Tongues & the cessationists.

[Alithis]

Wasnt sure where to post this.

In Almost all (if not all) threads on this topic it will invariably come down to the claim (usually spoken irreverantly) that Tongues today are just babble and not tongues at all.

The same argument will be used repeatedly to shore up this unwise claim.
The cessationist will say
"In acts when they spoke in tongues it was an intelligible language that others can understand.
And if its not- its not real tongues.

[ In this post i first want to state -Tongues are Not a validation of rightouesness .i.e. Not everyone who speaks in tongues automatically goes to heaven . ]
Now.....
To make this claim many words in Pauls letters are fully ignored .

E.g - he states there are a diversity of tongues . there are more then only one "type " of tongues. He is not speaking about different languages but different types of language.
In the nateral a language is the means of communicating between two or more parties.
(Sign language's is a language which doesnt use the tongue.)

To cut to the point...
This claim that if it is not an intelligible language its not tongues of the holy spirit is Fully refuted BY SCRIPTURE well Before cessationists made the claim.

Its simply this.. In his explanations and instructions around the topic of tongues and prophecy Paul makes an astounding statement.

....For he that speaketh in an
[unknown] tongue speaketh
not unto men, but unto God:
for no man understandeth
[him]; howbeit in the spirit he
speaketh mysteries..... 1 Corinth 14 v2..

Now i have left the parenthesis In on purpose. They are not in the greek but added -for transliteration .

But what IS in the greek i will now HIGHLIGHT in bold red.

.....For he that speaketh in an
[unknown] tongue speaketh
not unto men, but unto God:
for no man understandeth
[him]; howbeit in the spirit he
speaketh mysteries....

For me .this ENDS any cessationist argument saying if its not a humanly intelligible language its not real tongues.

In Fact.. When one is talking to GOD ( not men) if men could understand it. It would not be real tongues.
For he tHat speaks in tongues does not speak to Men ...but to God and NO MAN UNDERSTANDS..

 

[HTacianas]

Wasnt sure where to post this.

In Almost all (if not all) threads on this topic it will invariably come down to the claim (usually spoken irreverantly) that Tongues today are just babble and not tongues at all.

The same argument will be used repeatedly to shore up this unwise claim.
The cessationist will say
"In acts when they spoke in tongues it was an intelligible language that others can understand.
And if its not- its not real tongues.

[ In this post i first want to state -Tongues are Not a validation of rightouesness .i.e. Not everyone who speaks in tongues automatically goes to heaven . ]
Now.....
To make this claim many words in Pauls letters are fully ignored .

E.g - he states there are a diversity of tongues . there are more then only one "type " of tongues. He is not speaking about different languages but different types of language.
In the nateral a language is the means of communicating between two or more parties.
(Sign language's is a language which doesnt use the tongue.)

To cut to the point...
This claim that if it is not an intelligible language its not tongues of the holy spirit is Fully refuted BY SCRIPTURE well Before cessationists made the claim.

Its simply this.. In his explanations and instructions around the topic of tongues and prophecy Paul makes an astounding statement.

....For he that speaketh in an
[unknown] tongue speaketh
not unto men, but unto God:
for no man understandeth
[him]; howbeit in the spirit he
speaketh mysteries..... 1 Corinth 14 v2..

Now i have left the parenthesis In on purpose. They are not in the greek but added -for transliteration .

But what IS in the greek i will now HIGHLIGHT in bold red.

.....For he that speaketh in an
[unknown] tongue speaketh
not unto men, but unto God:
for no man understandeth
[him]; howbeit in the spirit he
speaketh mysteries....

For me .this ENDS any cessationist argument saying if its not a humanly intelligible language its not real tongues.

In Fact.. When one is talking to GOD ( not men) if men could understand it. It would not be real tongues.
For he tHat speaks in tongues does not speak to Men ...but to God and NO MAN UNDERSTANDS..

Paul also cautions against speaking in tongues:

1Co 14:23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

But anyway, the problem I have with the modern idea of speaking in tongues is not the speaking in tongues, but the claim by some that baptism isn't valid unless a person speaks in tongues. That claim is nonsense.

But anyway, I would much rather that if someone claims to have some supernatural gift, that gift be something useful. When I had cancer last year I certainly could have benefitted from someone with the gift of healing rather than the gift of speaking in a language I don't understand.

 

[Jonaitis]

Acts 2 is the first instance we read of speaking in tongues in actual practice, on the day of Pentecost after the Spirit descended on the disciples. This is what we read:

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” (v. 5-11).

It appears that they weren't babbling something unintelligible to human ears, but what was understood by people of other languages. You quote 1 Corinthians 14:2, but what about verses 7-11? How do you explain that this isn't in fact speaking of tongues as something intelligible. Either you have a contradiction, or one of us has a wrong understanding about what verse 2 is talking about.

"Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers..." (1 Corinthians 14:22). This fits well with what happened at Pentecost to the Jews who heard them speak in tongues, it was a sign to them from God.

 

[swordsman1]

E.g - he states there are a diversity of tongues . there are more then only one "type " of tongues. He is not speaking about different languages but different types of language.
In the nateral a language is the means of communicating between two or more parties.
(Sign language's is a language which doesnt use the tongue.)

The word "types of tongues" is not used in scripture. The word Paul uses is genos "kinds of tongues". The word refers to different varieties of family or species. It always depicts things which are related to each other. The same word appears in 1 Cor 14:10 "There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.". The word tongues (glossa) also means languages (see any lexicon). So Paul is referring to the miraculous ability to speak differents kinds of language - the Greek tongue, the Arabic tongue, the Hebrew tongue, etc.

But what IS in the greek i will now HIGHLIGHT in bold red.

.....For he that speaketh in an
[unknown] tongue speaketh
not unto men, but unto God:
for no man understandeth
[him]; howbeit in the spirit he
speaketh mysteries....

For me .this ENDS any cessationist argument saying if its not a humanly intelligible language its not real tongues.

In Fact.. When one is talking to GOD ( not men) if men could understand it. It would not be real tongues.
For he tHat speaks in tongues does not speak to Men ...but to God and NO MAN UNDERSTANDS..

The context of 1 Cor 14 is the local church, specifically the problem of speaking an unrecognized tongue in church meetings. So where it says "no one understands him" it does not mean no one on the face of the earth would understand him, but rather no one in the congregation would understand an unrecognized tongue. That doesn't mean it was a non-human language. If someone was speaking say Persian in a small Greek house-church then it is no surprise that no one understands him. Only God, who understands all languages, knows what was spoken.

There is only one description of tongues in scripture, Acts 2, and it is the miraculous ability to speak a foreign human language you have never learned. Nowhere is it described as being a non-human or heavenly language.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm not a tongue speaker, and I'm open minded to the idea, but the thing with 1 Corinthians 14 is that both interpretations can be run through it. If I am speaking to God in English there are interpreters in the church who can hear me. But if I speak to God in Chinese only God hears me. With acts 2 in mind if you replace tongues with the word Mandarin then the verse works that way as well.

That said, anytime we speak it is initiated from our spirit, so whether or not there is any semantic meaning to our enunciated speech our Father hears our spirit shouting out.

 

[Dave-W]

There is only one description of tongues in scripture, Acts 2, and it is the miraculous ability to speak a foreign human language you have never learned. Nowhere is it described as being a non-human or heavenly language.

Then Why is there a gift of interpretation of tongues? If the gift is only for native speakers of a different language?

 

[swordsman1]

Then Why is there a gift of interpretation of tongues? If the gift is only for native speakers of a different language?

For precisely the reason given in 1 Cor 14 - when someone speaks in a tongue during a meeting the tongue must be interpreted so that the whole church can be edified.

1 Cor 14:5 "and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying."

 

[Dave L]

Apart from the two outpourings, the gift of tongues always came through an apostle's hands. The gift ceased when the last of the Apostles died. Scripture replaces the gift which only gave piecemeal information, with the complete revelation. Today's "tongues" are nothing like the originals.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” (2 Timothy 2:15–16) (KJV 1900)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

To the shock and awe of modern interpretation, I actually applied the above verse and the results were quite insightful. I wonder what would happen if all the other people who speak in an unknown tongue were to do the same?

 

[Dave L]

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

To the shock and awe of modern interpretation, I actually applied the above verse and the results were quite insightful. I wonder what would happen if all the other people who speak in an unknown tongue were to do the same?

How many different "interpretations" do you suppose you would get if you recorded a "tongues" message and took it around to different "interpreters"?

 

[Kenny'sID]

For me .this ENDS any cessationist argument saying if its not a humanly intelligible language its not real tongues.

Here is the problem with that... That's often the last ditch argument/effort to bring up in order to defend tongues as real. When those who claim tongues real, never prove the different language type tongues, the type that IS understandable, is not babble, it causes some, like me, think "How convenient that they can only speak in the type tongues that is not provable".

I'd have to looked into it again for the sources, but I have read that they have gotten interpreters to interpret the different language type of tongues, and they verified it was babble.

 

[com7fy8]

But anyway, I would much rather that if someone claims to have some supernatural gift, that gift be something useful.

You said this in context with how you would have rather had someone with the gift of healing visit you, while you had cancer, rather than someone speaking what you could not understand. I offer that I understand this point you are making. And I am sure our Apostle Paul agrees with you

About if speaking in an unknown language can be useful. If the Holy Spirit has someone do something, it is useful . . . whether people understand what God is doing or saying, or not. I think a number of us have done things with God, but we did not understand at the time what we were doing. So, whether we understand actions or words is not necessarily relevant, I consider.

But our Apostle Paul does say it is better if a tongue speaking is interpreted, of course. But even if someone is simply praying in another language and no one gets the words, still the Holy Spirit can be ministering grace deeper than words >

"As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." (1 Peter 4:10)

True speaking in tongues is a gift; it does minister God's own grace. My opinion is there can be times when tongue speaking is not meant to be interpreted, but it is a prayer thing. And Paul does talk about how it can be praying well. And prayer does minister God's grace, even to ones not present with the praying person. So, we do not have to hear and understand what a person is praying for us.

But I understand that there can be faked speaking in tongues. I do not believe it is possible to control a gift of the Holy Spirit to do things in a wrong way. On the other hand, it seems there are people who simply don't buy tongues and so they will find ways to criticize it and misrepresent it and argue against what isn't even what the Bible says about tongues.

Why would people have such a problem with any sort of real speaking in tongues? Because humans are antagonistic against being submissive to God. And tongues . . . real tongues . . . is the Holy Spirit having a human speak a language the human does not even know. So, this takes submissiveness to the Holy Spirit, in every detail of what the Holy Spirit has the person saying. And ones do not want this, their spirit is against this. And the grace of this can change us so we more and more submit in every detail in all we do, because the Holy Spirit having one so speak can also have the person more and more submitting to all else which the Holy Spirit has us doing. This could be part of why Paul says someone speaking to oneself edifies one's own self. But others in spiritual connection with this can also deeply so benefit, though they are not having an interpretation.

 

[Alithis]

Here is the problem with that... That's often the last ditch argument/effort to bring up in order to defend tongues as real. When those who claim tongues real, never prove the different language type tongues, the type that IS understandable, is not babble, it causes some, like me, think "How convenient that they can only speak in the type tongues that is not provable".

I'd have to looked into it again for the sources, but I have read that they have gotten interpreters to interpret the different language type of tongues, and they verified it was babble.

No that just verifies the scripture which says
NO man understands.... If you can find a man who inteligibly understands it .then it is not the tongues which speaks not to man but to God.
These things are not of the flesh.

 

[Alithis]

Replied to wrong post.

 

[Alithis]

You said this in context with how you would have rather had someone with the gift of healing visit you, while you had cancer, rather than someone speaking what you could not understand. I offer that I understand this point you are making. And I am sure our Apostle Paul agrees with you

About if speaking in an unknown language can be useful. If the Holy Spirit has someone do something, it is useful . . . whether people understand what God is doing or saying, or not. I think a number of us have done things with God, but we did not understand at the time what we were doing. So, whether we understand actions or words is not necessarily relevant, I consider.

But our Apostle Paul does say it is better if a tongue speaking is interpreted, of course. But even if someone is simply praying in another language and no one gets the words, still the Holy Spirit can be ministering grace deeper than words >

"As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." (1 Peter 4:10)

True speaking in tongues is a gift; it does minister God's own grace. My opinion is there can be times when tongue speaking is not meant to be interpreted, but it is a prayer thing. And Paul does talk about how it can be praying well. And prayer does minister God's grace, even to ones not present with the praying person. So, we do not have to hear and understand what a person is praying for us.

But I understand that there can be faked speaking in tongues. I do not believe it is possible to control a gift of the Holy Spirit to do things in a wrong way. On the other hand, it seems there are people who simply don't buy tongues and so they will find ways to criticize it and misrepresent it and argue against what isn't even what the Bible says about tongues.

Why would people have such a problem with any sort of real speaking in tongues? Because humans are antagonistic against being submissive to God. And tongues . . . real tongues . . . is the Holy Spirit having a human speak a language the human does not even know. So, this takes submissiveness to the Holy Spirit, in every detail of what the Holy Spirit has the person saying. And ones do not want this, their spirit is against this. And the grace of this can change us so we more and more submit in every detail in all we do, because the Holy Spirit having one so speak can also have the person more and more submitting to all else which the Holy Spirit has us doing. This could be part of why Paul says someone speaking to oneself edifies one's own self. But others in spiritual connection with this can also deeply so benefit, though they are not having an interpretation.

I agree. Nicely put.gracious.

A refining point.. We have experienced the aspect of interpretation of tongues.. Where the believer suddenly understood the foreign language being spoken by the Non believer.. This too is "interpretation of tongues"
just widening our perspective.

Yes thats testimony ..it happened. And more often then we know

 

[Alithis]

The word "types of tongues" is not used in scripture. The word Paul uses is genos "kinds of tongues". The word refers to different varieties of family or species. It always depicts things which are related to each other. The same word appears in 1 Cor 14:10 "There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.". The word tongues (glossa) also means languages (see any lexicon). So Paul is referring to the miraculous ability to speak differents kinds of language - the Greek tongue, the Arabic tongue, the Hebrew tongue, etc.



The context of 1 Cor 14 is the local church, specifically the problem of speaking an unrecognized tongue in church meetings. So where it says "no one understands him" it does not mean no one on the face of the earth would understand him, but rather no one in the congregation would understand an unrecognized tongue. That doesn't mean it was a non-human language. If someone was speaking say Persian in a small Greek house-church then it is no surprise that no one understands him. Only God, who understands all languages, knows what was spoken.

There is only one description of tongues in scripture, Acts 2, and it is the miraculous ability to speak a foreign human language you have never learned. Nowhere is it described as being a non-human or heavenly language.

Types...kinds. Same meaning.
And as usual.. Same ignoring of what IS plainly written .

Your doing the strawman argument.
Introducing a point not raised then arguing it instead of the topic.

The topic is .
You cannot say its not real tongues because its not intelligible language.
Because the scripture plainly states the kind/type of tongues that speaks Not to man but to God. Is a language "No man understands" .

Done

 

[Alithis]

Then Why is there a gift of interpretation of tongues? If the gift is only for native speakers of a different language?

Yes exactly.. Its because the cessationist is not being honest about all scripture its argument shows as full of contradiction.

 

[Alithis]

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

To the shock and awe of modern interpretation, I actually applied the above verse and the results were quite insightful. I wonder what would happen if all the other people who speak in an unknown tongue were to do the same?

It is almost a constant that (having earnestly asked God for just that) so often when praying alone in tongues insight into what is being prayed comes.
But weve also learned that tongues in a gathering For that gathering are a different type of tongues.

The cessationists refuse to acknowledge for the most part,that the advice about tongues and interpretation is only in regard to a gathering and not applicable in other situations.

 

[Alithis]

Apart from the two outpourings, the gift of tongues always came through an apostle's hands. The gift ceased when the last of the Apostles died. Scripture replaces the gift which only gave piecemeal information, with the complete revelation. Today's "tongues" are nothing like the originals.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” (2 Timothy 2:15–16) (KJV 1900)

This is just opinion using scriptures on completly other topics to shore up a religious opinion.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

How many different "interpretations" do you suppose you would get if you recorded a "tongues" message and took it around to different "interpreters"?

The point of a gift is to edify the church. If a tongues message is not translatable, scripture instructs the tongues speaker to quiet down, and continue talking to God. The scripture also instructs for an individual to pray so they can interpret, since they are speaking profound mysteries. If someone is successful in applying this teaching, they will not become a prophet, but the edification value will be the same as someone who is legitimately a prophet.

In the case of an "unknown" tongue, it is up to the speaker to pray and translate the tongue. In my case, I prayed using scripture to decode the message. Regardless of how anyone sees the gift, don't most leaders in the faith always encourage more prayer and diligent study of scripture?