Has the gift of speaking in tongues ceased? - Tim Conway

[Rockrz]

Speaking in tongues was in the Apostolic time not a Tool which was given to all believers!

That's false teaching... is this why you have "wolf" as part of your screen name?

In Acts 8, Philip preached to the Samaritans, and the whole city believed on Jesus and was baptized in water. They were saved. But Acts 8:15-16 says,

“Who, when they [the apostles] were come down, prayed for them [the Samaritans], that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus)” (brackets mine).

This is a very clear example of people being born again but still needing to receive the Holy Spirit. This can also be witnessed in Acts 19. Paul found disciples who were not baptized in the Holy Spirit. He prayed for them, and they spoke with tongues.

 

[wolfwint]

Speaking in tongues was in the Apostolic time not a Tool which was given to all believers!

That's false teaching... is this why you have "wolf" as part of your screen name?

In Acts 8, Philip preached to the Samaritans, and the whole city believed on Jesus and was baptized in water. They were saved. But Acts 8:15-16 says,

“Who, when they [the apostles] were come down, prayed for them [the Samaritans], that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus)” (brackets mine).

This is a very clear example of people being born again but still needing to receive the Holy Spirit. This can also be witnessed in Acts 19. Paul found disciples who were not baptized in the Holy Spirit. He prayed for them, and they spoke with tongues.

Well I not agree with your view. Acts 8, 10 ore 19 are one time examples that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is for heathen (Acts 10), for Samaritians (acts 8) and for the those which following the teachings of John the baptist (acts 19) too. And not only for the Jews as the Jews thaught. Non of this Verses is a proof for that we need after beeing born again have to receive the Holy Spirit.

The Wolf is part of my name wolfgang

Give me please the scripture proof that all believers in the apostolic time received the gift of speaking in tongues!
I show you one who shows that this gift was not given to all believers: 1. Cor. 12,30:
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?


The answer from the Context is: No

 

[Rockrz]

1. Cor. 12,30:
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

That's only speaking of a public setting and does not speak to our personal prayer life.

Clearly the scripture speaks of different types of tongues:

1 Corinthians 14:2-4
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

As you can see there are tongues with interpretation for public use and then there are tongues for private use: "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself"

You are looking at one verse and applying it across the board which is not comparing apples to apples

 

[wolfwint]

That's only speaking of a public setting and does not speak to our personal prayer life.

Clearly the scripture speaks of different types of tongues:

1 Corinthians 14:2-4
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

As you can see there are tongues with interpretation for public use and then there are tongues for private use: "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself"

You are looking at one verse and applying it across the board which is not comparing apples to apples

Well, this one verse is clear enough. Paul is nowhere saying all getting the gift of tongues for privat use, but not all will get the gift of tongues for public use.
This I cant find in Scripture and so it is not biblical. If you teach it in this way I would call it a false teaching.
Paul makes in 1. Chor 12, 30 no different between private and public. He simply says that not all getting the gift of speaking in tongues.
Also if you read 1. Cor 14, 5 you will find that a) not all will speak in tongues and b)that Paul treats speaking in tongues not as two different gifts.

 

[graceNpeace]

Kavik,

thank you for the long and detailed reply - obviously a lot of thought and effort went into it.

In summary your claim is that the interpretation of tongues is nothing more than a natural ability to translate one language into another.
However, the gift of interpretation is a gift of the Holy Spirit, not a natural talent.

Why on earth would the gift of interpretation of tongues even ever be mentioned if all it amounted to was the need for a language expert?

I have to say that your line of argument is fairly predictable and no doubt motivated by sincere beliefs.
However, your explanation is eisegesis at its best - you are trying to impose on Scripture a predetermined meaning.
And, a single point is enough to debunk it...

 

[Kavik]

In summary your claim is that the interpretation of tongues is nothing more than a natural ability to translate one language into another.
However, the gift of interpretation is a gift of the Holy Spirit, not a natural talent.

Why on earth would the gift of interpretation of tongues even ever be mentioned if all it amounted to was the need for a language expert?

A bit late on the response, but….

“interpretation of tongues” , whether the speaker himself or another person…….

The Greek text uses the word “hermenia” – the word in Greek literally means “to explain”. If we take a look at this with regard to translation, we first need to realize that there are three different types of translation– literal: the linguistic structure of the source is followed, but is normalized according to the rules of the target language, Word-for-word: each word in the source language is translated by a word in the target language. The result often makes no sense, especially if idiomatic constructions are used (a great one that comes to mind is “forty days and forty nights”). Mistranslations are frequent (‘camel through the eye of a needle’ is a great one). Free: the linguistic structure of the source language is ignored, and an equivalent is found based on the meaning it conveys.

‘Interpretation’ and ‘translation’ are virtually interchangeable. When you get right down to it, it boils down to semantics: when you translate from language ‘X’ to language ‘Y’, you’re basically ‘explaining’ (interpreting) in language ‘Y’ what is being said in language ‘X’ either as literally as possible (a literal translation) or in ‘idiomatic Y’ (a free-translation).

There is a semantic subtlety between ‘interpretation’ and ‘translation’: ‘interpretation’ implies more to something spoken as opposed to something written. For example, take German Interpreter vs. German Translator. At first glance, the two would seem almost interchangeable; however, if you really get down to semantic particulars, a German Translator may indeed translate the spoken word as well as the written, but the term German Interpreter would typically never be used for one who specifically deals with written texts. A person who translates English into ASL (American Sign Language) is said to be an “ASL Interpreter” rather than an “ASL Translator”, one ‘interprets’ for the deaf, not ’translates’ (though I have heard “translate’ on occasion). A non-English speaking patient needs an Interpreter called to explain concerns to a doctor, but if the same patient has a written document, a Translator is called, etc.

Given the above, I would argue that ‘interpretation of tongues’ is best regarded as “free-translation of the spoken word (‘spoken word referring to real language(s)).

The modern concept of interpretation of tongues comes from assuming that tongues are “heavenly language” which requires a spiritual interpretation; a misunderstanding of both ‘interpretation’ and ‘tongue(s)’.

Religious texts, as I’m sure you know, tend to favor archaic language (and it seems a lot of preachers like to use it as well). So again, the modern rendition of “interpretation of tongues” should read “translation of languages”, understood specifically to mean “free translation of the spoken word”.

Part of the issue for me is the insistence on using 17[SUP]th[/SUP] century English and its misinterpretation into modern English – ‘tongue(s)’ is/was just an older term for ‘language’ – nothing more mysterious than that. We still occasionally use the term today to clearly refer to real languages. We speak of a person’s “mother tongue”, a “native tongue” of a particular country or region, etc. Clearly the reference is to real language.

Furthermore, when Paul refers to “kinds of tongues” he uses the word “genos” which with respect to languages denotes different language families (‘genos’ - same root as “genealogy”); he’s not differentiating real languages from non-languages/heavenly languages, etc. Rather he is differentiating real languages from one another (Greek vs. Hebrew vs. Latin vs. Aramaic, vs. Babylonian, etc.)

Bottom line is that Paul’s “tongues” is referring to the many (real) foreign languages one would typically hear in a multicultural port city like Corinth, and his use of the word “interpret” or “interpretation” is to be understood as free translation of the spoken word.

It was mentioned because the need in Corinth appears to have been a very real and very immediate issue – Paul demanded clarity and intelligibility at a public worship. Corinth was not a city that was very conducive to mutual intelligibility or clarity given its demographics.

What is interesting to me is that when one looks at ancient cultures and how they viewed the concept of language, many regarded language itself (written and spoken) as a gift from the gods. Nothing really odd there, but what I don’t quite understand is that people who were multilingual (particularly if the person could also read and write the languages involved), for whatever reason, were held in very high regard in many cultures. I can see the ability to read and write as something held in high regard, but it’s still odd to me. To be multilingual doesn’t really seem like that big of a deal, even by ancient standards, but apparently it was. Said people were considered to be blessed or gifted by the gods with this ability. I suspect that’s where the concept of ‘tongues’ and ‘interpretation’ regarded as gifts came from (though I believe they are more correctly referred to as ‘manifestations’ rather than ‘gifts’).

 

[presidente]

I agree that the way it's done in pentecostals and charismatic churches is wrong, and it's not scriptural, where there are people speaking in tongues, there should always be someone interpreting, if there's no interpreter no one should speak, but speak to himself.

I grew up in Pentecostal churches. (We moved a lot growing up, so it was 'churches.') In the churches I went to, as best I recall, tongues was always, or nearly always followed by an interpretation.

 

[presidente]

I spent half of my life believing I wasn't saved.
I prayed earnestly for tongues but they never came.
This is true, but I managed to tie it into the unforgivable sin, I truly didn't have faith in Jesus and a lack of tongues was evidence.

What kind of church did you go to? The only type of churches I know of that teach that you aren't saved if you don't speak in tongues are Oneness churches.

 

[presidente]

Also tongues are a sign for unbelievers and should be used in evangelizing tribes and nations where you don't know the language of their language, but you have the gift of tongues, this is evident in acts where all sorts of people heard the disciples speaking in their own language, even though they were speaking in tongues.

The Bible doesn't teach that anyone every actually preached the Gospel 'in tongues' using this gift. In Acts 2, listeners in the crowd heard the people speaking of the wonderful works of God. But they believed after Peter stood up and preached, apparently in a known language. The idea of using tongues in evangelism doesn't fit well with the scenario Paul was dealing with and his instructions regarding it in i Corinthians 14. Tongues had to be interpreted to be understood in that chapter.

 

[MattTooFor]

The Bible doesn't teach that anyone every actually preached the Gospel 'in tongues' using this gift. In Acts 2, listeners in the crowd heard the people speaking of the wonderful works of God. But they believed after Peter stood up and preached, apparently in a known language. The idea of using tongues in evangelism doesn't fit well with the scenario Paul was dealing with and his instructions regarding it in i Corinthians 14. Tongues had to be interpreted to be understood in that chapter.

Such a distortion of a simple scenario in the scriptures. Here we go again - LOL:

The occasion of this meeting in Acts 2 was evangelistic. The purpose was to bring souls to salvation. We also know it is the Holy Spirit who gives utterance. Therefore...logically...simply...we can conclude the words the tongues-speakers were uttering were words of an evangelistic nature.

You huff and puff and heave and ho and strain and grunt...trying to argue that tongues weren't used in evangelism...which is the most ridiculous argument ever. OF COURSE tongues were used for evangelism. That was the whole point of the "signs and wonders"...to bring people to salvation. (And yes, there was some "edification" for the believers which was also involved.)

Trying to argue the tongues-speakers weren't engaging in evangelism...is a very strange and point-blank contradiction to the text. But you need to "disprove" this because obviously there are no armies of Charismatic Christians here in the modern-day who are circling the globe, preaching the Gospel in tongues. Therefore, you're claiming it wasn't happening in Acts 2 either.

But God bless you anyway.

 

[Muzungu256]

rockrz you are against tv preachers but you have same teachings like speaking in tongues and word of faith?????????? maybe you should give them another chance friend........ you might agree on a lot............ also again i ask try to be more respectful to people...............

 

[Muzungu256]

i like tim conway.............. i think he is a funny guy who talks much sense.......... i would shake his hand... yes. i listened to many of his amillennial videos to come to my conclusions..... good guy.

 

[presidente]

Such a distortion of a simple scenario in the scriptures. Here we go again - LOL:

The occasion of this meeting in Acts 2 was evangelistic. The purpose was to bring souls to salvation. We also know it is the Holy Spirit who gives utterance. Therefore...logically...simply...we can conclude the words the tongues-speakers were uttering were words of an evangelistic nature.

What they did in Acts 2 played into an evangelistic scenario. All we know from the text, as far as the content of what they said was concerned, is that they were speaking of the wonderful works of God. In Acts 10, we read that the Gentiles spoke in tongues and magnified God. The disciples in Acts 2 may also have been magnifying God, when they spoke in tongues. They could have been saying the sorts of praises of God we read in the Psalms. That is conjecture, but no more conjecture than imagining that they were preaching an evangelistic message in tongues.

After the disciples spoke in tongues, then Peter prayed, and then people were baptized. If the Jewish diaspora had heard the Gospel preached in tongues, why don't we read that they asked Peter before he preached saying, "What must we do?" Could they have been preaching and giving a detailed explanation of the Gospel in tongues? It's possible I suppose, as far as we know. But we don't know. The Bible doesn't tell us. It is foolish to try to make a doctrine out of something out of something the Bible does not teach, out of what we imagine in our heads while we read the text.

You huff and puff and heave and ho and strain and grunt...trying to argue that tongues weren't used in evangelism...which is the most ridiculous argument ever.

No, pretending to know something for sure when there is no evidence to support it is kind of ridiculous.

OF COURSE tongues were used for evangelism. That was the whole point of the "signs and wonders"...to bring people to salvation. (And yes, there was some "edification" for the believers which was also involved.)

Speaking in tongues does not substitute for preaching when it comes to evangelism. Tongues were used 'for evangelism' in Acts 2 in a similar way that healing and certain miracles were used 'for evangelism' in other passages. Miracles drew the people's attention and could serve to bear witness to the word and those who preached it. But the word had to be preached for people to believe. In Acts 2, speaking in tongues draws attention, and also some derision, but people were saved through believing the word of God preached after the disciples spoke in tongues.

The use of tongues the way Paul instructions in I Corinthians 14, used together with interpretation to edify the congregation, is also a valid use of the gift.

Trying to argue the tongues-speakers weren't engaging in evangelism...is a very strange and point-blank contradiction to the text. But you need to "disprove" this because obviously there are no armies of Charismatic Christians here in the modern-day who are circling the globe, preaching the Gospel in tongues. Therefore, you're claiming it wasn't happening in Acts 2 either.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the disciples were preaching the Gospel in tongues. Let's define terms. I would not include all the types of things we read about in the Psalms, such as the praises of God as 'preaching the Gospel', though quotes from the Psalms could be used in preaching the Gospel.

 

[samuel23]

Speaking in tongues was in the Apostolic time not a Tool which was given to all believers!

That's false teaching... is this why you have "wolf" as part of your screen name?

In Acts 8, Philip preached to the Samaritans, and the whole city believed on Jesus and was baptized in water. They were saved. But Acts 8:15-16 says,

“Who, when they [the apostles] were come down, prayed for them [the Samaritans], that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus)” (brackets mine).

This is a very clear example of people being born again but still needing to receive the Holy Spirit. This can also be witnessed in Acts 19. Paul found disciples who were not baptized in the Holy Spirit. He prayed for them, and they spoke with tongues.

The bible does not teach that we receive the HS twice, our example is on the day of Pentecost. What happened in Samaria is unique because the story tells us that they did not receive the HS until Peter and John(I think) put their hands on them and prayed, it does not say that they received the Spirit twice, just once when Peter and John prayed for them. Not sure why that happened, however out example is the first example, repent and believe and you shall receive the gift of the Spirit. Not repent and believe and then wait for Peter and John to put hands on you.

 

[Meggido]

The bible does not teach that we receive the HS twice, our example is on the day of Pentecost. What happened in Samaria is unique because the story tells us that they did not receive the HS until Peter and John(I think) put their hands on them and prayed, it does not say that they received the Spirit twice, just once when Peter and John prayed for them. Not sure why that happened, however out example is the first example, repent and believe and you shall receive the gift of the Spirit. Not repent and believe and then wait for Peter and John to put hands on you.

How do you account for this then?

Acts 2.1-4

2 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. [SUP]2 [/SUP]And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. [SUP]3 [/SUP]And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.[SUP]4 [/SUP]And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Acts 4.27-31


[SUP]27 [/SUP]For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, [SUP]28 [/SUP]to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. [SUP]29 [/SUP]And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, [SUP]30 [/SUP]while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.” [SUP]31 [/SUP]And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.



This is proof of another infilling of the Holy Spirit and proof that we must continually yield ourselves to the Holy Spirit and continually seek for the Holy Spirit to come upon and come within us at all times.

 

[MattforJesus]

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
Isa 28:12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I believe these scriptures are generalized to all believers.

The operation of the Church is the operation of the Church,so what was for them back then has to be what is for us today.

1Co 13:8 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.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
1Co 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Charity,love in action,never fails.

Out of faith,hope,and charity,charity is the greatest for it will go on forever,where faith,and hope,are only needed in this world,and are not needed in the next world.

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

I do not believe this means that tongues have ceased,but out of all that we did,and knew on this earth,the only thing that will remain is love,where in the New Jerusalem the angels,and saints,will not remember anything prior to the New Jerusalem,for it is associated with sin,and rebellion,and Jesus said,I make all things new,for the former things have come to pass.

Love is the only thing that will go on forever,but tongues for now have not ceased,for the operation of the Church is the operation of the Church.

 

[MattTooFor]

All we know from the text, as far as the content of what they said was concerned, is that they were speaking of the wonderful works of God.

You haven't rebutted anything:

The occasion in Acts 2 was a presentation of the Good News. The Holy Spirit was He who "gave utterance"...therefore, the utterances would be appropriate to the occasion...which was evangelism. Simple common sense which you are dodging.

You claim "we" don't know about this. No...you don't "know". Keep in mind, you're not speaking for anyone except yourself. And you're dodging simple common sense, as well as direct indication in the passage...that these believers were there for the purpose of presenting the Gospel...and that the Holy Spirit was giving them appropriate utterance. You are thus flat-out contradicting the Scriptures.

Even if we were to accept your 'watered down' version of Acts 2...even that is not happening anywhere in the world today: There are no large gatherings of unbelievers who are shocked and astonished to hear numerous languages being spoken by a large group of believers...and then thousands upon thousands stagger forward to accept the Gospel message. That isn't happening anywhere in the world.

We have a hundred million iPhones worldwide and a hundred million YouTubes from all across the planet. This would have all been documented long ago.

Bottom line: This was an evangelistic effort. The Holy Spirit gave them utterance appropriate to the occasion. You are flat-out contradicting the Scriptures.

And as usual, you're also, in effect, double-talking. On the one hand, you're saying "well, we just don't know exactly what the tongues-speakers were saying"...then you flip-flop and proceed to dogmatically assert that tongues WERE not and ARE not used for evangelism.

You're right about one thing: Tongues are not used for evangelism because "tongues" no longer exist...which is obvious just from the utter absence of any scenario that even remotely resembles the Acts 2 episode. Not even your 'watered' down' version.

Again, you haven't rebutted anything. And you can't contradict the Bible. That's a no-no. If the passage indicates they were there for an evangelistic effort...then the Holy Spirit would have given them utterances which were evangelistic.

 

[samuel23]

Hi Meggido, the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, that was the apostles and possibly some others with them, they spoke languages known in that area. Our example of being saved and added to the church is not really the apostles because they were in a unique position with Jesus, our example are the first people like us to come into the church, and they only received the Spirit one time. While we are on that subject, do you recognize that none of the teachers who wrote to the churches in the NT(Peter, James, John, Paul, Jude, Hebrews) ever told a Christian that they should seek a second baptism in the Spirit? Pentecostal preachers today teach Christians to seek another baptism in the Spirit...it sure is strange that none of the NT writers told Christians what Pentecostal preachers are telling Christians, that Christians need a second baptism in the Spirit.

 

[Meggido]

Hi Meggido, the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, that was the apostles and possibly some others with them, they spoke languages known in that area. Our example of being saved and added to the church is not really the apostles because they were in a unique position with Jesus, our example are the first people like us to come into the church, and they only received the Spirit one time. While we are on that subject, do you recognize that none of the teachers who wrote to the churches in the NT(Peter, James, John, Paul, Jude, Hebrews) ever told a Christian that they should seek a second baptism in the Spirit? Pentecostal preachers today teach Christians to seek another baptism in the Spirit...it sure is strange that none of the NT writers told Christians what Pentecostal preachers are telling Christians, that Christians need a second baptism in the Spirit.

Nice bob and weave of the scriptures I posted. the scriptures stand and perfectly shows us a second Baptism.

It was just not Apostles in the upper room on Pentecost.

 

[samuel23]

Nice bob and weave of the scriptures I posted. the scriptures stand and perfectly shows us a second Baptism.

It was just not Apostles in the upper room on Pentecost.

Enjoy it while you can, one day it will blow up in your face. I used to be exactly where you are and used the exact same scriptures. You will never find Peter, Paul, James, John, any of them telling a Christian to seek a second baptism in the Spirit. All these "second spirit baptisms" are a way for Christians to receive a false spirit. The so called scriptural evidences for a second spirit baptism are incidents about something unusual that should not be used for the standard. Such as the believers in John who were not really saved. It took me a while to wake up, lets hope that you do also some day.