TONGUES TODAY

[SophieT]

presidente, I'd be suspicious of such testimonies. I'd be more willing to believe the accounts given by early Pentecostal missionaries who went to foreign countries to put Mark 16 to the test. When they failed, this should've been enough to put an end to it then and there.

https://charlesasullivan.com/9179/pentecostal-missionary-tongues-crisis/

well here's a snippet from your article

An indepth look at the development, expansion, and failure of Pentecostal missionary tongues and a critical public that called it gibberish.

Early Pentecostalism and especially the Azusa Street outbreak of tongues in 1906 caused a revival in the practice of speaking in tongues. The outbreak initially continued a traditional one that parallels Christian history for over 2000 years. The early Pentecostals understood that certain individuals were inspired by the Holy Spirit to miraculously speak a foreign language. When this occurred, there was some perceived divine revelation on what language the person spoke. They understood this knowledge as a sign for the person to go to the people group or nation to tell the Good News. Unfortunately, this fervor was badly hit by a dose of reality. These Pentecostal missionaries arrived at their destinations and found that they did not have this ability.


The above conclusion is a surprise to most Pentecostals and Charismatics and will evoke great suspicion. The rest of this article is dedicated to substantiating and further clarifying this problem with copious details

the problem with trying to force God's hand results in failure. apparently that appears to be the case here...presumption rather than faith

the problem for cessationists, however, is that nowhere in scripture do we read that tongues will always be available for missionary work. that, is a presumption

I would not calling that putting Mark 16 to the test. that is presumption and adding to the scriptures. they went beyond what is written

the Christian Missionary Alliance states this: (also from the same article you alluded to)

Certainly we do expect, in every case where it is claimed by humble believing prayer, a supernatural assistance in acquiring the native language, and we should not be surprised in any case to hear of the direct bestowal of the power to speak an unknown tongues. But we are not prepared to teach this as a definite scriptural promise for all who go to preach the Gospel to the heathen, or consider a lack of faith on the part of any worker who has not received this special gift.2

that, makes sense

I have no problem with this either:


The founder and leader of the Christian Missionary Alliance, A. B. Simpson saw that this missionary shortcut to learning foreign languages was a consistent problem with Bible college students training for the mission field. He finally stated in 1898:

In our own day there is the same strained and extravagant attempt to unduly exaggerate the gift of tongues, and some have even proposed that we should send our missionaries to the foreign field under a sort of moral obligation to claim this gift, and to despise the ordinary methods of acquiring a language. Such a movement would end in fanaticism and bring discredit upon the truth itself. We know of more than one instance where our beloved missionaries have been saved from this error and led to prosecute their studies in foreign languages with fidelity and diligence, and their efforts have been rewarded by supernatural help in acquiring languages in a remarkably short time, but not in despair of proper industry and the use of their own faculties under God’s direction in acquiring these languages​

It appears you might be 'using' the above as a valid excuse for denying any and all events not explainable by human reasoning

 

[SophieT]

When they failed, this should've been enough to put an end to it then and there.

see above

apparently, I am correct in assessing the reason for this post of yours. see orange type

 

[presidente]

I have heard of those things too yet the argument is one's experience doesn't validate the Gifts of the Holy Spirt, to which I argue; nor does your lack of experiencing remove validation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit being for today including tongues.

If you haven't been following the threads, I believe in speaking in tongues.

I take 'no man understandeth' him as a kind of 'rule of thumb' sort of description. In Acts 2, others present did understand. And in I Corinthians 14, also, there may be someone present gifted to interpret.

Historically, Pentecostals have believed that tongues are real languages. They can be 'the tongues of men or of angels', but not exclusively tongues of angels, and early in the movement, 'tongues of men' got more emphasis.

 

[presidente]

presidente, I'd be suspicious of such testimonies. I'd be more willing to believe the accounts given by early Pentecostal missionaries who went to foreign countries to put Mark 16 to the test. When they failed, this should've been enough to put an end to it then and there.

https://charlesasullivan.com/9179/pentecostal-missionary-tongues-crisis/

You should read their other testimonies. Numerous other people at the Azusa Street Revival and other Pentecostal meetings also had experienced hearing languages they knew spoken 'in tongues' or having other people testify to the fact that the language they had spoken was understood by the listener. AG Garr spoke in tongues, not the same tongue he had spoken in previously when he had spoken in tongues. It sounded different. Someone told him he was speaking Bengali. When he went to India, the tongues he spoke in were not those of the people he went to minister to.

This is not an argument against speaking in tongues, but it does illustrate the problem with poor hermeneutics. Some early Pentecostals, including Garr, and including Parham, thought that missionaries who spoke in tongues would be able to preach in the language of whatever country they went to. The problem is the Bible does not teach this idea. It does not even match the description of Acts 2. It is just doctrinal speculation.

Yet many cessationists today still think this was the purpose of speaking in tongues, even though the Bible does not teach it.

 

[CS1]

If you haven't been following the threads, I believe in speaking in tongues.

I take 'no man understandeth' him as a kind of 'rule of thumb' sort of description. In Acts 2, others present did understand. And in I Corinthians 14, also, there may be someone present gifted to interpret.

Historically, Pentecostals have believed that tongues are real languages. They can be 'the tongues of men or of angels', but not exclusively tongues of angels, and early in the movement, 'tongues of men' got more emphasis.

I was not suggesting you did as I said

"I have heard of those things too" was not directed to you. Actually, some did and in some cases, it did happen that way too, yet due to ignorance and an improper application of the Gift, they made a mistake.

 

[presidente]

I was not suggesting you did as I said

"I have heard of those things too" was not directed to you. Actually, some did and in some cases, it did happen that way too, yet due to ignorance and an improper application of the Gift, they made a mistake.

What I am saying is you seem to think of tongues as a 'spiritual code language.' Is that how you see it, a heavenly language that no one understands but God, or something along those lines?

 

[CS1]

What I am saying is you seem to think of tongues as a 'spiritual code language.' Is that how you see it, a heavenly language that no one understands but God, or something along those lines?

I would not use the term "coded" but one God fully understands and when we pray in the "Spirit " it is the Perfect will of God, NOW I know to pray according to HIS but to know the Perfect will when I pray is not possible Because does not reveal all to us fully. We must diligently seek HIM.

 

[presidente]

I would not use the term "coded" but one God fully understands and when we pray in the "Spirit " it is the Perfect will of God, NOW I know to pray according to HIS but to know the Perfect will when I pray is not possible Because does not reveal all to us fully. We must diligently seek HIM.

I have a question for you. Can tongues be uttered?

Acts 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

 

[CS1]

I have a question for you. Can tongues be uttered?

Acts 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

the Holy Spirit gave the Ability to speak is what Acts 2: 4 means. God gave the gift you do the speaking. He will not make you speak in tongues nor more than he makes one preach.


make (a sound) with one's voice.? yes it can as it can be done in silence as Paul said if there was no interpretation in 1cor 14.

 

[presidente]

the Holy Spirit gave the Ability to speak is what Acts 2: 4 means. God gave the gift you do the speaking. He will not make you speak in tongues nor more than he makes one preach.


make (a sound) with one's voice.? yes it can as it can be done in silence as Paul said if there was no interpretation in 1cor 14.

If tongues can be uttered do you think Paul called them groaning which cannot be uttered?

 

[Absolutely]

presidente, I'd be suspicious of such testimonies. I'd be more willing to believe the accounts given by early Pentecostal missionaries who went to foreign countries to put Mark 16 to the test. When they failed, this should've been enough to put an end to it then and there.

https://charlesasullivan.com/9179/pentecostal-missionary-tongues-crisis/

I know....I know

Some believed in Jesus
Then he went to his home town and failed.

We should look really hard at the pharisees who " correctly" labeled Jesus as a fraud when he Went to another city and put mark 16 to the test.

Do the hank hannagraff followers say Jesus put mark 16 to the test and failed?

Evangelists constantly put jn 3:16 to the test and fail. Oh well , now evangelism is bad too.

The baptist bible just gets smaller and smaller.

 

[PaulChristensen]

Yes - most people have no clue as to why the "unknown" got put there in the first place. It has zero to do with religion and 100% to do with the politics of King James.

The phrase unknown tongues, of the English Bible has a tradition that dates back to the earliest days of the Reformation. Most Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians are unaware of the history of the addition of “unknown” to ‘tongues’ and its Reformation roots. Rather, they believe the English reflects Paul’s intentions.

The creation of this idiom had powerful political and religious overtones. It was a “jab”, so-to-speak, by the early Protestants at the RCC.

It is an idiom the early Protestants created and aimed exclusively at the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church asserted its authority through the exclusive use of Latin while the Protestants volleyed back that Latin was speaking in an “unknown tongue” that no one understood. Unknown to the word tongues was added in Paul’s famous Corinthian text to win the Reformation argument.

The idiom unknown tongues became a popular doctrine in 1534 as a dispute against the Catholic Church. It was a strong statement that anything said in Latin, and not the local vernacular was not profitable.

It is important to note that this idiom initially had no suggestion whatsoever of a mystical or supernatural sense that Pentecostals and Charismatics attach to it today.

Pentecostals however relied heavily on their interpretation of other tongues to justify and Biblically ‘evidence’ the modern tongues-speaking experience.

In short, “unknown” in conjunction with ‘tongues’ was added by he early Protestants as a strong anti-Catholic statement, nothing more.
As a quick aside, the Wyclif Bible, the earliest known English translation published in 1380, does not contain the adjective at all. It also predominately used the word langagis (languages) instead of 'tongues' in the key-texts.

That's a moldy, old, worn out chestnut that Pentecostals and Charismatics have cheerfully ignored for years. Old news old chappie! Nice try but no cigar there!

 

[PaulChristensen]

many times I have sung 'in the spirit' at home and then begin singing in English. I cannot even make up the words of worship describing God and Jesus and these dunkin dudes want to tell us we are demonic or perhaps senile or making things up

and on top of that, when singing in worship to our Creator, I am so filled with His presence by His Spirit...the peace and the joy are as described in scripture. I have been loathe to get on with my day at times.

these anti-spirit people are so rigid in their pretensions of knowing God that they would fall over if they met God that way

smh

A worshiper cannot be of the devil when he or she is exalting Christ and rejoicing in His love and grace toward us. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

 

[PaulChristensen]

I know....I know

Some believed in Jesus
Then he went to his home town and failed.

We should look really hard at the pharisees who " correctly" labeled Jesus as a fraud when he Went to another city and put mark 16 to the test.

Do the hank hannagraff followers say Jesus put mark 16 to the test and failed?

Evangelists constantly put jn 3:16 to the test and fail. Oh well , now evangelism is bad too.

The baptist bible just gets smaller and smaller.

Isn't it interesting that these people concentrate on the failures, but completely ignore testimonies of people going to foreign countries and miraculously speaking the language as they have stepped out in faith?

If the truth were known there would have been more people sleeping through cessationist sermons than those who went to a foreign country, and attempted to communicate by speaking in tongues and failed.

 

[Nehemiah6]

They can be 'the tongues of men or of angels', but not exclusively tongues of angels, and early in the movement, 'tongues of men' got more emphasis.

"Tongues of angels" was a hyperbolic way of saying that even if you supposedly spoke the most exalted heavenly language but love was absent, then tongues meant nothing. Paul was trying to tell Christians at that time to "cool it" (in modern parlance). He was minimizing tongues in relation to other spiritual gifts.

"Tongues" is simply another translation for human languages. In the 17th century it was used interchangeably with language. But today the word "language" would be correct. And "unknown" was added gratuitously and merely added to the confusion. It is not present in the Greek text.

There is no record in Scripture about any special language spoken by angels. They spoke to men in either Hebrew or Greek. How they communicated in Heaven seems to reflect how they spoke on earth. See Revelation.

 

[presidente]

"Tongues of angels" was a hyperbolic way of saying that even if you supposedly spoke the most exalted heavenly language but love was absent, then tongues meant nothing.

There are other things listed in the passage, parallel arguments if you will, that are not impossible-- giving one's body to be burned and giving all to the poor that are not impossible. Paul lists extreme things. That is different from listing impossible things.

There is no record in Scripture about any special language spoken by angels. They spoke to men in either Hebrew or Greek. How they communicated in Heaven seems to reflect how they spoke on earth. See Revelation.

In every case we see angels speaking in scripture, they were either speaking to humans or speaking in situations where a humans needed to understand. Since Paul suggests the possibility of speaking in tongues of angels, we should accept that this may be possible.

The idea of angelic tongues also shows up in intertestamental literature, the Testament of Job.

 

[PaulChristensen]

"Tongues of angels" was a hyperbolic way of saying that even if you supposedly spoke the most exalted heavenly language but love was absent, then tongues meant nothing.

I go along with this bit.

Paul was trying to tell Christians at that time to "cool it" (in modern parlance). He was minimizing tongues in relation to other spiritual gifts.

No he wasn't. He was telling the Corinthians to put love at the head of their agenda before desiring or using any spiritual gift. The "tongues of angels" was not a reference to the spiritual gift of tongues at all. He was talking about exalted angelic speech from individuals high up in stature and importance, as angels are. He is saying it doesn't matter how high and mighty a person is in position and stature, and what great speeches and sermons he can give, if he doesn't have love, he is just a useless noise. In my opinion, people who pour scorn and hatred on other members of the Body of Christ because they worship God in different ways that they don't agree with, lack love, so they are just useless chin music.

"Tongues" is simply another translation for human languages. In the 17th century it was used interchangeably with language. But today the word "language" would be correct. And "unknown" was added gratuitously and merely added to the confusion. It is not present in the Greek text.

Nonsense. Contradicts 1 Corinthians 14:2). In fact it is an old, worn out chestnut that is being safely ignored by millions of Pentecostals and Charismatics.

There is no record in Scripture about any special language spoken by angels. They spoke to men in either Hebrew or Greek. How they communicated in Heaven seems to reflect how they spoke on earth. See Revelation.

This is also nonsense and has no relation to what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14.

 

[Kavik]

That's a moldy, old, worn out chestnut that Pentecostals and Charismatics have cheerfully ignored for years.

Yep, it is, sine the 1500's, but agree with it or not; that's where the "unknown" before tongues originated from. And, yes, it's painfully obvious that many denominations have ignored that fact for years. Indeed, it's been completely forgotten about.

 

[Absolutely]

That's a moldy, old, worn out chestnut that Pentecostals and Charismatics have cheerfully ignored for years. Old news old chappie! Nice try but no cigar there!

Yet ya'll were shown it is 100% implied.

Tough to admit you are on a rabbit trail.

Ask yourself what spirit you are of.

 

[Absolutely]

I know....I know

Some believed in Jesus
Then he went to his home town and failed.

We should look really hard at the pharisees who " correctly" labeled Jesus as a fraud when he Went to another city and put mark 16 to the test.

Do the hank hannagraff followers say Jesus put mark 16 to the test and failed?

Evangelists constantly put jn 3:16 to the test and fail. Oh well , now evangelism is bad too.

The baptist bible just gets smaller and smaller.

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^