One of the best videos on tongues I've seen

[presidente]

Something else in this passage warrants comment. V. 10 says: ". . . to another different kinds of tongues." The gift is the ability to speak different languages, not an angelic language. If we take out the word "different" which is italicized in the KJV and NKJV, we still have "kinds of tongues." That is, a variety of languages. They weren't speaking "angelic," but different human languages which required and interpreter to interpret. If they were speaking "angelic," and the gift of tongues was the ability to hear in one's own native tongue, there would be no need for interpretation.

It is rare to find someone who believes that the tongues spoken in Acts 2 were different from what the people heard. There was a 4th century St. Gregory who taught that, and another 4th century St. Gregory that interpreted the passage to mean the people heard them speak in their own languages (like they said they heard. I think I have encountered two people who hold to the 'miracle in the ear' type view.

And we should allow for the idea of tongues being 'tongues of men or even of angels' since Paul suggests the idea. Practically, it doesn't matter much if a tongue spoken in if the tongue is interpreted.

Is there someone who thinks speaking in tongues is exclusively the tongues of angels? This feels like a straw man argument.

 

[shittim]

??????????

You misunderstand this poster. Maybe read a little slower.

i see , thank you

 

[Bluesproverb]

The problem is, the Bible doesn't support your theory. In Acts 2, they spoke of 'the wonderful works of God' according to those listening. But it doesn't say that the preached Jesus and Him crucified or the resurrection of Christ. After the speaking in tongues, Peter stood up and preached the Gospel. In I Corinthians 14, when one speaks in tongues, no one present understands, and the utterance needs to be interpreted for the church to be edified. There is a spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues. Speaking in tongues can be a prayer of thanksgiving in the passage.

This thread is about tongues.

I think you would benefit from reading the passage I referenced.
1 Corinthians 14[ESV]
Prophecy and Tongues

1.Pursue love, and desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. 6 Now, brothers,[a] if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. 12 So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. 13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign[c] not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

Orderly Worship

26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But all things should be done decently and in order.

Footnotes

1 Corinthians 14:6 Or brothers and sisters; also verses 20, 26, 39 1 Corinthians 14:16 Or of him that is without gifts 1 Corinthians 14:22 Greek lacks a sign

 

[Polar]

i see , thank you

Sure. I thought you might want to know.

 

[Aaron56]

@Polar and @shittim

You blessed me with your care for one another.

 

[Polar]

It is rare to find someone who believes that the tongues spoken in Acts 2 were different from what the people heard. There was a 4th century St. Gregory who taught that, and another 4th century St. Gregory that interpreted the passage to mean the people heard them speak in their own languages (like they said they heard. I think I have encountered two people who hold to the 'miracle in the ear' type view.

And we should allow for the idea of tongues being 'tongues of men or even of angels' since Paul suggests the idea. Practically, it doesn't matter much if a tongue spoken in if the tongue is interpreted.

Is there someone who thinks speaking in tongues is exclusively the tongues of angels? This feels like a straw man argument.

AKA grasping at straws

 

[Polar]

@Polar and @shittim

You blessed me with your care for one another.

aw gee. I think this is the first time I have used the heart eyes smiley

 

[Aaron56]

aw gee. I think this is the first time I have used the heart eyes smiley

 

[JTB]

of course they have NOT. He is the same, yesterday, today and forever.
He doesn't change, if you are not walking with Him in His power, He isn't the one who left the relationship.

That was kinda my point, in a reverse psychology way

 

[Bluesproverb]

Here is some info on Mr Caleb Corneloup. Seems he is best to be avoided because of cult like practices and preying on people who found out he is not what he tries to appear as.

Former Street Church associates claim 'cult-like' practices tearing families apart
ABC News, Australia/December 6, 2014

By Leah MacLennan
Former Street Church members and associates have come forward alleging cult-like practices are tearing Adelaide families apart.

Street Church first came to South Australia's attention when its preaching caused angry confrontations in Rundle Mall.

When the Adelaide City Council prosecuted brothers Caleb and Sam Corneloup, they took the fight all the way to the High Court.

Former Street Church associate Peter Egel still preaches in Rundle Mall, but said he was no longer associated with the church because of concerns of what was happening "behind the scenes".

"We had a lot of flack in those days, being carted off and thrown into prison for the night and I thought 'oh well, this is different'," he said.

"It's better than some of the Christianity I'd seen so I thought this is a good group to get involved with.

"It changed on December last year, when we became aware of practices, particularly by the leader Sam Corneloup and that surprised us."

Nina Briguglio could also once be found fiercely supporting Street Church in Rundle Mall after she joined the church in 2012.

But like Mr Egel, she is no longer a part of the church and has lost all contact with her daughter over her decision to cut ties with Mr Corneloup.

A single mother of two daughters, she felt she had found an extended family, especially when Mr Corneloup and his wife Debbie moved in with her and her daughters in 2013.

"I was divorced at a very young age. I was only married for five months and my mother died when I was very young and I just, I really missed family," she said.

"I thought, 'Oh wow, this is where I'm supposed to be.' This must be my family. It sort of seemed like a natural progression I guess but in hindsight, I made a wrong decision."

At first Ms Briguglio said she got special attention from Mr Corneloup when he began counselling her over issues from her past.

Eventually, Ms Briguglio said their relationship changed and her existence in the home became one of fear.

Forced to 'write lines in the dark' as punishment

She said if she was deemed to have a bad attitude or was talking back, she would be punished.

One form of punishment involved being sent out to the car to write lines.

"I would sit in the car in the dark with a torch in my pyjamas or a tracksuit or whatever and would write lines," Ms Briguglio said.

"The average time I spend writing lines was two or three hours and if I went to the toilet for a break or went to look for a torch, he extended the time I had to write lines for wasting time."

On occasions, she was kicked out of home and sent to stay in a boarding house in Oakden called Unity House.

In one late night Facebook conversation, Mr Corneloup threatened her with more and more time there.

"You just earned yourself another week at Unity House. That's two weeks extra which means that the past two weeks count for nothing really. It starts again from today. Seven weeks," the Facebook message said.

However Mr Corneloup and Ms Briguglio's daughter, Alecia Alinejad, said Ms Briguglio was forced to write lines and spend time in Unity House because she was abusive and disruptive.

"You have to understand, she's like causing a ruckus in the home," Ms Alinejad said.

"It's not just, oh, she's rolling her eyes. She's throwing things around the home. [Sam Corneloup's wife] Deb's seen many times when she's hit me and I mean we have had a history of abuse with Nina."

However, Ms Briguglio denied any allegations she abused her daughters.

Corneloups accepted a large sum of cash from Nina Briguglio

Why did Ms.Briguhlio have to pay that cult couple money?

She should have known something was wrong when this supposed spiritual couple sought to move in with her.

And she had 2 young daughters?🤔 And this couple kept her, the daughters mom, out of the home, her own home, as punishment?
And her young daughters were left in the home with this cult couple?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Do you have a source that compiles these, or the individual sources? That sounds interesting.

There is some conjecture that the idea of 'that which is perfect' occurring before the return of Christ was first a Montanist interpretation. Maybe they thought Montanus or his message were that which is perfect. But Eusebius Ecclesiastical history records that a Miltiades challenged the Montanists, fourteen years after the death of the last of Montanus' two assistants to produce a prophet, and that the apostle taught that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned.

here's a quick short list but it's actually from a Baptist Theologian and he goes from Church Fathers and continues on:

Irenaeus:
As therefore, when that which is perfect is come, we shall not see another Father, but Him who we now desire to see [12]

Tertullian:
refers to the visible manifestation of Jesus

Clement of Alexander:
to' teaelov is the believer's state when he see's God

Origen:
combines Verse 12 with 10 when we see Jesus [face to face]

Eusebius:
The apostle thought it necessary that the prophetic Gifts should continue in all the Church until the final Coming of Jesus

Archelaus:
"the perfect" is Jesus

Methodius:
the return of Christ and events associated with it

Ambrose:
when we are face to face with God

Jerome:
when we see the Glory of the Lord

Leo the Great:
when we see God as He really is

 

[Polar]

Why did Ms.Briguhlio have to pay that cult couple money?

She should have known something was wrong when this supposed spiritual couple sought to move in with her.

And she had 2 young daughters?🤔 And this couple kept her, the daughters mom, out of the home, her own home, as punishment?
And her young daughters were left in the home with this cult couple?

This goes on every day, everywhere, all the time and in every country.

It is a sad fact that people are like sheep and will follow before they lead. God wanted to speak to Israel Himself but they would not have it, so Moses was their go between. To what extent did this change their relationship with God? for one thing, when Moses went up the mountain to meet with God and God during that time gave him the 10 commandments, the people had Aaron create an idol and they worshipped the idol and said it was the god that had brought them out of Egypt.

18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.”
Exodus 20

There is so much deception in the church that many are deceived and they will not receive the truth

I am not blaming the woman at all. I am pointing out the dangers of following a person rather than our God

 

[Amanuensis]

here's a quick short list but it's actually from a Baptist Theologian and he goes from Church Fathers and continues on:

Irenaeus:
As therefore, when that which is perfect is come, we shall not see another Father, but Him who we now desire to see [12]

Tertullian:
refers to the visible manifestation of Jesus

Clement of Alexander:
to' teaelov is the believer's state when he see's God

Origen:
combines Verse 12 with 10 when we see Jesus [face to face]

Eusebius:
The apostle thought it necessary that the prophetic Gifts should continue in all the Church until the final Coming of Jesus

Archelaus:
"the perfect" is Jesus

Methodius:
the return of Christ and events associated with it

Ambrose:
when we are face to face with God

Jerome:
when we see the Glory of the Lord

Leo the Great:
when we see God as He really is

I think the best interpretation is from Paul himself when he told the Philippians that he was not yet perfect but pressed toward that goal which he believed would come at the resurrection from the dead.

Phil 3
My goal is to know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death, 11assuming that I will somehow reach the resurrection from among the dead.

12Not that I have already reached the goal or am already perfect, but I make every effort to take hold of it because I also have been taken hold of by Christ Jesus.

 

[presidente]

I don't agree with Caleb on everything, but I agree with a lot of his views. This video is one of the most well-thought-out I've ever seen on this subject. It's concise and to the point. The truth doesn't need a lot of embellishment; it speaks for itself.

Why do you think this is a good post? There is no evidence of preaching the Gospel in Acts 2, but he keeps repeating the idea that this is the purpose of tongues throughout the video.

He seems to be against the idea of praying in tongues, but I Corinthians 14 gives an example of praying and giving thanks in tongues.

What is good about the video?

 

[JTB]

What is good about the video?

It supports his theory that they have ceased.

That is the way of people these days, to seek out confirmation of their already held beliefs ... whether those beliefs be true or not.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Point 4:

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

There are a couple of things to think about in this passage.

First, tongues is sandwiched between prophecy and knowledge. This seems to indicate that the intended purpose of tongues is to impart knowledge. It's not a private prayer language but a gift for imparting knowledge to those present.

Secondly, it says tongues will cease. If tongues is an actual language of angels, why should we think it would ever cease? Will angels cease? Will they get a new language at some point? But tongues, like prophecy and knowledge, will cease because it's a temporary spiritual gift.

 

[presidente]

Point 4:

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

There are a couple of things to think about in this passage.

First, tongues is sandwiched between prophecy and knowledge. This seems to indicate that the intended purpose of tongues is to impart knowledge.

The really weak thing about using such a loose argument is that Paul gets rather specific in the following chapter, and this sort of thing should not be a question because Paul makes it clear. At the least in the context of the church, when one speaks in tongues, others do not understand. He is not even speaking with his own mind, so it is unlikely he understands. But the way it can be understood is through interpretation. According to chapter 12, interpretation of tongues is a gift of the Spirit. Interpretation can be understood by the congregation.

The imparting of knowledge does not come through speaking in tongues, but rather the interpretation thereof in the context of I Corinthians 14.

Now if God wasn't to sovereignly arrange that those present understand the tongue or enable the individual speaking in tongues to speak in the language of someone present who understands it, an Acts 2 type situation, then He may do so.

It's not a private prayer language but a gift for imparting knowledge to those present.

I would agree that the definition of speaking in tongues is not a 'private prayer language.' Tongues may be used for individual prayer, but Paul treats that as the same type of tongue that is interpreted

We do not have to make arguments based on loose reasoning when we have more specific scriptures.

I Corinthians 14
2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; [a]for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
(NKJV)

If someone speaks to God in tongues, he is ___praying___ right? Paul wished they would all do that. But even more than praying in tongues, he would prefer they either prophesy. He also speaks positively of interpreting tongues. Both prophesying and interpreting tongues edify the congregation.

In verses 16 and 17, we see that it is possible to give thanks well in tongues. It does not edify others. If you look in verse 28, if there is no interpreter the speaker in tongues is to 'speak to Himself and to God.' So prayer in tongues is again allowed in the proper context. But speech in church assemblies is for mutual edification of the church, hence the instructions about tongues being interpreted.

Praying in tongues is a good thing that Paul wished his readers would do. Speech that edifies the congregation is better. In church 'let all things be done unto edifying.'

Let me ask you, does your church allow members of the congregation to edify the assembly by teaching, prophesying, speaking in tongues, or interpreting? Isn't it consistent with this passage to allow that?

Secondly, it says tongues will cease. If tongues is an actual language of angels, why should we think it would ever cease? Will angels cease? Will they get a new language at some point? But tongues, like prophecy and knowledge, will cease because it's a temporary spiritual gift.

This interpretation, of yours and the guy in the video, is rather odd. Do you know any other interpreter in the world who takes 'tongues will cease' to mean that human languages will be no more? If we read the New Jerusalem passage in Revelation, the names of apostles are written on the city. People who enter are people whose names are written in the book of life. How can these things be written if there are no languages to be written in?

If human languages exist now and will cease in the age to come, is that any more strange than angelic language existing now and ceasing in the age to come? We know as humans it is hard to conceptualize communicating without spoken language, but none of us have been angelic beings and we do not know whether the absence of language would be a big issue for them. I don't see how you have any kind of argument against the possibility of angelic languages from this passage. If 'tongues will cease' is an argument that there must not be any angelic languages now, then it should be just as much of a strong argument that there must not be any human languages now either. We should just stick with what the Bible says.

One interpretation of the passage is that tongues as a gift will cease. I suppose one could interpret it to mean that an individual manifestation of speaking in tongues will cease wherever it appears. You don't keep speaking in tongues forever. Maybe that comment was compelling to Corinthians who thought it was spiritual to go on and on in tongues in church without interpretation.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Point 5: The purpose of the gift of tongues is to edify others. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul suggests that someone speaking in tongues, with no interpreter present, may be built up to some extent by exercising the spiritual gift, but the real purpose is to have an interpreter present so that all may be built up. If there's no interpreter the person speaking in tongues should remain silent. This completely puts the kibosh on all the people out there speaking in tongues openly with no interpreter. It's a disgrace really.

"Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification." 1 Corinthians 14:1-5

"Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God." 1 Corinthians 14:26-28

Notice it says "keep silent." It doesn't say speak softly between you and God, but to be silent! It also says "let there be two or at the most three." It doesn't say everyone who feels like it should go ahead and speak in tongues. The idea of all this is that there may be order in the congregation and that all may be built up.

It's also worth mentioning that nowhere in this chapter does it say anything about tongues being an angelic or heavenly language.

 

[JTB]

Point 4:

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

There are a couple of things to think about in this passage.

First, tongues is sandwiched between prophecy and knowledge. This seems to indicate that the intended purpose of tongues is to impart knowledge. It's not a private prayer language but a gift for imparting knowledge to those present.

Secondly, it says tongues will cease. If tongues is an actual language of angels, why should we think it would ever cease? Will angels cease? Will they get a new language at some point? But tongues, like prophecy and knowledge, will cease because it's a temporary spiritual gift.

Let's use the gift of healing as an example.

Man was created to be immortal (not quite the right word but descriptive for this purpose). It was only after the fall that sickness and infirmity came into play, God says the when Christ returns creation will be restored to it's pre-fall state. That means people will no longer be getting sick. When people are no longer getting sick, there will be no need for healing and it will cease.

Man was created and as his numbers grew he had a pure, singular spiritual language. It wasn't until Babel that he lost that singular language. God says when Christ returns, this singular language will be restored. Thus the need for tongues will cease when this singular language is restored.

Personally, I believe what we today call 'tongues' is actually our native language, and english/German/French at al are the actual tongues.

 

[presidente]

Let's use the gift of healing as an example.

Man was created to be immortal (not quite the right word but descriptive for this purpose). It was only after the fall that sickness and infirmity came into play, God says the when Christ returns creation will be restored to it's pre-fall state. That means people will no longer be getting sick. When people are no longer getting sick, there will be no need for healing and it will cease.

Your theory sounds reasonable, but in Revelation 22, John sees the tree of life, with leaves for the healing of the nations.

Man was created and as his numbers grew he had a pure, singular spiritual language. It wasn't until Babel that he lost that singular language. God says when Christ returns, this singular language will be restored.

Unless you can back that up, you need to repent. Paul implies that bearing false witness of God is a bad thing in I Corinthians 15. When did God say that the singular language would be restored? I am guessing that is your loose conjecture and interpretation of Paul's comment that whether there be tongues, they shall cease. The original tongue of man was a tongue also.