Tongues & the cessationists.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

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..

I'll accept your premise. I see no sense in criticizing a person's communication or attempted communication with God. It's none of my business. I can only say that for me it has never happened.

 

[swordsman1]

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" .

You are deliberately honing in on the antiquated KJV language of "no man understandeth" to make it appear that no human can understand the tongues spoken. The modern English equivalent is "no one understands" as every modern translation renders the verse. And it is the context that determines who the "no one" refers to. In this passage the context is local church meetings. The problem in Corinth that Paul is addressing is that 'no one' in the congregation understands the language spoken, not that 'no one' on the face of the earth can possibly understand it. It doesn't mean the language was non-human. The verse can just as easily mean the language was a foreign language which no one in the congregation understands. Therefore 1 Cor 14:2 is no proof text for tongues being a non-human language.

 

[Alithis]

I'll accept your premise. I see no sense in criticizing a person's communication or attempted communication with God. It's none of my business. I can only say that for me it has never happened.

Thank you for honesty

 

[Alithis]

You are deliberately honing in on the antiquated KJV language of "no man understandeth" to make it appear that no human can understand the tongues spoken. The modern English equivalent is "no one understands" as every modern translation renders the verse. And it is the context that determines who the "no one" refers to. In this passage the context is local church meetings. The problem in Corinth that Paul is addressing is that 'no one' in the congregation understands the language spoken, not that 'no one' on the face of the earth can possibly understand it. It doesn't mean the language was non-human. The verse can just as easily mean the language was a foreign language which no one in the congregation understands. Therefore 1 Cor 14:2 is no proof text for tongues being a non-human language.

Lol. Sorry i had to laugh.
Your saying it doesnt say no man understands..it says no one understands..
Of course it means the same thing.

Please dont imply God is without understanding. It would be twisting plain scripture.
Its both contradictory and inconsistant.
We KNOW its talking about intepreting to other people... So no man OR no one also refers to other people.

Your going to either have to admit. That argument is dusted or be dishonest by ignoring whats plainly written and misdirecting off into ambiguities and deceptions

 

[swordsman1]

The idea of tongues being a non-human, unintelligible language has only been in the church since the beginning of the 20th Century. Before then, throughout all of church history, tongues has been universally understood to be miraculously speaking foreign human languages - from the time of the church fathers (immediately after the first century) onwards. What has appeared in the church in the last hundred years is not the New Testament gift of tongues, but rather a natural phenomenon of the flesh known to linguists as glossolalia, where the human speech organs go into 'autopilot' and produces strings of random syllables. It has been well studied and found to be fundamentally not a language. Neither is it unique to Christianity.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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..

I am not a cessationist and have spoken in tongues. Paul said there are a diversity of gifts and different kinds of tongues meaning, languages not babble as you put it.
IMHO ...Paul was dealing with a corrupt church, Corinth. Apparently there was an abundance of those in the congregation practicing the Pagan form of tongues within the body. Without throwing the whole thing out, he made sure there was room for the true gift by laying down the rules. Today no one follows the rules so we have mostly a false representation of this wonderful gift.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.

You aren't paying attention to what I said, and missed the whole point.

OK, lets try this. Can you prove to me tongues are not babble as you claim?

 

[Blade]

I watched a brother in Christ well known say.. on TV.. if you dont believe in speaking in tongues praise GOD!

I understand though I do speak in tongues.. even GOD says nothing to those that dont believe. Think.. in all you or I do that wrong off. .where we are WRONG in some belief in the word.. what does how has GOD bugged you about it? Never does. ONLY when we are willing to listen to change.. and we must want it..

If Jesus said ask the Father.. HE will give you the holy Spirit.. I did it.. ANYTHING Jesus says.. I haha TRY to not question it. He once told me to RUN.. I was not scared .. so I said.. huh? Run? but I'm not scared. He said.. when GOD tells you to do something.. dont question just do it! He said that so kindly loving.. like with a smile..

So.. if GOD said ask.. dont listen to me or man.. just do it..

 

[Unnamed Guy]

You all need to read the bible and stop offering your own opinions in lieu of God's word.

1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

That says "gifts". Don't read it in where it does not say it. Verse 7 plainly says "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." Nine manifestations are then listed. It's a package deal: the package is a gift, but the package includes all nine manifestations.

Verse 8 says "For to one is given". Now learn some English. The word "one" is a pronoun. It refers to the last, preceding, qualified, noun. That is "profit", not "man". Each manifestation is given to a different profit, not to a different man. Verse 7 says "given to every man", remember?

Verse 9 actually says "gifts". There are several Greek words translated "gift". The word used here means a gift to one person to benefit another.

1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Why do people keep saying that one person speaks in tongues and another interprets when the bible plainly says the same one is to interpret what he speaks? Verse 13 repeats it:

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

Verse 27 emphasizes it:

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

The word "one" is Greek eis, "the same one".

You all really need to learn the subject. It is a disgrace to pretend you know something when you don't.

 

[Dave L]

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?

The problem is, all claims for having the gifts today are false. Beyond the two outpourings, the gifts came only through an apostle's hands. And the last Apostle John died around 100 AD.

 

[Dave L]

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

You need to support your claim from scripture and stop doing what you accuse me of doing.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I think the OP has decided what they will believe and no amount of logic or basic exegetical methods will convince them otherwise.

it is what it is.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The problem is, all claims for having the gifts today are false. Beyond the two outpourings, the gifts came only through an apostle's hands. And the last Apostle John died around 100 AD.

New Testament Saduceeism points to the fact that Jesus is all that more closer to coming back.

 

[Dave L]

New Testament Saduceeism points to the fact that Jesus is all that more closer to coming back.

Are you implying those who do not chase after voices in their heads but go only by scripture are like unto the Sadducees?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Are you implying those who do not chase after voices in their heads but go only by scripture are like unto the Sadducees?

I identify the opinion that certain gifts no longer exist, similar to the Sadducee belief that there was no resurrection or angels. The mentality is similar, it's not a bad thing. Things need to be the same as it was when Jesus left when He returns.

 

[Dave L]

I identify the opinion that certain gifts no longer exist, similar to the Sadducee belief that there was no resurrection or angels. The mentality is similar, it's not a bad thing. Things need to be the same as it was when Jesus left when He returns.

I don't see how things could be the same.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I don't see how things could be the same.

I would encourage you to look at church history and compare it to the nation of Israel's history in the scripture.

 

[Dave L]

I would encourage you to look at church history and compare it to the nation of Israel's history in the scripture.

I'm familiar with both. What are you seeing that I am not?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm familiar with both. What are you seeing that I am not?

They seem to mirror each other.

 

[Dave L]

They seem to mirror each other.

Only that the church is Israel and the state of Israel is not biblical Israel.