Question on "tongues"

Why is it that some doctrines state that the speaking in tongues is a gift that the Holy Spirit no longer gives? Is there any "scriptural-biblical" truth to that?

The arguments that I have heard in support of the view that tongues are not for our time use 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. They claim that "that which is perfect" refers to the completion of Holy Scripture and the end of the Apostolic Era. Those who hold this view say that tongues were a "sign" gift only for the Apostles, a temporary gift that has passed away.Personally, I don't feel this is the best interpretation of the 1 Corinthians passage, it seems that in context, the "perfection" being spoken of is regarding the glorified church in the future where she will be complete in knowledge and holiness.Tongues are a bit of a mystery to me as I have never had this gift, but I do believe they can be used by the Spirit in our day. I also believe there is much misuse of this gift today as was the case in the Corinthian church.I've heard quite a bit of debate on tongues and gifts of the Spirit. I think it's wise to keep the words of Paul to the Corinthians in mind;But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.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. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (1 Corinthians 12:31 ; 13:1-3) In Christ,Ron

Hi Ron,Something that came up earlier this week in my travels was the thought that 'tongues' were largely silent for hundreds of years until this century (1900-2000). Something I hadn't thought much about...

Something that came up earlier this week in my travels was the thought that 'tongues' were largely silent for hundreds of years until this century (1900-2000). Something I hadn't thought much about...Yes I am aware of this and it is another reason why I say it is a bit of a mystery to me. I have heard some sound arguments on both sides of this issue, I am certainly not dogmatic about this matter but as I said, as of right now I do believe it is still a valid gift for today. In Christ,Ron

Kind of stating the obvious perhaps. I don't really have a strong point of view about it other than the excesses I have seen and heard, which seem to be dominant and make me leery of the whole thing.

Although largely silent, I have heard that they have occurred at every major revival. Also I think that tounges became very unpopular after the perversion of Montanism. That could explain the lack of them for a long time.John

Hi Inigowe have touched on some of this earlier, and this earlier thread may have some interest for you Initial EvidenceAs 'inthelight' has rightly said 'cessationists' (people who believe that the charisma-gift manifestations of the Spirit have no ceased) usually base their assumptions on the 1 Cor 13 passage.Their absence in church history is another matter. There is a rule in history that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. The fact that there is little documented evidence is not really a proof that they weren't there. Most of church history was written by the persecutors, so we only get to hear one side.There was a group of Christians in Phrygia (modern Turkey) around AD 170 who were villified by the church authorities of the day, but supported by a man called Tertullian. They believed in contemporary prophecy. Tertullian wrote against their critics by saying 'they put to flight the Paraclete' (the Comforter KJV). Almost everything else we ever read about the Phrygian group (Montanists) is from their enemies, but Tertullian was a lawyer and very highly regarded. His support for them suggests that the 'official church line' is just one side of the evidence.Nevertheless in contemporary history I think the earliest documented reference to tongues would be the incidents at the Topeka Bible School at the beginning of the 20th Century. So while the absence in history does not prove their non-existence there certainly is a long period without their mention.Why? Wesley said that it was the result of the church's backslidden condition and he looked for their restoration. Other truths have slipped from sight only to be restored; justification by faith, sanctification, the nature of the local church as a body, the priesthood of believers... I have spoken in tongues, as a devotional aid, for over 45 years. In addition to personal praise it has long been my instinct that when faced with perplexity and not knowing how I should pray, I have turned to God in tongues to allow my spirit to pray.I do not regard tongues as 'the initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit' nor as any kind of evidence of spirituality, but with Paul 'I thank God that I speak with tongues...'Although I share the puzzlement of others over their long 'absence' my main reason for my belief is not my own personal experience but the fact that I find no scriptural evidence for cessationism. If the cessationists are right all manifestation of the Spirit has ceased; I cannot believe that in the light of scripture.If any want to challenge this (in love) please do. I am not the least 'touchy' about the topic and will try to answer as best I can.

oops, hit the wrong button and posted twice. Apologies

Yea, one of my professors is an expert on montanism, and he said, "there really isn't much on them to know anything for sure"... Heh go figure.However they were, I think that after the church condemned montanism, people were afraid to speak in tounges for fear of being labelled as one. I speak in tounges also. I find that it is helpful for getting things said to God, when I dont have adaquate words to express how I must glorify Him. All to and for HimJohn

Thanks Ron and John.I have spoken in tongues, as a devotional aid, for over 45 years. In addition to personal praise it has long been my instinct that when faced with perplexity and not knowing how I should pray, I have turned to God in tongues to allow my spirit to pray.Ron, I am assuming this is different from Romans 8:26 and yet perhaps there are some parallels...Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. From Clarke's Commentary:Rom 8:26 - The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities - The same Spirit, το πνευμα, mentioned before as bearing witness with ours that we are the children of God; and consequently it is not a disposition or frame of mind, for the disposition of our mind surely cannot help the infirmities of our minds.The word συναντιλαμβανεται is very inadequately expressed by helpeth. It is compounded of συν, together, αντι, against, and λαμβανομαι, to support or help, and signifies such assistance as is afforded by any two persons to each other, who mutually bear the same load or carry it between them. He who prays, receives help from the Spirit of God; but he who prays not receives no such help. Whatever our strength may be, we must put it forth, even while most implicitly depending on the strength of God himself.For we know not what we should pray for as we ought - And should therefore be liable to endless mistakes in our prayers, if suitable desires were not excited by the Holy Spirit and power received to bring these desires, by prayer, before the throne of grace.But the Spirit itself - Αυτο το πνευμα, The same Spirit, viz. the Spirit that witnesses of our adoption and sonship, Rom_8:15, Rom_8:16, makes intercession for us. Surely if the apostle had designed to teach us that he meant our own sense and understanding by the Spirit, he never could have spoken in a manner in which plain common sense was never likely to comprehend his meaning. Besides, how can it be said that our own spirit, our filial disposition, bears witness with our own spirit; that our own spirit helps the infirmities of our own spirit; that our own spirit teaches our own spirit that of which it is ignorant; and that our own spirit maketh intercession for our own spirit, with groanings unutterable? This would have been both incongruous and absurd. We must therefore understand these places of that help and influence which the followers of God receive from the Holy Ghost; and consequently, of the fulfillment of the various promises relative to this point which our Lord made to his disciples, particularly in Joh_14:16, Joh_14:17, Joh_14:26; Joh_15:26, Joh_15:27; Joh_16:7; and particularly Joh_16:13, Joh_16:14 : Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.Rom 8:27 - He maketh intercession for the saints - The word εντυγχανω signifies to apply one’s self to a person in behalf of another; to intercede or negotiate for. Our Lord makes intercession for us, by negotiating and managing, as our friend and agent, all the affairs pertaining to our salvation. And the Spirit of God makes intercession for the saints, not by supplication to God on their behalf, but by directing and qualifying their supplications in a proper manner, by his agency and influence upon their hearts; which, according to the Gospel scheme, is the peculiar work and office of the Holy Spirit. See Taylor.According to the will of God - Κατα Θεον· According to the mind, intention, or design of God. And thus the prayers which we offer up, and the desires which subsist in the unutterable groanings, are all such as are pleasing in the sight of God. So that God, whose is the Spirit, and who is acquainted with the mind of the Spirit, knows what he means when he leads the saints to express themselves in words, desires, groans, sighs, or tears: in each God reads the language of the Holy Ghost, and prepares the answer according to the request.From all this we learn that a fluency in prayer is not essential to praying: a man may pray most powerfully in the estimation of God, who is not able to utter even one word. The unutterable groan is big with meaning, and God understands it, because it contains the language of his own Spirit. Some desires are too mighty to be expressed; there is no language expressive enough to give them proper form and distinct vocal sound: such desires show that they came from God; and as they came from him, so they express what God is disposed to do, and what he has purposed to do. This is a matter of great encouragement to all those who are agonizing to enter in at the strait gate.----------------------I guess my question would be, 'utter-able' or 'unutterable'? Both? In reference to "allowing my spirit to pray"Very interested in this Ron, being that 'perplexed' is often where I find myself and of late even more so...there is just so much to pray about, it can be overwhelming. Don't know what I would do without these verses...

i read a really good book called"2000 years of charismatic christianity by eddie hyatt"it goes from the apostles to today looking at the gifts of the spirit being used. i believe God always has a remmnent.so if u want a good read i reccomend it.i speak in tounges it builds u up gets u in touch with the spirit of God.

Just a thought- if God is in the process of restoring New testament Christianity, wouldn't that also mean restoring everything (including all the gifts in full) to the way it was after Jesus left them and sent the Holy Spirit?Even though this is not one of my gifts, i have longed for it in prayer sometimes when I knew I had no human words to express what I meant.In Him, Chanin

Hi MikeI guess my question would be, 'utter-able' or'unutterable'? Both? In reference to "allowing my spirit to pray"There may be links in thought with Rom 8 but I think Clarke is right that this is the Holy Spirit in the context of the rest of the chapter. I've thought more in terms of For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. (1Co 2:11 KJV)However, if my spirit is in communion with His Spirit there may well be things which my spirit could receive but which would baffle my mind. I wish, therefore, that men pray in every place, lifting up kind hands, apart from anger and reasoning; (1Ti 2:8 YLT) This is an interesting and valid translation; makes it sound as though both wrath and reasoning can disqualify our prayer. I sometimes think that we have too much information in prayer, although I am not pleading for ignorance. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians is at the back of my mind; For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? (1Co 14:14-16 KJV)I often have a feeling that we are missing something here. The contemporary pattern of tongues in local assemblies does not fit this scenario, and yet the whole of this section is in the context of the public meeting. It is certainly illuminating to see that in each of these references to 'with the spirit' (by which Paul would seem to mean 'in a tongue') is a form of prayer.

Hi ChaninJust a thought- if God is in the process of restoring New testament Christianity, wouldn't that also mean restoring everything (including all the gifts in full) to the way it was after Jesus left them and sent the Holy Spirit?Why not? This was John Wesley's explanation of the missing gifts... It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the church for more than two or three centuries We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches, and power, and honor, upon the Christians in general; but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been vulgarly supposed,) "because there was no more occasion for them," because all the world was become Christian. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause was, "the love of many," almost of all Christians, so called, was "waxed cold." The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly "find faith upon earth." This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church -- because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left. John Wesley sermon 'The More Excellent Way'

This is an interesting and valid translation; makes it sound as though both wrath and reasoning can disqualify our prayer. I sometimes think that we have too much information in prayer, although I am not pleading for ignorance. Been listening to an old A.W.Tozer message where he touches on this whole business of reasoning while not advocating ignorance as well.For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isa 55:8,9I often have a feeling that we are missing something here. The contemporary pattern of tongues in local assemblies does not fit this scenario, and yet the whole of this section is in the context of the public meeting. It is certainly illuminating to see that in each of these references to 'with the spirit' (by which Paul would seem to mean 'in a tongue') is a form of prayer.Yes, sadly my experience was primarily in a 'coaching' session...won't go into it all. But also the whole missing aspect of an interpetor at other times as well (in a public setting) had me pretty sour, actually grieved.But as far as 'vocalizing' in private, I guess was what I was wondering...

HAPPY the souls that first believed,To Jesus and each other cleaved,Joined by the unction from aboveIn mystic fellowship of love. We sing this Wesley hymn regularly in our local church. Our version has 18 verses and your version has 3 verses that aren't in our version!! What a hymn, those were the days... and why not again?

Yes Amen sister thats very true but lest us not forget the more excellent things such as unity and love Of course, this is the obvious. You know how I feel about love being the most EXCELLENT way since I have talked about it many times. That's why I stated "Just a thought" at the beginning of my post. :-) in Him, Chanin

Nevertheless in contemporary history I think the earliest documented reference to tongues would be the incidents at the Topeka Bible School at the beginning of the 20th Century. So while the absence in history does not prove their non-existence there certainly is a long period without their mention.Actually, the earliest contemporary reference would probably be considered Edward Irving in the early 1800's. He was a Scottish-Presbyterian pastor. Though, tongues becoming a regular phenomenon did not really occur until the events of Topeka, Kansas. A great book on the subject, if you can find it (out of print), is "Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism," edited by Gary B. McGee. You can read the paper I wrote for school on the subject of the topic of tongues as initial evidence at: https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1749&forum=36&23 I include some history on the matter.

Why is it that some doctrines state that the speaking in tongues is a gift that the Holy Spirit no longer gives? Is there any "scriptural-biblical" truth to that? I personally believe that tongues are an active gift in the body. Don't fully understand them though. Here is something that I came across and I thought you might be interested in it. They use the law of first mention, which I think is.... not always the best thing to go by. I do believe that tounges is mentioned somewhere in the OT. Not exactly sure where, I think in Daniel and I'm sure elsewhere. Don't have time to look it up. So here is some of there "scriptural truth" that they use. I don't agree. Hope you can get through it all. Sorry it's a lot. But it's their side and interesting to read.TonguesTongues Refer to Earthly LanguagesThe gift of tongues was a supernatural ability to speak an earthly foreign language without special training. Tongues comes from the word glossa, so the word glossalalia means "to speak in tongues." The word tongues (glossa), when used in the New Testament, either refers to the physical tongue and its basic meaning or to the language that the tongue speaks.To begin a study of tongues, get a concordance and look up the word tongue (glossa), and look at all the places it is used and how it is used. In the following references (not a complete list) every time the word tongue (glossa) is used, it always refers to an earthly foreign language: Revelation 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9.Law of First MentionIn hermeneutics (the study of interpreting the Scripture), there is a Law of First Mention which simply refers to the fact that the first mention of an area, a fact or a word, becomes a pattern for subsequent uses of that word or expression or phenomenon.The first mention of speaking in tongues in the Bible is found in Acts 2:4: "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance." Other "tongues" is the Greek word glossa. All the different people present are listed in verses 9 and 10. These various groups of people are saying that they hear what is being said in their own language (verse 11).Tongues an earthly language is further substantiated in Acts 2:6, "And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because they were each one hearing them speak in his own language." The Greek word used here for language is "dialect," but glossa and dialect are used interchangeably so glossa has to mean an earthly language. (Dialect is also used in verse 8.)The gift of tongues was Spirit-motivated speech (Acts 2:4) in a particular language as we have already established. Now it would be hard to believe that the Spirit today is motivating believers to speak in babblings or ecstatic speech, because that is contrary to what God did when He first gave this ability. Unless there is good reason to think that God changed this particular ability and gift, we have to assume that the gift of tongues will be the same throughout the entire Bible.Gift of Tongues Was a Sign to Unbelievers and a Sign of Judgment to Israel"So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers" (1 Cor. 14:22).In verse 21, the Old Testament is quoted to substantiate that one of the basic purposes of tongues is to be a sign for unbelievers, but also tongues were a sign to the Jewish nation that they were to be judged for their unbelief (Deut. 28:49).Anytime there is a foreign language being spoken among the Jews, it is a sign that God is judging the nation Israel because these foreigners would have conquered Israel (Isa. 28:9 13). Isaiah foretells the judgment God is going to bring on Israel. The particular people here who have stammering lips and a foreign tongue are the Assyrians. The presence of the Assyrian language in Israel is an indication and a sign to Israel that God is judging them for their unbelief.Tongues Were One of the Sign GiftsThe sign gifts, remember, were temporary gifts to validate the ministry of the apostles (2 Cor. 12:12). Tongues are specifically called a sign in 1 Corinthians 14:22.Once a message had been confirmed by signs and wonders, there was no longer a need for further confirmation (Heb. 2:3 4).The Gift of Tongues Is not Present TodayWhat about the ecstatic speech that is a common phenomenon today? Speaking in tongues as it is practiced today is not Biblical tongues. (We have already established that Biblical tongues refers to foreign languages.) The babblings of today have their origin in the mystery cults of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, and it was practiced by unbelievers.Experiences Can Be Contrary to the BibleBe careful not to sift your Bible through what is going on -- instead, know what the Bible says and determine your experiences in light of the standard -- the Word of God! That can be very difficult because you cannot deny your experiences. However, a person on drugs might have beautiful mind-boggling experiences, even religious experiences, but those experiences are not bringing him closer to God. His experience is wrong and drawing him farther away from God's truth. Some experiences are distractions from God's Word.Book of Acts Is a Transition Book From Old Testament to New TestamentThe Book of Acts records a transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. God deals differently with men in the New Testament. Throughout the Old Testament, beginning with Abraham all the way down to Acts 2, God was dealing primarily with one group of people -- the Jews. Then in Acts 2, God begins a totally new work; He is going to deal with all peoples and all nations and make them one people.To make sure that there is not a Jewish church developing and a separate Samaritan church developing, the Samaritans are brought under the umbrella of the apostles' leadership in Acts 8. They can be sure that God is working through the apostles to lead and teach them because they receive the Holy Spirit.You can readily see the importance of tongues as a sign gift -- as a demonstration of God doing a new work and in doing that new work, He is also judging the nation Israel for their unbelief.Tongues Were a Sign to the Jews That Gentiles Were to Be Part of the Body of ChristIn the first part of Acts 10, God had to give Peter a special vision so that Peter would be willing to speak to Cornelius and his household (Gentiles). "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message" (Acts 10:44). What was the reaction of the Jewish believers? "And all the circumcised believers (Jews) who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also" (Acts 10:45). The Jews recognized this sign and its significance (Acts 11:15 18).What was the sign that the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles? The sign is found in Acts 10:46, "For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God." So again, the gift of tongues was proof that God was not only going to include Jews and Samaritans, but Gentiles as well into the one body God was making. Once the fact had been established, it did not have to be repeated. Once the Jews knew that the Gentiles were to be a part of the Body of Christ, it does not make sense that every time a Gentile believed, he had to give the evidence, for that had already been established. That is the foundation we are to build upon.God Began a New Work in Book of ActsIn Acts 19, when Paul meets the disciples of John at Ephesus, Paul asks them if they have received the Holy Spirit and they answer, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit" (Acts 19:2). Now some people take this verse as proof that you do not receive the Holy Spirit when you first believe. However, if you read on in Acts 19, you find out they have been baptized "into John's baptism." If they have been part of John's ministry, they know that there is a Holy Spirit (John 1:33), so Acts 19:2 cannot mean they did not know about the Holy Spirit. What it obviously means is that they had not heard whether the Holy Spirit had been given -- that the Holy Spirit was here performing His baptizing ministry."And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying" (Acts 19:6). God wanted to demonstrate that He was doing a new work, and when you recognize that it was a new work, you have to recognize that the book of Acts is mainly about the transition from Old Covenant to the New Covenant.Ephesians 2 stresses the fact that God was indeed doing a new work, a work that is today revealed through the Apostle Paul's writing, "Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph. 2:12; see also verses, 11 16).Then in Ephesians 3:4 5, "And by referring to this when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit." Note that this was not previously revealed; it was new revelation. As a new revelation, it needed the signs and miraculous evidence that it was indeed revelation. "As it has now been revealed" to whom? -- all the apostles and prophets!Self-Edification Was Never the Main Purpose of TonguesThe main purpose of tongues, as already pointed out, was to give a sign to unbelievers. Self-edification was a side effect that the believer enjoyed for merely exercising his gift of tongues (true of every believer who exercises his gift). The modern day Pentecostal movement, on the other hand, stresses edification for the individual believer and the Church, never as a sign to unbelievers.Most people who are advocating tongues for today have quoted 1 Corinthians 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." There are some problems here. In chapter 12, the purpose of the gifts in general is edification of other believers. Now, God does not need to be edified (built up to further maturity). First Corinthians 14:2 is not an encouragement to speak to God in tongues (a different language), for He will understand whatever language I use, including English. The advantage of my using English is that you and other believers will understand and that is the purpose of spiritual gifts -- to communicate, to serve and to build up other believers.Not Every Believer Was Expected to Have Gift of Tongues"All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they?" (1 Cor. 12:30). The gift of tongues was limited to a few, even back in the time of the apostles. How can people today say that to have the Holy Spirit a believer must speak in tongues? In light of 1 Cor. 12, that is clearly unbiblical.First Corinthians 14:5 is often quoted to prove that the gift of tongues is still operative today: "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying." Why do some put the emphasis on tongues when Paul said that he had a greater desire for the people to prophesy? I do not have anyone coming around to my door saying that I need to get the gift of prophecy, but I have people praying that I will get the gift of tongues. Paul is saying that he would like them to have all the gifts, but he would rather that they have the greater gifts. Paul is not saying that tongues is the gift they should have. If they should have any, it should be the greater gift of prophecy. The gift of tongues was the least important of all the spiritual gifts. It was last on the list (see 1 Cor. 12:28).Summary of Gift of TonguesIt is not my purpose to put down the gift of tongues which was a very necessary gift at one time, but rather to evaluate whether or not that gift has continued until today. According to the Bible, the gift of tongues ceased to exist with the passing of the apostles.The Scripture teaches that tongues was a special ability to speak in an earthly foreign language without special training. The purpose of such a gift was to be used as a sign to validate the ministry of the apostles as they laid the foundation of the Church. Once the foundation was complete, there was no need for special signs to confirm the validity of God's work.The present day phenomenon called "speaking in tongues" (glossalalia) is characterized by indiscernible sounds. Since that could not be called a foreign language that is understandable by some group today, glossalalia cannot be validly called Biblical tongues.

The Scripture teaches that tongues was a special ability to speak in an earthly foreign language without special training. The purpose of such a gift was to be used as a sign to validate the ministry of the apostles as they laid the foundation of the Church. Once the foundation was complete, there was no need for special signs to confirm the validity of God's work.The present day phenomenon called "speaking in tongues" (glossalalia) is characterized by indiscernible sounds. Since that could not be called a foreign language that is understandable by some group today, glossalalia cannot be validly called Biblical tongues.So what was their purpose in the church at Corinth when Paul was elsewhere? And what would be their purpose in that context when all the folk would be Greek speaking? Ecstatic? I can speak in tongues without ecstasy. This has become a definition of tongues in some circles; ecstatic utterance. Indiscernable sounds? I remember visiting a church on holiday once and hearing the preacher say 'modern tongues are invariably monosyllabic babblings'. At the door I asked him how often he had heard the phenomena. "two or three times" I suggested that 'invariably' implied a little more evidence than 3 occasions. He said he had no time for semantics. In other words, I've made my mind up please don't try to confuse me with evidence.

The Scripture teaches that tongues was a special ability to speak in an earthly foreign language without special training.Well that doesnt seem to line up with the tounges mentioned outside of the book of acts. Any other manifestations of tounges, is not defined in the same manner anywhere in acts.14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 1 Cor 14:14-17 NASBThis is obviously not speaking in a foreign language that others who are not saved speak and so will be saved. This speaks of a way to glorify God. It is a language that nobody knows. Also just because it sounds unintelligable, doesnt necessarily mean that it is unintelligable. Plus then of course we have the crazy nuts who think that they speak in tounges because of all the hype :) hehe... They are the ones who confuse it all, and make people wary of the gift.All to and for HimJohn

Ecstatic? I can speak in tongues without ecstasy. This has become a definition of tongues in some circles; ecstatic utterance. Indiscernable sounds? I remember visiting a church on holiday once and hearing the preacher say 'modern tongues are invariably monosyllabic babblings'. At the door I asked him how often he had heard the phenomena. "two or three times" I suggested that 'invariably' implied a little more evidence than 3 occasions. He said he had no time for semantics. In other words, I've made my mind up please don't try to confuse me with evidence.I've always wondered with these folks that deem modern day tongues as simply ecstastic babblings that do not resemble any languages, if any of these men happen to know a language besides the english they have grown up speaking. I wonder how many of these men are linguistic experts. Even then, I wonder how many of these individuals know the hundreds if not thousands of different languages on the earth, let alone the various local dialects.Anybody who says that modern tongues never resemble any modern day language are simply telling on themselves.

I agree with Ron from Arizona when he said: "I've heard quite a bit of debate on tongues and gifts of the Spirit. I think it's wise to keep the words of Paul to the Corinthians in mind;""39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.40 Let all things be done decently and in order.I Cor.14:39-40To another Ron worthy of note, who has been at this longer than the average bear (45 years WOW!)I ask: Why when Paul named the gifts in I Cor.12:28: "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." did only certain of those gifts pass away with the Apostles?Why did apostles,prophets,miracles,healings,and diversities of tongues disappear with the passing of the original 12? And why didn't teachers, helps and governments disappear also?Not to mention that all of this was written by someone who was not of the original 12, but one born out of due season.Don't bother answering this Ron. You've got a full plate already, and Abraham must needs attending to.But perhaps someone else can explain? Clutch :-D

did only certain of those gifts pass away with the Apostles?Hi ClutchNice to see you round these parts. :-D I think this shows the fault lines in the 'cessationist camp'. They are interpreting the scripture from the current church data. ie 'the gifts are not here, but this verse is, so the verse must really mean...'the balance, as ever, is clear in the Book; Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. (1Co 14:1 NASB)

The really first cessationist position from what I have learned arouse of a need to explain why the gifts were not apparently in use. It's not that they were really ever taught to be out of use. Some over the years had attempted to explain why they didn't seem used as often, but really until about 300 years ago or so, to my knowledge, all the gifts were presumed to exist, but only the "saints" were used in them. Instead of thinking "Gee, maybe we aren't used in the gifts is because of our unfaithfulness or lack of openness to God" a doctrine was conjured up to explain away anything that might have guilted the people. Sadly though, because of people simply not understanding the purpose of the gifts, or even what they are, many readily champion the cessationist of the gifts. I have come across very few cessationists that seem to actually have a grasp of what the Scriptures teach about the various gifts, and still believe they have faded away. Many views are trumpeted regarding the gifts, but are simply nothing other than the repeated doctrines of what one man once said, or what they heard some pastor say. Many views simply have not even the slightest shred of Biblical support to them. Yet they are dogmatically defended and expounded upon as if they were a thus says the Lord. E.g. the gift of prophecy was simply for the purpose of establishing the church and the canon of Scripture. Such cannot be proved, and is only read into a lone 1 Cor 13 text. Those who would forbid anybody speaking in tongues and the like within a worship service are clearly out of line, as they have no Scriptural basis to do such. In fact, 1 Cor 14:39 says exactly the opposite: "do not forbid to speak in tongues."

Well there has been some interesting posts in this thread. I'm still basically at a loss, but thats fine.. understanding comes at his time not mine.What brought this up though is that over the past week I've visited two different churches as a guest. While attending the first church, which kind of scared me for MANY other reasons! I heard an elderly lady behind me in an undescribably beautiful voice speaking what I can only call as "tongues". It seemed "very" different than any other babbling that I've ever heard described as tongues. The second church, was well... unique. I arrived probally ten minutes late to the service, and found the service to be from than on... a concert of singing hymns with a youth rock band. I've always been a bit uneasy about services feeling more like concerts than worship, but this was different. I really felt a tremendous amount of love for God and eachother while being very upbeat singing old hymns to a youth band on instruments. What made it really strange though, was that after about 90 minutes of singing... a person (who I presume to have been the pastor) stood up and asked if anyone else gifted in tongues would speak with him. He than instructed everyone to just relax and let the spirit speak outloud through them... I felt a need to be cautious and not open myself up to any possible "other" spirits. Than just watched around me as multiple people started speaking in what is more commonly heard as tongues, sounding like babblying. This went on for what felt like ten minutes, while those who weren't speaking were praying. Afterwards, the pastor(?) asked for anyone gifted in interpretation to interpret for the church. I don't know why, it might have been that I was to concerned-paying attention to people fainting around me... but I have NO idea what the person who "interpreted" the message said! I should add that I didn't feel (although I don't like useing that word) a red flag being thrown up, just more of a yellow one I guess. I've heard the interpretation of Cor. stating that the "gifts" such as tongues were only for the original church, and well.. never felt really comfortable with those intepretations. I guess this is something I'm not going to rule out as coming from the holy spirit, but to err. on the side of caution.. be cautious.

This is an interesting discussion and I'm not sure what I can add to it but here goes.From my own experience, I speak in tongues when I pray sometimes it's not something I seek it's something that just happens. I'm not sure why frankly. I've also been to churches where someone spoke in tongues and someone interpreted (it's been a long time though).Someone wrote I Cor. 14:1 which says "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy." Revelations 19:10(b) says for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.This is the prophetic gift that God wants all believers in Christ to have. As far as speaking in tongues, I don't believe the gift has ceased but I believe it's still misused. Among some believers, there a since of pride among those who have a gift versus those who do not. I don't quite understand why because I Corinthians 12:11 says "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." It's up to the Holy Ghost. We don't merit any spiritual gift, any more than we merit salvation.I didn't see much discussion about "praying in the Spirit" or praying in tongues. Most of the scriptural references go back to Romans 8 but I truly don't understand that very well frankly in terms of the Biblical foundation for it.

Wow. What a great discussion. It is REALLY encouraging to see Christians discussing this typically controversial topic with love, grace, and kindness.I must say that this is an area which has often puzzled me--but not to the point where I've really studied it in the Scriptures myself. I guess my interest was piqued again when about a month ago a lady was visiting our church and we got to talking about "cessastion" and how there are churches beginning to spring up who are "reformed" doctrinally (Calvinistic), quite conservative, and yet practice the gifts mentioned in this discussion. I confess that I have often been strongly against these gifts in particular because of my exposure to the misuse (and likely false use) of these gifts, but I had never really given them any serious consideration as gifts that could be used profitably today.I intend to do a more through investigation of these Scriptures, but I do have one question. Regarding interpretation, in order for tongues to be used properly for the edification of the assembly, does there not need to be an interpretation? Also what about Paul's restrictions of 2 or 3 at the most speaking in tongues at a given meeting, one at a time, with interpretation? That doesn't seem to be the modern practice. I wonder if part of our difficulty in understanding how these gifts can be used properly today comes from the fact that we don't actually meet together the same way as the early church. For most denominations, we have a liturgy that has everyone divided up into different Sunday Schools,one man preaching a sermon, a set time to sing, pray, sit down, stand up, give the offering, etc. and I'm not talking about Anglicans or Lutherans--I'm talking about Baptists, Pentecostals, Brethren, your "denomination" here. I'm wondering if the "tradition" that we've had for hundereds of years isn't necessarily Biblical, but merely traditional. I'm not saying it's all bad or wrong, but I wonder if we met in a less rigidly structured ways, if the Spirit would have more freedom to move the meeting the way He wants it to go--not the way our program says it's going to go.

repenter'sI intend to do a more through investigation of these Scriptures, but I do have one question. Regarding interpretation, in order for tongues to be used properly for the edification of the assembly, does there not need to be an interpretation? Also what about Paul's restrictions of 2 or 3 at the most speaking in tongues at a given meeting, one at a time, with interpretation? That doesn't seem to be the modern practice.I feel sure that your comment regarding the fact that we don't actually meet together the same way as the early church is very accurate. Consequently the best we can do is develop a hypothesis and then test it against all the data (scripture) we have.1. I think there are three special facts about Corinth that we must understand as undergirding Paul's answer to their questions. There is a little phrase in I Corinthians which shows that Paul was working his way through a list of questions that he had received from the church there. The introduction to this section is chapter 7;Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me... (1Co 7:1 KJV). The topics can be identified in 7:1,25, 8:1, 12:1, 16:1. They are all introduced with the word 'concerning'. Consequently we are hearing the answers and trying to rebuild the questions; this needs care and patience and humility. 2. There is another key feature to 1 Corinthians diagnosed by Paul in the first chapter; Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I... (1Co 1:12 KJV) I have omitted the details, everyone was saying and living 'I'. This ego-centricity was crippling the church, and distorting the benefits of spiritual gifts; each one was using their 'gift' as an opportunity for personal fame.3. The third special feature is that Paul had in mind a particular kind of meeting; 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? (1Co 14:23 KJV). He had in mind what was probably a joint meeting of several house-churches. This brings together comparative strangers and makes the operation of 'oversight' much more complicated.In the light of their specific questions (which we don't know), and their destructive self-centredness, and this larger than usual gathering... he has some specific instructions. His instructions are in the nature of a remedy for abuse. It is good to note here that the correct response to ab-use is correct-use rather than non-use. Our hypothesis for Paul's answer must take note of these special conditions in our exegesis of the passages. When we have 'exegited', we have the job of interpreting (exposition) that into our own unique context in a manner which is consistent with the spirit of Paul's counsel.

Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. (1Co 14:29-31 KJV)I'm still trying to describe the context. Can you imagine this happening in the usual 21st century church meeting? Just imagine the kind of intimacy and ease of fellowship that is necessary for one man to stop in the middle of what he is saying because he sees that another brother has received a revelation.First of all we have to sweep away all sense of decorum and etiquette such as we expect in the cathedral or mega-church or the great preaching centres where 'Saint AWT' preached so faithfully. This meeting is not being 'conducted from the front'. In fact, there is nothing resembling the function of the brother who is 'responsible for this evening's meeting'. There seems to be no expectation that the 'elders' will step in and add a corrective. In fact, the elders seem to be invisible when the 'whole church gathers together' in Corinth. Campbell Morgan prefered to 'conduct' the whole meeting, which he saw as a preliminary to the preaching 'I prefer to whet my own sword' was his phrase.And why this specific reference to '2 or 3'? This is so unlike the New Testament to prescribe so precisely. (I am not doubting its authenticity, but am just trying to get into the 'spirit' of this meeting in Corinth). Let me say what I think is happening, and I freely admit that part of my reasoning is having seen it happen frequently in the church of which I am a member.In an 'open' meeting where there is no order of service or principal preacher scheduled it is very possible for one man to dominate a meeting, particularly if the Corinthian disease of self-centredness is endemic to that gathering. It would be very easy for one, high profile, prophet to take the meeting wherever he wanted to take it. This might be efficient but it is not how an 'open' meeting is intended to function. We may have experienced this in public prayer meetings where one person dominates the praying; it may seem profoundly ‘spiritual’ but it has a dampening effect on everyone else.Is there a 'rule of thumb' to help prevent this happening? Do you know the phrase 'rule of thumb'? Here is a web definition; An informal rule or guide-line which enables you to choose a correct answer in most situations. Howevr, a rule of thumb is a simplification and cannot be relied on to provide the correct solution in all situations. Use with care!. A guideline, but not an absolute science, that’s the idea. Here’s a rule of thumb for such a meeting; tell those gathering that their contributions must be limited to 2 or at most 3. That will make it difficult, if not impossible, for one person to ‘railroad’ the meeting. (I am presuming that these contributions are relatively brief) He may set the direction by his ‘prophecy’ and ‘give it a further push’ in the direction he thinks it should go, but then he has to wait to see if others feel the meeting should go in that direction. If something is revealed to another the meeting may take an entirely different direction.The Corinthian letter is written to answer a question relating to the manifestation of the Spirit in meetings of the whole church gathered together. In such a context several ‘prophets’ might be in attendance. If so their contribution is to be governed by a ‘rule of thumb’, and the other ‘prophets’ are to ‘discern’. If the ‘contributors’ are sensitive to each other and not just rushing to take the lead, they will be able to see if others have something to share. And Paul would have had no time for the brother who interrupted another by saying ‘I just had to share, I felt the compulsion of the Spirit’… his response would have been what he says here And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. (1Co 14:32 KJV) This follows a statement where he says ye may all prophesy, one by one. Some have thought that he is contradicting himself here, but they have not noticed that the ‘rule of thumb’ is aimed at ‘recognised’ ministries, ie the prophets, whereas the ‘all may prophesy’ is referring to the gift of prophecy rather than the regular function of a prophet. If we want to be absolute literalists about this then we should limit the ‘prophets’ but not flow of prophecy within the meeting.Then we will need to look at the use of tongues in a meeting…

This whole section of the scripture is a fascinating glimpse into the church at its beginnings. There is nothing else like this anywhere in scripture or history. We are witnessing a genuine New Testament church at work. It is not perfect. As Spurgeon once wisely said 'if you find a perfect church, whatever you do don't join it, you are bound to spoil it'. The church at Corinth is in desperate trouble, the 'gifts of the spirit' are being used to enhance personal reputation and profile, but... and this is the wonder of it, Paul never advocates non-use but he does insist upon right-use.In the light of the previous couple of posts we need to keep in mind the purpose of these next 3 chapters. First Paul must correct attitude and motivation, and then lay down some 'ground rules' for combined meetings consisting of several house-churches. He starts the section by saying, Now concerning spiritual things, brothers, I don't want you to be ignorant. (1Co 12:1 WEB). I have used this version to make an important point, 1 Corinthians never speaks about ‘spiritual gifts’. Paul uses the phrase ‘the spiritual xxx-es’. ‘spiritual’ is an adjective and it is in the plural but the final noun is not used. I think the WEB has caught the sense of it. The earlier part of his list of questions has had to do with ‘practical’ ‘earthly things’ now he turns to ‘spiritual matters’.What is the overall purpose of this chapter? Is it to show the one-ness of the body which operates in diverse ways. In opposition to the Greek notions of fierce personal independence and action Paul is insisting that each ‘member’ must always be mindful of its larger purpose; the building up of the body. The joint-meeting is not an opportunity for a personal ‘workout’ it is a demonstration of the fact that ...in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. (1Co 12:13 ASV). This is a powerful challenge to us today. ‘baptised into one body’ is ‘ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα’, ‘we all into one body’. The Greek preposition ‘eis’ in this context has a sense of purpose within in it, it means ‘towards’. Paul is telling the Corinthians that one purpose of ‘baptism in Spirit’ was to bring many into one. If a central purpose of the Spirit is to bring individuals into corporate entity it shows how treacherous it is to use the things of the Spirit to define my individuality. To use a ‘spiritual thing’ to proclaim my uniqueness is in direct opposition to the Spirit’s intention in giving it. Anyone who speaks of ‘my ministry’ or ‘my gift’ has completely missed the point of 1 Corinthians 12.Paul speaks in Chapter 12 of ‘differences’. To compare the verses in three different versions will give a better sense;Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. (1Co 12:4-7 NASB)Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all. (1Co 12:4-6 ASV)But there are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distinctions of services, and the same Lord; and there are distinctions of operations, but the same God who operates all things in all. (1Co 12:4-6 Darby)The word ‘diversities’ is a word used in English grammar; diaeresis (US diereses). The dictionary definition is as follows; a mark (as in naïve) over a vowel to indicate that it is sounded separately. But it is more than that; although each letter is sounded separately, each letter has impacted upon the other and modified it so that naïve is pronounced nigh-eve. I had some thoughts on this a while ago; In a "diaeresis" each vowel affects the other to the degree that neither is what it would have been without the other. Each makes its distinct contribution but the two are one in effect. The sum is greater than its parts. So also in the church; there are identifiable distinctions but if they separate out in individualism the church looses the particular riches of combination and harmony. I like the word distinctions, which is Darby's choice in his translation. The word and its cognates is used in Lu 15:12, 1Cor 12:4,5,6,11. The first of these is the division of the father's wealth for the younger son (the prodigal). If you prefer a musical illustration, these are not the single notes of a melody but the combined notes of a harmony where each note does not rob its companion of any value but wonderfully enriches it. The Corinthians were set on showing their prowess in ‘solo’ performances. One last thought for this posting. Paul refers to all these ‘distinctions’ as the manifestation of the Spirit. This time I like the Good News Bible, which I think has caught the sense well; The Spirit's presence is shown in some way in each person for the good of all. (1Co 12:7 GNB) These ‘distinctive spirituals…’ are the way in which the Holy Spirit reveals Himself in the gathered church. These spiritual ‘things’ are not ‘things’ at all, they are the means by which the Holy Spirit reveals Himself and His presence. This underlines the Corinthian tragedy of a people who used these ‘manifestations’ to say ‘look at me’, ‘look at me’.For further thoughts on a related theme please see Lar's The Corporate Vessel thread, and this quotation from T Austin-Sparks in particular It is an astonishing understanding that Paul has concerning the Body. You have only to stand back from these things as you read them, and feel this is either something amazing, or else impossible. Many have surrendered to the latter conclusion..

have just been reading "azusa street by frank bartleman" if u want to get a great picture of what or how maybe the early new testament church ran in the book of acts this is great,also a book called snakes in the temple goes into that there was no pastors leading churches in the bible but that all the office roles did aswel as deacons or elders were overseers

One last thought for this posting. Paul refers to all these ‘distinctions’ as the manifestation of the Spirit. This time I like the Good News Bible, which I think has caught the sense well; The Spirit's presence is shown in some way in each person for the good of all. (1Co 12:7 GNB) These ‘distinctive spirituals…’ are the way in which the Holy Spirit reveals Himself in the gathered church. These spiritual ‘things’ are not ‘things’ at all, they are the means by which the Holy Spirit reveals Himself and His presence. This underlines the Corinthian tragedy of a people who used these ‘manifestations’ to say ‘look at me’, ‘look at me’.This is profound and an explanation to some happenings I have experienced in a small church setting, comprising of close friends and family. It is amazing what you have been saying lately Ron! The other day you spoke of being gathered together as an active process by which the Lord himself does the “gathering”. It seems the Lord has brought me together with people who are similar in office but different in administration. Two of us prophesy but, the Lord has never allowed me to prophesy about the things which proceed from his mouth, nor has he allowed him (Farai) to prophesy about the things which proceed from my mouth by. In fact once the message drifts outside “my field” of administration, the Spirit will cut me off and only bring me back when its something concerning “my field”. Even the tones with which we speak are different at times, on one occasion the prophesy would come forth in a loud voice (by me) and then Farai would say the end part in a very calm voice. He would start immediately as I stopped; if we had the same voice it would be impossible to tell the transition from one person to the next except for the volume of our voices it was totally coherent and in sync. Then certain phrases would be at the same time…these seem to transcend the boarders of administration.James

...sorry again, that last one was "Jimm" not "IRONMAN"