What do you think about speaking in tongues?

[Guojing]

Vehemently disagree. Did you ever wonder why 1Corinthians 13 has only a few verses on love and yet:
- it has several verses on prophecy,knowledge, and tongues
- it is preceded by chapter 12, entirely devoted to the charismata
- it is followed by chapter 14, another forty verses on the charismata.

So how would you understand 1 Cor 12:30 then?

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

 

[JAL]

So how would you understand 1 Cor 12:30 then?

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Great verse. Notice how Paul defines a church. I accept no definition of a church other than Paul's. All other definitions are man-made - they are nothing more than the traditions of men, as Jesus called it.

I'm not really opposed to man-made institutions - after all we have to start somewhere, in our effort to gather God's people to pray for revival (to pray for the real thing). What I AM opposed to are man-made institutions masquerading as the real thing, which pretty much sums up the last 2,000 years. We shouldn't be shoving our religion down God's throat.

31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

Another powerful verse. You do realize this verse is directed to the entire congregation, right? Same as 14:1. Yes, all CAN be prophets. ALL can prophesy. Clearly.

Now back to your question. Why then did Paul write:

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

For two reasons:
(1) The immediate context is the ASSEMBLY. God has opted for a diversity of manifestations in the assembly. Sally might prophesy in this coming Sunday's service, Bob on the next Sunday, and Peter on the third. Suppose every person manifested every gift every Sunday. How many hours do you think THAT service would take? Entirely too long, for one thing.
(2) Don't confuse the OFFICE of a prophet with the PRINCIPLE of prophethood. Apostles and prophets had governmental authority in the church. At any given time God ordains a limited number of rulers - this was already becoming a problem at Corinth because even with a mere three contenders, they were factioning:

"I follow Paul."
"I follow Peter."
"I follow Apollos."

You can reach prophethood - but that doesn't necessarily place you in the governmental office of a prophet with respect to the ASSEMBLY. That distinction explains why Paul prefers to describe the mature as "spiritual" rather than as "prophetic" (see my links on 1Corinthians for more details).

But bear in mind that one goal of the church is to expand into new territories. As that happens, more leaders/rulers are needed. So even if you are not a "prophet" (governmentally) today, you could be one tomorrow. Hope that helps.

 

[Guojing]

Great verse. Notice how Paul defines a church. I accept no definition of a church other than Paul's. All other definitions are man-made - they are nothing more than the traditions of men, as Jesus called it.

I'm not really opposed to man-made institutions - after all we have to start somewhere, in our effort to gather God's people to pray for revival (to pray for the real thing). What I AM opposed to are man-made institutions masquerading as the real thing, which pretty much sums up the last 2,000 years. We shouldn't be shoving our religion down God's throat.

Another powerful verse. You do realize this verse is directed to the entire congregation, right? Same as 14:1. Yes, all CAN be prophets. ALL can prophesy. Clearly.

Now back to your question. Why then did Paul write:


For two reasons:
(1) The immediate context is the ASSEMBLY. God has opted for a diversity of manifestations in the assembly. Sally might prophesy in this coming Sunday's service, Bob on the next Sunday, and Peter on the third. Suppose every person manifested every gift every Sunday. How many hours do you think THAT service would take? Entirely too long, for one thing.
(2) Don't confuse the OFFICE of a prophet with the PRINCIPLE of prophethood. Apostles and prophets had governmental authority in the church. At any given time God ordains a limited number of rulers - this was already becoming a problem at Corinth because even with a mere three contenders, they were factioning:

"I follow Paul."
"I follow Peter."
"I follow Apollos."

You can reach prophethood - but that doesn't necessarily place you in the governmental office of a prophet with respect to the ASSEMBLY. That distinction explains why Paul prefers to describe the mature as "spiritual" rather than as "prophetic" (see my links on 1Corinthians for more details).

But bear in mind that one goal of the church is to expand into new territories. As that happens, more leaders/rulers are needed. So even if you are not a "prophet" (governmentally) today, you could be one tomorrow. Hope that helps.

Paul was asking a rhetorical question and the expected answer from the reader is no, not all will speak in tongues

your answer appears to be, everyone has the gift of tongues just that they will take turns to show it?

Is that correct? But that goes against Paul analogy of various parts of the body and their functions in the same chapter, before that passage

It makes no sense to say, a leg can be an eye while an eye can be a leg at different times. Even if a leg is not an eye now, the leg could be an eye tomorrow.

 

[JAL]

Paul was asking a rhetorical question and the expected answer from the reader is no, not all will speak in tongues

Is that correct? But that goes against Paul analogy of various parts of the body and their functions in the same chapter, before that passage

Correct. Again, such points are valid with respect to the ASSEMBLY - typically the assembling of believers in a given Sunday service. Clearly it's not practical, efficient, or feasible, in a given service, for either:
(1) One person to do all the ministry.
(2) Or every person to manifest all the gifts. How can all be teachers in one service?

your answer appears to be, everyone has the gift of tongues just that they will take turns to show it?

No. For one thing, giftedness is an ambiguous term with respect to possession. Scripture isn't terribly clear whether the Christian is properly said to HAVE a gift, on the one hand, or those ministered to RECEIVE from him a gift (e.g. of healing), or even, in the case of an office such as Prophet, perhaps the charismatically endued Christian IS the gift (viz. "He's been a blessing/gift to all of us.").

More to the point, consider again these two verses:

Eagerly desire the greater gifts (12:31)

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things [not gifts], especially the gift of prophecy (14:1)

Clearly the gifts are not automatically the province of every believer - they need be PURSUED. This could involve a lot of wasted effort if I were not entitled to all the gifts.

It makes no sense to say, a leg can be an eye while an eye can be a leg at different times. Even if a leg is not an eye now, the leg could be an eye tomorrow.

Every analogy has a limit. Otherwise, I guess we need to hire surgeons to fuse our bodies together? Since when do the parts of a body function properly bifurcated from each other? How far are you going to take the analogy?

I'll tell you exactly how far to take a metaphor - we limit the metaphorical by the literal. At 14:1 Paul literally commanded us ALL to seek the gift of prophecy, placing it on the top rung of the priority-ladder alongside love. Therefore a rhetorical question such as:

"Are all prophets?" (12:29)

Must be understood contextually. Same with, "Do all speak in tongues?" Recall that I linked you to two posts demonstrating that the NT defines genuine evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180). Do you believe that all can evangelize? I think you do. Ergo, all can prophesy.

Pride is killing us. Literally. In my experience, a significant percentage of Christians do not want to feel shortcoming spiritually and thus:
(1) Do not want to entertain the possibility of being deficient in the gifts.
(2) Do not want to pray for outpourings of the Spirit (revival)
because the attitude is, "How dare you suggest that other Christians are measuring up better than I am? That they have more of the Spirit or more gifts than I, in virtue of being more faithful?"

I am convinced that many pastors and Bible scholars will do everything in their power to find interpretations of the Bible consistent with their ego - I personally believe that's the origin of Cessationism for example. No need to admit we've fallen short -just blame God as being too stingy to persist the gifts.

 

[JAL]

It makes no sense to say, a leg can be an eye while an eye can be a leg at different times. Even if a leg is not an eye now, the leg could be an eye tomorrow.

In your view, then, a leg cannot be an eye. In other words, a Christian cannot represent two gifts. He is either a leg or an eye, but not both.

How then do you explain the fact that Paul himself exhibited multiple gifts?

 

[Guojing]

In your view, then, a leg cannot be an eye. In other words, a Christian cannot represent two gifts. He is either a leg or an eye, but not both.

How then do you explain the fact that Paul himself exhibited multiple gifts?

The body analogy given by Paul in 1 Cor 12 is clear on its own

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

So to conclude, despite this clear analogy of the physical body, before 1 Cor 12:27-31, you still want to "Vehemently disagree" that not everyone in the body of Christ will receive the gift of tongues?

How then do you explain the fact that Paul himself exhibited multiple gifts?

As for your final question, Paul was given signs and wonders for the rest of the Jews to believe his gospel of the uncircumcision was a legitimate gospel given to him by the ascended Christ.

Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

But signs and wonders are for Israel only (Psalm 74:9) and do not apply to the gospel of the uncircumcision for us in the Body of Christ. 1 Cor is a transitional period before Acts 28, where I believed signs and wonders would have ceased by then.

 

[JAL]

The body analogy given by Paul in 1 Cor 12 is clear on its own

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

So to conclude, despite this clear analogy of the physical body, before 1 Cor 12:27-31, you still want to "Vehemently disagree" that not everyone in the body of Christ will receive the gift of tongues?

(Sigh). For the b-zillionth time, I agree with all that - IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ASSEMBLY.

You're holding a position contrary to fact. Paul did it all, he even said, "I thank God that I speak in speak in tongues more than all of you." He was prophet, teacher, healer, tongues-speaker, interpreter, miracle-worker - the list goes on and on.

You are forced to engage in special pleading - you want to claim that Paul is an exception to the rule.

As for your final question, Paul was given signs and wonders for the rest of the Jews to believe his gospel of the uncircumcision was a legitimate gospel given to him by the ascended Christ.

So Paul was just an exception? Everyone monitoring this thread: when someone proposes a doctrine that special-pleads for "exceptions", start running in the other direction! As fast as you possibly can!!!! "Exception" is ALWAYS a euphemism for contradictions in their theology. You can BANK on it. (I allow for no exceptions, not even in the form of so-called "transitional periods" - all that nonsense is garbage theology in my view).

And you conveniently ignore the verses cited where Paul COMMANDS the entire congregation to seek the gift of prophecy. That's because, outside the context of the church service, anyone can leverage any and every gift, just like Paul did.

 

[Guojing]

(Sigh). For the b-zillionth time, I agree with all that - IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ASSEMBLY.

You're holding a position contrary to fact. Paul did it all, he even said, "I thank God that I speak in speak in tongues more than all of you." He was prophet, teacher, healer, tongues-speaker, interpreter, miracle-worker - the list goes on and on.

You are forced to engage in special pleading - you want to claim that Paul is an exception to the rule.
So Paul was just an exception? Everyone monitoring this thread: when someone proposes a doctrine that special-pleads for "exceptions", start running in the other direction! As fast as you possibly can!!!! "Exception" is ALWAYS a euphemism for contradictions in their theology. You can BANK on it. (I allow for no exceptions, not even in the form of so-called "transitional periods" - all that nonsense is garbage theology in my view).

And you conveniently ignore the verses cited where Paul COMMANDS the entire congregation to seek the gift of prophecy. That's because, outside the context of the church service, anyone can leverage any and every gift, just like Paul did.

I am not ignoring, I am just trying to understand exactly what your doctrine is.

I disagree with your interpretation of those verses but I understand your mind is set.

 

[JAL]

I am not ignoring, I am just trying to understand exactly what your doctrine is.

I disagree with your interpretation of those verses but I understand your mind is set.

Right, my mind is set on acknowledging the elements of Paul's teaching, until I find an interpretation resonant with more fidelity to his words than my current view. Let me explain to you how solid my reading is.

My main distinctive is an insistence on the primacy of Direct Revelation (prophecy) for all believers. How solid is this claim? Let's put it this way. Even if I'm wrong about it, I'm still right!

Here's why. 100 billion people have lived and died since the world began. With that much at stake, there is no acceptable margin of error in our doctrines concerning evangelism, sanctification, and church government. This imposes upon us an obligation to seek infallible Direct Revelation (the same premium-grade revelation as the apostles received) - because biblical exegesis is INHERENTLY fallible. Even if I'm wrong about this, I'm still right because, with 100 billion souls at stake, I still need to know infallibly whether I am wrong or right - so either way I still need to seek infallible revelation.

That's impregnable logic - and if that's what you refer to as "having your mind set", fine with me. Personally I'd find a more appropriate terminology.

Anyone for fun facts? The epistles NEVER command the churches to go out and evangelize. Yet Paul commanded the whole church to seek Direct Revelation (prophecy) - and berated the point for 40 verses! And the apostles that Jesus commanded to evangelize the world were prophets! Even John the Baptist, the premiere evangelist of his day, was a prophet in the magnitude of Elijah (see Luke 1).

Yet most teachers and pastors, historically, have tended to stress evangelism more than prophethood.

So yes, for the moment, my mind is set.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm neutral, there's a good argument from both sides. Although many don't understand the argument for it.

I have never spoke in tongues, I must be one who was not chosen for it I guess.

Paul said not everyone is given this gift, that is, if it's still in effect.

People forget that there are at least five different kinds of tongues.
The OP is talking about #1 in the list below. The Apostle Paul in the passage you are referring to is talking about #3 in the list below. Not everyone has the gift to address the congregation in prophetic tongues. After Pentecost the evidence for the filling with the Holy Spirit in the early church was a personal prayer language of tongues. What was the problem in Samaria? (Acts 8:14-17) Why were the Apostles sent there to lay hands on them? (no evidence - tongues) Same with Paul at Ephesus. (Acts 19)

Five Different Kinds of Tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't necessarily think it's either or but I've never seen anyone just speak in another language they did not know to minister to someone who doesn't speak their same language. Paul does say that speaking in tongues edifies yourself and it's likely he spoke in tongues by himself so he could edify himself. I can't imagine speaking in tongues that much for option 1.

Yes. What happened in Acts chapter two is extremely rare.

 

[Saint Steven]

You said that Acts "guides" you on tongues but I'm still waiting for a clear definition of the two gifts.

This might help. I added scriptural support to my previous post.

Five Different Kinds of Tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scriptural Support

> Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God

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.

> Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit

Romans 8:26
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

Ephesians 6:18
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people.

> Prophetic language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation

1 Corinthians 14:5
I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

> Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity

1 Corinthians 14:15
So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding.

> Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

No scriptural example for this except the outpouring at Pentecost.
But some have made the valid point that the tongues spoken were not evangelistic, but rather praise and worship. The final effect of it was evangelistic, but not the tongues themselves. And I don't personally accept the interpretive hearing theory.

 

[Saint Steven]

The gift of tongues is #3 in my list below.
The initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is #1 in my list.

Five Different Kinds of Tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)

 

[JAL]

Steve,

Of your 5 versions of tongues, I certainly agree with the first four. I wasn't questioning a view such as yours which seems well-aligned with 1Cor 14. I was objecting to the claim that tongues are contemporary languages.

 

[Jipsah]

St. Paul said don't forbid it.

 

[Saint Steven]

Steve,

Of your 5 versions of tongues, I certainly agree with the first four. I wasn't questioning a view such as yours which seems well-aligned with 1Cor 14. I was objecting to the claim that tongues are contemporary languages.

Thanks.
What are contemporary languages? (sorry if this was defined earlier and I missed it)
As opposed to ancient languages?

Since tongues are a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, I'm pretty sure we have little control over what language is chosen. Tongues of men, or of angels.

 

[Francis Drake]

Paul's gift ALWAYS requires an intepreter:

If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

Your statement contradicts your scripture, which states clearly that we can speak to God in tongues without interpretation.

 

[Francis Drake]

I don't have the gift of tongues. It happened once during immense warfare and never again. My aunt has the gift and prays in tongues.
~Bella

If you have in the past spoken in tongues, then I would venture to suggest that the gift is still there Bella, but maybe needs stirring up.

 

[tturt]

Any tongue can be interpreted "Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret." I Cor 14

There's 6500 languages and some are clicks. Plus there's a heavenly language according to I Cor 13:1.

They're a sign because Scripture says they are. Some oppose signs but signs are throughout Scripture "God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" Gen 1

Do all speak in tongues? - take that question mark out Then you will see there won't be any need for every believer to have the gift of tongues with interpretation at the same time at the same location. But He could if He wanted. The Holy Spirit uses this spiritual gift.

btw, it's not tongues with translation. It's interpretation. Comparing the portion in tongues with that interpretation could account for variations in length and emphasis.

 

[NerdGirl]

In your view, then, a leg cannot be an eye. In other words, a Christian cannot represent two gifts. He is either a leg or an eye, but not both.

How then do you explain the fact that Paul himself exhibited multiple gifts?

I don't know if this is helpful within the context of this conversation, but...
...a leg can do many things within its function as a leg. It can walk. It can kick. It can stomp. I don't think Scripture indicates that every single person will only ever have one gift. I think some people have one, some people have multiple, but every person has what God intends, they don't switch and swap around.