Confused about Speaking in Tongues

Great, I appreciate your sincerity. As I see it, there are two possible outcomes with a few possible conclusions.

1) The person understands you and you converse and you can really speak in tongues, just like they did in the first century

Conclusion: People do speak in tongues today.

2) The person does not understand you.

Conclusion:

a) You were deceived and can't speak in tongues because they have ceased, being no longer needed (nobody speaks in tongues)

or

b) You were deceived into thinking that you can speak in another unlearned language although tongues still exists (others can really speak in tongues and you can't, you just thought you could)

or

c) Tongues still exist, and you really do have the gift, but the Holy Spirit gave you an unusable gift (you can speak in tongues, just not the right ones to spread the gospel).

Are you prepared for the various outcomes?

If outcome #1 occurs, then it will be the first time I've heard of it in modern times.

If outcome #2 occurs, then you have some searching to do and questions to ask yourself.

Would you agree?

 

mman

There is a fourth possibility

d) He talks to the person and the person does not understand because the gift functions as it does in I Corinthians 14. He still has a profitable gift.

It is clear from I Corinthians 14 that 'no one understands' the one who speaks in tongues without interpretation. Also, there is no hint of the message in tongues in this chapter being used for evangelism.

In fact, when the unbeliever hears the tongues he reacts by thinking the speakers are mad. As scripture predicts, he reacts with unbelief.

Going up to an unbeliever and speaking in tongues is not a wise thing to do unless the Lord leads you to do it. He can. Jack Heyford told of how he was once sitting an airplane sitting next to a Native American academic. He got into a conversation about the Lord with him, and the man refused his offer to mail him some apologetic type books on Christianity. Jack Heyford felt moved to speak in tongues. He just told the man he knew how to say some words that he thought might be the man's language. He said he started speaking in tongues and after a few syllables it changed from the tongue he normally spoke in to something else. The Indian recognized what he said. He said it was an older dialect of the language that his language came from. It was something about Light coming down from above.

Jack Heyford told the man that he was speaking in tongues. The man told Jack Heyford that he would be interested in being mailed those books. I heard this in a sermon. I think he may have written it in his book _The Beauty of Spiritual Language._

A leader in the Charismatic movement in the 70s and 80s, Don Basham related an account visitors speaking in tongues in New Zealand in a meeting and the Maori there being prayed for understood the message, in their own language.

Charles Greenoway, AOG missionary, used to tell a story about a missionary in India, I think, who preached the Gospel in tongues for three days waiting for a missionary to arrive.

So I wouldn't say the Acts 2 use of tongues can't happen. ut usually it seems to be the I Corinthians 14 type where no one present understands the language and an interpreter is necessary. The tongues are still profitable because speaking in tongues builds up the speaker in tongues and it also edifies the church if the message is interpreted.

 

DHK

I looked up some web sites on 'spiritual' in 12:1. Many would disagree with the idea that pneumatikon in this verse would refer to any spiritual manifestation because of the way Paul uses 'spiritual' as opposed to carnal. But others would seem to agree with the idea that the term could refer to either pagan or spiritual manifestations. It's not conclusive and I'm not saying that is the only way to interpret the passage.

But by rejecting that idea, you have basically painted yourself into a corner. If the word only refers to authentic spiritual gifts from God, then it cannot refer to someone cursing the Lord. You end up with no support from the context for your idea that there was cursing was being done in tongues. Of course, even if the word did mean that, it would not prove your contention.

 

1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

This verse is not just an introductory verse to these first few verses, but to the entire chapter, and in fact the entire next three chapters: 12-14, which talk about spiritual gifts. It is your argument that doesn't make sense. It is contrary to all logic.
Paul wants to teach about spiritual gifts, not carnal ones.
He wants to teach about the gift of tongues not gibberish.
He wants to teach about the gift of healing not sorcery.
He wants to teach about the gift of prophecy not witchcraft.
He wants to teach about the gift of knowledge not the occult.

So what corner have I painted myself into?? Paul says that he doesn't want the Corinthians to be ignorant of spiritual (things or gifts). He certainly is not speaking of pagan things. That is entirely against Scripture.

Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

Romans 16:19... yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

Your view contradicts Paul's teaching. He doesn't want us wise or knowledgeable concerning "evil" or what you would call "spiritual evil." That position is ludicrous. Paul makes it clear right at the beginning: he does not want them to be ignorant concening spiritual things or gifts, as the case may be.

He reminds them of their pagan past, and what they did in their pagan past, and the result of it.
Then in verse three he says:

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

This is a comparison of a person who is speaking "by the Holy Spirit" or under the influence of the Holy Spirit, as contrasted to one who is not but rather speaking under the influence of demonic spirit. I have already explained to you countless number of times how this phenomena happens commonly when speaking in tongues.
Because it hurts your theology you refuse to believe. Am I at fault for that?
DHK

 

The Bible says that the gift of tongues would cease. Tongue-speaking is the only gift of the Holy Spirit that Scripture says will "cease" (in Greek, pauomai). It is also enumerated as a lesser gift of the Spirit, relatively speaking. Many of the early Church fathers testify that the gift had already ceased in the early Church. In fact, Paul mentions tongue-speaking in his early letter to the Corinthians, but not in his later letters. This means the gift could have actually been fading away during the period of revelation.

Paul warns us that the gift of tongue-speaking may not be of God. Where you have a huge assembly speaking in tongues, we can be assured that it is not. It is simply emotionalism. The tongue-speaking in the Bible generally referred to speaking in other languages, which was necessary so that the infant Church could spread the gospel to all nations.

There were also some apparent incidents of ecstatic, unintelligible utterances as well, but note what Paul says. He says that there must be an interpreter for those utterances, so that it edifies the Church. The psycho-babbling that goes on in certain churches is not tongue-speaking. It is pure emotionalism, as far as Paul's teaching goes. Paul says that only 2 or 3 should speak in tongues, each in turn, with an interpreter, and for the edification of the Church. Paul also warned that tongue-speaking could actually be a sign of God's judgment for sin and unbelief. Just like God confused the speech of Babel when they rejected Him and wanted to make a name for themselves, God can bring about these confusing utterances as a sign of His displeasure and judgment for unbelief. This appears to have been what was happening at Corinth, at the time of Paul's letter.

 

Would cease, not have ceased. Notice the time period in mind. It is a time when Paul's life on earth when he wrote the epistle would seem like childhood in comparison. Notice the layout of the epistle and the fact that Paul would later go into detail on the resurrection of the dead. In the I chapter he expresses his desire that his readers fall behind in no gift waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Show me some quotes. I can only think of two names who were pretty late, Augustine and Chrysostom in the 300s. Augustine had some theological arguments for the lack of supernatural manifestations, but later saw many of them and argued in favor of them.

Many of these men acknowledged that the gifts of the Spirit were still active in their day. If you want an near-exhaustive list of quotes you could check out _The Spirit and the Church_ by Burgess. Interlibrary loan may be a good way to get it. You could also look up one of the quotes from Ireneaus in Eusebius' Ecclesiastic History for references to all the supernatural manifestations and gifts occurring among the brethren in his day.

That's eisegesis not exegesis. This is not evidence for tongues passing. Do you believe that prophecy and visions passed away? There is plenty of evidence for them in the book of Revelation. In fact, the book of Revelation shows us that the Two Witnesses will prophesy. So it's hard to make this gift pass away if it will still be used in the future (assuming you believe this prophecy is unfulfilled.)

He does not such thing. Show me book chapter and verse for your statement.

Paul says nothing about tongues speaking not being of God. He does not warn the Corinthians to be afraid that their tongues aren't genuine, in spite of the fact that they do not understand what they are saying without interpretation.

This statement has no support from scripture and would seem to go against what Paul is saying in the chapter.

Granted, Paul does not say that the Corinthians disorderly speaking in tongues was all at the same time. They could have been taking turns speaking in tongues without interpretation. But they could have been speaking in tongues at the same time as well. Whatever the case, they were speaking in tongues out of order, but the gift was real. Verses 27 and 28 show us that it is possibleto use the gift of tongues out of order. That is why speakers in tongues need to obey these verses in order to use their genuine gifts in an orderly manner in church.

And if there is some emotionalism involved, that does not mean that the gifts are not real. If a prophet gets emotional and does not yield the floor to another prophet, that does not mean that his prophecies are not real. Otherwise, why would Paul have had to have gotten the instructions? Some of the prophets may have thought they couldn't stop prophesying. Maybe this was because they allowed themselves to be overwhelmed with emotion, or maybe they were just making excuses.

Show me this in the passage. Show me that there were any 'ecstatic' utterances. The Bible does not say whether tongues utterances were estatic or not. I suppose they could have been.

As for utterances being unintelligible, if you do not know the language somoene else is speaking, their utterances will be unintelligible. Paul makes this point in I Corinthians 14.

The Bible does not tell us that tongues were for the purpose of spreading the Gospel to all nations. In Acts 2, those who were speaking in tongues spoke of the wonderful works of God. The passage does not say whether the tongues were evangelistic in nature. They got attention, though. And then Peter preached in a common language and many were saved.

When the saints in Acts 2 spoke in tongues, some people responded with scoffing. Paul warned about this when he quoted the verse that says 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me.' He explained that if an unlearned person or unbeliever came into church and heard all speak in tongues, would he not say that ye are mad? In Acts 2, some scoffers thought the apostles were drunk. Tongues can actually have a negative effect on unbelievers, unlike your belief that they were primarily for evangelism.

The Bible does not tell us which use of tongues was primary, the kind in Acts 2 where unbelievers (prebelievers?) heard and understood, or the I Corinthians 14 kind where the tongue was not understood without intepretation. Since I Corinthians 14 is instructions to the churches and Acts 2 is a special historical event, doesn't it make more sense to see I Corinthians 14 as typical of the use of tongues?

Paul says nothing about false tongues or emotionalism in his treatment of tongues.

Read the passage in context. Paul quotes a verse about the people not believing when they hear tongues and then gives an example of unbelievers thinking believers are mad when they hear them all speak in tongues. The passage quoted does not mention 'judgment' per se. It would seem Paul's point in quoting the passage is to show how unbelievers respond to tongues with unbelief, as the Bible predicts. That is the sign, a fulfilled prophecy.

It makes no sense to interpret the idea that the gift, the gracious gift (charismata), of tongues was given as a sign of God's displeasure. If you think that, you are reading your own attitude toward tongues into the passage.