Speaking in Tongues

[jonathan1971]

I always find it ironic that some who pay lip service to "scripture alone" insist on speaking in tongues. In the thread that shall remain nameless it was posited that most lutherans don't read the BoC. I tried looking for a reference to "speaking in tongues" in the BoC but couldn't find one. Can anyone tell me if there is a reason why?

 

[Studeclunker]

First of all since most of those gifts aren't truthfully that common anymore. Not since the first century when the Church was being established. Certainly, such a gift was very uncommon in the RC environment of Luther's day. However, also at that time were the beginnings of the modern Pentecostal movement that Luther referred to as the 'enthusiasts'. Referred to and not very complimentarily either. Thus, since 'tounges' was attached to that group, Luther would have looked very askance at such a thing. About the only way he likely would have accepted it is if someone came up with a message for an individual who didn't speak German well. This person with the message wouldn't normally speak the reciepient's language. Thus the gift of 'tongues' would have had a different... application to Lutherans.

I'm thoroughly guessing here. However, what I've read of Luther, he would have seen what the Enthusists practiced in his day as hysteria, and somewhat blasphemus.

So... that's my guess.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Not sure if this helps:
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther Spoke In tongues?

 

[Tangible]

Not sure if this helps:
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther Spoke In tongues?

Not sure either. It almost sounds as if the blogger is trying to portray Luther as being a forerunner of the Charismatic movement.

 

[jonathan1971]

Studeclunker,

That's kinda what I figured. I was just curious if the BoC addressed it directly because my copy doesn't have much of a glossary or index. It's the old Tappert edition.

 

[Tertiumquid]

Not sure either. It almost sounds as if the blogger is trying to portray Luther as being a forerunner of the Charismatic movement.

Not meaning to sound angry, but I did no such thing. These links do nothing but protect Luther from such bogus assertions that he spoke in tongues.

Pentecostal Luther who 'Spoke in Tongues'

Luther Spoke In tongues?

Regards,
James

 

[QuiltAngel]

I do not see where Luther advocated speaking in tongues either. Luther was demanding that the tongues be interpreted into the language commonly spoken.

I have another question about tongues here. My daughter is tri-lingual. She not only speaks English, but also German and Spanish. It is easy for her to learn languages. I would say that she speaks in tongues in that what she speaks in any language is understood by those who hear her speak. She has discussed her faith in those languages.

Would this be considered to be speaking in tongues in light of the fact that there are hearers who understand as in the book of Acts?

 

[goldbeach]

There are actually many places in Luther's Works where he refers to Speaking in Tongues. This is just one​

"Also the fool doesn’t understand St. Paul’s words correctly when he writes of speaking with tongues (I Cor. 14[:2–29]). For St. Paul writes of the office of preaching in the congregation, to which it is to listen and to learn from it, when he says: Whoever comes forward, and wants to read, teach, or preach, and yet speaks with tongues, that is, speaks Latin instead of German, or some unknown language, he is to be silent and preach to himself alone.97 For no one can hear it or understand it, and no one can get any benefit from it. Or if he should speak with tongues, he ought, in addition, put what he says into German, or interpret it in one way or another, so that the congregation may understand him. Thus St. Paul is not as stubborn in forbidding speaking with tongues as this sin-spirit is, but says it is not to be forbidden when along with it interpretation takes place.​

Luther interprets I Cor. 14 to refer to speaking in foreign languages in the sense of Acts 2. Actually, I Cor. 14 refers to a form of ecstatic speech (glōssalalia)."

Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ; Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther's Works, Vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1999, c1958 (Luther's Works 40), S. 40:iii-142

 

[Kalevalatar]

I do not see where Luther advocated speaking in tongues either. Luther was demanding that the tongues be interpreted into the language commonly spoken.

Exactly.

I have another question about tongues here. My daughter is tri-lingual. She not only speaks English, but also German and Spanish. It is easy for her to learn languages. I would say that she speaks in tongues in that what she speaks in any language is understood by those who hear her speak. She has discussed her faith in those languages.

Heh. I speak in tongues, too, I guess!

 

[Studeclunker]

There are actually many places in Luther's Works where he refers to Speaking in Tongues. This is just one​

"Also the fool doesn’t understand St. Paul’s words correctly when he writes of speaking with tongues (I Cor. 14[:2–29]). For St. Paul writes of the office of preaching in the congregation, to which it is to listen and to learn from it, when he says: Whoever comes forward, and wants to read, teach, or preach, and yet speaks with tongues, that is, speaks Latin instead of German, or some unknown language, he is to be silent and preach to himself alone.97 For no one can hear it or understand it, and no one can get any benefit from it. Or if he should speak with tongues, he ought, in addition, put what he says into German, or interpret it in one way or another, so that the congregation may understand him. Thus St. Paul is not as stubborn in forbidding speaking with tongues as this sin-spirit is, but says it is not to be forbidden when along with it interpretation takes place.​

Luther interprets I Cor. 14 to refer to speaking in foreign languages in the sense of Acts 2. Actually, I Cor. 14 refers to a form of ecstatic speech (glōssalalia)."

Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ; Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther's Works, Vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1999, c1958 (Luther's Works 40), S. 40:iii-142

Yes, exactly. Luther understood where Paul was coming from. The hysterical, ecstatic, outbreaks that were occuring in the Corinthian church were causing no end of disruption to the worship services. Thus Paul said, if there is no one to intrepret, keep it to yourself!

"For likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words ueasy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air." (I Cor. 14:9)

"Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?"(I Cor. 14:23)

"If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God." (I Cor. 14:28) (bolding mine)

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." (I Cor. 14:33)

So, it can be clearly be seen that Paul recognized the gift of tongues as a valid, true gift of the Holy Spirit. Also, this gift was a language that could be understood, or interpreted at least. Neither Paul nor Luther his disciple, said that tongues were not a gift of the Spirit. Just that they were not to be used randomly or without understanding. Thus this inane gabbling that's done and encouraged in the Enthusiast (pentecostal/Charismatic) Churches is an error and should be discouraged. However, as is currently being discussed in the Frustration thread, these people are tightly bound to works and empirical evidence of salvation. A very difficult bond to break. I know as my two eldest children are bound this way.