. That would be better than cherry picking rotten cherries thinking you've got me. And since I'm teaching that part to you again, and others maybe for the first time, I really need you to deal with the only question I asked and answer for. I'll copy it again for you.

I can't be bothered to play your silly games about the word 'doctor', so if you could just come to the point I might be able comment.

 

[Dave L]

But you said that if a tongues-speaker didn't understand, then it is phony.

1 Corinthians 14:13
For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say.

Interpret = explain, translate. They must have understood before they could do this.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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.

My experience is the opposite. I've heard people teach about tongues, but coaching someone how to do it is highly unlikely, because how do you do it?

Repeat after me: "jsoweofns sjofsd flelwljsdf sl"
"jsoweofns sjofsd flelwljsdf sl"
"Right, now you are speaking in tongues"
"Wow!"

The best I've ever managed is telling people it is like speaking gobbledygook, but clearly that in itself is just speaking gobbledygook, it needs the Holy Spirit to to turn it from nonsense into something that God understands and from there that can be interpreted.

There are also plenty of examples of people speaking in tongues without being coached from Agnes Ozman to David Pyches to Roy Peacock and so on. People hear about the gift and try it out.

It happened to me once that I got talking about tongues at a beach mission once with one of the younger team members. Later in the evening she (without prompting) spoke in tongues and then followed it with an interpretation. It caused controversy because there were cessationists there who were incensed that she had done something so heretical. But she was not coached, but prompted by the Holy Spirit.

That right there proves that is it phony because a gift is just that...a gift, not something learned.

On the contrary, even gifts have to be exercised, which means you can grow into its usage. Or to put it another way if you buy a lego model for a young child do you expect them to straight away understand how each piece fits together and then build the model... or teach them how to follow the instructions and build the specified model so that next time they might have a go themselves.

Gifts have to be taught about, just like everything else in the NT.

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?

Because it is the easiest to replicate! Seems obvious to me why it is the most common. It clearly was the most common in the Corinithian church also which is why Paul has to provide corrective teaching.

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.

Perhaps because people are lazy or people are more in need of edification than healing. The reality is, as mentioned above, that the Corinthian church suffered from the same problem, prompting Paul to say "eagerly desire the greater gifts."

But anyone can make repetitious sounds.

Which almost certainly isn't tongues, which should be a language not repetition of the same nonsense over and over.

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.

Odd you would make the accents a factor. I'd see that as evidence of speaking in another language. If I went over to France and in my best school-taught French told someone that I don't have an accent, I'd probably be laughed at.

People who manage to speak without an accent have trained the accent out of themselves and are presenting a false image of themselves.

I suspect that God is able to understand both Southern and Bostonian accents equally as well. He certainly understands when people pray to him in other languages, so accents should be easy (except for Geordie, that is impossible).

I don't want to be offensive, but you want the answer, and this is a start.

Indeed but the danger is the assumption that because this is your experience, everyone else must have the same experiences and/or views on the subject... and if they don't they are lying.

Your willingness to equate Irving with Smith & Eddy et al suggests that rather than investigate the truth you have already made up your mind and categorised appropriately.

Like we have both said, there is no proof, but there is evidence and one or two people misusing this particular gift is not good reason to suppose that everyone has... else Paul would simply have told everyone at Corinth to stop speaking in tongues.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I'm offering proof that today's speaking in tongues is not in any way Biblical tongues of the first century.

You are not offering proof of anything, you are not even offering evidence of anything.

First century tongues was not understandable by first century listeners but it edified the speaker.

Twenty-First century tongues is not understandable by the twenty-first century listeners but it edifies the speaker.

Conclusion: Tongues edify the speaker, even if they don't understand what they are saying.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Interpret = explain, translate. They must have understood before they could do this.

Not according to Paul, who said the speaker in tongues should pray for the ability to interpret.

 

[Dave L]

You are not offering proof of anything, you are not even offering evidence of anything.

First century tongues was not understandable by first century listeners but it edified the speaker.

Twenty-First century tongues is not understandable by the twenty-first century listeners but it edifies the speaker.

Conclusion: Tongues edify the speaker, even if they don't understand what they are saying.

Edification happened because of understanding what was said. Those speaking in tongues knew what they were saying and received edification. They also interpreted what they said. Interpret = explain and translate = they knew what they were saying.

 

[Dave L]

Not according to Paul, who said the speaker in tongues should pray for the ability to interpret.

= Ability to explain or translate.

 

[Albion]

My experience is the opposite. I've heard people teach about tongues, but coaching someone how to do it is highly unlikely, because how do you do it?

Well, I personally have watched it being one. More than once. So I can only say I am surprised that you who have more experience in this area are saying that this comes as something of a surprise.

Repeat after me: "jsoweofns sjofsd flelwljsdf sl"
"jsoweofns sjofsd flelwljsdf sl"
"Right, now you are speaking in tongues"
"Wow!"

No, they did not coach them in the specific sounds to make. Or was your scenario meant totally as sarcasm?

Like we have both said, there is no proof, but there is evidence and one or two people misusing this particular gift is not good reason to suppose that everyone has... else Paul would simply have told everyone at Corinth to stop speaking in tongues.

That is a reasonable point to make, and I am appreciative that someone has agreed to take on an actual issue like this. But of course this one is among the less important points of contention that have been raised in one post or another in this thread.

Odd you would make the accents a factor. I'd see that as evidence of speaking in another language. If I went over to France and in my best school-taught French told someone that I don't have an accent, I'd probably be laughed at.

Its quite the contrary! The proposition that Charismatics offer to the rest of us is that the person has been miraculously endowed by the Holy Spirit with the ability to speak languages he does not otherwise know. Now you are contending that the person who does not speak that language except poorly or incorrectly is nevertheless speaking an unknown tongue that he has been given to do by God himself. Apologies are owed to God if that be accepted by us!

The point is that the speech is supposed to be the real thing! The gift is supposed to allow the person to be able to speak it as if it were his normal language! That is supposedly what shows the phenomenon to be genuine.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

No, it pertains to interpreting (explaining) what those speaking in tongues were saying. They were edified but the rest were not unless they interpreted what was said.

How were they edified if they could not understand?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

No, they did not coach them in the specific sounds to make. Or was your scenario meant totally as sarcasm?

Not TOTAL sarcasm. But I repeat, how does a person coach someone in speaking in tongues. How do they tell them when they are doing it right and when they are doing it wrong?

It is possible to do this with intelligible words (prophecy, etc.) but not with tongues. The idea that someone can be taught about tongues is reasonable and to be expected (how often do your sermons tackle the subject of the two whole chapters of 1 Corinthians?), but coaching is a whole different ballgame.

 

[Dave L]

How were they edified if they could not understand?

They understood. That's the basis for edification.

 

[Albion]

Not TOTAL sarcasm. But I repeat, how does a person coach someone in speaking in tongues.

Relax your throat and tongue. Breath normally. Don't think distracting thoughts. Just let any sound come out without thinking about it.

That sort of thing.

The idea that someone can be taught about tongues is reasonable and to be expected (how often do your sermons tackle the subject of the two chapters of 1 Corinthians?), but coaching is a whole different ballgame.

If it is a miraculous gift, it is not learned through instruction and practice.

On the other hand, if it IS taught, we can easily understand why everyone in a Pentecostal church is doing it while no one in another denominations church across town has been so gifted, no matter how strong their faith is.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The proposition that Charismatics offer to the rest of us is that the person has been miraculously endowed by the Holy Spirit with the ability to speak languages he does not otherwise know. Now you are contending that the person who does not speak that language except poorly or incorrectly is nevertheless speaking an unknown tongue that he has been given to do by God himself. Apologies are owed to God if that be accepted by us!

Well let me put it to you another way. When those with a Southern or Bostonian accent prays to God in English which of them is praying in their native language? It can't be both as they have different accents and even different phrases.

What about the English person from 'oop north' or the person speaking with a West Country accent?

Obviously a rhetorical question, the answer to which is that all of them are perfectly acceptable to God, who has no problem understanding any of them (even the Geordie who needs interpreting even when speaking English).

Why should tongues differ - they are not being spoken to other people in order to impress with how eloquent they are in their speech. They are being spoken by people to God who doesn't want eloquent false speech.

The point is that the speech is supposed to be the real thing! The gift is supposed to allow the person to be able to speak it as if it were his normal language! That is supposedly what shows the phenomenon to be genuine.

What is a normal language? As pointed out above, are we only expected to accept English prayers if they are spoken in Received Pronunciation? Clearly a normal language is what is normal for the speaker and if God is unable to understand them, then he is clearly not God (except for Geordies, which requires a miracle to understand).

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

They understood. That's the basis for edification.

Not according to Paul. Why do you persist in promoting the opposite of what the Bible says?