Jump to content

Photo

Speaking In Tongues


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 JimsHelpmeet

JimsHelpmeet

    Advanced Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPip
  • 239 posts
249
Excellent
  • LocationNorthwest Georgia

Posted 20 May 2013 - 12:27 AM

I have a question for those more knowledgeable about the Scriptures than I am. I know that most Baptists do not believe in the charismatic/Word of Faith type of speaking in tongues. Full disclosure, I've never spoken in tongues, nor have I ever prayed for them, but I'm wondering what the Scriptural support is for the typical Baptist position. I know it has to do with there not being any interpreters and it's basically mass chaos in the service, rather than orderly foreign utterances. I have asked my husband about this, but he wasn't really sure on the answer either.

 

Reason I'm asking is because I have a family member who is Word of Faith and she prays in tongues and says that Paul commanded it of us. I am pretty certain this isn't a biblical stance, but I need some Scripture to back that up. Any help is greatly appreciated!



#2 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,301 posts
1,814
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 20 May 2013 - 12:55 AM

Did she give any indication WHERE in scripture Paul commanded it?

 

I assume she would be pulling it from 1Corinthians 14, which is used by many Pentecostals to back up their false 'tongues'. In reality, this chapter speaks more against their version of tongues, than for it.

 

In 1Cor 12:29&30, Paul asks this question:  "[Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

 

  The implied answer is, of course, 'No". So that tells us that Paul never commandes a person to speak in tongues-rather, that not all ever would. Tongues had a purpose, which, once fulfilled, had no more use. It was a sign to Israel that God was in the movement.  1Cor 14: 20-22:

     

      "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With [men of] other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying [serveth] not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."

 

Tongues was a fulfillment of prophecy to Israel, found in Isaiah 28:11 & 12:  "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.  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." 

 

So, once the sign had been fulfilled, the first part of which occurs at Pentecost, the sign was done away with.  1Cor 13:8-11 says: "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. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 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."  That which is perfect is speaking of the completed word of God. Once it was done, prophecies and tongues and special gifts of knowledge ceased, no longer being necessary.

 

As for the prayer tongues, that is a misunderstanding of 1Cor 14:28  "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."  This is obviously not a command to pray in tongues, or that there is some special prayer language, just that one is not to speak in tongues if there is no interpreter. and ths kind of tongues, by the way, os speaking of a langage that person knows. How do I know that? Because they are required to have an interpreter there. If this was a spntaneous gift from God, how would they be required to know if there was someone to interpret? Wouldn't God see to that? No, this is speaking of someone who speaks a different language, which, in the speaking, would not edify the church. better to just speak to God, as He knows all languages.

 

Here's a good video to watch to see the obious falsehood of a 'prayer language' or praying in tongues, in the Spirit:

 


Edited by Ukulelemike, 20 May 2013 - 01:01 AM.


#3 swathdiver

swathdiver

    Surrendered

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,980 posts
1,231
Excellent
  • LocationTreasure Coast

Posted 20 May 2013 - 04:33 AM

"Tongues" always refers to speaking an actual foreign language.  These charismatics are just mumbling nonsense.  It's of the devil and not of God.

 

Anytime one wants to see satan at work, watch these charismatics wiggle around on the floor and gibber jabber away (on youtube)!



#4 Covenanter

Covenanter

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,789 posts
431
Excellent
  • LocationSouthall, West London, England

Posted 20 May 2013 - 04:48 AM



"Tongues" always refers to speaking an actual foreign language.  These charismatics are just mumbling nonsense.  It's of the devil and not of God.

 

Anytime one wants to see satan at work, watch these charismatics wiggle around on the floor and gibber jabber away (on youtube)!

Yes. When the Apostles spoke in tongues at Pentecost, people either heard the wonderful works of God or what sounded like drunken babbling. If today's tongues were the same gift of the Holy Spirit, believers would understand. We hear meaningless babbling, often accompanied by unseemly behaviour. 

 

Whether it is the work of evil spirits or true believers deluded, or both, is an important question to discuss.



#5 irishman

irishman

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,895 posts
703
Excellent

Posted 20 May 2013 - 05:35 AM

there wee only three instances of men speaking in tongues in the Book of Acts, and there was a valid reason for all three.

 

One is in Acts 2 where there were about 15 different nations (Vs. 5-11) represented, and many different dialects.  The Gospel message was new to them, as opposed to the law, and God performed a miracle to both fulfill scripture, and allow them to hear the Gospel in their own language.  As Acts records, two thousand were saved that day, (Vs. 41, 42)

 

the second instance was in Acts ten at the home of Cornelius (Vs 1-5): The Jews, at that time, had no dealings with Gentiles, and Cornelius was a Gentile.  Peter had to be encouraged by God to go to the home of Cornelius and win him to the Lord.  God gave Cornelius a vision (v. 9) while on the housetop praying; he was showing Peter that He accepted the prayer of Cornelius, and made it clear that Peter was to go to him. (v.15)  At the home of Cornelius as Peter presented the Gospel, God showed the people that He was "no respecter of persons" and they saw Cornelius receive the Holy Ghost, just as they had.  This was evidenced to them by the same sign-gift, which was tongues.

 

The third time anyone received the Holy Ghost, and spoke in tongues at the same time, was in Acts 19, and it concerned the disciples of John the baptist (Vs 1-11)

 

these were the only times tongues were mentioned (concerning speaking in tongues) in the entire Book of Acts.  Some had received the Holy Spirit, but no mention was made of tongues--they had served their purpose. 

 

Hope this, along with the previous posts, is helpful.



#6 Dr James Ach

Dr James Ach

    Resident Wolf Hunter

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,099 posts
  • LocationTel Aviv, Israel

Posted 20 May 2013 - 07:10 AM

The origin of tongues, when it occurred, how many times, its prophetical fulfillment and purpose are rather easy to find and understand. Its the added interpretation that charismatics add from a misreading of 1 Corinthians 14 and Romans 8:26 that cause the confusion for them. They take verses completely out of context and add words  the Bible doesn't say (like claiming Paul is endorsing tongues instead of discouraging it, or calling it a prayer language when he is speaking hypothetically, or adding that the Holy Spirit prays through us instead of interceding for us in Romans 8:26 and adding tongues to the verse).

 

They claim that God alters the language so only He can understand a special coded message which makes God incompetent to understand the meaning of your natural language. On the other hand, they use circular reasoning to argue that God can understand any language, and yet interpreters are required when it is done in the church which proves that tongues were meant for human ears. Since God does understand any language, he certainly doesn't need yours to be altered.

 

The intercession of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:26 has nothing to do with tongues, and even says His intercession is made with groanings that  "can not be uttered". The charismatic will then bootstrap that verse to Acts 2 and claim "see it's the Holy Spirit that gives the utterance" blending 2 entirely different contexts.

 

They will take 1 Cor 14:14 where Paul says, "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth" and stop there. Paul was emphasizing that praying with understanding is what is important, and then in verse 15 says that he will then pray with understanding which refutes the claim that v 14 is about praying in tongues.

 

In 1 Cor 14:2 where Paul says "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God" and again, rip the context apart. Paul is speaking idiomatically and hypothetically  in that "If it is even possible for anyone to understand what you are saying, it would have to be God because you is speakin' some nonsense my brother" 

 

The entire emphasis in  1 Cor 14 is being able to understand what is being said. It was never encouraged for a church to have several people praying all at the same time in church (Matthew 6:6).

 

When Paul said he speaks in tongues more than anyone else, and to forbid not to speak with tongues, Paul was a versed Pharisee prior to his conversion and knew several different languages (which is demonstrated all through Acts) and if he encountered an area he didn't know the language, that's when God would alter his language so the gospel could be understood in the listeners native tongue. Since it was for the unbeliever to hear (1 Cor 14:22) Paul does not want the church to prohibit its usage merely because they are freaked out by the abuse of it by others.

 

In Mark 16 the charismatics rely on v 17 "these signs shall follow them that believe....they shall speak with new tongues". The signs following "them" that believed was a temporary confirmation of the ministry of the apostles. The rest of the context shows that if snakes bite them they are not harmed, and that they SHALL lay hands on the sick and they SHALL recover, yet as the NT canon comes to a close, Paul leaves Trophimus at Miletum sick (1 Timothy 4:20). And today, when you bitten by a snake, you die.

 

The charismatic will emphasis you need to have more faith, but it's never been about the amount of faith you have so much as the object your faith is in. Charismatics lump tongues in with healing, but still wear glasses, don't raise the dead, and AIDS and cancer is still uncured. They actually teach courses on how to speak in and "cultivate" tongues, yet Acts 2 says tongues were spoken "AS the Spirit gave them utterance".

 

The last thing Jesus told His disciples was to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, and be His witnesses to the ends of the earth (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8). Problem with that command is that it takes time to learn languages, so how would they preach to those they didn't know the language? Tongues, genius move on God's part. This is why the first mention of it, as was noted above in someone elses comment, that tongues were heard in foreign languages and understand by the natives of those languages.

 

I'll stop here before I end up re-writing my book on this LOL. Pet peeve of mine when anything is added to the gospel for salvation (the UPC) or for a believer to have fellowship with God.



#7 kindofblue1977

kindofblue1977

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
117
Excellent
  • LocationU.S.

Posted 20 May 2013 - 09:13 AM

Tongues is a gift, according to Scripture.  There is no support in Scripture to say that this one gift no longer exists.  There are two types of tongues described in Scripture.  On the day of Pentecost, people heard in their own language.  In other letters of Paul, it is more of a prayer language.  The Bible is clear that if tongues is used in an assembly, there must be an interpreter.  If there is no interpreter, it is not of the Spirit.  However, those who say it is required or a sign of spiritual strength are misguided.  The Bible is clear that God gives gifts as he sees fit.  Some have the gift of tongues, some do not.  

 

I have known people who have the gift, and use it in their personal prayer.  I have never been in church when tongues were used in Church. I asked my pastor what he would do if this occurred, and he said that he would simply ask if there was someone who could interpret, and if not, he would ask them to stop.  If there was someone who could interpret, then he would ask them to interpret.

 

Disclaimer:  I was Baptist for the first 33 years of my life.  Over the past 3 years, I have become Anglican, so my position is not Baptist, though it is not really an official Anglican position either.


Edited by kindofblue1977, 20 May 2013 - 09:14 AM.


#8 wretched

wretched

    Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 451 posts
220
Excellent
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 20 May 2013 - 09:52 AM

Tongues is a gift, according to Scripture.  There is no support in Scripture to say that this one gift no longer exists.  There are two types of tongues described in Scripture.  On the day of Pentecost, people heard in their own language.  In other letters of Paul, it is more of a prayer language.  The Bible is clear that if tongues is used in an assembly, there must be an interpreter.  If there is no interpreter, it is not of the Spirit.  However, those who say it is required or a sign of spiritual strength are misguided.  The Bible is clear that God gives gifts as he sees fit.  Some have the gift of tongues, some do not.  

 

I have known people who have the gift, and use it in their personal prayer.  I have never been in church when tongues were used in Church. I asked my pastor what he would do if this occurred, and he said that he would simply ask if there was someone who could interpret, and if not, he would ask them to stop.  If there was someone who could interpret, then he would ask them to interpret.

 

Disclaimer:  I was Baptist for the first 33 years of my life.  Over the past 3 years, I have become Anglican, so my position is not Baptist, though it is not really an official Anglican position either.

 

The Pentecost one has already been addressed so no questions there.

 

I do have questions on the prayer language you mention, can you quote the Scripture that speaks of this?



#9 TheSword

TheSword

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 840 posts
664
Excellent

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:07 AM

Irishman and DrJames both gave a really nice explanation, particularly with regard to the authenticating purpose of tongues as a sign gift.  In the interest of additional perspective and furthering the discussion, here is an exerpt from a paper I just wrote on this subject:

 

In order to accurately determine whether or not the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues is a Biblically supported phenomenon today, it is first critically important to define what exactly the Biblical event was.  Charismatics believe that their practice of speaking in tongues is accurately representative of first-century practice as outlined in the book of Acts and governed in 1 Corinthians 12-14.  However, people who deny the continuance of tongues firmly state that what Pentecostals engage in is nothing like that which is described in Acts, nor is it practiced in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12-14.  It is therefore necessary to determine what exactly it means to speak in tongues (according to Scripture) and what limits were placed on doing so.

 

Tongues as Manifested in Acts

The first place that speaking in tongues is mentioned in the Bible is the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.[1]  This account, therefore, must serve as the baseline for examining all subsequent occurrences that claim to be the same phenomenon.  Acts 2:4 indicates that the Apostles began to speak in “other tongues.”  The Greek word used here for tongue is glōssa (γλῶσσα), from which the modern designation of glossolalia is derived.[2]  This word is usually meant as a literal tongue[3] but can also be taken to mean a naturally unacquired language.[4]  Similarly, the Greek word translated “language” in Acts 2:6 and “tongue” in Acts 2:8 is dialĕktŏs (διάλεκτος)[5] which refers to a language or dialect of some country or district.[6]  The two terms appear to be used as equivalent to one another, perhaps to draw a distinction in terms since glōssa was used in verse 3 to describe a physical tongue and whereas subsequent verses refer to a language.[7]  Indeed, verses 9-11 list fifteen specific geographic locations in which the Apostles spoke and clearly states that the people from those places heard the Apostles in a language they could understand.  Therefore, it must be accepted that the Apostles were speaking in and being heard in languages that were known by someone present, though previously unknown to the Apostles who were untraveled Galileans. 

The most interesting part of this phenomenon is that there were, at most, eleven people speaking in tongues[8], yet there were fifteen different languages heard by others.  The profound truth is that at least one Apostle was simultaneously heard in more than one language, indicating that the phenomenon of speaking in tongues centers more on what language is heard rather than on what is spoken.  If this is assessment accurate, all of the Apostles may have been speaking in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek but were being heard by people in their own native languages.  This point, though not totally without some Biblical support, is somewhat conjectural in that the text does not state many of the details about sequence who spoke what to whom.  Regardless of whether or not the language spoken is the same as the language heard, what must be accepted is that all of the languages were known to someone present.  Unless instructed otherwise in Scripture, it must be assumed that whenever “speaking in tongues” is mentioned elsewhere, such as Acts 10 and 19 or 1 Corinthians 12-14, it refers to an identical experience[9]: believers praising God in the Spirit in languages that are known. 


 



#10 kindofblue1977

kindofblue1977

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
117
Excellent
  • LocationU.S.

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:10 AM

The Pentecost one has already been addressed so no questions there.

 

I do have questions on the prayer language you mention, can you quote the Scripture that speaks of this?

 

I Cor. 14:

 

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.

 

 

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

 

Here, Paul i addressing prayer in tongues.  He recognizes that if one prays in an unknown tongue, which was happening, one cannot understand it. If you pray in tongues in church, there should be in interpreter.  If there is no interpreter, then it is for private use and not for use in the church until one can interpret.  

 

In verse 2, he is referring to one praying to God in tongues, in a language that no man can understand.  

 

Romans 8 seems to indicate prayer in tongues:

 

 

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

 

It seems to me, that reading I Corinthians 14 and the account in Acts, there are two different things.  First, there is the tongues in Acts, where people heard in their own language.  Second, it is prayer and praise to God by God's spirit working through an individual in an unknown language.  IF there is no interpreter for this prayer, then the person should remain silent.  If there is an interpreter, then it may be interpreted so that all may join in the prayer and praise.  

 

Anyway, I do not speak in tongues.  I have never been in a church where people do so publicly, but I know a number of people who do so privately in their prayer life (the only reason I know this is because I have discussed what the gift of tongues means today with them, and they shared with me).

 

 

Edit:  I really think churches have gone too far in rejecting tongues as a gift, or making it too much a part of their worship and placing too much emphasis on this gift.  Charismatics go too far one way in elevating this gift above all others (which is what Paul is warning about in Corinthians...do not elevate gifts).  Other denominations have gone too farm in rejecting the gift.  I've never seen so much emphasis placed on the gifts of hospitality, in accepting or rejecting it.  God gives gifts as he sees fit.  When they are exercised and used in a way to build up the church, that is a wonderful thing.  When they are used to bring attention to an individual, that is a misuse.  


Edited by kindofblue1977, 20 May 2013 - 10:15 AM.


#11 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:23 AM

Did she give any indication WHERE in scripture Paul commanded it?

 

I assume she would be pulling it from 1Corinthians 14, which is used by many Pentecostals to back up their false 'tongues'. In reality, this chapter speaks more against their version of tongues, than for it.

 

In 1Cor 12:29&30, Paul asks this question:  "[Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

 

  The implied answer is, of course, 'No". So that tells us that Paul never commandes a person to speak in tongues-rather, that not all ever would. Tongues had a purpose, which, once fulfilled, had no more use. It was a sign to Israel that God was in the movement.  1Cor 14: 20-22:

     

      "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With [men of] other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying [serveth] not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."

 

Tongues was a fulfillment of prophecy to Israel, found in Isaiah 28:11 & 12:  "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.  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." 

 

So, once the sign had been fulfilled, the first part of which occurs at Pentecost, the sign was done away with.  1Cor 13:8-11 says: "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. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 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."  That which is perfect is speaking of the completed word of God. Once it was done, prophecies and tongues and special gifts of knowledge ceased, no longer being necessary.

 

As for the prayer tongues, that is a misunderstanding of 1Cor 14:28  "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."  This is obviously not a command to pray in tongues, or that there is some special prayer language, just that one is not to speak in tongues if there is no interpreter. and ths kind of tongues, by the way, os speaking of a langage that person knows. How do I know that? Because they are required to have an interpreter there. If this was a spntaneous gift from God, how would they be required to know if there was someone to interpret? Wouldn't God see to that? No, this is speaking of someone who speaks a different language, which, in the speaking, would not edify the church. better to just speak to God, as He knows all languages.

 

Here's a good video to watch to see the obious falsehood of a 'prayer language' or praying in tongues, in the Spirit:

 

It almost sounds like she's cussing in this video! For those with any experience in the world would know what I'm referring to.



#12 TheSword

TheSword

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 840 posts
664
Excellent

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:24 AM

Tongues is a gift, according to Scripture.  There is no support in Scripture to say that this one gift no longer exists.  There are two types of tongues described in Scripture.  On the day of Pentecost, people heard in their own language.  In other letters of Paul, it is more of a prayer language.  The Bible is clear that if tongues is used in an assembly, there must be an interpreter.  If there is no interpreter, it is not of the Spirit.  However, those who say it is required or a sign of spiritual strength are misguided.  The Bible is clear that God gives gifts as he sees fit.  Some have the gift of tongues, some do not.  

 

 

Another exerpt in response:

 

CONTINUATION VS CESSATION

            Having established that the Pentecostal employment of speaking in tongues does not reflect the Biblical description of said spiritual gift it is time to briefly give voice to the two sides of the debate on its continuation versus cessation.  The strongest case for the argument for continuation would obviously be to point to evidence that speaking in tongues is being practiced today.  However, as outlined in the rest of this study it cannot point to contemporary examples to show continuance because the above evidence has shown it to be contradictory to the Biblical record that must also be used as supportive evidence. Without a contemporary example, the debate ultimately boils down to the interpretation of one critical passage:  1 Corinthians 13:8-10 which says that while love will endure forever, the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will vanish.  Truly, the entire debate of continuation versus cessation rests on the interpretation of what “when that which is perfect is come” in verse 10 means.  Cessationists assert that the “perfect” refers to the completion of the Bible (more specifically the New Testament) and see this fulfillment in Revelation 22:19.  A strong proponent of this position is B. B. Warfield who argued strongly the case of cessation from the evidential perspective of the post-Apostolic fathers failure to observe such miraculous/sign gifts even in their day.[1]  Conversely, those who support continuation believe that “perfect” refers to either the second coming of Christ or the spiritual maturity of the church.[2]

             A quick look at the underlying Greek in context reveals the probable answer.  The word translated “perfect” is tĕlĕiŏs (τέλειος ).  Strong defines this root word to mean “complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.)” when used in an adjective manner and as “of full age” or “man” when used as a noun.[3]  In the case of 1 Corinthians 13:10 – “But when that which is perfect is come…” – tĕlĕiŏs is clearly functioning as an adjective.  It is describing a quality of the subject.  Further, tĕlĕiŏs is, in this instance, in the singular and neuter, indicating that it describes an object or condition rather than a person.  This would rule out the proposition that “perfect” refers to Jesus Christ in His second coming.[4]  As a comparison, tĕlĕiŏs is translated as “men”[5] and “of full age”[6] when it is intended to convey maturity or age.  Therefore, the assertion that “perfect” means the full maturation[7] of the church[8] or spirituality is also unsupported by the text.  The most likely answer, then, is that “perfect”, in this case, should be taken to mean complete; and the most likely answer to the question of “when what was complete?” is the Word of God (i.e., the Scriptures).[9]  Therefore, when that which is complete is come, that which is in part (knowledge and prophecy) will cease. 

            It is also interesting to note that verse 9 and 10 specifically talk about the gifts of knowledge and prophecy, but do not explicitly mention tongues.  Backtracking to verse 8, the Bible says that knowledge and prophecy will fail (or rather be abolished or rendered useless, katargĕō)[10].  This is an action done to the gifts by "that which is perfect".  In essence, the completion of the Word of God has rendered the gifts of knowledge and prophecy useless.  However, the word used to describe the cessation of tongues, pauō, simply means to stop; an action taken up by the subject (tongues) as indicated by it being in the middle voice.[11]  Tongues, will, therefore stop by themselves.  On the surface, this evidence could be taken to support either continuation or cessation since it does not appear to be dependent upon “that which is perfect” coming.  However, tongues were given as a sign to authenticate the new messages being handed out through prophecy and knowledge to those who do not believe.[12]  Since tongues were a miraculous gift intended to accompany knowledge and prophecy, they would therefore have stopped, in and of themselves, when the gifts of prophecy and knowledge were no longer needed.


 


#13 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:35 AM

It's clear as the noon day sun that the tongues of scripture are other languages. The "tongues of angels" most likely was a reference to the Hebrew language.

 

The Jews desired a sign so this is one reason tongues was given. In fact, it was the first sign given the the Jews after Pentecost. Seeing that the nation of Israel is on the shelf right now sign gifts are no longer required. Every time it was manifested in Acts there were Jews present. It seems the gift ceased when the apostles ceased or possibly at the end of the book of Acts. There is no indication that the early Christians after the death of John spoke at all in tongues. There is barely even mention of it.

 

The gibberish you hear in the video posted is the same thing they use in the occult. Also, apparently, vestal virgins and oracles of pagan Greece would also speak in the gibberish you hear today.

 

It's possible tongues will come back on the scene  during the tribulation when God begins dealing with Israel again since they have but a very short time to get the gospel of the kingdom throughout the world. But again, these tongues will be the ability to instantly speak and understand other languages.


Edited by ASongOfDegrees, 20 May 2013 - 10:37 AM.


#14 kindofblue1977

kindofblue1977

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
117
Excellent
  • LocationU.S.

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:42 AM

It's clear as the noon day sun that the tongues of scripture are other languages. The "tongues of angels" most likely was a reference to the Hebrew language.

 

The Jews desired a sign so this is one reason tongues was given. In fact, it was the first sign given the the Jews after Pentecost. Seeing that the nation of Israel is on the shelf right now sign gifts are no longer required. Every time it was manifested in Acts there were Jews present. It seems the gift ceased when the apostles ceased or possibly at the end of the book of Acts. There is no indication that the early Christians after the death of John spoke at all in tongues. There is barely even mention of it.

 

The gibberish you hear in the video posted is the same thing they use in the occult. Also, apparently, vestal virgins and oracles of pagan Greece would also speak in the gibberish you hear today.

 

It's possible tongues will come on the scene again during the tribulation when God begins dealing with Israel again since they have but a very short time to get the gospel of the kingdom throughout the world. But again, these tongues will be the ability to instantly speak and understand other languages.

 

 

That does not adequately explain I Cor. 14.  I Cor. 14 clearly refers to tongues that are unknown to men:

 

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.

 

 

No man understands him.  Jews would have understood if the tongues were in Hebrew.  

 

Further: 

 

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

 

The tongue referred to is unknown.  If someone stood up in church and spoke Spanish, that is a known language, that I cannot understand.  But it is known.  Paul, who knew Hebrew, would have specifically referred to Hebrew if that is what he had in mind.  Now in Acts, you are correct that these were known languages, as each person heard in their own language. In Corinthians, something else is referred to.  In Acts, no interpreter was needed, as each person heard in his or her own language.  In Corinthians, no person knew the language.  They not only did not understand, they did not know it.  If it was Hebrew, they would have recognized it as Hebrew.  



#15 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,150 posts
1,825
Excellent

Posted 20 May 2013 - 11:01 AM

Here's a good article on "private prayer language."

http://www.wayoflife...er_lanuage.html



#16 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,519 posts
1,040
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 20 May 2013 - 11:05 AM

That does not adequately explain I Cor. 14.  I Cor. 14 clearly refers to tongues that are unknown to men:

 

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.

 

 

No man understands him.  Jews would have understood if the tongues were in Hebrew.  

 

Further: 

 

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

 

The tongue referred to is unknown.  If someone stood up in church and spoke Spanish, that is a known language, that I cannot understand.  But it is known.  Paul, who knew Hebrew, would have specifically referred to Hebrew if that is what he had in mind.  Now in Acts, you are correct that these were known languages, as each person heard in their own language. In Corinthians, something else is referred to.  In Acts, no interpreter was needed, as each person heard in his or her own language.  In Corinthians, no person knew the language.  They not only did not understand, they did not know it.  If it was Hebrew, they would have recognized it as H

Paul was clear in 1 Corinthians 14 when he said, "Wherefore tongues are for a sign; not for them that believe, but for them that believe not."  Paul was affirming that tongues were a fulfillment of the prophecy given in Isaiah 28:11, where God said other tongues would be spoken to unbelieving Jews.

There must have been unbelieving Jews in the congregation at Corinth, else Paul would have corrected the body there with the rebuke of speaking tongues where tongues were not permitted.  Instead, the rebuke was for when the tongues were being given and how they were being given.

I believe tongues have ceased.  We have that which is perfect in our possessions... the completed, pure, and inerrant Word of God.  There is no need for the tongues to be given today.... especially in these Charismatic movements of today.  No doubt, if the Apostle Paul were walking the Earth today, he would have an open rebuke for these people who are speaking gibberish and calling it the Biblical or "unknown" tongues.  Tongues were for unbelieving Jews, not for organizations that have no unbelieving Jews in their presence.



#17 TheSword

TheSword

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 840 posts
664
Excellent

Posted 20 May 2013 - 11:13 AM

That does not adequately explain I Cor. 14.  I Cor. 14 clearly refers to tongues that are unknown to men:

 

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.

 

 

No man understands him.  Jews would have understood if the tongues were in Hebrew.  

 

 

That is not necessarily a true statement.  We have the Septuagint because the Hellenization led the Greek language to become much more predominant than Hebrew.  Diasporic Jews needed the Scriptures in a language they understood.  This would be particularly true in a place such as Corinth to which the referenced epistle was written.

 

 

 

Further: 

 

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

 

The tongue referred to is unknown.  If someone stood up in church and spoke Spanish, that is a known language, that I cannot understand.  But it is known.  Paul, who knew Hebrew, would have specifically referred to Hebrew if that is what he had in mind.  Now in Acts, you are correct that these were known languages, as each person heard in their own language. In Corinthians, something else is referred to.  In Acts, no interpreter was needed, as each person heard in his or her own language.  In Corinthians, no person knew the language.  They not only did not understand, they did not know it.  If it was Hebrew, they would have recognized it as Hebrew.  

 

This is based on your assumption that the language is a non-human language, which is Scripturally unsupportable.  A proper understanding of 1 Corinthians must include that it was a rebuke of improper conduct and and improper use of spiritual gifts.  Corinth was a major east-west trade hub where a great diversity of people came with a great diversity of languages.  Paul's point is that if someone gets up and talks in a language that no one present understands then he/she is not really speaking to the people present and is being more disruptive to congregational worship rather than edifying other people and building up the body of Christ.



#18 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 20 May 2013 - 11:51 AM

That does not adequately explain I Cor. 14.  I Cor. 14 clearly refers to tongues that are unknown to men:

 

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.

 

 

No man understands him.  Jews would have understood if the tongues were in Hebrew.  

 

Further: 

 

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

 

The tongue referred to is unknown.  If someone stood up in church and spoke Spanish, that is a known language, that I cannot understand.  But it is known.  Paul, who knew Hebrew, would have specifically referred to Hebrew if that is what he had in mind.  Now in Acts, you are correct that these were known languages, as each person heard in their own language. In Corinthians, something else is referred to.  In Acts, no interpreter was needed, as each person heard in his or her own language.  In Corinthians, no person knew the language.  They not only did not understand, they did not know it.  If it was Hebrew, they would have recognized it as Hebrew.  

Tongues could have been in any language. I only said that the "tongues of angels" may have been a reference to the Hebrew language in that specific case that Paul speaks of. Plus, the Corinthians most likely wouldn't have known Hebrew and add upon that an interpreter was needed so it would still have been an unknown language to them. 

 

Also, the word "unknown" is in reference to the speaker who doesn't know the language he's speaking and where an interpreter was required. In Acts 2 the disciples spoke in languages unknown to them which where known to the hearers therefore no interpreter was needed.

 

If I start praying or prophesying in Spanish and there is nobody around who understands the language than I'm only praying/prophesying to God and not to the edification of anyone who may be listening.

 

You need to learn to compare scripture with scripture and not read into I Corinthians 14 a preconceived belief you already have. 



#19 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,519 posts
1,040
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 20 May 2013 - 11:54 AM

Also, Paul's statement that the speaker of the tongue was to "pray that he may interpret,' not "pray that he may understand."

The speaker of the tongue always knew the language that he was speaking, else he could not be edified by the message given in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.



#20 Miss Daisy

Miss Daisy

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
422
Excellent
  • LocationUSA

Posted 20 May 2013 - 12:02 PM

The churches I've attended where speaking in tongues during worship I've always noticed that no men ever spoke in tongues out loud or "interpreted".  Women are more led by emotions and emotional feelings leaving them more susceptible to emotional "experiences". Just my observation.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500