Tonuges

[Lockheed]

1Co 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.

I've yet to see a charismatic deal with this verse in any meaningful way. I'd like to hear what the folks who believe in xenoglossolalia here take this to mean and what historical figures agree with their view.

 

[St.Augustine]

Thank you St. Augustine for your thoughts on glossolalia. I just want to say that I sincerely appreciate your considerable efforts in trying to get me to see the truth as you perceive it. You assert that the sign gifts are no longer necessary, therefore, God has discontinued giving them. I too believe tongues in particular will cease to be given by God - "when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away" I Cor.13:10. Tongues and the sign gifts will terminate at the second coming of Christ.

Firstly let me say that I am very encouraged with the good nature of your responses and see that you most certainly would agree with me that "love never fails". However I have heard this argument you made many times and so here is my attempted refutation:

1 Corinthians 13:8-10 "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

Now read the verses carefully, I have used colour to make it more clearer. We agree that the perfect is the second coming of Christ. Notice that when He comes then that which is in part will cease. Notice ONLY knowledge and prophesy are done in part hence only knowledge and prophesy will cease with the second coming. So I posit that tongues will cease BEFORE the coming of the perfect, that is Christ.

 

[Lockheed]

Now read the verses carefully, I have used colour to make it more clearer. We agree that the perfect is the second coming of Christ. Notice that when He comes then that which is in part will cease. Notice ONLY knowledge and prophesy are done in part hence only knowledge and prophesy will cease with the second coming. So I posit that tongues will cease BEFORE the coming of the perfect, that is Christ.

The when and where is questionable, of course. I would note, however, that the prophecy of Joel wherein 'dream dreams' and the like are mentioned has already been fulfilled. Does it need to have ongoing fulfillment to be prophetic?

 

[Croooz]

Okay...good stuff so far but then what about this:

The statement that tongues is not a prayer language was eye poppin and got me thinking...

Romans 6:26-30
26Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

So this is the Spirit interceding for us with these groanings and not us? I was taught that this was us groaning/"tongues" since we don't know what to pray we are to pray in tongues because the Spirit would then pray thru us for what we ought......

Actually looking at this verse in many different translations I have yet to see where the teachings I received on tongues being a prayer language.

What say you Calvin dudes & dudettes...

 

[JamesCarter]

Firstly let me say that I am very encouraged with the good nature of your responses and see that you most certainly would agree with me that "love never fails". However I have heard this argument you made many times and so here is my attempted refutation:

1 Corinthians 13:8-10 "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

Now read the verses carefully, I have used colour to make it more clearer. We agree that the perfect is the second coming of Christ. Notice that when He comes then that which is in part will cease. Notice ONLY knowledge and prophesy are done in part hence only knowledge and prophesy will cease with the second coming. So I posit that tongues will cease BEFORE the coming of the perfect, that is Christ.

Sorry, St. Augustine. I respect your opinion, but I simply think you're reading your viewpoint into the text rather than practicing exegesis. I think the context clearly indicates that all three gifts will terminate when the perfect One comes. I don't think in all fairness your interpretation is a natural reading and understanding of Paul's argument.

 

[Lockheed]

Sorry, St. Augustine. I respect your opinion, but I simply think you're reading your viewpoint into the text rather than practicing exegesis. I think the context clearly indicates that all three gifts will terminate when the perfect One comes. I don't think in all fairness your interpretation is a natural reading and understanding of Paul's argument.

Can you provide an alternative exegesis that adequately addresses the text?

 

[JamesCarter]

What God could do is not in question, what God does do is another thing all together.

Simply saying "God could..." doesn't mean God has given some 'gift in a heavenly language'. In 1 Cor 13:1 Paul is not claiming that there is a "tongue of angels" that people can speak in, he's using the phrase as hyperbole in contrast with not having love. No where else does Paul speak of such a thing being possible.

The tongues spoken of in Acts 2 are clearly human languages. They're given for a very distinct purpose which we see in that same chapter, namely, to announce that the Messiah has come and salvation is available through Him, AND that the Jews missed the boat.

How so? Let me show you.

Most charismatics dwell on three chapters in 1 Corinthians to provide support for their claims. Let's keep in mind however that 1 Corinthians was written not as a tongue-speaking manual, but a letter of correction to a church with many, many problems. The church in Corinth had a member who was involved with his father's wife, they were not taking care of their members, people were speaking out of turn in the service... in essense they were a good representative picture of the modern non-denom/charismatic church in America.



Let's find out what Paul says the PURPOSE of tongues is:

1 Cor 14:21-22

In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.
So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

​

Here Paul expresses the purpose of tongues, "a sign... to unbelievers". Paul quotes Isaiah as support for this fact. Paul is quoting the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The verse in our Bible today says:

Isaiah 28:11

Indeed, He will speak to this people through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,

​

It is important to recognize here that in both cases tongues is not some 'angelic language'. Consider for a moment that no two charismatics speak in the same "tongue", can this be the "tongues of angels"? Does every angel speaks in a different language?!


Note that the purpose of tongues, both in 1 Cornithians and in the prophecy, is to "speak to this people" in "a foreign tongue". We see this occuring clearly in Acts 2, where it is lowly fishermen speaking in the languages of people from all over the world. It's imperitive that we seek to harmonize 1 Corinthians and Acts, rather than suggesting they're referring to different gifts.

This is a message to the Jews that they're under judgment, the Messiah came folks, and you killed Him!

Thus Paul writes that tongues is a sign to unbelievers.



"What about 1 Cor 14:2!?" I hear someone say...

1 Cor 14:2

For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

​

Again, keeping the PURPOSE of tongues in view here, we must consider what this verse means. Who were the men in Acts 2 speaking to?

Acts 2:8-11

"And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs--we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."

​

The men in Acts 2 were "speaking of the mighty deeds of God", that is they were praising God. Tongues then is a praise language (as opposed to a prayer language) and it is not meant for personal prayer, but as a public declaration of the deeds of God, just as 1 Cor 14:2 states.


It is apparent then that "this people" spoken of in Isaiah and fulfilled in Acts and elsewhere is none other than the Jews of the first century. The Biblical declared purpose of tongues is to announce judgment on the 1st Century Jews, which since the destruction of the temple are long since past.



Finally, it is God's command that there be no tongues without interpetation in the church. Paul is very clear on this.

19however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.


27If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret;
28but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

37If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.
38But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

​

So even if you dismiss the whole "tongues was a sign for unbelievers", the common practice of mass singing in tongues, or even the outbreak of tongues by vocal women in the first row (1 Cor 14:34 instructs us about those ladies ) is not allowed in Scripture. How many churches who pratice tongue-speaking actually follow God's commands relating to it?


Eagerly desire the greater gifts... the greatest of these is love.

Lockheed, I hardly know where to start. First, you contend that I Corinthians 13:1 is hyperbole when it speaks of tongues of angels. It may be indeed deliberate exaggeration, but one can not honestly dogmatically assert that it is. In any case, if you would have read my posts carefully you would have known that I never insisted that God gives angelic languages. I merely said that a sovereign God could, not did. By the way, how do you know that no two charismatics speak in the same tongue? Did you receive a revelation?

You boldly state that tongues is a praise language and not a prayer language. Yet, I Corinthians 14:2 says that he who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God. How do you know that this speaking to God can not take the form of prayer? Just because it happened one way in Acts chapter 2 doesn't of necessity mean that it can not happen in another way. Let's give the sovereign God some latitude. Indeed, tongues takes the form of offering thanks in I Cor. 14:16. If he wants tongues on occasion to have a prayer function, so be it. After all, praise and thanksgiving can be components of prayer. If tongues were used to declare judgment on 1st century Jews, why couldn't they serve the same function today in pronouncing judgment on the unbeliever? Why would you limit it to the 1st century? It's doubtful to me that every unbeliever that heard the tongues in Corinthians was Jewish. I am puzzled too about how you know that tongues are not for private use, only public. You have taken me far more places on this subject than Paul. Your opinions seem to be a function of your theological constructs rather than any solid, serious exegesis. For a more fair, objective treatment of I Corinthians 12-14, I invite you to look at the notes to the ESV Reformation Study Bible.

Sadly, I do have to agree with you that there are abuses to be found in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles. However, the abuses don't suggest that the gift is not real. As you note, the Corinthians had abuses too. Often times it is a live and thriving church that faces more problems than a dead one. In any case, one of the reasons I left the Pentecostal church is that they didn't take Paul's teaching in chapter 14 seriously. But, there are mature and saintly Christians who exercise this gift Scripturally. I think it is sad that there are so many abuses, but I think it is sad when the Spirit is quenched also. By the way, I don't think the non-denominational Charismatic churches have a monopoly on being less than perfect.

 

[JamesCarter]

Can you provide an alternative exegesis that adequately addresses the text?

Please refer to the ESV Reformation Study Bible.

 

[St.Augustine]

Sorry, St. Augustine. I respect your opinion, but I simply think you're reading your viewpoint into the text rather than practicing exegesis. I think the context clearly indicates that all three gifts will terminate when the perfect One comes. I don't think in all fairness your interpretation is a natural reading and understanding of Paul's argument.

Fair enough, but where in 1 Cor 13 does it say that tongues will cease with the coming of the perfect

 

[Antman_05]

Didn't mean to course such an up row. Sorry :S

 

[JamesCarter]

Fair enough, but where in 1 Cor 13 does it say that tongues will cease with the coming of the perfect

I Cor. 13: 8-12
"Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in the mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

Exegesis is the interpretation of a word or passage. This passage is a paragraph, a single unit of thought.


prophecies....tongues....knowledge
The commentator in the ESV Reformation Study Bible motes, "It is likely that Paul mentions these three items as the representatives of all the spiritual gifts, which have a temporary earthly function until the end of this age. He goes on to acknowledge that there are those who suggest that Paul mentions these three in particular because they have a revelatory function that came to an end with the completion of the New Testament canon."

Regardless of how you define the "perfect", solid exegesis in this context demands that tongues will cease when the perfect comes.

Th commentator proceeds to assert concerning the "perfect", "The context suggests strongly that Paul is here referring to the Second Coming of Christ as the final event in God's plan of redemption and revelation."

I totally concur with the Reformed commentator - It's most probably certain that Paul includes tongues as a gift that will be graciously given and manifested until the Second Coming of our Lord.

St. Augustine, I love you brother, and I love your zeal for that which you perceive is true. Unfortuantely, my schedule is going to require me to be off the internet for about ten days, but I want you to know how much I have enjoyed sharing with you. Although neither of us has converted the other to our position, I hope we can both sense that we are both sincere Christians who profoundly love the Lord. I want you to know that I feel God's pleasure when I experience and exercise His gift. I have been around long enough and have had enough formal theological training to be able to discern what is of God in my life, and what isn't. I remain convinced that tongues is a gift of the Spirit for today.

 

[JamesCarter]

I've yet to see a charismatic deal with this verse in any meaningful way. I'd like to hear what the folks who believe in xenoglossolalia here take this to mean and what historical figures agree with their view.

Note in the ESV Reformed Study Bible - "What about unbelievers who hear the tongue? The Corinthians have ignored them, and Paul admonishes the church for immaturity. He appeals to the "law" to show that God uses unintelligible speech as a sign of judgment. Is 28:11 explains how God judged the Israelites through Assyrians speaking in a foreign language. If non-Christians come to the worship and hear an unintelligible worship they will be repelled and reject the gospel. In this situation uninterpreted tongues are a sign of judgment "for unbelievers."

 

[St.Augustine]

I Cor. 13: 8-12
Regardless of how you define the "perfect", solid exegesis in this context demands that tongues will cease when the perfect comes.

LOL...you haven't read any of Calvin or other reformed teachers then have you?

 

[Lockheed]

Lockheed, I hardly know where to start. First, you contend that I Corinthians 13:1 is hyperbole when it speaks of tongues of angels. It may be indeed deliberate exaggeration, but one can not honestly dogmatically assert that it is.

Again, my contention isn't without evidence. There is no other mention in Scripture of angels speaking in anything but the tongues of men, especially to men. No where in 1 Cor 13 does Paul claim that believers can speak in the "tongues of angels". Finally, if the "tongues of angels" was identical to the languages charismatics now claim to speak, no two angels would speak the same language.

In any case, if you would have read my posts carefully you would have known that I never insisted that God gives angelic languages. I merely said that a sovereign God could, not did. By the way, how do you know that no two charismatics speak in the same tongue? Did you receive a revelation?

In a sense, yes. I was once a charismatic. Are you really, honestly, contending that they do? I'd love to see the scientific evidence.

You boldly state that tongues is a praise language and not a prayer language. Yet, I Corinthians 14:2 says that he who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God. How do you know that this speaking to God can not take the form of prayer? Just because it happened one way in Acts chapter 2 doesn't of necessity mean that it can not happen in another way.

Because the purpose of tongues, as expressed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 14 directly ties tongues to the Isaiah passage. Tongues then are not a 'private prayer language' and are in fact intended for public usage. Finally, being in the 'Semper Reformanda' section of this message board, it should be evident that sola Scriptura still holds true... that said it what "can" happen and what God declares to be true must be found from Scripture. Therefore, please provide exegetical evidence, from Acts or elsewhere, where tongues are used as a private prayer language.

Let's give the sovereign God some latitude. Indeed, tongues takes the form of offering thanks in I Cor. 14:16. If he wants tongues on occasion to have a prayer function, so be it. After all, praise and thanksgiving can be components of prayer. If tongues were used to declare judgment on 1st century Jews, why couldn't they serve the same function today in pronouncing judgment on the unbeliever? Why would you limit it to the 1st century?

Because Paul expressely states that tongues are a fulfillment of the passage in Isaiah in which God promises to "speak to this people", again the first evidence of this is in Acts 2.

It's doubtful to me that every unbeliever that heard the tongues in Corinthians was Jewish.

There's no evidence either way, but in Paul's corrective letter what does he say? "Tongues then are a sign for unbelievers." Which unbelievers? The Holy Spirit tells us through Isaiah "this people."

I am puzzled too about how you know that tongues are not for private use, only public.

First, you seem to still be assuming that tongues is some unknown language, whereas the Paul makes no such claim. I ask that you provide exegetical evidence to back up your claim.

Second, you're asking me to prove a negative... Since we can only base our understandings on what Paul writes we can easily see that the purpose of all the gifts are to edify the body, that is: the church. These gifts are not intended to edify the individual. Hence Paul writes:

1Co 14:13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

If it is a private prayer language, why does he need to interpret?
1Co 14:19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Here again Paul talks about "in the church". In fact the whole letter is addressing behavior in the church and not attempting to provide and instruction manual on speaking in tongues.

You have taken me far more places on this subject than Paul. Your opinions seem to be a function of your theological constructs rather than any solid, serious exegesis.

I demand therefore that you prove me wrong.

For a more fair, objective treatment of I Corinthians 12-14, I invite you to look at the notes to the ESV Reformation Study Bible.

Perhaps you can provide the relevant info here.

Sadly, I do have to agree with you that there are abuses to be found in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles. However, the abuses don't suggest that the gift is not real.

Please provide a single example wherein this gift is being properly used.

As you note, the Corinthians had abuses too. Often times it is a live and thriving church that faces more problems than a dead one. In any case, one of the reasons I left the Pentecostal church is that they didn't take Paul's teaching in chapter 14 seriously. But, there are mature and saintly Christians who exercise this gift Scripturally. I think it is sad that there are so many abuses, but I think it is sad when the Spirit is quenched also. By the way, I don't think the non-denominational Charismatic churches have a monopoly on being less than perfect.

It always saddens me that when one brings a case against the rampant error and downright heresy in the charismatic church, the reply is always to claim that one desires to 'quence the spirit' and that 'no church is perfect'. I therefore ask, one last time, for a single example (and explination) of a tongues speaking church currently in operation.

 

[Lockheed]

Note in the ESV Reformed Study Bible - "What about unbelievers who hear the tongue? The Corinthians have ignored them, and Paul admonishes the church for immaturity. He appeals to the "law" to show that God uses unintelligible speech as a sign of judgment. Is 28:11 explains how God judged the Israelites through Assyrians speaking in a foreign language. If non-Christians come to the worship and hear an unintelligible worship they will be repelled and reject the gospel. In this situation uninterpreted tongues are a sign of judgment "for unbelievers."

"God judged the Israelites through Assyrians speaking in a foreign language."

How does this provide any evidence to support either the ongoing usage of tongues or the idea that tongues is a prayer language?

 

[JamesCarter]

Lockheed, I am not interested in reproducing the entire notes to the ESV Reformation Study Bible here, but I strongly urge that you read them. I am satisfied with what appears in the notes and with my experience. Again, I think in practice there has been considerable abuse, but there in my mind is no exegetical argument that refutes my position. I can't help but to wonder if your experiences have not defined your pneumatology. If you want to pursue this with me, we must do it in the context of the ESV notes, otherwise I'm no longer interested in prolonging the discussion.

 

[JamesCarter]

LOL...you haven't read any of Calvin or other reformed teachers then have you?

I would suggest that the writer of the ESV notes is a serious Reformed teacher, wouldn't you?

 

[philN]

I realize I'm sort of resurrecting a dead thread here, but I am doing it anyway.

Cor. 13: 8-12
"Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in the mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

Regardless of how you define the "perfect", solid exegesis in this context demands that tongues will cease when the perfect comes.

Not necessarily. I think it is somewhat interesting that "tongues" are not specifically mentioned as one of the gifts that will pass away with the perfect.

The verse first says, "As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away". I take this to mean that all three will cease at some point. But note that only two of the three are mentioned in the next verses: "For we know in part and prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away".

I also don't think it's coincidental that a different verb is used for what will happen to "tongues" as opposed to the other two. In the Greek the same word is used for what will happen to "knowledge" and "prophecy"; they both will "pass away" (ESV), though the actual Greek is more implicit of something becoming useless, which would make sense, as knowledge and teaching/prophecy would be useless once the perfect comes. However, a different verb is used in reference to "tongues". The ESV says "tongues will cease", and similarly the Greek says that tongues will "stop". I don't think it is coincidental that tongues is seperated from the other two, and that a different verb is used.


Also, if the gift of tongues has really been available since the apostolic days, why is it that there have not been accounts of tongues between the apostolic church and the last hundred years or so? I don't think the Holy Spirit was any less active. And I don't think anyone of the reformed faith would assert that there was less faith in the days of the reformation than today.

I have a few questions:
Do those of you who believe tongues is still around today hold to the belief that tongues are available for everyone? Are you basing your view of a dichotemy between tongues of men and angels on one verse? What is the purpose of tongues, in general?