Poll on the GIFT of TONGUES -- PLEASE VOTE!

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Phillip, Feb 10, 2005.

?

Poll on the GIFT of TONGUES -- PLEASE VOTE!

  1. I believe in the gift of tongues is still alive today and is represented by the "Pentecostal" method

    59.7%
  2. I believe the gift of tongues is strictly the ability to get a message across in a foreign language

    2.8%
  3. I believe that the Bible represents the "Pentecostal" method, but it ended after the first century.

    37.5%
  4. I believe tongues is foreign LANGUAGES only and it ended after the first century.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a poll on the gift of tongues as understood by those here. If your particular answer is not on the list, please post it and why.

    If any would like to post the reasons for their beliefs, please do so.
     
  2. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Tongues = Languages. The People heard what the disciples were saying in their own langauge.
     
  3. Rookiepastor

    Rookiepastor
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no question that Tongues in Acts 2 was languages.

    They heard them speak in their own tongue or language.

    My two cents...

    [​IMG]
     
  4. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Amen and Amen
     
  5. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Acts was definitely languages.

    The Corinthian letters were letters of correction. Basing a doctrine on tongues from such based on a perception of inferred meaning without substantial cross referencing is risky stuff... in fact, I think it is without foundation and dangerous.
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your votes.

    Scott, I believe that in Corinth's zeal to have the gifts of the Holy Spirit, they were trying to practice "tongues" or "other languages" amongst themselves, which would be self-edifying if they did if nobody in the church spoke that language.

    Paul mentioned that he was glad he spoke in "tongues" (other languages) because he was a missionary and traveled to different places where the languages were, indeed, different.

    I agree 100% that the letters of Paul were that of correction, and not only that, correcting the Corinthians of many problems, not just "tongues". I still do not believe that the "tongues" Paul referred to was the Pentecostal style of tongues. I believe the people were trying to speak in other languages, so Paul laid the law down and restricted it so much, having to have an interpreter and only one speaking at a time, that it took away the main reason they were using the "gift" (if indeed it was a gift, which it may have been if Paul still had it.)

    My point is, I do not believe the babbling of Pentecostalism started until LONG after this time and is closer to our time, than Paul's time. If you think of those people as simply speaking foreign languages that nobody in the church understood then it makes perfect sense why Paul said the things he said about self-edification. Besides, Paul also said that tongues was a sign for non-christians, not a sign to be used inside the church where everybody spoke Greek, or Roman, or whatever Corinth spoke at the time.

    What say you?
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think there is some latitude on whether Paul was addressing the abuse of language gifts or some type of ecstatic tongues... incoherent jabbering really.

    That kind of stuff appears in pagan cults if I am not mistaken and probably has for centuries. In fact, I seem to remember reading a commentary (MacArthur?) that indicated that this was known in Paul's time too. Wasn't that one of the quirks of the Montanists?
     
  8. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Took the words right out of my mouth!!!

    Thanks, Phillip!

    Bro. David
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    A Non-Baptist (ChurchBoy) asked me to post this here and it poses a good question:

    "Why would Paul give proper instruction and restrictions on the gift of tonuges if he thought the Church at Corinth was manifesting a false gift of tongues? Paul would give restrictions and proper instruction ONLY if he fully expected the true Gift of Tongues to manifest itself in the Church at Corinth."
     
  10. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a mp3 audio file of Kenneth "Dad" Hagin speaking in counterfeit tongues in front of an audience that is just unbelievable.

    On the other hand, I admire Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel, who I don't think practices this sort of thing in that way. IMHO, supernatural gifts are given by the Holy Spirit today, but are relatively rare and are given for a specific purpose, when needed. As such, they are not the possession of the believer to do with them whatever they will. And these gifts rarely have anything to do with tongues.
     
  11. APuritanMindset

    APuritanMindset
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that if the gift of tongues has completey ceased today than the 1 Corinthians passages dealing with them pose a problem (aka they aren't useful to us and that contradicts 1 Timothy which sats ALL Scripture is useful). That's why I voted as I did. I voted the second option.
     
  12. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you think the gift in Acts was a gift to the speaker (as Paul said that he was glad that he spoke in tongues--because he was obviously a traveling missionary.)?

    Or do you think it has to do with hearing in their own language?

    Or, maybe just a plain miracle for both parties?
     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it is very possible that the gift of speaking in other languages was still active. Obviously, prophecy was active, he recommended it over unknown tongues.

    Paul also said that "he" had the gift of tongues.
    He was thankful for it, but he was also a traveling missionary who met people who did not speak his language.

    He was simply telling the church or Corinth to pray that they would have another gift. A gift that was not self-edifying. Another language in your own church, does not good, if the crowd does not understand it. So, he at LEAST restricted it to be one at a time and use an interpreter.

    Another point that indicates the gifts may be real is that he indicated that it was for unbelievers. Now think about this: If unbelievers hear a foreign missionary speaking in their own language, knowing it is miraculous, obviously that gift will show the unbeliever something. But, what does that gift do for the person who is already a believer---nothing.

    I think he makes a very valid point, but it is not in conflict with tongues being simply a foreign language.

    If you think about this, it is also a good argument against the Pentecostal style of gibberish.

    At least that is my thoughts after reading the scriptures carefully.
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is very possible. I do not know for sure if they have ceased 100%.

    But, if they have not, a "gift of tongues" would be like a missionary preaching to a crowd of Africans in English and some understand it in their native dialect.

    I will not go as far as to say this is impossible. I have heard it has happened, but I have also heard that I came from a monkey.

    If it has not ceased, it has sure been reduced to very rare incidences that are rarely seen. Certainly not every Sunday Morning at the local Pentecostal Church.
     
  15. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scripture says tongues are for a sign to them which believe not.
    Scripture also says that the Jews are always seeking signs.

    Scripture makes it clear that the episode in Acts 2 was a sign to unbelieving Jews validating the Resurrection and the Truth of the Gospel. 3000 believed the message and the validating sign from God and were saved that day.

    As one follows the history of the book of Acts, one can readily see that tongues faded while the preaching of the Cross took pre-eminence.

    The situtation in Corinth was an enigma. It was a predominantly Gentile church but there were Jews living in that "international" city who most likely influenced the Gentiles. It is probable that these Jews witnessed the episode in Acts 2 since many foreign Jews were present, (remember?).
    It would only be human nature to want to seem "spiritual" by imitating the gift.

    Another influence would of course be the common pagan practice of excstatic utterances. Gentile converts would naturally be swayed by these influences.

    I think all these realities explain why it was that Paul would give clear regulations for excercising the "gift". As you read the Epistle you can discern Paul's concern that the "gift" be not corrupted nor abused, thereby causing "confusion" in the church.

    In light of what actually happened, tongues are NOT for today, even in the deepest darkest jungle for there are no Jews who are ignorant of the gospel.

    Though it MAY happen on a rare occurance, I would like to see documentation AND evidence of salvations are the direct result of such an occurance.

    BTW: I did not vote. I could not find any option I could agree with, since I came out of that mess of charismania. (To coin a term)

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  16. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree with you Jim. My pastor also came out of charisma. Although he was saved while there, he read his Bible and determined that it was bad doctrine.

    I am surprised there was not a selection for you to vote on. I thought I had pretty much covered all situations. Without voting; however, I believe you covered the subject well.

    I have heard of at least one case where an African claimed to have understood a missionary speaking in his native tongue. He is a pastor in a small church that was built in Africa. I won't say who the missionary was, but he believes that this just might be a true case because he was there. But, then again, who knows. I am skeptical of anything like this. It sounds like a picture of Mary crying tears of blood.
     
  17. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The use of "tongues" on the day of Pentecost brought the Gospel to many unbelievers - and through hearing in their own languages, many became believers. The self-edifying use of "tongues" today is not used at all in the biblical sense, but rather as a means of making one appear more holy than another.
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    Paul's usual method was to go to the synagogues of Asia Minor and preach there to the Jews and proselytes and then to the gentiles.

    The Jews required a sign which God in His sovereignty provided. Tongues was one of those sign gifts.

    While the Temple in Jerusalem stood and the Apostles walked the earth, signs continued.

    After the destruction of the Temple biblical Judaism ceased (Judaism today is talmudic) today the Gospel goes out to Jew and gentile alike with no signs apart from the completed revelation of the Word of God and in particular the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the sins of His people.

    HankD
     
  19. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tongues ceased with the Apostles deaths or maybe earlier. Tongues involved elements of known language in Acts 2, but not clearly so anywhere else. The people in Acts were drawn together as a result of the tongues speaking (not ears hearing) but the message was preached by Peter, probably in Aramaic. The audience was multi-lingual.

    People who can speak three languages are tri-lingual. People who can speak two languages are bi-lingual. People who can speak only one language are North-American!

    Paul laid down clear guidelines for the exercise of tongues in 1Cor 14. I have NEVER known of a Charismatic group to make it past even the first three...

    1Cor 14:27-28, “If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.”

    1) No more than two or three
    2) In order, succession, not simultaneous
    3) One must interpret or no tongues

    There are other guidelines, but I have never seen any charismatic group make it past these first three.

    I will not say that God cannot do it. I will say that generally the gift of tongues ceased with the completion of the NT. Not the canonization of the NT, but the completion of the NT (1Cor 13). All the sign gifts ceased at that time.

    My position is that tongues may have involved ecstatic utterances, or else why was there a need for a “gift of interpretation” instead of just someone who spoke the language? I believe they have ceased today. They were never used for evangelization in the NT. They were used for AUTHENTICATION of the apostolic authority.
     
  20. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a couple of reasons that I think they are simply languages. See what you think.

    Assume that I am in your church and I start speaking in Russian. If I don't interpret it (or have an interpreter), then it is self-edifying. This taken together will Paul stating that tongues are for those that don't believe, while prophecy for those who do.

    I don't think that a person would be impressed by someone using unknown utterances, but to use their language, they would be. I just don't see anything that could keep it from being the same as in acts. "Unknown tongues", if translated as "unknown languages" makes it a little clearer. Like I said, if I am in an English speaking church and speaking Russian it would certainly be unknown.

    This is, of course, just my opinion and besides those thoughts, I do not have any way to prove it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...