Speaking in Tongues?

[swordsman1]

Amazing! Do you actually read any of the quotes you post? They actually disagree with your position...

1 Corinthians, Alan F. Johnson, p.244 (2004)
Paul’s first conditional thesis, If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels (v. 1), alludes to the manifestation of tongues inspired by the Spirit (12:10; 14:1-40). “Tongues of angels” may be the Corinthians’ term for some kinds of tongues manifestations, but that does not seem to be Paul’s view. In any case this obscure reference should not be made the focus of any theory or practice about “tongues,” as did Edward Irving in the early nineteenth century.

Johnson correctly points out that Paul's statements are conditional, not something he actually does - they are IF statements. He then points out that the "tongues of angels" is not Paul's view of tongues.

Keep in Step with the Spirit, J.I. Packer, pp.206-07 (1984)
Some exegetes, with Charles Hodge, regard both the Pentecostal and the Corinthian tongues as a gift of languages (xenolalia, xenoglossia). Others, with Abraham Kuyper, regard both as the uttering of unintelligible sounds (which Kuyper guesses may have been the language we shall all speak in heaven), so that the Pentecostal miracle ("... we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God" [Acts 2:11]) was one of miraculous hearing rather than miraculous speaking (unless Kuyper's guess about heaven is right, in which case it was both). Of a piece with Kuyper's guess is the view, often met, that Paul saw Christian glossolalia as "tongues of angels" (1 Corinthians 13:1), angelic as distinct from human language. But while this, like so much else that is proposed in the discussion of 1 Corinthians 12-14, is not absolutely impossible, Paul's words in 13:1 are sufficiently explained as a rhetorical hyperbole meaning simply "no matter how wonderful a performance my glossolalia may be." Most, with Calvin, think the Pentecostal tongues were languages and the Corinthian tongues were not, but there is no unanimity. Each case is arguable, and Hoekema is right when he says, "It seems difficult, if not impossible, to make a final judgement on this matter."

While Packer gives us a synopsis of other views on offer, he makes his own opinion quite clear on the matter:

But while this, like so much else that is proposed in the discussion of 1 Corinthians 12-14, is not absolutely impossible, Paul's words in 13:1 are sufficiently explained as a rhetorical hyperbole meaning simply "no matter how wonderful a performance my glossolalia may be."
​

Packer is in full agreement with me, not you.

1 Corinthians, Leon Morris pp.167-68
The ability to speak in different kinds of tongues appears to have been a special form of speech when the person uttering the words did not know what they meant (unless he also had the gift of interpretation). Some have interpreted this from Acts 2, where ‘tongues’ seems to mean speaking in a foreign language. But it is difficult to see this here. Whereas in Acts 2 the characteristic is intelligibility (Acts 2:8-11), here the characteristic is unintelligibility (‘no-one understands him’, 14:2). The gift here is not part of the church’s evangelistic programme (as in Acts 2), but one exercised among believers. It is not understood by people who speak other languages, but requires a special gift of interpretation. Without that gift of interpretation, the speaker in tongues is to speak ‘to himself and God’ (14:28), which is a strange way to treat one of the world’s recognized languages. The gift was not one whereby people might be more readily understood by others, but one in which they did not even understand themselves. Utterances in no known language, but under the influence of the Spirit, seems to be Paul’s meaning. The interpretation of tongues is added as the gift that makes the gift of tongues intelligible.

You are quoting Morris's commentary from 1 Cor 12:11 not 1 Cor 13:1! Did you do that deliberately? If you had quoted his commentary on 1 Cor 13:1 you would see Morris agrees with me that Paul was speaking hypothetically and the 'tongues of men' is the gift of tongues.

1. Paul begins with some hypothetical possibilities (and his use of the first person probably means that he is preaching to himself, too). The tongues of men and of angels almost certainly refers to the gift of 'tongues', but the expression is general enough to cover speech of any kind (cf. JB, "all the eloquence of men or of angels"). No language in earth or heaven is to be compared with the practice of love. It is easy enough to be fascinated by eloquent discourse, to be hypnotized by the magic of words, and to pass over that which matters most of all. Anyone who is taken up with saying rather than doing has become nothing more than sound. ​

Regarding the comments you quoted - Morris has failed to recognize the different circumstances between Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians. Of course the tongues in Acts 2 were understood - they were spoken among thousands of foreigners, whereas in Corinth they were spoken in small Greek congregations!

The Message of 1 Corinthians, David Prior, p.228 (1985)
Equally offensive, maintains Paul, are those who use the gift of speaking in tongues without the controlling motive of love. It does not matter whether the tongues are human languages (as they sometimes seem to be) or even ‘the language of heaven’ (which some people rather tendentiously assume): if there is no love they come across as unattractive and boorish.6 Some Christians with this particular gift insensitively impose it on others in the congregation; with considerable self-indulgence rather than a deep desire to build up the church, such people override the feelings of those who are either unaccustomed or unsympathetic to this gift.

My bold. Prior recognizes Paul was referring to the gift of tongues when he says 'tongues of men', and that he was speaking hypothetically with regard to the 'tongues of angels'.

1 Corinthians, Paul Barnett, p.243 (2004)
The first ‘gift’ is ‘speaking with the tongues of men and angels’ (verse 1). It must be admitted immediately that we can only speculate as to the meaning here. Most likely such ‘speech’ was ecstatic, and believed to be the dialect of the angels in heaven. Paul’s inclusion of ‘tongues-speaking’ as one of the ‘gifts’, even if the last on his list (see on 12:28) together with this rather exalted description, serves to confirm it among the approved ministries within the church.

As Barnett seems to believe that tongues are "ecstatic", a view that even you I'm sure reject, then we no longer need to entertain his thoughts.

1 Corinthians, Simon J. Kistemaker, pp.452-53 (1993)
a. “If I speak in the tongues of men, even those of angels.” With this conditional statement, Paul indicates that he himself does not engage in tongue-speaking in public worship (14:19). He appears to be saying, “Suppose that I as the Lord’s apostle have the highest possible gift of tongues, those that men use, and those even that angels use—how you Corinthians would admire, even envy me and desire to have an equal gift!”2

My bold again. Kistemaker correctly recognizes that Paul was statement was a conditional IF statement where he SUPPOSES a scenario, not something he actually did.

1 Corinthians, Alan F. Johnson, pp.243-44 (2004)
Paul’s first conditional thesis, If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels (v. 1), alludes to the manifestation of tongues inspired by the Spirit (12:10; 14:1-40). “Tongues of angels” may be the Corinthians’ term for some kinds of tongues manifestations, but that does not seem to be Paul’s view. In any case this obscure reference should not be made the focus of any theory or practice about “tongues,” as did Edward Irving in the early nineteenth century. Irving’s theory was that foreign language tongues that were unknown to the speaker were the “tongues of men,” while those utterances that could not be paralleled in any known human language were the “tongues of angels” (Knox 1950:552-53).

You have quoted Alan F Johnson twice. Was that just to pad it out a bit?

Now, seeing that you have largely shot yourself in the foot with the quotes you picked, how about we also look at some commentaries on 1 Cor 13:1 you chose not to select.

1 Corinthians (2014) by Mark Taylor, professor of New Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
13:1. Paul begins by hypothetically claiming that if he could speak with the tongues of men and of angels he is nothing if he does not have love. While it is possible that the phrase "tongues of men" refers to human eloquence' and "tongues of angels" refers to the gift of tongues, it is more likely in context that Paul refers only to the spiritual gift of tongues (languages) and heightens the rhetorical impact by referring to "tongues of angels" by way of hyperbole. ...
13:2. From tongues Paul moves on to prophecy, knowledge, and faith. Knowing all mysteries may be a separate gift from prophecy, but it could also be coordinate with it. In others words, prophecy includes insight into the mysteries of God. Paul, of course, does not know all mysteries nor does he possess all knowledge (13:9). He clearly exaggerates to make a point and presents a hypothetical scenario....Even though Paul possessed these gifts, the repetition of the word "all" functions as hyperbole to make a point.' Paul is saying that even if he possessed these gifts in perfection, without love he would be nothing.
13:3. In the third and final hypothetical example Paul asserts that even the ultimate in self-sacrifice profits nothing apart from love. The giving away of one's possessions, even the offering of one's very life apart from love ultimately profits nothing. ​

First Corinthians: An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary by B. Ward Powers, Dean of New Testament and Ethics, Tyndale College, The Australasian Open Theological College
If ἐάν (ean), the Greek hypothetical if which, as Alford's commentary explains, supposes a case which never has been exemplified. The tongues of men (ἄνθρωπος, anthropon) mean the actual languages spoken by human beings; and similarly and of angels would indicate speaking the language of angels. And note that certainly this is not something which Paul is claiming he can do.​

Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary by John Phillips Kregel Publications, 2002
Paul begins here with the need for love (1 Cor. 13:1-3). He raises two problems. First, there is the possibility one might possess great gifts-without love (13:1-2). For instance, one might possess great gifts of communication (13:1a). He might possess the ability to speak different tongues: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" (v. 1). The case is only supposed. The word though (if) is followed by the subjunctive mood, and it expresses a hypothetical but possible condition. The future will prove whether or not such was the case. The languages are known languages (Acts 2:7-8), human languages. We have no way of knowing whether or not angels speak a heavenly language, of their own. There is no reason why they should not do so. Paul is simply saying that although he were able to speak such a lofty language that in itself would prove nothing. The acid test of genuine Christianity is not language but love.​

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament By Daniel B. Wallace p471
The fourfold condition is used in a broad way. Paul builds his argument from the actual (he does have prophetic powers) to the hypothetical (he does not understand all mysteries or have all knowledge [otherwise, he would be omniscient!]). This is his pattern for the first three verses of 1 Cor 13: to argue from the actual to the hypothetical. It is therefore probable that Paul could speak in the tongues of human beings, but not in the tongues of angels (v1). 1 Cor 13:1 then, offers no comfort for those who view tongues as a heavenly language.​

Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse-by-verse Study of 1 Corinthians 12-14 by Robert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary
13:1 - Futility of tongues Without love. First, attention in combating overemphasis on spiritual gifts naturally goes to what the Corinthians had misconstrued the most, the gift of tongues. Paul uses himself to illustrate and create a hypothetical case, one that had not and could not become actual. He pictures a situation of personally possessing the gift of tongues to the extent of being able to speak the languages of all men everywhere. He even goes beyond this and conceives of an ability to communicate in celestial languages of angels as Well, whatever these languages might be (see 2 Cor. 12:4 and Rev. 14:2-3 for possible examples). Here is a case of ultimate linguistic ability that was never realized by Paul or anyone else (though Paul was richly endowed along this line, 1 Cor. 14:18). This is clearly beyond any claim the readers could make about their own facility with tongues.​

Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today? by Thomas R. Edgar, Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Capital Bible Seminary
A careful reading of the passage shows that Paul does not state that he or anyone else speaks or has ever spoken the languages of angels. He says, "If I speak the tongues of men and angels." This is the first in a series of three parallel statements (verses 1-3) all of which begin with "if" (Ean, if, verse 1; kai eam, and if, verse 2; kan, and is, verse 3). The "if" presents:
... mere objective possibility connected with the future, "If I should speak with the tongues of men and of angels," not "Though I speak" (AV). . . . "Supposing that I had all the powers of earthly and heavenly utterance."
Each of the parallel statements begins with "if" and ends with the expression "but I do not have love. . . ." The first part of each is a hyperbole (exaggeration) referring to a spiritual gift or quality and to an extreme or theoretical example of its application. The statement, therefore, points out that not only exercise of the gift or spiritual quality apart from love is profitless to the exerciser, but even using it to such exaggerated or extreme (theoretical) use is also profitless. This argument is clearest in the second example (verse 2), where Paul says, "If I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." The first part of the statement, "If I have prophecy," refers to something (prophecy) which Paul and others actually had.
However, the second part, "and if I know all mysteries and all knowledge" refers to that which no one exercises or will exercise. In this very passage (verse 9) Paul states that now (in this life) we only have partial prophecy and partial knowledge. No one knows all mysteries and all knowledge. This second part of the hyperbole continues with the statement, "if I have all faith so that I move mountains." This also is a theoretical extreme which no one possesses or exercises. Prophecy is the basic gift; "knowing all mysteries and all knowledge" and "having all faith" are the hypothetical, unobtainable extremes or exaggerations which Paul uses to convey his point that even such exaggerated cases would profit nothing apart from love. The basic gift is first; the extremes are then connected by "and." In effect Paul says, "If I have prophecy and even if I could go all the way to the extreme of knowing all mysteries and knowledge, and having all faith so that I could move mountains, and did not have love, I am nothing." The third example (verse 3) functions in the same way, thereby supporting this interpretation. Paul states, "If I donate all of my possessions (Paul may have done this-cf. Philippians 3:8)" and I hand over my body to be burned (Paul had not actually done so), but I do not have love . . . ." While it is not impossible to do so, Paul had not performed the more extreme of these examples (handing over his body to be burned). The first action is probable; the second is connected to the first by "and;" it is an extreme action even if a possibility.' This same structure functions in Paul's first example: "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels." "Tongues of men" refers to the basic gift or quality. Connected to this by "and," the expression "tongues of angels" refers to the exaggeration or hypothetical extreme which is impossible to do, or at least which Paul has not done. Paul says, "If I exercise the gift of tongues and, in fact, could even go to such an extreme as to speak angel language, it means nothing (it is mere noise) apart from love." Each of these three examples is parallel in structure and in thought. The second is very clear. The fact that the three fit the same pattern is definite evidence that they are all, in fact, examples of hyperbole. Each of the three begins with "if" and an example of a probable spiritual activity. In each case this is followed by an extreme or hypothetical spiritual activity (connected to the first statement by "and"). Each of the examples closes with the statement "but I do not have love." Paul uses these three examples to prove his point that even if he could go to such unusual extremes, apart from love, there would be no profit to him. The extremes are: "speaking in angel languages"; "knowing all mysteries and all knowledge and having all faith"; and "giving the body to be burned." The second item, as we have seen, is impossible. The third is very rare, and Paul himself had not done so. Paul refers to the first item (speaking in the tongues of angels) in the same way as the others-i.e., as a theoretical possibility or at the least something he had not practiced. This is the obvious sense of Paul's discussion in I Corinthians 13: 1-3. Others have also noted the basic meaning of Paul's statements:
If the expression "tongues of men and angels" (1 Corinthians 13:1) be appealed to, it is sufficient to note that the first three verses of the chapter have a pronounced hyperbolic character. While angels no doubt have languages of their own, the apostle no more implies that he expects the readers to use them than that he expects them to give their bodies to be burned (verse 3).'
As matters of fact, Paul does not claim to possess all prophetic insight and knowledge or to have all faith or to have given up all his possessions or to have delivered his body to be burned (obviously not, since he is writing a letter!). These are "suppose-so" statements only partially true of Paul's experience. By the same token, although Paul claims to speak in tongues, it is not necessary to infer that he claims to speak in the tongues of angels. In fact, the analogy of the following parallel expressions indicates that he does not here claim to do so. Speaking with the tongues of angels corresponds to the unreal "all's" in the succeeding statements. In other words, just as Paul lays claim to some prophetic insight (so chapter xiv) but not all, so also he writes that he miraculously speaks in some foreign languages (tongues of men) but not in all (for he does not speak in angelic tongues). His argumentative point is that even if the latter were true, it would still be profitless without love.'
Rather than proof that Paul spoke in "angel" or "heavenly" languages, this passage is evidence that he spoke in the "tongues (languages of men." It seems clear in the context of chapters 12-14 that Paul is speaking of the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 13:1. There are other indications which help narrow the gift of tongues to the "tongues of men" and not to the tongues of angels. The structure of the passage points to this. In the three parallel examples the expression "tongues of men" parallels "prophecy" (verse 2) and "giving all my possessions" (verse 3) as the first item in each example. They are parallel in concept as the reasonable item in each example. Prophecy and giving are both spiritual gifts; therefore the "tongues of men" must also be a spiritual gift.
A normal multilingual ability or speaking one's own language would provide no basis for the parallels with the spiritual qualities involved in prophecy, faith, and giving. Neither would an everyday, normal use of the tongue provide a basis for the conclusion "without love I am merely clanging brass." The "tongues of men" must refer to a spiritual exercise. Since the expression "tongues of angels" parallels those items impossible to do or that Paul had obviously not done, it is apparent that the passage indicates that Paul had not spoken in "angel languages" nor did he expect to. Paul did speak in tongues more than any of the rest (1 Corinthians 14:18). Since Paul did not speak in "angel tongues," they are not included in the gift of tongues. The New Testament gift or ability to speak in tongues includes the tongues of men. This passage makes that clear, in harmony with Acts 2:4-11 and 10:46 (cf., 11:15-18). First Corinthians 13:1 also indicates that the tongues of angels are not part of the gift of speaking in tongues. Even if the hyperbole is denied, the basic gift is the tongues of men, and there is a gradation to the extreme example of "tongues of angels." It is definite that the tongues of men is the basic gift. If someone insists on "angel language" as part of the gift of tongues, the gift must also include the "tongues of men" (foreign languages) as the basic gift.​

Even your beloved Anthony Thiselton disagrees with you.

Paul paints a hypothetical scenario without praise or blame: suppose it were the case that I spoke with... angelic tongues but had not love, I would have become — like what? Paul uses for his analogy a piece of bronze that was constructed not to produce ...​

And even the Pentecostalist Gordon Fee disagrees with you and recognizes that the 'tongues of men' is referring to the foreign human languages.

“Tongues of men” would then refer to human speech, inspired by the Spirit but unknown to the speaker”.​

So it seems you are completely out on your own with your beleif that 1 Cor 13:1 is evidence of tongues being a heavenly/angelic language.

 

[Biblicist]

You are quoting Morris's commentary from 1 Cor 12:11 not 1 Cor 13:1! Did you do that deliberately? If you had quoted his commentary on 1 Cor 13:1 you would see Morris agrees with me that Paul was speaking hypothetically and the 'tongues of men' is the gift of tongues.

Thankyou for pointing this out as I did forget to copy the entirety of his article which occurred during the frequently interrupted process of scanning in six of the seven articles. The problem has now been fixed and hopefully most people will make the connection between 13:1 and 12:10.

Amazing! Do you actually read any of the quotes you post? They actually disagree with your position...

Actually I would say that I disagree with a number of their positions but the point of quoting these sources was to simply demonstrate that these cessationist or quasi-cessationist scholars recognised that Paul’s language was making reference to a distinct angelic/heavenly tongue.

If you were to check the three options that I provided before the quotations, you will notice that as with some other scholars who come from a cessationist background some have suggested or maybe alluded to how Paul is only making reference to an angelic tongue as this is what the Corinthians believed themselves. Of course some may recognise that Paul is speaking of a heavenly tongue which is something that a cessationist can readily accept, as they will simply say that these things disappeared sometime within the first few centuries of the Church Age.

As for issues such as Barnett’s use of the problematic word ecstatic (which does not affect the thrust of my original post), it is certainly an expression that is heavenly frowned upon by many scholars but as his book was published in 2000 then we can maybe forgive him. This is the reason that I have only quoted books that I own as I was able to go back to page 230 where he qualifies its use:

“By ‘tongues’, which he later qualifies as ‘the tongues of men and of angels’ (13:1), Paul is referring to ecstatic speech within the assembly. He is not referring to foreign languages like Latin, Greek or Hebrew”.​

I should point out again that the quotes I provided are only a small sample from their more comprehensive commentary, so try not to get sidetracked and keep to the point of the post; but thanks again for pointing out my horrid ommission of some of Morris's commentary.

So it seems you are completely out on your own with your beleif that 1 Cor 13:1 is evidence of tongues being a heavenly/angelic language.

Ah, Swordy at times you can be so precious!
Actually the mistakes have been your own as you have regularly failed to understand how the term hypothetical is to be used, which I grant that some scholars could be using it in a way to soften the impact of their views upon their cessationist peers, but this is only conjecture on my part.

If you were to go back and re-read the material without trying to force fit everything through you hard-core cessationist filter then you might actually get something out of it, though this is probably what you could be afraid of discovering.

By the way, thanks for providing those Google references to those generally cessationist scholars as I will probably add in a few of them once I have been able to check a hardcopy of their commentaries.

The commentary by Mark Taylor was interesting (there are so many commentaries to source - it's never ending) where he says:

13:1. Paul begins by hypothetically claiming that if he could speak with the tongues of men and of angels he is nothing if he does not have love. While it is possible that the phrase "tongues of men" refers to human eloquence' and "tongues of angels" refers to the gift of tongues, it is more likely in context that Paul refers only to the spiritual gift of tongues (languages) and heightens the rhetorical impact by referring to "tongues of angels" by way of hyperbole. ...​

Even here Taylor acknowledges (possibly with some reluctance) that Paul is making reference to tongues as being an angelic tongue but of course he has decided (without any merit) that he must be employing hyperbole at this point. NOTE: Taylor has correctly employed the term hyperbole where he also correctly employed the term hypothetical at the beginning of his statement - which is what you should be doing as well!!!!

Powers commentary was also interesting:

"If ἐάν (ean), the Greek hypothetical if which, as Alford's commentary explains, supposes a case which never has been exemplified. The tongues of men (ἄνθρωπος, anthropon) mean the actual languages spoken by human beings; and similarly and of angels would indicate speaking the language of angels. And note that certainly this is not something which Paul is claiming he can do".​

Without reading his complete article, Powers has also acknowledged that Paul is making reference to tongues as being an angelic language, though he is not suggesting that Paul believes that he can do this - well done, I love it!

Phillips commentary:

"The case is only supposed. The word though (if) is followed by the subjunctive mood, and it expresses a hypothetical but possible condition. The future will prove whether or not such was the case. The languages are known languages (Acts 2:7-8), human languages. We have no way of knowing whether or not angels speak a heavenly language, of their own. There is no reason why they should not do so". ​

It appears(?) that Phillips has left open the possibility that tongues refer to an angelic tongue, though he seems to be unsure if tongues is used this way. I will definitely have to purchase the commentary by Phillips to see what he has to say on the matter.

Daniel B. Wallace commentary:

It is interesting that this hard-core cessationist has moved away from the more common approach that many of his peers have taken in that Wallace is not prepard to say that each of Paul's points are hyperbole, but where Paul supposedly moves from hypothosis to hyperbole.
​

So even Wallace is not prepared to reject that Paul is claiming "all prophecy" - how interesting indeed. As he rightfully recognises Paul's claim here he needs to provide solid information as to why his following points have moved into hyperbole.

Robert L. Thomas commentary:

"He pictures a situation of personally possessing the gift of tongues to the extent of being able to speak the languages of all men everywhere. He even goes beyond this and conceives of an ability to communicate in celestial languages of angels as Well",
​

Edgar commentary:

Edgar is of course one of the few old school hard-core cessationists who seem to be extreme even for many of his peers. It is interesting that Wallace rejects Edgar's following comment "Paul does not claim to possess all prophetic insight".
​

Even though I probably would have chosen to quote other cessationist sources (except for Edgar) if I was in your shoes such as with MacArthur, I will certainly be including a few of these commentaries myself once I have had a chance to read through their full commentary on tongues.

 

[Tinyarch]

First, I want to say that I have always been skeptical about the whole "speaking in tongues" thing. However, as of late I have been watching a man by the name of Todd White, who has helped to reinvigorate my faith. Todd believes in the gift of tongues and sometimes speaks in tongues on camera. It has got me wondering recently. Is this stuff for real? Most people I have met say it is not for today but I am not so sure as Todd is seemingly the most genuine Christian I have ever seen, so it got me thinking. Two main questions though.

1) Is it not true that when the apostles spoke in tongues in Jerusalem, they were speaking in different Earthly languages so that the people could understand them? It says they heard them in their own languages.

2) If speaking in tongues is not Earthly languages but is the "language of the Holy Spirit and the angels" as I have heard, how do people understand them? How is it beneficial if nobody can understand them?

1) Yes, they were active, spoken languages in Acts 2. They were not "tongues of angels."
2) Paul never says that he actually spoke an angelic tongue. Don't read too much into 1 Corinthians. Remember that the Corinthian church was being corrected for its poor behavior and action.

3) God may still employ a gift of tongues in frontline missions work where the rebels of Christ require a sign of power from God for belief. Otherwise, what you mostly see in the church is an emotional imitation by self-seeking zealots who want an experience rather than a life of faith.

This is my observation. You are free to believe otherwise. It isn't an issue of salvation so I won't begrudge you if you think tongues is something other.

 

[Biblicist]

Even your beloved Anthony Thiselton disagrees with you.

Paul paints a hypothetical scenario without praise or blame: suppose it were the case that I spoke with... angelic tongues but had not love, I would have become — like what? Paul uses for his analogy a piece of bronze that was constructed not to produce ...​

I almost forgot - you have done it again, not only have you misquoted Thiselton but you continue to try and redifine the English language to suit your agenda - you are certainly a rather unique individual to say the least.

Thiselton has rightfully presented 1Cor 13:1-3 as a hypothetical unit but he has not deemed it to be hyperbole - the two are not the same but of course this obviously does not concern you.

1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical Guide, Anthony C. Thiselton (2006) p. 218

Verses 1-3 allude to “the gifts” as the point of departure, but only to urge the fruitlessness of all gifts without love. If I were to speak in human or in angelic tongues (v. 1) is an indefinite hypothesis. The NIV and NRSV miss this by treating it as an open or contingent hypothesis, “if I speak . . . ,” just as AV/KJV and NJB miss this with “though I speak.” Paul paints a hypothetical scenario without praise or blame: suppose it were the case that I spoke with... angelic tongues but had not love, I would have become — like what? Paul uses for his analogy a piece of bronze that was constructed not to produce a musical note with a definite tone and pitch but only to amplify sound or noise. Without love I would merely be an ancient megaphone, an acoustic resonator or a resonating, reverberating acoustic jar.​

The point that Thiselton is making is that "without love" that everything is of no value to him.

And even the Pentecostalist Gordon Fee disagrees with you and recognizes that the 'tongues of men' is referring to the foreign human languages.

“Tongues of men” would then refer to human speech, inspired by the Spirit but unknown to the speaker”.​

So it seems you are completely out on your own with your beleif that 1 Cor 13:1 is evidence of tongues being a heavenly/angelic language.

Tell me, did you choose to intentionally misquote Fee as you should have quoted his following sentence as well, which is plain for all to see;

"Tongues of men" would then refer to human speech303 inspired by the Spirit but unknown to the speaker; “tongues of angels" would reflect an understanding that the tongues-speaker was communicating in the dialect(s) of heaven.

That the Corinthians at least, and probably Paul, thought of tongues as the language(s) of angels seems highly likely – for two reasons:​

I have absolutely no idea as to why you would consider quoting both Gordon Fee and his commentary on First Corinthians, as it was one of at least three books that were published in the late 80's that essentially derailed the cessationst worldview for many Evangelicals.

 

[Biblicist]

1) Yes, they were active, spoken languages in Acts 2. They were not "tongues of angels."
2) Paul never says that he actually spoke an angelic tongue. Don't read too much into 1 Corinthians.

I am of the strong opinion that hard-core cessationists would not only encourage their peers to minimise the importance of First Corinthians but where they would hope that they stay away from Paul's theology altogther; for the cessationist, First Corinthians contains a lot of unsettling material.

 

[swordsman1]

Actually I would say that I disagree with a number of their positions but the point of quoting these sources was to simply demonstrate that these cessationist or quasi-cessationist scholars recognised that Paul’s language was making reference to a distinct angelic/heavenly tongue.

Not just 'a number' of them, the vast majority of scholars (including continuist ones) disagree with your assertion that 1 Cor 13:1 is evidence that tongues is a heavenly language. Nobody is denying Paul makes reference to the 'tongues of angels' - its there in black and white. But what you repeatedly fail to grasp is that Paul is speaking hypothetically, in spite of numerous commentators pointing this out. It is an imagined scenario, not a real one - just like the other 4 parallel statements he makes.

Even here Taylor acknowledges (possibly with some reluctance) that Paul is making reference to tongues as being an angelic tongue

And Taylor then dismisses that theory when he rightly points out that "it is more likely in context that Paul refers only to the spiritual gift of tongues (languages) and heightens the rhetorical impact by referring to "tongues of angels" by way of hyperbole." ie. tongues of men is the gift of tongues, and the tongues of angels is hyperbole.

Without reading his complete article, Powers has also acknowledged that Paul is making reference to tongues as being an angelic language, though he is not suggesting that Paul believes that he can do this - well done, I love it!

Read it again. He doesn't say tongues is an angelic language. He says Paul's use of the "Greek hypothetical if" (ἐάν) "supposes a case which has never been exemplified". And this is "certainly not something which Paul is claiming he can do". I don't think he could be much clearer - and yet amazingly you still don't get it.

It appears(?) that Phillips has left open the possibility that tongues refer to an angelic tongue, though he seems to be unsure if tongues is used this way. I will definitely have to purchase the commentary by Phillips to see what he has to say on the matter.

I would have thought you might have at least got a clue from his opening remark: "The case is only supposed."

So even Wallace is not prepared to reject that Paul is claiming "all prophecy" - how interesting indeed.

Not so. Read it again - "Paul builds his argument from the actual (he does have prophetic powers) to the hypothetical (he does not understand all mysteries or have all knowledge [otherwise, he would be omniscient!])."

Robert L. Thomas commentary:
"He pictures a situation of personally possessing the gift of tongues to the extent of being able to speak the languages of all men everywhere. He even goes beyond this and conceives of an ability to communicate in celestial languages of angels as Well",

That's right. Paul is "picturing a situation" where he "conceives of an ability to communicate in celestial languages". Surely the penny must be dropping by now?

I almost forgot - you have done it again, not only have you misquoted Thiselton but you continue to try and redifine the English language to suit your agenda - you are certainly a rather unique individual to say the least.

Thiselton has rightfully presented 1Cor 13:1-3 as a hypothetical unit but he has not deemed it to be hyperbole - the two are not the same but of course this obviously does not concern you.

I think everyone here understands the meaning of 'hypothetical' in the literary sense of the word. Except for you it seems. So for your benefit here is the dictionary definition:

Cambridge Dictionary
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hypothetical
hypothetical
adjective
imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true:
a hypothetical example/situation

Oxford Dictionary
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypothetical
1.1 Supposed but not necessarily real or true:
‘the hypothetical tenth planet’

Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothetical
Simple Definition of hypothetical
: not real : imagined as an example

Collins Dictionary
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hypothetical
adjective
existing only as an idea or concept ⇒ a time machine is a hypothetical device

MacMillan Dictionary
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/hypothetical
based on situations or events that seem possible rather than on actual ones

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheticals
Hypotheticals are possibly situations, statements or questions about something imaginary rather than something real. Hypotheticals could deal with the concept of "what if?"'. ​

And Thiselton is quite right when he says "Paul paints a hypothetical scenario.... suppose it were the case that I spoke with angelic tongues ". It is an imaginary scenario that Paul is painting where he supposes something, not something he actually does.

Notice also that Thiselton categorically rejects the idea that "If" should be translated "Though", which is exactly what you have asserted.

Tell me, did you choose to intentionally misquote Fee as you should have quoted his following sentence as well, which is plain for all to see;

"Tongues of men" would then refer to human speech303 inspired by the Spirit but unknown to the speaker; “tongues of angels" would reflect an understanding that the tongues-speaker was communicating in the dialect(s) of heaven.

That the Corinthians at least, and probably Paul, thought of tongues as the language(s) of angels seems highly likely – for two reasons:
I have absolutely no idea as to why you would consider quoting both Gordon Fee and his commentary on First Corinthians, as it was one of at least three books that were published in the late 80's that essentially derailed the cessationst worldview for many Evangelicals.

If you had read my post you would have seen that the point I was making about Fee's commentary was that he fully accepts that the tongues of men to be "human speech, inspired by the Spirit but unknown to the speaker". Not learned languages as you suppose.

As to Fee's comments on the "tongues of angels" you will notice that he is forced to admit that this may not be Paul's view of tongues, but rather the Corinthians' view. But even then the reasons he gives are weak to say the least - because someone spoke in the language of angels in an apocryphal Jewish fairy tale, Fee asserts this would have been commonly accepted as something achievable. That is rather like saying because a lion spoke English in the Wizard of Oz, people believe it is normal for lions to speak English!

What you are doing could be called “Ostrich theology”, where an individual attempts to hide his head amongst the deliberations of his own worldview while ignoring everything that exists around him.

If you were to go back and re-read the material without trying to force fit everything through you hard-core cessationist filter then you might actually get something out of it, though this is probably what you could be afraid of discovering.

I didn't think it would be long before the ad hominen insults started up again. Still, I suppose that is only to be expected as this quite often happens when people are proved wrong and have to resort to insulting their opponents when they are unable to refute them. And you have demonstrated this deplorable practice time and time again. Sad really.

 

[Biblicist]

Not just 'a number' of them, the vast majority of scholars (including continuist ones) disagree with your assertion that 1 Cor 13:1 is evidence that tongues is a heavenly language. Nobody is denying Paul makes reference to the 'tongues of angels' - its there in black and white. But what you repeatedly fail to grasp is that Paul is speaking hypothetically, in spite of numerous commentators pointing this out. It is an imagined scenario, not a real one - just like the other 4 parallel statements he makes.

Here we go again! Pray tell . . . how many times have I mentioned on this thread (and with previous threads) that Paul has obviously constructed the text of 1 Cor 13:1 as a hypothetical unit. In an attempt to make my point as plain as I can I have included the following visual indicator:

​

As to why some commentators misuse the term hypothetical is hard to say, is it due to the often stated low standards of US education or what - who knows. Even if this is the general reason why the word is sometimes misused I find it hard to believe that individuals such as Dan Wallace who is hardly a simpleton could fall for such a basic grammatical error.

At least the cessationist Thomas R. Edgar in the quote that you provided has employed the correct term which is hyperbole and not hypothetical, at least for the cessationist that is;

Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today? by Thomas R. Edgar
"The first part of each is a hyperbole (exaggeration) referring to a spiritual gift or quality and to an extreme or theoretical example of its application".
​

There are times where I wonder if you have a tendency to panic when you go through my posts which is why you seem to often provide material that is contrary to your stated positions. To pick just two of the dictionary examples you provided, the Wikipedia entry says "Hypotheticals are possibly situations..." which leaves open the possibility that a given situation may be either real or unreal. Most importantly the same definition recognises that the word can be employed in a "what if" situation as well which means that the truth or untruth of the hypothesis being presented is governed by a number of conditional statements which have to be either proved or disproved.

The Cambridge definition is extremely helpful as they have utilised a common situation where many of us have posited that someone (or even ourselves) may be unlikely to obtain a certain job or position, where we then say to someone, "What if I actually do get the job, what does it mean for you or us?"

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheticals
Hypotheticals are possibly situations, statements or questions about something imaginary rather than something real. Hypotheticals could deal with the concept of "what if?"'. ​

Cambridge Dictionary

imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true:
a hypothetical example/situation
This is all very hypothetical but supposing Jackie got the job, how would that affect you?​

In the next day or two I will go through 1Cor 13:1-3 in more detail where hopefully this silliness over the correct use of the terms hypothetical and hyperbole will be settled, if it hasn't already been done so. If you are still confused, simply ask yourself what is the difference between a unit of hyperbole and with hypothetical language.

 

[swordsman1]

Here we go again! Pray tell . . . how many times have I mentioned on this thread (and with previous threads) that Paul has obviously constructed the text of 1 Cor 13:1 as a hypothetical unit. In an attempt to make my point as plain as I can I have included the following visual indicator:

View attachment 187466
​

As to why some commentators misuse the term hypothetical is hard to say, is it due to the often stated low standards of US education or what - who knows. Even if this is the general reason why the word is sometimes misused I find it hard to believe that individuals such as Dan Wallace who is hardly a simpleton could fall for such a basic grammatical error.

At least the cessationist Thomas R. Edgar in the quote that you provided has employed the correct term which is hyperbole and not hypothetical, at least for the cessationist that is;

Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today? by Thomas R. Edgar
"The first part of each is a hyperbole (exaggeration) referring to a spiritual gift or quality and to an extreme or theoretical example of its application".
​

There are times where I wonder if you have a tendency to panic when you go through my posts which is why you seem to often provide material that is contrary to your stated positions. To pick just two of the dictionary examples you provided, the Wikipedia entry says "Hypotheticals are possibly situations..." which leaves open the possibility that a given situation may be either real or unreal. Most importantly the same definition recognises that the word can be employed in a "what if" situation as well which means that the truth or untruth of the hypothesis being presented is governed by a number of conditional statements which have to be either proved or disproved.

The Cambridge definition is extremely helpful as they have utilised a common situation where many of us have posited that someone (or even ourselves) may be unlikely to obtain a certain job or position, where we then say to someone, "What if I actually do get the job, what does it mean for you or us?"

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheticals
Hypotheticals are possibly situations, statements or questions about something imaginary rather than something real. Hypotheticals could deal with the concept of "what if?"'. ​

Cambridge Dictionary

imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true:
a hypothetical example/situation
This is all very hypothetical but supposing Jackie got the job, how would that affect you?​

In the next day or two I will go through 1Cor 13:1-3 in more detail where hopefully this silliness over the correct use of the terms hypothetical and hyperbole will be settled, if it hasn't already been done so. If you are still confused, simply ask yourself what is the difference between a unit of hyperbole and with hypothetical language.

Hooray. You agree that Paul was being hypothetical in 1 Cor 13:1. I take it you also agree with the dictionary definition of the word? That being the case I take you now agree that the tongues of angels is Paul imagining an extreme scenario, as the vast majority of commentators affirm, just as he does for prophecy, faith, and giving? And that those hypothetical examples are not the normal operations of those gifts?

 

[Biblicist]

Here again, you are taking it out of context. The mysteries are mysteries because they are not being revealed by interpretation, as is obvious from the context of the passage. The reason why he is addressing this is because he has received a report that some people in the congregation are speaking tongues without interpretation, and it is doing no good for anyone else. It then is obvious that Paul is using the word mysteries to emphasize the need for interpretation. If there was interpretation, then it would not be a mystery. But here again, you are obviously coming from a traditional Pentecostal bias in your reading, that you think "nobody understands" and "mysteries" gives you justification for claiming that your natural gibberish you speak is the same kind of "tongues" as what Paul is talking about.

When I compiled my reply, even though I included the word mysteries, this was not done for any specific reason other than it was a part of the sentence which said “for nobody understands…”. But you are right to raise the point which is something that I should have probably done in the first place but as the point of the discussion was with how Paul was applying any limitation to who may or may not understand it was not covered.

With Paul’s use of μυστήρια mysteries he could be using the word in a number of ways;

1. What the Holy Spirit is saying, is not, or cannot be known by man
2. What the Holy Spirit is saying is a mystery up until he provides someone with an interpretation
3. Paul is combing both of the previous two options​

Even though the context of 1st Corinthians 12:12-31, 13 & 14 is set primarily within that of the congregational setting, which would mean that option 2 would be more likely to apply; Paul also points out that tongues is not only used for praise to the Father during our meetings but that tongues can also be used for personal prayer, which in my opinion option 1 would then apply. The reason for this is that when we ask the Holy Spirit to intercede on our behalf, where the object of our prayer may be intercession for another person, the Holy Spirit will speak in accordance with what he knows about the deep thoughts, actions and behaviour of the person being prayed for and these things will always remain as mysteries to our ears as they will not be revealed to us.

In my opinion, and again it’s only an opinion on a complex Pauline topic, I would be inclined to say that Paul is using option 3 where he is using mysterion in a broad manner.

The following information on the use of mystery within the NIV and with the four lexical definitions has not been included for any other reason but to provide a bit of background as to how Paul has used this very difficult concept.

Spoiler: Mysteries Lexical analysis

1. NIV Romans 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,
2. NIV Romans 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
3. NIV 1 Corinthians 2:7 No, we declare God's wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
4. NIV 1 Corinthians 4:1 This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed.
5. NIV 1 Corinthians 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
6. NIV 1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
7. NIV 1 Corinthians 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--
8. NIV Ephesians 1:9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,
9. NIV Ephesians 3:3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.
10. NIV Ephesians 3:4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
11. NIV Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
12. NIV Ephesians 3:9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
13. NIV Ephesians 5:32 This is a profound mystery-- but I am talking about Christ and the church.
14. NIV Ephesians 6:19 Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel,
15. NIV Colossians 1:26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord's people.
16. NIV Colossians 1:27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
17. NIV Colossians 2:2 My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,
18. NIV Colossians 4:3 And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains.
19. NIV 1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
20. NIV Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
21. NIV Revelation 10:7 But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets."
22. NIV Revelation 17:5 The name written on her forehead was a mystery: BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
23. NIV Revelation 17:7 Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns.

Louw-NIda Lexicon

28.77 μυστήριον, ου n: the content of that which has not been known before but which has been revealed to an in-group or restricted constituency - 'secret, mystery.' ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν 'the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you' Mt 13.11. There is a serious problem involved in translating μυστήριον by a word which is equivalent to the English expression 'mystery,' for this term in English refers to a secret which people have tried to uncover but which they have failed to understand. In many instances μυστήριον is translated by a phrase meaning 'that which was not known before,' with the implication of its being revealed at least to some persons.​

Friberg Lexicon

18793 μυστήριον, ου, τό mystery, secret; (1) as a religious technical term in the cults of the Greco-Roman world, a religious secret confided only to the initiated, secret rite, not used in the NT; (2) in the NT; (a) as what can be known only through revelation mediated from God what was not known before (MT 13.11); (b) as a supreme redemptive revelation of God through the gospel of Christ mystery (RO 16.25; EP 3.9); (c) as the hidden meaning of a symbol with metaphorical significance mystery (EP 5.32)​

LSJ Lexicon

29043 μυστήριον
μυστήριον, τό, (μύστης) a mystery or secret doctrine; in pl., τὰ μ. the mysteries of the Cabiri in Samothrace, Hdt.; of Demeter at Eleusis, Aesch., etc.
2. any mystery or secret, Plat.
3. mystic implements, Eur., Ar.
4. in N.T. a mystery, a divine secret, something above human intelligence.​

Gingrich Lexicon

4359 μυστήριον
μυστήριον, ου, τό secret, secret teaching, mystery with reference to something previously unknown but now revealed Mk 4:11; Ro 11:25 ; 1 Cor 2:7; 13:2; 15:51; Eph 3:3f, 9; Col 1:26f; 4:3; Rv 10:7. Secret truths 1 Cor 14:2. Allegorical significance Rv 1:20; 17:7. τὸ τ. εὐσεβείας μ. the Christian religion 1 Ti 3:16. [mystery] [pg 130]​

You mean if you felt. We do not know what was going on in Paul's mind at the time of this writing, therefore, we only have the text to tell us, therefore your statement here is pure speculation. The context tells me that Paul's meaning of "no one" is limited to the assembly and the time of the problem. If people had already been doing what Paul is explaining, then he would not have written it.

If it were possible that tongues could be given in a known human language or especially if Paul was saying that they will always be spoken this way, then he would have absolutely no choice to not only address such a possibility (which he does not) but he would also have to provide numerous additional guidelines for what would be a very explosive and destructive operation of the Holy Spirit.

You have a very fertile imagination in your speculations. You can dream up all kinds of hypothetical situations to justify your deviation from original intent of the passage. The fact is, the proof of the miracle is in the interpretation (translation) of the tongue (language), not vice-versa.

Other than with the Day of Pentecost where some commentators of earlier centuries in particular used to say that the Holy Spirit did not empower the 120 to speak but that he empowered the unregenerate instead, I cannot recall having coming across the scenario that you have presented, which means I have tried to carefully read your paragraph as best that I can. From what I can tell from you appear to be suggesting is no different to how someone speaks a word to the Father in an angelic tongue and the Holy Spirit then provides an interpretation to that person or to another person in the meeting – what’s the difference. But if you are suggesting that tongues are always to be given in a known human language then there is no need for an interpreter as the Holy Spirit could theoretically speak in a language that someone already knows. Of course a disreputable visitor could very easily say that the person is speaking in a language that they and no else knows in the meeting where they can falsely add in a few heretical doctrines.

It is interesting that the "God card" you speak against is the very thing that your cronies claim modern tongues is evidence of. Do you believe that the tongues you speak is THE initial evidence that you have the Holy Spirit? If so, then this is your "God card."

As congregational tongues is about offering words of praise to the Father then how can this be a “God card” as the Holy Spirit is not speaking in prophecy nor giving anyone instructions or recommendations.

However, when I say "God told me" I'm not exaggerating. I did hear a voice from heaven, which I recognized as my Personal Shepherd. While I was speaking in "tongues" He said "This is not of Me." Well, He did not say "don't do this" or "tell people not to do this" or any such thing, He simply said "This is not of Me." It then became my responsibility to fear God and to respond accordingly by doing some very serious study in the matter. I'm not willing to go into great detail about it, but suffice it to say that it was God's correction to me which I needed at the time.

Okay, maybe wisdom might dictate that I leave this point alone but you may have certainly heard a strange voice but I seriously doubt that it was heaven, where I have a few suspicions as to where the ‘voice’ may have actually originated from and the source of that type of information is usually not all that reliable. Of course the thoughts you received may very well have been as a result of your own doubts which others may have placed in your mind.

I am actually questioning the whole basis of what Pentecostals, AoG, "Full Gospel", Charismatic, et. al. are doing. I question their interpretations. After 20 years of hearing tongues, interpretations, etc. the way they practice it, because of my study of the scriptures and experience of real Christianity from people of all denominations and persuasions, I am not convinced that what is commonly practiced today called "tongues and interpretation" is from God, especially since God corrected me in 1985. It has taken about 25 additional years for me to be confident enough even to talk about it, and even the 6 years since then I do so with reservation. One thing I know for sure, though, and that is the doctrine which they commonly teach that if one hasn't spoken in tongues doesn't have the Holy Spirit is a false doctrine, and comes straight from the pits of hell. And if their basis is wrong, then their practice is wrong

From my experience over the years when people have (Heb 6:4) “tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit” and they then claim to have had either an ‘epiphany’ or a change of heart, I have noticed that they have usually encountered a traumatic event either within their lives or within their church community where they have turned against the Lord in an attitude of anger, where they feel that this could be a way of getting back at the Lord, or with variations on this theme. There are also those occasions where they have been brutally and cruelly treated by a senior member or members of their congregation and due to their shaky theological foundations, instead of shaking the dust off their feet and moving on they quickly hit out at the belief systems of their particular congregation – only you know what the answer to this is.

This of course begs the question, what about interpretations that quote scripture (or paraphrase it)? Then why is tongues necessary? Only to get people to believe in tongues? If the scripture quoted is the edification for the church, then tongues isn't necessary, since the scripture itself is available to all, and available for evaluation for that application. Since scripture is already accepted as the inspiration of God, there is no need for any miraculous authentication, except perhaps in some heathen environments. If someone was speaking an authentic miraculous tongue from God, then the interpretation would not be a common thing or general, it would be specific for specific people. In Acts, tongues (and their interpretation) was specific, and for specific people. This did not change by the time Paul wrote 1 Cor.

I guess that you see there is no reason to pray either, which many austere Calvinists also belief.

However, I need to address your dissing orderly meetings, since you appear to be defending the "lets be spontaneous" idea. By your response here, you apparently think that 1 Cor. 12 is a description of unplanned spontaneous type of meetings, which is precisely my point about your traditional Pentecostal/Charismatic bias. I differ with you, because the text clearly tells me that lack of planning was the fault of the Corinthians,

As Paul does not make any such suggestion then I can leave this point alone – but at least it’s an original thought in my opinion, just that it has no basis in the Word.

From my POV, I have successfully defended it, even though you aren't convinced. Everyone I talk with in my current circles believes the same. It depends on who you hang out with and their biases or persuasions. I don't know where you are getting your data. Can you show links to statistical surveys, or where you are getting your information?

Here’s where I apparently have the advantage over many other forum members in that I have quite a sizable and growing library which contains many of the best contemporary commentaries on First Corinthians in particular. I also own other books that address specific issues and of course we should all be availing ourselves of the many online videos that various Theological institutions kindly place on line. It also helps that I have had access to some normally expensive online sources which I can access free through a University library account and I have also started to use a large library within a local Christian Bible college, though I will probably have to start paying some monthly fees if I want to access their online resources – ‘sadly’, the really good stuff comes at a price. Then there are the countless articles by sources such as ChristianToday, Christianity Today, Charisma and with a host of others and the list goes on and on which address the developments of various churches throughout the world. Of course it helps to have had over 40 years exposure to the things of the Spirit, where I have been able to witness both the exemplary and unfortunately also the downright goofy as well. Over the years I have been able to speak to some of the leading figures in the Australian Full Gospel movement which has given me a number of helpful insights into our past history and with our current developments.

Just recently I have gained access to our States historical government files that deal with the Crowns relations with the various denominations in our State, which began in about 1836 and the files seem to end somewhere around 1930 but I’m not sure what I will be doing with this fascinating information at this point of time. But the point to be made is that if we seek hard enough the information can generally be found – but at times it may demand a judicious financial outlay.

I'm glad to hear that they are coming around. But your bias is evident even here, as you claim "they can pray in tongues" (all believers), because Paul is clear that not all believers have that gift.

What Paul actually stated was that not everyone will choose to speak a word in tongues and provide an interpretation during the congregational meeting, where some will choose to prophesy instead or do neither, it’s all up to them as to where they apply their faith, no one can choose for them.

Everyone has their own way of spiritually encouraging themselves and boosting their faith, and it doesn't have to be a supernatural event. In fact, I say that if a person needs a supernatural event to strengthen their faith, then their faith is small indeed. I'm saying that we need to be very careful of what we claim is coming from God as a miraculous event, otherwise we end up with the general chaos in many Charismatic circles where they are calling anything a miracle, and even fraudulently inventing them.

As I am someone who I builds up his faith partly through serious study, where I plan to construct a website on the matters that I discuss on this forum at a future date, then I would probably be rather happy to swap a bit of the hard-slog and tireless hours going through countless articles and sweating over the meaning of particular passages for a dose of “supernatural infusion”, though each to his own I suppose.

It is precisely my point that modern tongues is "language like" in sound, but it is a pseudo-language. In other words, it contains random syllables that have its basis in the native language of the speaker. This is why people are confused. It is unintelligible not because it is a "heavenly language," but because it has no inherent meaning. It is a trick of the mind. It is psychological acrobatics. It has been well-proven that anyone can do it if they really try. My point is that it is not the same thing as the obvious miracles which the apostles and the early church were doing, as is described in scripture. I'm simply trying to get people to acknowledge that.

At the risk of being unintentionally provocative, I can recall the night where a friends mother first shard the Gospel with me as a teenager while her unsaved brother was sitting across the room trying to convince her that all her ‘religious things’ were merely gimmicks and a trick of the mind as well; and she was a cessationist and not even a Continuist. I have lost count of the times where over the years family, friends, associates and the media have tried to tell me and other Christians that our Christian faith is a ‘trick of the mind’ or something similar. As I have said before, it often intrigues not only me but with countless other Continuists with how the hard-core cessationist mindset and the world often speak much the same language.

What you actually find if you do an controlled experiment may be quite different than what you expect to find. The question is, are you willing to discover truth, even if it contradicts what you currently believe? Are you willing to discover (if it be true) that your tongues-speaking is actually a natural function of your mind, and not a miracle from God, even if it explodes your "vanity balloon"?

The major problem that people have is that when it comes to religion and beliefs that involve their identity and origins, beliefs and practices become an addiction. Especially when they are getting pleasures and other rewards from those practices. I have experienced the same, and it seems a crisis. It's the reason why idolatry had such a hold on the Israelites for so many centuries. People tend to hold on to their beliefs regardless of whether or not some truth to the contrary of what they believe has been "proven" to them. And since most people don't have the skill, perseverance, and commitment to discover truth from the scripture, they tend to follow their leaders. Thus, it might take 10, 20, or 100 years for most Pentecostals to acknowledge other Christians who don't speak the same "tongue", and it may take until kingdom-come for them to realize it is not a miracle from God. It has to literally become a cultural practice. Even then some people will refuse to accept it.

This follows on from my previous remarks where your views certainly reflect those of the world, where Paul even points out that the thoughts of mankind will often stand in opposition to those of the Father, so what you are saying is nothing new to me and I know that as an unsaved teenage that I said much the same things, at least as far as the thoughts of a teenager will go.

"so many commentaries," - your language appears exaggerative to me. What commentaries? Can you show certain Evangelicals who have changed their stand on this? I don't pay much attention to youtube, as it is an endless factory of untruths.

As I mentioned earlier in this post, I certainly have had the advantage of being exposed to some of the best commentary by many of the better scholars and commentators of our day, which will often be partly reflected with how I write and at times, as with the topic of Paul’s mysteries, it would be so easy to take this to a much higher level but that would be way above the requirements of a forum such as this. As for the many superb Youtube videos that have been posted by numerous Theological institutions, these can be a fabulous resource as they will often host many of the best theologians and speakers of our day, in fact they are often resources that the various institutions have compiled for their own students but on the occasion they can appear online as well – they can often be a great resource and they are usually free as well.

One particular online lecture that caught my attention recently was titled “How Paul invented Theology” and as the odd subject was by Anthony Thiselton, out of curiosity I opened it up where I gained a lot from this very strange titled lecture; but as it was by Thiselton I suppose any of his videos would be well worth watching.

Over recent times there have been a number of threads such as this one and I would hope that those people who have an interest in Pneumatology but who may not have access to the better theological resources that they will be copying many of my posts, as they probably contain material (including a heavy dose of expensive lexical data) that they would not usually come across which should help them to improve their own studies over time. In fact, the more savvy forum members should be compiling the various (often extensive) quotes that I provide by numerous major contemporary theologians in a folder structure that suits their needs.

Regardless of what "camp" you say I'm in, I hold to Reformation Theology, which is really Augustinian in basis, which is really Pauline Theology. I hold to the generally accepted hermeneutical methods of interpretation which is the grammatical-historical method, which is the method used for centuries, and I oppose the reader-response method of interpretation which is commonly used among Pentecostals and Charismatics.

This does not really surprise me as the older forms of Reformed theology have been traditionally antagonistic toward the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit within the Church, at least from a Pentecostal perspective; in fact I had presumed that you had maybe adopted a more austere form of Calvinism which I suppose many who hold to Reformed theology have also done.

I’m not so sure that the numerous Pentecostal and charismatic scholars would adhere to a ‘reader-response method’, nor would any scholar for that matter as many of the leading exegetical scholars of our day, such as the Pentecostal Gordon Fee are at the helm of advanced exegetical deliberation. For what its worth, since the late 80’s probably the best research on Pauline studies has been based around socio-rhetorical studies which has become a major platform for contemporary Biblical research, both by Continuists and Evangelical cessationists alike which is why I often use the research from scholars who employ this approach in my posts. In fact I would be inclined to say that probably all Pentecostal and Evangelical scholars have now gone down this particular pathway.

Regardless of what "camp" you say I'm in, I hold to Reformation Theology

This last part of your post is an interesting turn of events and it is something that I would like to spend a bit of time on in a separate post in the next few days . . . time permitting of course and that a dose of annoying forgetfulness does not suddenly fall upon me.

I never said "it doesn't happen today" and never meant it (i.e. Biblical tongues and interpretation). I don't know whether it does or not. I'm simply saying that in 20 years and hundreds of times (possibly thousands?) I have never seen or heard a miraculous event of Biblical tongues and interpretation the way I am describing it here. I'm saying there is something wrong with the picture.
TD

In my 40 plus years in Pentecost I have undoubtedly heard numerous thousands who have beein able to pray in the Spirit (tongues)!

 

[Biblicist]

Hooray. You agree that Paul was being hypothetical in 1 Cor 13:1. I take it you also agree with the dictionary definition of the word? That being the case I take you now agree that the tongues of angels is Paul imagining an extreme scenario, as the vast majority of commentators affirm, just as he does for prophecy, faith, and giving? And that those hypothetical examples are not the normal operations of those gifts?

Let me assist you with a very simple to the point statement:

Even though a hardcore cessationist would understandably say that 1Cor 13:1-3 is a unit of hyperbole (exaggerated language), the passage is in fact a hypothetical unit or a hypothosis (conditional elements).

I will post my full expose on 1Cor 13:1-3 tomorrow.

Edit: Altered second last line.

 

[swordsman1]

Let me assist you with a very simple to the point statement:

View attachment 187476​

Even though a hardcore cessationist would understandably say that 1Cor 13:1-3 is a unit of hyperbole (exaggerated language), the passage is in fact a hypothetical unit or a hypothosis (conditional elements).

I will post my full expose on 1Cor 13:1-3 tomorrow.

Edit: Altered second last line.

It must be a very long and convoluted explanation if it is taking so long to compile. One that is obviously unique to yourself as if any other commentator shared your ideas you would have undoubtedly posted them by now, as is your custom.

 

[ken777]

Is it not true that when the apostles spoke in tongues in Jerusalem, they were speaking in different Earthly languages so that the people could understand them? It says they heard them in their own languages.

Indeed the emphasis is on what they heard - the miracle was that the listeners could understand what these Galileans were saying, not that they were speaking a foreign language.
Acts 2:6, Acts 2:8, Acts 2:11

If speaking in tongues is not Earthly languages but is the "language of the Holy Spirit and the angels" as I have heard, how do people understand them? How is it beneficial if nobody can understand them?

In spite of all the theological arguments, we can be sure that there is both genuine & false speaking in tongues by examining the lives of those who claim to do so. Some of the most godly people I know say they have spoken in tongues, and then I have heard a person who also claimed to speak in tongues curse using the name of Jesus Christ. (James 3:11)

 

[swordsman1]

But if you are suggesting that tongues are always to be given in a known human language then there is no need for an interpreter as the Holy Spirit could theoretically speak in a language that someone already knows.

Of course there would be need for an interpreter, how else would the rest of the congregation be edified?

Of course a disreputable visitor could very easily say that the person is speaking in a language that they and no else knows in the meeting where they can falsely add in a few heretical doctrines.

That is far more likely to happen with todays gibberish sounding tongues. If someone comes out with "lalado toma foola tadala domati", someone could quite easily say "I have the gift of interpretation, this is what it translates as ...." and proceeds with a bogus interpretation. And nobody would ever be able to deny it. Whereas if someone spoke in a foreign language and it was translated nefariously then sooner or later someone who does know the language would come in and expose the bogus interpreter.

Seeing as most interpretations in Pentecostal and charismatic churches are along the line of God giving a message to the congregation, and you yourself claim that tongues never operates in that way, then by your own logic most of today's Pentecostal and charismatic interpreters are bogus.

What Paul actually stated was that not everyone will choose to speak a word in tongues and provide an interpretation during the congregational meeting, where some will choose to prophesy instead or do neither, it’s all up to them as to where they apply their faith, no one can choose for them.

Paul said nothing of the sort. Show me where Paul uses the word 'choose'.

Paul makes it absolutely clear that not all believers have the same gift. This is what he says in the context of the body of Christ, the universal church:

1 Cor 12:29-30 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?"
​

The answer to each of those rhetorical questions is No.

1 Cor 12:8-10 "To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues."​

Rom 12:4-6 "For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying..."
​

In 1 Cor 12:15-26 Paul goes to great pains to point out that every members of the universal church has different gifts with his analogy to a human body. In v17 he says "If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be?". Clearly he doesn't expect everyone in the body to be an eye i.e. have the same gift.

1 Cor 14:5 "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues"
​

Paul wouldn't have said that if everyone could already speak in tongues.

Over recent times there have been a number of threads such as this one and I would hope that those people who have an interest in Pneumatology but who may not have access to the better theological resources that they will be copying many of my posts, as they probably contain material (including a heavy dose of expensive lexical data) that they would not usually come across which should help them to improve their own studies over time. In fact, the more savvy forum members should be compiling the various (often extensive) quotes that I provide by numerous major contemporary theologians in a folder structure that suits their needs.

On the contrary, I would rather expect the readers here to be looking at your theology and the number of errors it contains and drawing their own rather different conclusions.

 

[tdidymas]

When I compiled my reply, even though I included the word mysteries, this was not done for any specific reason other than it was a part of the sentence which said “for nobody understands…”. But you are right to raise the point which is something that I should have probably done in the first place but as the point of the discussion was with how Paul was applying any limitation to who may or may not understand it was not covered.

With Paul’s use of μυστήρια mysteries he could be using the word in a number of ways;
1. What the Holy Spirit is saying, is not, or cannot be known by man
2. What the Holy Spirit is saying is a mystery up until he provides someone with an interpretation
3. Paul is combing both of the previous two options

Even though the context of 1st Corinthians 12:12-31, 13 & 14 is set primarily within that of the congregational setting, which would mean that option 2 would be more likely to apply; Paul also points out that tongues is not only used for praise to the Father during our meetings but that tongues can also be used for personal prayer, which in my opinion option 1 would then apply. The reason for this is that when we ask the Holy Spirit to intercede on our behalf, where the object of our prayer may be intercession for another person, the Holy Spirit will speak in accordance with what he knows about the deep thoughts, actions and behaviour of the person being prayed for and these things will always remain as mysteries to our ears as they will not be revealed to us.

In my opinion, and again it’s only an opinion on a complex Pauline topic, I would be inclined to say that Paul is using option 3 where he is using mysterion in a broad manner.

The following information on the use of mystery within the NIV and with the four lexical definitions has not been included for any other reason but to provide a bit of background as to how Paul has used this very difficult concept.

The #1 above is your bias, and cannot be supported by scripture. Every time Paul uses the word mysteries he is using it as something previously unknown, but has become known. The only mystery he talks about that doesn't become known to someone is the one of which he said "heard things not permitted to be spoken," and certainly not that it "cannot be known" as you put it. Even the groanings of the Spirit that cannot be uttered is not mysteriously unknown to the one who receives it. It is simply your claim that your tongues is some "heavenly language" that can't be known by men, but your idea is added to the scripture, it doesn't come from it.

In fact, Paul's hypothesis "if I speak with tongues of men and of angels" is not an acknowledgement that Paul believed in speaking in angelic tongues. Paul was not ignorant of pagan practices of tongues-speaking, which was a long-held practice in Corinth as elsewhere. Pagans believed they were speaking the languages of the gods. But since Paul taught that pagan gods were nothing, he had to have some way of using what some Corinthian Christians probably believed in presenting his argument. In fact, Paul often used local beliefs as a facetious way of arguing against what they believed. Examples: "baptism for the dead", "all things are lawful," "the stomach for food," etc. Therefore it is likely that Paul mentioned "tongues of angels" in order to include a Corinthian pagan belief in his argument, and it is likely that some Corinthian Christians did actually believe that what they were doing was "tongues of angels" (much like today's Pentecostals). So if Paul's instruction was fully obeyed, then all of the compromising pagan beliefs as well as the disorderly practices of the Corinthians would pass away.

But it is also interesting that in a previous post that you admit to going to prayer meetings where everyone is "speaking in tongues" simultaneously. But isn't this the very thing that Paul is forbidding? It is a lame excuse to say that it is a "prayer meeting" as if categorizing it that way makes it not apply to Paul's command "when you come together...." In the scripture that I read, it is still a disobedience to Paul's instruction.

I should remind you where you betrayed yourself by spilling the beans:

if I were to move from within a setting where many of my compatriots are all praying in tongues at once

I'm pretty sure you practice this, as I also used to be in that camp.

If it were possible that tongues could be given in a known human language or especially if Paul was saying that they will always be spoken this way, then he would have absolutely no choice to not only address such a possibility (which he does not) but he would also have to provide numerous additional guidelines for what would be a very explosive and destructive operation of the Holy Spirit.

Your "absolutely no choice" idea is simply false, and a stand that is not supported by scripture. I already explained clearly that if Paul's instruction is obeyed, then it takes care of all disorderly practices, even false tongues.

Other than with the Day of Pentecost where some commentators of earlier centuries in particular used to say that the Holy Spirit did not empower the 120 to speak but that he empowered the unregenerate instead, I cannot recall having coming across the scenario that you have presented, which means I have tried to carefully read your paragraph as best that I can. From what I can tell from you appear to be suggesting is no different to how someone speaks a word to the Father in an angelic tongue and the Holy Spirit then provides an interpretation to that person or to another person in the meeting – what’s the difference. But if you are suggesting that tongues are always to be given in a known human language then there is no need for an interpreter as the Holy Spirit could theoretically speak in a language that someone already knows. Of course a disreputable visitor could very easily say that the person is speaking in a language that they and no else knows in the meeting where they can falsely add in a few heretical doctrines.

How interesting that you can't understand simple language. "The proof of the miracle is in the interpretation (translation) of the tongue (language)." What is heretical is what modern Pentecostals have done with scripture, and what they continue to do, because their "interpretations" of tongues is a lame attempt at validating modern tongues, which is the issue being addressed here. What is interesting is that you actually get backward what I said, because it is your practice to insert ideas into the text that don't belong in it. So I'll explain in very simple words what the point means:

"The proof of the miracle is in the interpretation (translation) of the tongue (language)." It means this:
1. If there is tongues without interpretation, no one knows what is being said, therefore, no one knows if the person is praising God or the devil (or if it is meaningless gibberish). And this is true, whether the tongues is genuine or not, whether the tongues is from God, or from the human psyche, or from pagan practices, or from the devil.
2. If someone in the hearing crowd understands the language spoken, then they have heard what was said, and able to verify it, and everyone then can know that it was a miracle (if indeed it was).

BTW, the Acts 2 "hearing miracle" idea (to the unregenerate) is prevalent in the Pentecostal camp. I have heard that lame argument many times. But the scripture actually says that the apostles spoke those languages. The only people who receive a hearing miracle are those Christians who have been given the gift of interpretation, which would be needed if no one in the audience could naturally understand the language spoken. "To the unregenerate" was your idea, not mine.

So, do you understand the point now? Do I have to spell it out some other way? My point is that modern "tongues" which is actually meaningless gibberish is not a miracle, and no one has ever proven it out. If they had, it would have been widely published.

As congregational tongues is about offering words of praise to the Father then how can this be a “God card” as the Holy Spirit is not speaking in prophecy nor giving anyone instructions or recommendations.

How do you miss the point? It is the doctrine clearly spelled out in AoG and other Pentecostal circles that tongues is THE INITIAL EVIDENCE of the infilling of the Spirit. Is this true or not? And if true, then this is the basis on which you believe that you have the Spirit, that you can speak in tongues. This is the whole of what you are arguing in this thread, is it not? It is the most persistent assumption you have been basing all your arguments on, and is the bias that you have used in all your interpretations so far. Every time I question this doctrine by quoting and exegeting scripture, you talk around it and continue to assume not only this doctrine, but also that your natural babbling is the same gift of tongues mentioned in the scripture. Yet, when I say "I heard God say..." you dis it by the derogatory term "God card" when you yourself think you have God's voice. What hypocrisy. In addition to that, you offer a lame excuse that tongues "is not speaking in prophecy nor giving anyone instructions or recommendations." You are trying to evade the real issue.

From my experience over the years when people have (Heb 6:4) “tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit” and they then claim to have had either an ‘epiphany’ or a change of heart, I have noticed that they have usually encountered a traumatic event either within their lives or within their church community where they have turned against the Lord in an attitude of anger, where they feel that this could be a way of getting back at the Lord, or with variations on this theme. There are also those occasions where they have been brutally and cruelly treated by a senior member or members of their congregation and due to their shaky theological foundations, instead of shaking the dust off their feet and moving on they quickly hit out at the belief systems of their particular congregation – only you know what the answer to this is.

You are beating around the bush, and avoiding the main point. The point is: "if their basis is wrong, then their practice is wrong." But then, you can't address it, because you can't prove the validity of your practice.

I guess that you see there is no reason to pray either, which many austere Calvinists also belief.

What a lame argument to my previous point.

Here’s where I apparently have the advantage over many other forum members in that I have quite a sizable and growing library which contains many of the best contemporary commentaries on First Corinthians in particular.

Here you are singing the praises of your fabulous library. But if the best of your library contains the quotes which I saw in your reply to swordsman1, then what I see is you taking those quotes out of context much the same as you take scripture out of context.

What Paul actually stated was that not everyone will choose to speak a word in tongues and provide an interpretation during the congregational meeting, where some will choose to prophesy instead or do neither, it’s all up to them as to where they apply their faith, no one can choose for them.

Here again you misrepresent the scripture, since it does not say "not everyone will choose...." The whole of the passage demands that the gifts are "to some" or "to one" and not to everyone.

At the risk of being unintentionally provocative, I can recall the night where a friends mother first shard the Gospel with me as a teenager while her unsaved brother was sitting across the room trying to convince her that all her ‘religious things’ were merely gimmicks and a trick of the mind as well; and she was a cessationist and not even a Continuist. I have lost count of the times where over the years family, friends, associates and the media have tried to tell me and other Christians that our Christian faith is a ‘trick of the mind’ or something similar. As I have said before, it often intrigues not only me but with countless other Continuists with how the hard-core cessationist mindset and the world often speak much the same language.

This follows on from my previous remarks where your views certainly reflect those of the world, where Paul even points out that the thoughts of mankind will often stand in opposition to those of the Father, so what you are saying is nothing new to me and I know that as an unsaved teenage that I said much the same things, at least as far as the thoughts of a teenager will go.

Here is your lame attempt at condemning my stand on correct interpretation of scripture. Regardless of your derogatory terms like "hard-core" and "the world," it doesn't affect my stand that scripture must be properly interpreted before it can be properly applied. And it is my correct interpretation of scripture that leads me to the conclusion that modern "tongues" is fake.

In my 40 plus years in Pentecost I have undoubtedly heard numerous thousands who have beein able to pray in the Spirit (tongues)!

Yet another assumption that your tongues is the same as that of the early church, which proves the truth of my point above. But it is this very thing I am taking issue with.

What I hope is that readers of this thread will be able to see straight through your lame attempts to condemn me, and straight through your misrepresentations of scripture.
TD

 

[Bible2+]

Leevo said in post 1:

Is this stuff for real?

Yes.

For the Holy Spirit's gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-10), which operate in Christians who have received Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 19:6, Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-46), will not cease operating until Jesus' 2nd coming. For 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 means that just as only when children become adults do they put away childish things, so only when Christians become perfect when they see Jesus face to face at his 2nd coming (1 John 3:2) will they no longer need Spiritual gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and the word of knowledge (1 Corinthians 12:8,10). During the future tribulation, which will just precede the 2nd coming (Matthew 24:29-31), are some in the church going to reject the ministry of the two witnesses, simply because it will involve them prophesying and performing miracles (Revelation 11:3,6)?

Because the 2nd coming, like the preceding tribulation, has not happened yet, all of the Spirit's gifts are still operating in the church today, within Pentecostal-type congregations, and within charismatic-type congregations, which can be of almost any denomination. God's Word commands Christians to operate in the Spiritual gifts when Christians come together (1 Corinthians 14:26-31). So congregations today should be careful not to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19), such as by despising prophesyings (1 Thessalonians 5:20) or forbidding all speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39). Tongues are one of the Spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-10) through which Christians can be regularly edified (1 Corinthians 14:4-5,12,26). Not all Holy Spirit-baptized Christians will speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:30), but almost all will (cf. Acts 19:6, Acts 10:45-46), for tongues are one of the Spirit's lesser gifts (1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Corinthians 14:5).

Leevo said in post 1:

Two main questions though.

1) Is it not true that when the apostles spoke in tongues in Jerusalem, they were speaking in different Earthly languages so that the people could understand them? It says they heard them in their own languages.

2) If speaking in tongues is not Earthly languages but is the "language of the Holy Spirit and the angels" as I have heard, how do people understand them? How is it beneficial if nobody can understand them?

Different Christians receive different kinds of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:10). Some tongues are languages which people can understand (Acts 2:4,8), while other tongues are languages which people cannot understand (1 Corinthians 14:2), not even the speakers (1 Corinthians 14:14). Unintelligible tongues could include ancient human languages which are unknown to history, ancient human languages which are known to history but are not understood, and angelic languages (1 Corinthians 13:1). Unintelligible tongues are not useless, however, for when they are prayed or sung privately to God without interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:2,28), they edify the spirits of those who speak or sing them (1 Corinthians 14:4,14-15, Jude 1:20) to bless God and thank God (1 Corinthians 14:16). And when unintelligible tongues are prayed or sung out loud in a congregation and then Spiritually interpreted (1 Corinthians 12:10b-11), their interpretation edifies the whole congregation (1 Corinthians 14:5b,12-13,26). When Christians sing in tongues to God, they are singing the "spiritual songs" which the Bible distinguishes from psalms and hymns (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16).

The Bible sets no restrictions on how much Christians can pray and sing to God in tongues out loud at home or silently in church (1 Corinthians 14:28) (just as regular praying can be done silently: 1 Samuel 1:13,17). Indeed, Paul the apostle prayed and sung to God in tongues in private more than anyone (1 Corinthians 14:18-19). But regarding church meetings, the Bible sets strict rules on speaking tongues out loud: They are not to be spoken out loud in church meetings unless there is someone present who can Spiritually interpret them to the whole congregation (1 Corinthians 14:28). And even when a tongues-interpreter is present, at the most only three people should in turn speak out loud in unknown tongues, which should then be interpreted to the whole congregation (1 Corinthians 14:27). Everyone who has received the gift of tongues should be praying for the separate gift of the interpretation of tongues, so that he or she can edify others (1 Corinthians 14:12-13; 1 Corinthians 12:10b).

--

Besides getting water baptized, believers can get Holy Spirit baptized (Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-46). They usually have to ask to receive the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13b) baptism, for it is usually not given to them automatically at the moment that they become believers. That is why Paul the apostle asked some believers: "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2).

Believers usually receive Holy Spirit baptism through prayer accompanied by the laying on of hands, subsequent to water baptism (Acts 8:15-17, Acts 19:5-6). Holy Spirit baptism will not result in speaking in tongues for everyone (1 Corinthians 12:30), but for almost everyone, as tongues are one of the Spirit's lesser gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-11,28; 1 Corinthians 14:5). Many believers have not yet experienced Holy Spirit baptism simply because they have not yet asked for it, under the principle of "ye have not, because ye ask not" (James 4:2b). Many believers have not yet asked for it because they have come under the influence of mistaken teachings which say that it is no longer in effect. Believers can get hands laid on them to receive Holy Spirit baptism at any Pentecostal-type congregation, or at any charismatic-type congregation, which can be of almost any denomination.

 

[Bible2+]

tdidymas said in post 17:

What you actually find if you do an controlled experiment may be quite different than what you expect to find.

It is sometimes asked if a scientific experiment could prove that today's tongues and interpretations are miraculous.

But just as God has made it so that there is no way to scientifically prove the truth of the gospel to non-Christians (1 Corinthians 1:18 to 2:16), so it would not be surprising if he has also made it so that there is no way to scientifically prove the present validity of tongues and tongues-interpretations to those who reject them. For during a test, even if two interpreters of a tongue in separate soundproof rooms gave the same interpretation of a recorded tongue, it could still be claimed that there may have been some prior private communication between them in which they agreed on what they would both say. Or someone could even claim that they gave the same interpretation by the power of Satan*, instead of by the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 3:22,29-30).

Also, even if they gave different interpretations of the tongue, this would not be proof against the present validity of tongues and their interpretation per se. For one or even both of the interpretations could be wrong: One or both of the interpreters could merely claim that he has the gift of the interpretation of tongues when in fact he does not. Or they could both truly have the gift, but in that one instance God could have not let it operate in them properly, because he can refuse to perform signs for those demanding signs from him (Matthew 12:38-39). He can refuse to reward a lack of belief in his powers (Mark 6:5-6). Another case in which different interpretations of the same tongue would not be proof against the present validity of tongues and their interpretation per se would be if the difference was only in the exact words employed in the interpretations, as opposed to the gist of what the tongue was saying, just as, for example, two U.N. interpreters of a language could express their translation of a speech at the U.N. using different words, while still both correctly relating the gist of what was said.

--

*Regarding the "by the power of Satan" idea above, Mark 3 was subsequently referenced because blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29) means saying something against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable even if it is repented from (Mark 3:29), unlike all other blasphemies (Mark 3:28), such as blaspheming Jesus (saying something against Jesus), which is forgivable (like other sins) if it is repented from (Luke 12:10; cf. Luke 13:3, Hebrews 10:26-29).

An example of blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29) would be to say that a miracle performed by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:28) was performed by an evil spirit (Mark 3:22,29-30). So it is possible for even a saved person to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, if, for example, he were to say that a Christian speaking in tongues today (by the Holy Spirit: 1 Corinthians 12:10b-11) is the work of an evil spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:39b; 1 Thessalonians 5:19).

(This is not what you claim. Instead, you say that it can simply be the work, the invention, of a person's own mind. But note that, similarly, so can one's denial of a true gift of tongues which one has received.)

tdidymas said in post 17:

Are you willing to discover (if it be true) that your tongues-speaking is actually a natural function of your mind, and not a miracle from God, even if it explodes your "vanity balloon"?

Even people who have spoken in tongues sometimes ask: "Wasn't I just faking tongues?"

To this question, the following answer might be given: Why do you think that you were faking? For speaking or singing in tongues does take some effort. For when the Holy Spirit gives people the gift of tongues, he does not turn them into sock puppets. They still have to open their own mouths and make the effort to speak or sing something forth. Tongues are not spoken or sung out of some sort of Spiritual or emotional euphoria, but can be spoken or sung in no less a sober manner than praying or singing in one's natural language. So long as believers are not purposely trying to mentally control, alter, or add to what they are saying or singing in tongues, but are simply letting their spirit pray or sing in tongues with no mental input on their part (1 Corinthians 14:14-15), then they should simply accept by faith that they have truly received the gift of tongues.

Another misconception regarding tongues is that they cannot ever be just a simple phrase, but must always be some long and elaborate discourse. But why should it be surprising that when our spirit is first given the ability to speak (1 Corinthians 14:14), it can use only simple phrases, just as when we were toddlers and our mind first learned to speak, it started out with only simple phrases?

A Christian can think that he is being objective in denying the validity of tongues today, when in fact he is not, just as an atheist who used to be a Christian can think that he is being objective in denying the validity of Christian faith, when in fact he is not. Does every instance of someone without Spiritual gifts (or without faith in gifts which he has received) witnessing their use throughout the world today have to objectively be like the fable of the child seeing the emperor with no clothes, rather than like the fable of the fox with no grapes?

 

[Bible2+]

swordsman1 said in post 21:

As Barnett seems to believe that tongues are "ecstatic", a view that even you I'm sure reject, then we no longer need to entertain his thoughts.

It may be helpful to address that idea for those reading this thread who may feel that tongues today are nothing more than emotion-based frenzy.

For while only some Pentecostal-type and charismatic-type congregations like to work themselves up emotionally (just as some football fans and rock concert-goers like to, because it is fun and a release), no Pentecostal-type or charismatic-type congregation is able to operate in its Spiritual gifts only when it has worked itself up emotionally. For working oneself up emotionally has nothing to do with the ability to operate in the Spiritual gifts. They are miraculous abilities which only the Holy Spirit can give to people (1 Corinthians 12:8-10). Also, working oneself up emotionally is not a good idea when operating in the Spiritual gifts. For they are to be employed in a sober, controlled way, according to the strict rules of 1 Corinthians 14:26-40.

In order for Christians to look honestly at all of the evidence regarding the operation of the Spiritual gifts in the church today, and not just give heed to cherry-picked extreme examples which they might hear about or find on the internet which they think support their anti-tongues view, Christians need to actually go out and attend faithfully for a few months a wide variety of congregations and home groups which operate in the Spiritual gifts, until they find one which operates in the gifts with discipline (1 Corinthians 14:26-40), and also has sound scriptural preaching (2 Timothy 4:2-4), and whose members also live holy lives (2 Corinthians 7:1).

 

[tdidymas]

It is sometimes asked if a scientific experiment could prove that today's tongues and interpretations are miraculous.

But just as God has made it so that there is no way to scientifically prove the truth of the gospel to non-Christians (1 Corinthians 1:18 to 2:16), so it would not be surprising if he has also made it so that there is no way to scientifically prove the present validity of tongues and tongues-interpretations to those who reject them. For during a test, even if two interpreters of a tongue in separate soundproof rooms gave the same interpretation of a recorded tongue, it could still be claimed that there may have been some prior private communication between them in which they agreed on what they would both say. Or someone could even claim that they gave the same interpretation by the power of Satan*, instead of by the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 3:22,29-30).

Also, even if they gave different interpretations of the tongue, this would not be proof against the present validity of tongues and their interpretation per se. For one or even both of the interpretations could be wrong: One or both of the interpreters could merely claim that he has the gift of the interpretation of tongues when in fact he does not. Or they could both truly have the gift, but in that one instance God could have not let it operate in them properly, because he can refuse to perform signs for those demanding signs from him (Matthew 12:38-39). He can refuse to reward a lack of belief in his powers (Mark 6:5-6). Another case in which different interpretations of the same tongue would not be proof against the present validity of tongues and their interpretation per se would be if the difference was only in the exact words employed in the interpretations, as opposed to the gist of what the tongue was saying, just as, for example, two U.N. interpreters of a language could express their translation of a speech at the U.N. using different words, while still both correctly relating the gist of what was said.

Your hypothesis is irrelevant. I already gave links in a previous post of such a controlled experiment done by expert linguists. There are not enough varying elements in modern "tongues" to provide meaning, since it is nothing more than repetitive random syllables. I also pointed out that the only way one could know it was a miracle is that an interpretation is provided. In the many times that I have heard "interpretations," it was always a lame attempt at validation. Not once have I heard an actual translation of an actual language that was miraculous in nature. All translations of languages I have heard were by people who knew the languages.

Obviously, you have never heard or seen such a miracle, otherwise you would have posted links to such publications. So all you have is a subjective opinion that's not worth squat.

--

*Regarding the "by the power of Satan" idea above, Mark 3 was subsequently referenced because blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29) means saying something against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable even if it is repented from (Mark 3:29), unlike all other blasphemies (Mark 3:28), such as blaspheming Jesus (saying something against Jesus), which is forgivable (like other sins) if it is repented from (Luke 12:10; cf. Luke 13:3, Hebrews 10:26-29).

An example of blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29) would be to say that a miracle performed by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:28) was performed by an evil spirit (Mark 3:22,29-30). So it is possible for even a saved person to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, if, for example, he were to say that a Christian speaking in tongues today (by the Holy Spirit: 1 Corinthians 12:10b-11) is the work of an evil spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:39b; 1 Thessalonians 5:19).

(This is not what you claim. Instead, you say that it can simply be the work, the invention, of a person's own mind. But note that, similarly, so can one's denial of a true gift of tongues which one has received.)

I was wondering if you were going to play the "blasphemy card." So then you are saying that if modern "tongues" was actually a work of the Holy Spirit, and I was saying that it is a work of the flesh, then you would say that was not blasphemy? I'm just curious, this looks like what you're saying here. I'm wondering because the Jews thought that Jesus was a mere man, and that he was blaspheming by calling God his father. You think they were wrong in their definition of blasphemy?

Even people who have spoken in tongues sometimes ask: "Wasn't I just faking tongues?"

To this question, the following answer might be given: Why do you think that you were faking? For speaking or singing in tongues does take some effort. For when the Holy Spirit gives people the gift of tongues, he does not turn them into sock puppets. They still have to open their own mouths and make the effort to speak or sing something forth. Tongues are not spoken or sung out of some sort of Spiritual or emotional euphoria, but can be spoken or sung in no less a sober manner than praying or singing in one's natural language. So long as believers are not purposely trying to mentally control, alter, or add to what they are saying or singing in tongues, but are simply letting their spirit pray or sing in tongues with no mental input on their part (1 Corinthians 14:14-15), then they should simply accept by faith that they have truly received the gift of tongues.

Yet I have heard several people say that when they purposely faked it, because they were being pressured by Pentecostals, the Pentecostals thought and declared that their faked tongues were authentic. If there is a question about whether or not it is fake, then it is probably fake. Again, no one questioned the Acts 2 experience, since it was an obvious miracle to everyone.

Another misconception regarding tongues is that they cannot ever be just a simple phrase, but must always be some long and elaborate discourse. But why should it be surprising that when our spirit is first given the ability to speak (1 Corinthians 14:14), it can use only simple phrases, just as when we were toddlers and our mind first learned to speak, it started out with only simple phrases?

Hallelujah! Well, I just wrote a short phrase in tongues. Obviously, we all know what it means, and no one imagines it a miraculous event. But let me point out that there is a vast difference between "Hallelujah" and "hubbabubba". One has meaning, the other is meaningless.

A Christian can think that he is being objective in denying the validity of tongues today, when in fact he is not, just as an atheist who used to be a Christian can think that he is being objective in denying the validity of Christian faith, when in fact he is not. Does every instance of someone without Spiritual gifts (or without faith in gifts which he has received) witnessing their use throughout the world today have to objectively be like the fable of the child seeing the emperor with no clothes, rather than like the fable of the fox with no grapes?

Obviously, I'm not the fox that has never gotten the grapes, since I already had the modern "tongues" experience. If God struck me with a miraculous event, where I spoke Swahili (never even heard the language), and then someone interpreted what I said, that would certainly be proof that God was at work, would it not? But even if that actually happened to me, I would still say that the gibberish that most Pentecostals speak today is meaningless, and is of the flesh not the Spirit, because of the weight of evidence. Christianity is a faith based on evidence, not on blind experience. The emperor has no clothes.
TD

 

[Bible2+]

tdidymas said in post 38:

Again, no one questioned the Acts 2 experience, since it was an obvious miracle to everyone.

Note that some did:

Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Compare also what Paul says:

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

This means that uninterpreted tongues can serve as a sign to non-Christians (1 Corinthians 14:22-23) of their inability to understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14), just as Jesus' uninterpreted parables spoken to those who were not his disciples served the same purpose (Matthew 13:13-15). But this is not the only purpose for uninterpreted tongues. For they also serve to edify the spirits of the Christians who speak them privately to God (1 Corinthians 14:2,4,14), just as interpreted tongues serve to edify a whole congregation (1 Corinthians 14:5,12-13,26).

Both non-Christians and Spiritually-"unlearned" Christians see uninterpreted tongues as "mad" (1 Corinthians 14:23), while they do not see prophesying as mad (1 Corinthians 14:24). For they cannot understand uninterpreted tongues (1 Corinthians 14:2), but they can understand prophesying (1 Corinthians 14:25).

Christians who have been given the Spiritual gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:8-10) are the prophets of the church (1 Corinthians 14:29-33; 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11). When they prophesy, they speak words directly from God, just as when the true prophets of Old Testament Israel prophesied, they spoke words directly from God (e.g. Jeremiah 26:12-13).

 

[tdidymas]

Note that some did:

Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Your reply here is no slam dunk. These people AT FIRST said that because they were familiar with the pagan worship practice of getting drunk and speaking gibberish. The mockers are always trying to find ways to discount what God does, in order to excuse themselves from embracing the truth. But after Peter's sermon, after he clarified what was happening, then no one objected, because the miracle became obvious to everyone, and even the mockers were silenced!

Compare also what Paul says:

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

This means that uninterpreted tongues can serve as a sign to non-Christians (1 Corinthians 14:22-23) of their inability to understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14), just as Jesus' uninterpreted parables spoken to those who were not his disciples served the same purpose (Matthew 13:13-15). But this is not the only purpose for uninterpreted tongues. For they also serve to edify the spirits of the Christians who speak them privately to God (1 Corinthians 14:2,4,14), just as interpreted tongues serve to edify a whole congregation (1 Corinthians 14:5,12-13,26).

Both non-Christians and Spiritually-"unlearned" Christians see uninterpreted tongues as "mad" (1 Corinthians 14:23), while they do not see prophesying as mad (1 Corinthians 14:24). For they cannot understand uninterpreted tongues (1 Corinthians 14:2), but they can understand prophesying (1 Corinthians 14:25).

Christians who have been given the Spiritual gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:8-10) are the prophets of the church (1 Corinthians 14:29-33; 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11). When they prophesy, they speak words directly from God, just as when the true prophets of Old Testament Israel prophesied, they spoke words directly from God (e.g. Jeremiah 26:12-13).

Again, your bias is showing in your interpretation, since you seem to twist every scripture to fit your paradigm, since you seem not to care about the basic hermeneutical principle "let scripture interpret scripture." Take v. 23 for example. We know that Luke who wrote Acts was a long-time sidekick of Paul's, and the church's historian. Therefore, Paul was well-familiar with the Acts 2 account. The very mockers who said "they're drunk" were the prime example of unlearned/unbelievers. This was their first impression if they did not understand some of the languages the apostles were speaking. But we know that after a time, they eventually became silent, because the languages were interpreted, Peter spoke that powerful sermon, and 3000 of the crowd became believers. In the context of Corinthians, unlearned and unbelievers are the same category. Some people aren't Christian because they are ignorant of the gospel (unlearned), and some people aren't Christian because they refuse to submit to the gospel truth (unbelievers). The context of the passage demands that "there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers," he is talking about people who are not followers of Christ, people who have never been in a Christian assembly. "Unlearned, or unbelievers" are the same people. His statement, BTW, is a hypothesis and hyperbole, where he is giving a worst-case scenario (which never happened): "and all speak in tongues,..." which is obviously an exaggerative statement, because he already gave the rhetorical question "do all speak with tongues?" of which the obvious answer is no! And in fact, anyone who is a well-educated Christian (who understands the purpose of ch. 13) will obviously call you crazy if you are doing what Paul is describing here; but Paul giving the worst-case scenario, in which he is saying even if unbelievers see this, they will call you crazy. Yet you do it anyway.

If all you can do is nitpick what I say, and avoid the real issues, then why have this conversation?
TD