What really were the gift of tongues? Acts.. and Corinthians...

atwhatcost · Sep 14, 2015

There's not enough in the bible to support the "heavenly tongues" position. There also isn't enough to not support it. Sometimes a firm "maybe" is all we get for now.

With that, I've never understood why people want to argue this one. It seems such a minor thing.

Or, maybe that is exactly why it is something people like to argue it. Because it is a minor thing.

atwhatcost · Sep 14, 2015

ENLIGHTEND said:

Is it more or less silly than someone who has given up on God giving his opinion on a topic about the Bible in such a way as if he is the authority on it?

presidente · Sep 14, 2015

ENLIGHTEND said:

If you don't have any disciples around you, maybe you should go to a different church or become a disciple yourself.

The people Paul was talking about interpreting tongues in I Corinthians 12-14 weren't the twelve apostles. Paul didn't say you couldn't speak in tongues if there is no interpreter. He says if one speaks in tongues 'but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God.' He's allowed to speak in tongues, just not in the assembly. And he's supposed to do this if there is no interpreter. So if he speaks in tongues and there is no interpreter, he's to be quiet. Can you really condemn him if he speaks in tongues first and it turns out there is no interpreter? At that point, he is to be quiet.

But since there are people who interpret tongues in the body of Christ, that's another problem with your argument.

presidente · Sep 14, 2015

posthuman said:

That's not how Paul applies, it not so specifically. He applies it more broadly,

"[SUP]23 [/SUP]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?"

The unlearned or unbeliever who comes in doesn't have to be Jewish.

We also need to keep in mind the cultural and historical context of the quote from Isaiah. The northern kingdom was invaded by Assyria, and soldiers from Assyria, marching them up naked to take them off into captivity yelled orders at them in Aramaic, a language they did not understand. "Walk faster!" "Get back in line!" "Don't stop to help her. Let her die!" or whatever they yelled at people as they marched them off.

There is a type here that applies to speaking in tongues. In spite of God speaking through men of other languages, the sign is 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me.'

This isn't the first time an apostle used an Old Testament scripture that had a different short-term application. 'Out of Egypt have I called my son' had to do with the people of Ephraim as the head of the northern kingdom. God calling Israel... and Ephraim... out of the Egypt was a type of God calling Christ, His Son, out of Egypt.

There were Jews present every time a Gentile put his faith in Christ in Acts. Does that mean it is impossible to get saved unless a Jew is present? A Jew was preaching every time a Gentile got saved in Acts. Does that mean you can only get saved if a Jew preaches?

Well, if we look in the epistles, we see Titus and Epaphras ministering, and some people came to faith through Epaphras, so these things aren't limited to Jews. We also see that there was speaking in tongues and interpretation in the primarily Gentile church in Corinth. Corinth was predominantly Gentile enough for Paul to write to his readers that they used to be led about by dumb idols.

It was very international, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were some. But where do you get the 'unbelieving' part. Why would you think any 'unbelieving Jews' were present in Cornelius' house? They aren't mentioned in the text. As far as we know, believing Jew Peter and his believing Jew associates went with him to preach to truth-seeking Gentiles.

wattie · Sep 14, 2015

ember said:

Well I am also a cessationist

Not relenting on that position

But that isn't really the point of this thread.. not a debate on whether tongues are for now or not.. but what they are in scripture.

John McArthurs tapes (at least on this topic) though had a lot of historical and biblical context. Made a whole lot of sense.

It's just been ages since I heard them.

Besides the fact it might be hard to find a tape player in good nick

presidente · Sep 15, 2015

wattie said:

In Acts 2, disciples spoke in tongues (language) and some present understood. Others did not and mocked. In a I Corinthians 14 situation-- which occurs in church rather than on the street in the 'evangelism' type situation we see in Acts 2, someone speaks in tongues and no one present understands.

I don't see any reason to think that what speaking in tongues in Acts 2 is fundamentally different from I Corinthians 14. The difference is the situation-- whether the people present understand the language. In a I Corinthians 14 situation, which is in church, the use of tongues is 'regulated'. Speaking in tongues needs to be interpreted to edify others.

In the 400's, two guys, both called St. Gregory, wrote differing opinions on what speaking in tongues was in Acts 2. The passage says that the people heard them speak in their languages, and lists the languages. One St. Gregory thought the miracle was in the ears of the hearers. The other disagreed. A straightforward reading of the text, IMO is that the disciples actually spoke in these languages, because it says they heard them speak in their languages, not that they heard their languages but what they heard wasn't actually spoken by these 120 disciples.

I Corinthians 13 mentions 'the tongues of men and of angels.' I don't see any reason to insist that this must be hyperbole. Extremes yes, but not 'impossible hyperbole.' Some of the other things mentioned in the passage are possible. It is possible to give all one's belongings to the poor. It is possible to give one's body to be burned. These are extremes, not impossibilities. Why is that some cessationists will read this verse and insist that it is hyperbole and impossible, but won't take the same approach to an 'extreme' mentioned in chapter 12, where Paul says that no one says that Jesus is accursed while speaking by the Spirit of God. Paul uses two extremes in that passage as well.

Paul leaves open the possibility for someone speaking in tongues in 'tongues of angels.' And if no one present in the assembly understands the tongue, anyway, what difference does it make whether it is a living human language, a dead human language, or 'tongues of angels'? From a practical perspective it doesn't matter much, since we need to hear the interpretation in our own language to be edified.

Maybe you listened to a different recording than the one I heard on YouTube and that's printed as text on his website, from the early 1990's, I think. One of his sermons was probably the worst exposition of the passage I've ever encountered. He tried to make out the speaking in tongues of the Corinthians to be 'pagan tongues.' The problem with that is that you then have Paul endorsing synchretism in the very passage. If Paul was talking about 'pagan tongues' when he said that he who speaks in tongues speaks mysteries with his spirit, then his comment, "I would that ye all spake with tongues' would be an encouragement to pagan tongues.

I think John MacArthur is so prejudiced against speaking in tongues that he has even rejected the very examples of genuine tongues in the Bible themselves. That's a dangerous approach to scripture.

One of his arguments had to do with 'speaks mysteries with his spirit' and trying to tie that into the 'mystery religions.' The problems with that are, first of all, the interpretation leads to Paul encouraging the interpretation of pagan tongues to 'edify' the assembly. And secondly, the word translated 'mystery' in Paul's writing are always good things-- e.g. the mystery of Christ-- and never refer to mystery religions.

John MacArthur also tried to tie speaking in tongues to the Oracle of Delphi somehow. There is no justification for this from anything in the text of I Corinthians. It looks the same sort of misuse of the cultural and historical approach that LBGT apologists and other liberals use to argue for strange ideas when they deal with texts of scripture.

presidente · Sep 15, 2015

notuptome said:

That is not up to you.

Giving one's body to be burned is possible. Giving all one's belongings to the poor is also possible. These other ideas are listened in the same passage, in the same argument.

Even if you do all these extreme things, and have not love, it profits you nothing/or you are nothing. These others aren't the type of 'hyperbole' that are impossible. These are all just extreme things. That doesn't mean they are impossible things.

presidente · Sep 15, 2015

wattie said:

This is an assumption that many make, but it is not taught or illustrated in any text of scripture.

In Acts 2, some people present understand the disciples speaking of the wonderful works of God 'in tongues.' But the passage doesn't say that the disciples explained or preached the Gospel in tongues. In fact, Peter stood up and preached, apparently in a common tongue using 'the understanding' so that all could hear. He probably preached in Koine Greek, or possibly in Hebrew or Aramaic, (which would seem less likely since Hellenized Jews may even have read Torah in Hebrew translation in their synagogues, if Edersheim was right.).

There is no other passage about preaching the Gospel 'in tongues.'

I spoke with the daughter of a missionary to China recently. I'd read an article of her father, in which he said he'd heard Chinese villagers speak in tongues in English. I mentioned that to her, and she said she'd witnessed that herself. A Chinese Grandma who did not know English spoke in tongues in English. I asked her what she said. She said she was reciting a Psalm. I asked her which one, and she said she didn't know exactly or know if it was a specific Psalm in the Bible, but that is what the type of thing she said sounded like.

I have also read a few accounts of people who went to the Azusa Street revival understanding speaking in tongues in their own languages. One woman who was there at a child says that is something that drew various ethnicities to the meeting, as word got out that they were speaking Japanese or whatever other language there.

RickyZ · Sep 15, 2015

wattie said:

But how you look at whether they are for now or not throws a heavy influence on what you think they are/were.

Iow, those who think they have ceased believe they were for a specific purpose, whereas those who know they continue on know that they have many purposes.

To me the real issue is that those who think they have stopped attribute (whether by commission or omission) legitimate uses today to satan. And attributing works of the Holy Spirit to satan is unforgiveable. Cessationists perch on a VERY dangerous precipice because of that.

wattie · Sep 15, 2015

RickyZ said:

Im not getting into the ceased or not debate on this thread. Like i typed.

I am starting to see there is a difference from Acts to Corinthians in the ordering of tongues. The boundaries put around them. But Acts 2 was still a church setting. Jesus and His disciples were the first church before the pentecost event. They had everything a new testament church has. So tongues being different for Corinth because it is a church setting?

Acts had the church at Jerusalem and Jesus and His disciples were the first

jb · Sep 15, 2015

wattie said:

You can find a full indepth study on the 9 gifts of the Spirit Here (the gift of tongues in number 8 in the list)...

Yahweh Shalom

presidente · Sep 15, 2015

wattie said:

Im not getting into the ceased or not debate on this thread. Like i typed.

I am starting to see there is a difference from Acts to Corinthians in the ordering of tongues. The boundaries put around them. But Acts 2 was still a church setting. Jesus and His disciples were the first church before the pentecost event. They had everything a new testament church has. So tongues being different for Corinth because it is a church setting?

Acts had the church at Jerusalem and Jesus and His disciples were the first

The 3000 weren't a part of the church at the time the disciples spoke in tongues.

wattie · Sep 15, 2015

presidente said:

True.. there were 'the multitudes' that saw them... who weren't part of the church at Jerusalem

presidente · Sep 16, 2015

wattie, I was just thinking about the idea you shared about the upper room meetings in Acts 1-2 being meetings of the church. And they all spoke in tongues in those meetings. So there is an example in scripture of everyone speaking in tongues, not just the disorderly Corinthians, but the apostles.

I read some teaching, I believe it was by Derrick Prince, who was from the WWII generation and passed away some time back, about speaking in tongues and church order. He believed that speaking in tongues should be interpreted for proper order in the church. But he made an exception for when someone is initially baptized with the Holy Spirit and receives speaking in tongues for the first time, like in Acts 2, Acts 10, or Acts 19.

notuptome · Sep 16, 2015

presidente said:

There is clear biblical proof of Paul's sufferings in the flesh. There is no evidence of any angel ever speaking to men in an angelic tongue. There is no biblical evidence of angels ever speaking to other angels in an angelic tongue.

It is not up to me to invent stuff just believe what god has written for my edification.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome · Sep 16, 2015

weakness said:

Pentecost was a partial fulfillment of Joel. Joel is written as prophecy to Israel not to the church.

Paul was surely a man of prayer. When Paul prayed he was moved with strong emotions that men should hear the message and be saved. When Paul could not express his desire to the Lord the Holy Spirit interceded with groanings that could not be uttered.

When Paul prayed in tongues was he praying aloud that those he was praying for so they could hear his supplication to the Lord? Was Paul praying aloud and the persons heard him in their native languages?

There are divers tongues resulting from Babel. God over comes this diversity by His will through the Holy Spirit ministry in getting the hearing of Gods word into the hearts of those to whom God is sending it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

presidente · Sep 16, 2015

notuptome said:

Your argument is a silly and foolish one. The Bible doesn't contain languages that the readers wouldn't understand or that some translator wouldn't understand. When Israelites spoke Hebrew it was in Hebrew. After they went into captivity, bits and pieces of it were written in Aramaic. Greek was a lingua franca in the first century, and we have the New Testament in Greek. 'Angel' comes from a Greek word for 'messenger.' The angels were sent to communicate messages to men, not to speak to them in languages they did not understand. The Old Testament doesn't say whether they had their own language. But why would they come down with a message and communicate it in a non-human language?

The Bible DOES mention tongues of angels. It is right there in I Corinthians 13. You have no logical or Biblical reason for thinking that there could not be 'tongues of angels' since the Bible makes reference to them.

Including I Corinthians 13:1, right?

notuptome · Sep 16, 2015

presidente said:

I understand your irritation with the truth it simply does not fit what you want it to be.

You simply read into the bible what you want when you ought to read out of the bible what is really there. You are not going to sell everything you have and give it to the poor. You are not going to move mountains with your faith.

We have the tongues of men. We have God speaking in all these tongues at the same time to all the men present at Pentecost. We do not have Jesus or anyone else speaking to angels in any angelic tongue. Paul did not say he spoke in the tongues of angels only that even if it were possible apart from love it would be worthless.

Paul's focus was on reaching lost souls with the gospel not is self edification through tongues.

Tongues in the modern church are wrong on so many levels.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

presidente · Sep 16, 2015

notuptome said:

Your assertions aren't truth. They are your assertions.

You are the one reading this verse and insisting that there is no such thing as 'tongues of angels.'

"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."

Paul suggests the possibility of tongues of angels here. So you should at least be open to the possibility. To take that verse and try to create a doctrine that there are no 'tongues of angels' out of it is reading into the text something that is not there.

You don't know whether I will sell all and give to the poor. I've got kids, so I have a duty to them, but some people have done this. Jesus commanded the rich young ruler to do this. It's not something impossible. It's also possible that some of those Christians that Nero burned may have had the opportunity to get out of being burned if they'd denied their faith, and that they really did give their bodies to be burned.

If you take Jesus' statement about speaking with faith and moving mountains literally, to be about literal mountains, then you should accept that this is something that is possible. If you take Jesus' and Paul's statements as some kind of metaphor, you should still accept it as possible.

Paul wrote about many topics in this epistle. He refers to preaching the Gospel to win souls, and he also gives instructions on how gifts, including tongues and interpretation, are to be used to edify the body of Christ.

Not if used properly according to the teachings of the scripture. Divers tongues are among the gifts/manifestations of the Spirit I Corinthians 12 says are distributed as the Spirit wills. This is up to the Spirit. You do not have the authority to prevent the Spirit from giving these gifts if you do not agree that the passage is for today. It is not up to you.

Lancelot · Sep 16, 2015

notuptome said:

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant: [SUP]2 [/SUP]You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led. [SUP]3 [/SUP]Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. [SUP]4 [/SUP]There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. [SUP]5 [/SUP]There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. [SUP]6 [/SUP]And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. [SUP]7 [/SUP]But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: (I Cor. 12:1-7)

You are taking the passage completely out of its context in order to apply the Babel interpretation. The context is the diversity of spiritual gifts and ministries, provided by manifestations of the Spirit of the one true and living God. The context is NOT the diversity of languages resulting from Babel. Nowhere in this passage does Paul mention Babel or how we need to preach in other languages to reach the lost. He's addressing the proper usage of spiritual gifts and ministries. Nobody in the Bible preached the gospel via a supernatural manifestation of tongues. Tongues at Pentecost was a sign, but the gospel was preached by Peter and they all heard and understood as they all had a common language. The diverse kinds of tongues and interpretation of tongues was used in public assembly amongst believers, not for evangelism. When tongues are used as a sign no interpreter is necessary because the hearer understands.

What really were the gift of tongues? Acts.. and Corinthians...

atwhatcost

Guest

atwhatcost

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member