The Bible Tongues is not what being done today

The Gifts of the Spirit (now ceased)
1 Corinthians 12:8-10 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

The Fruit of the Spirit
Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

 

Yes they are. The fruit of the Spirit is a group of characteristics that should be observed in the life of every true believer (see Galatians 5). Every believer also has a Spiritual Gift, but these are tailored to the individual, so that it requires a bunch of people to get all the Gifts properly represented.

As for the issue of what the 'Perfect' is, the context actually precludes DHK's interpretation, rather than demanding it.
There are unsolvable problems with the idea that the 'perfect' in I Cor 13:10 refers to the completed Bible. These become very apparent when we look at the entire passage rather than isolating verses 9-10:

Now, I hope no one will dispute that in verses 11-12, Paul is illustrating what he was talking about in verses 9-10. First, he compares the imperfect and the perfect to childhood versus adulthood. He is saying that when the 'perfect' comes it will result in a far more mature level of understanding than what was then available. In verse 12 he adds 2 more illustrations of the result of the coming of the 'perfect.' First, he compares the understanding that was then available to seeing in a mirror dimly, and says that when the 'perfect' comes we will understand as clearly as if we were seeing someone face to face. Finally, he shifts to first person singular for his final illustration: that at that time he only knew in part, but when the 'perfect' came he would understand fully, even as he himself was fully understood.
At that time there was no completed Bible, but there were many revelatory prophecies given to members of each local Church, including Corinth. There was a lot of information available, but there were still many disputes about many things, because they were looking in a mirror dimly, understanding only in part, stuck in childish ways. Years later, the Bible was completed. All of the information God wanted humanity to have was perfectly revealed. Yet even today we still have many disputes about many things. Why? Because even though the Bible is perfect, OUR UNDERSTANDING OF IT STILL IS NOT! We still see in the mirror dimly, we still understand only in part, we are still stuck in our childish ways. Thus all the disputes among sincere believers, on this board and wherever believers discuss the things of God.
Paul's whole point is that when the perfect came, every believer would see God's truth clearly, and understand the humanly knowable portion of God's truth as fully as we ourselves are understood by God. Clearly, this has NOT happened yet! The completed Bible is perfect in itself, but the 'perfect' Paul was referring to included not only perfect access to God's truth, but perfect UNDERSTANDING of that truth by ALL believers. He was saying that the ENTIRE SITUATION would be perfect: ALL believers knowing ALL of the humanly knowable portion of God's truth, and perfectly understanding ALL of it. No sane person could seriously look even at this one little message board and suggest that the kind of situation Paul was describing in verses 11-12 has been brought to pass by access of believers to God's perfect Word.
So the context of I Cor 13:9-12 actually completely precludes the idea that the 'perfect' means the completion of the Bible.
If all that is not enough for you, remember that in Paul's final illustration he spoke in the FIRST PERSON. He said that at that time he knew in part, but 'then' (when the 'perfect' comes) he would know fully. Now then, where was Paul when the Bible was completed? With the Lord! He was killed many years before the Canon of Scripture was finalized. That event did not effect Paul in the least. He was clearly referring to something with much broader implications.
What is the 'perfect?' If we take Paul's illustrations at face value (as well we should), there is only one point in time when ALL believers will know ALL of the humanly knowable portion of God's truth, and understand ALL of it: following the final resurrection and judgment of all people, when the New Heaven and New Earth replace the old, and all the residents of it are Glorified believers. In context, that is the only logical conclusion, the only situation that satisfies the criteria Paul laid out in verses 11-12. Limiting the 'perfect' solely to the completion of Scripture, on the other hand, fails that test miserably. It makes no sense whatsoever.
I have carefully used the term 'humanly knowable portion of God's truth' in this post, because in the past when I have made this point, DHK has accused me of saying that we will someday know everything God knows. We will not. Even as Glorified Saints our levels of knowledge and understanding will still be vastly below God's perfect and complete knowledge and understanding of all things. We will simply know and understand perfectly everything God has revealed to us in the Bible, and that means no more arguments like this one. We will all agree on everything when it comes to God's truth. Until then, disagreements = NO 'PERFECT' YET. That should be obvious to anyone with an open mind on the subject.
Since the 'perfect' has not yet come, Spiritual Gifts are still active. The SIGN Gifts are not, having 'ceased' long ago exactly as Paul described in verse 8, where he used a completely different word in a completely different voice to refer to the ending of tongues than what he used to describe the ending of knowledge and prophecy; which is why he does not mention tongues in verse 10 as being a gift to be ended by the 'perfect.'
When you put all the elements together this way, they form a picture that makes sense in all respects, as one would expect from God. All other interpretations of this passage have demonstrable and unresolvable flaws.

 

DHK
--Show me one Charismatic Church where you can verify, by empirical evidence, (perhaps professional linguists) that the tongues being spoken in that church are real genuine languages unknown to the speaker but known to some other person.--

Can you show me anyone doing this kind of research? If you don’t, your question isn’t a fair one. It is rare indeed. Do you have any empirical research from linguists showing that the tongues of Acts 2 were genuine? Couldn’t those tongues be genuine without a modern linguist going back to check them out.

My degree is in linguistics by the way. I have studied several languages (I speak only two fluently at this point) and have studied morphology, historical linguistics, and I picked up a good deal of knowledge of phonetics and phonology. I have heard speaking in tongues that sounds to my ears as real languages. I have also heard tongues that sound like babbling. My personal opinion is that some of it may really be babbling, but there is the genuine article as well. Some of the prophets rebuked in the Old Testament prophesied out of their own imaginations and I suppose similar things may happen with tongues today.

The Bible doesn’t specifically teach that all tongues are human languages. Pal says ‘though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels….’ Some say this is hyperbole, but that is not clear from the passage. (It is possible to give all ones possessions away, for example.) So we should at least allow for the possibility of angelic languages—though I do not know why they would speak more than one language.

Generally, from I Corinthians 14, we see that when someone speaks in tongues, others do not understand without an interpretation. However, that is not to say that God cannot do something similar to Acts 2. I’ve never had a chance to experience it firsthand, but I’ve heard accounts of people who have. Don Basham, now deceased, told of speaking in tongues while praying for some Maori in New Zealand. They were surprised that he spoke in Maori. (Am I spelling that right?)

Jack Heyford is a well know Pentecostal preacher who comes on TV. He’s a gifted teacher and level headed. He’s not into anctics or hype. He gave a testimony about meeting an American Indian scholar on an airplane. The man was an unbeliever and they had a discussion about religion and spiritual things. Heyford offered to send him an apologetic book by CS Lewis and the man declined. Then, Heyford felt impressed by the Spirit to speak in tongues to the man. He felt uncomfortable with it and told the man that he was able to say some words that he thought might be in the man’s language. The man said he understood what Heyford had said. It was in a dialect older than the one he spoke, but it was about light coming down from above. Heyford explained to him that he had been speaking in tongues and the man changed his mind and said he would like to receive the literature.

I heard an account attributed to Ray Trask, brother of a man who would later become the head of the AOG denomination, that he knew enough of a language he had learned a bit of on the mission field to recognize that a message in tongues was about the Bread of Life. Sure enough, the interpretation of tongues was about the bread of life. I’ve heard a few other accounts of things like this as well.

-- That is what the gift of tongues is. If the gift of tongues were operable today, then why are missionaries still required to learn foreign languages? Why doesn't God just give them the gift of tongues? --

Why would we expect the gift of tongues to operate differently today than it does in the Bible? Scripture does not teach that tongues replaced the need to learn languages for missions work. In Acts 2, there is no indication that those speaking in tongues understood what they were saying. They proclaimed the wonderful works of God, but we do not have any evidence that they actually presented the details of the Gospel in tongues. Peter preached the Gospel after the speaking in tongues was over, apparently in some commonly understood language (Greek or Aramaic perhaps.) We never see anyone getting saved from hearing the Gospel in tongues in the Bible. Plus speaking a language in tongues that you don’t understand and can’t communicate in might not help you buy groceries in a foreign country.

In I Corinthians 14, we see that the situation of tongues in church was that the listeners and the speaker did not understanding without the gift of interpretation.

DHK wrote on the issue of rolling in the aisles

--It is very typical of both the Word of Faith movement and especially the Third Wave Movement. Do a search on the Third Wave Movement and see what you find. Have you ever heard of the Toronto Vineyard Church, and its so-called revival? These are very typical happenings in the Third Wave Movement. Because you have not heard much does not mean they don't happen much. --

Toronto is not typical of the ‘Third Wave Movement’ which is no more a cohesive movement than the Baptists are. I’m sure you could find rolling in the aisles in both movements if you looked hard enough, but rolling in the aisles doesn’t seem typical of ‘Word of Faith.’ Preaching the same three sermons over and over on prosperity, healing, and telling the mountain to go into the ocean sounds more typical of WOF to me.

I wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saul lay on the ground prophesying all night once.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK wrote,
--What has that got to do with the price of tea in Indonesia? That event happened 1,000 years before Pentecost took place. --

I don’t know, but if you would like to export some tea from Indonesia, or palm oil for that matter, from Indonesia, let me know and I can help you out if you are willing to get it FOB. :--)

The event shows us the kind of things God can do that are consistent with His nature. If God had people ‘rolling on the floor’ on some occasions in scripture, who are we do say that He would never do that again? I’m not telling people to pursue rolling on the floor, just advising caution in judging.


--You are comparing apples to oranges and even worse. Actually you are comparing John to Jesus Christ come in the flesh. Christ had performed miracles right before the very eyes of the Pharisees, and still they did not believe. He had spoken His very words right before them, and still they did not believe. They saw God incarnate, had listened to God's words, had seen his miracles, had been convicted by His Spirit, and still had not believed. It would be more tolerable in the day of Judgement for the homosexuals of Sodom than it would be for them. --

Please read what I said again. I was comparing what John was saying to what Jesus’ opponents were saying in Matthew 12. I was not comparing him to Christ. The passage warns against blaspheming (i.e. speaking evil of) the Holy Spirit. What were Christ’s opponents doing? Attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the prince of devils.

--But John is not Jesus. He is making an accurate assessment (as did Paul in 1Cor.12:1-4) that some tongues are attributed directly to the devil. --

I didn’t see the ‘some tongues’ in John’s initial post. And I didn’t compare John to Jesus. You seem to be completely missing the point.

--Did you take time to read Amen's post a couple pages back. He comes from a Buddhist/Taoist background. They both speak in tongues? Is it the Holy Spirit that causes the Taoist to speak in tongues? He can't tell the difference between the Taoist and the Charismatics speaking in tongues though he himself has a knowledge of many languages. That in itself ought to speak volumes. --

There are plenty of people who can’t tell the difference between true and false prophecies. There were plenty of people in Israel in Old Testament times who couldn’t. It doesn’t make the true prophets any less true. Tongues is a bit more complicated if you cannot understand what is being said. Unless you had some kind of spiritual discernment or a gift to understand it, if someone say something against Christianity in a language you do not know, you cannot distinguish it from someone who says something good about Christianity in a language you do not know. This is not an argument against tongues.

Do I think the Holy Spirit causes Taoists to speak in tongues? Generally I would be inclined to think, no. But I wouldn’t say categorically that under no circumstances could a Taoist do the real thing, because some unrighteous men in scripture prophesied like Balaam, who usually resorted to divination, and Caiaphas who was plotting the death of Christ. I’ve read some missions literature about unreached people groups being prepared for the Gospel by one of their religious leaders prophesying of a white man who would bring them the truth of God in a book, and things along those lines. In scripture, believers speak in tongues. But I wouldn’t say that God in His sovereignty couldn’t have someone else speak in tongues.


--That is your opinion which you are entitled to. But it is wrong. Let me give you the truth. The Bible clearly teaches that speaking in tongues is one of the gifts God gave to the churche of the first century when the Bible had not yet been completed. It was a sign to the Jews.--

The Bible teaches no such thing. Your interpretation of I Corinthians 13 would be a good example to put in a theological encyclopedia under the heading ‘eisegesis’.


--I have stated the Biblical position for you above. It is not a brash and dangerous position, for it is based on the Bible and not on experience. The problem the Charismatics have is that their theology is based on experience and not on the Bible. They have an open ended theology.--

In our brief interchange here on this thread, you are the first person to argue your case from experience. In the previous post, you asked for evidence of people doing healing today. Earlier you wanted evidence from the experience of an linguist to prove that tongues are genuine.


-- The revelation was closed with the completion of the Book of Revelation. God's revelation to mankind does not continue. All that God wants us to know is in the pages of the Bible.--

The Bible does not teach this. In fact, you statements contradict the book of Revelation, which predicts of Two Witnesses which would prophesy. The Spirit is given to us so that we might know the things of God. Paul prayed for the Ephesians to have the Spirit of revelation. The revelation of Christ should be an on-going thing in the life of a believer.


-- Thus the gifts mentioned in 1Cor.13:8, have ceased, just as God had said they would. --

The Bible says they will cease when that which is perfect has come. Do you think you understand and know perfectly now? Are you perfect? I don’t mean just ‘sinlessly perfect’ either, but also perfect in understanding—so perfect you make Paul in the Bible seem like a child?

If tongues supposedly ceased, why do we read about them in the writings of church history? Ireneaus is known as a champion of orthodoxy. He received ministry from Polycarp, who is said to have known St. John. Ireneaus wrote a work Against Heresies in which he showed the flaws of certain Gnostic and other teachings. He wrote of brethren in his own day who spoke in tongues, prophesied, had foreknowledge, did healings, miracles, raised the dead, etc. You can read about this in Eusebius’ Ecclesiasical History if you are interested.

Why were people still speaking in tongues around 200 AD if tongues supposedly ceased in the first century?

--Answer these two questions.
What is the proper interpretation of 1`Cor.14:21,22, where it tells us plainly that tongues are for unbelieving Jews. If the purpose for tongues were for the unbelieving Jews of the first century, who rejected them as a sign, why are they still being spoken today?--

1. It would only make sense to use this argument if the Bible taught that the only purpose of tongues was for a sign. It does not. The Bible also teaches that tongues edifies the speaker and that with interpretation tongues edifies the church. So there are other purposes for tongues besides a sign.

2. The point Paul makes from this passage is that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. He does not specify Jews per se, and he does not argue from the passage that the tongues had anything to do with the destruction of Jerusalem.

--The gift of tongues is but one of the gifts of the Spirit. Tell me about the gift of healing. Name me one person in all the world today that has the Biblical gift of healing--that is able to go into a hospital, walk up and down the corridors and heal ALL that are in the hospital. Can you name me just one persosn who has this gift? Just one person who is able to heal all that come to him? NO! There isn't any. The gifts have ceased.--

Here you go basing theological arguments on experience again—or your lack thereof. What ever happened to the Bible? If you believed the Bible about healing, it is more likely you would have positive experiences about the gift to share.

I have a question for you—you argue that tongues ceased. Where is your verse to say that miracles or healing has ceased? If you are arguing that miracles and healing have ceased with no scripture to back it up, then do you believe the passage that says that God gives miracles and healings to the church is not true?

About healing and miracles—the Bible seems to take special note of times in Paul’s ministry when God did a lot of miracles. The implication is that there were seasons where there were a lot of miracles. Something else to notice is that miracles often happened on the frontiers of the Gospel—in Israel in the time of Christ. Israel also had healing as a part of their covenant, and if people were believing in Christ and being restored to God, it shouldn’t be surprising if they were healed.

I do not see healing and miracles in the apostles ministries as completely ‘automatic’ as some seem to. If it were, then why would the apostles have had to pray for God to stretch out His hands to do signs and wonders if they could just do a sign or a wonder at their own will? The apostles did these works in cooperation with the Spirit. It wasn’t just like Superman on TV using his powers to run fast or fly around. That is my understanding of it.

I have known people who were healed by God in supernatural ways. If the gifts of healing and miracles ceased, why do they still occur today?

 

That is very true.

We see in a glass darkly "now" but THEN (at the glorification of the church and 2nd coming) face to face.

We walk by faith not by sight - while in this life.

There is no indication in 1Cor 13 that "when a few more letters are sent out then we will see face to face and be known as we are known in heaven".

There is never any indication by any Bible writer in all of scripture that "scripture is incomplete".

In 2Tim 3 we find Paul stating that even the OT scripture was "sufficient" to lead to salvation.

It is not possible to argue from 1Cor 13 that Paul viewed scripture as "insufficient" or even "incomplete".

Nor do you have any statement from any Bible writer saying "and with this letter we now see perfectly and know even as we are known in heaven".

Nor do we have any Bible writer stating "And with this letter - the end of all spiritual gifts has come".

Taking the stand that the test of spiritual gifts is "there are no spiritual gifts" is not supportable in scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Having said that - I agree with the title of this thread - the tongues seen today are not the Biblical tongues mentioned in scripture.

To that point - I agree with the OP.


In Christ,

Bob

 

Link, great post! If some could only want to see that there is more than just dabbling in shallow waters.

MEE

 

ICorinthians 14:2 says that the person that speaks in the Spirit he speaks mysteries. I don't think that the mysteries have anything to do ith telling God somehting that He does not know but the mysteries are a revelation of things that God helps a person understand knowing that the natural man does not understand the ways of God but The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and shows us things to come. Verse 4 says taht we edify ourselves and I know that many will say that would be selfish but if a football player lifts weights and is built up it not only is good for him but it is good for the team. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. if everyone in a local church comes to church edified the local church would be stronger.

 

and all of those ceased in the 1970'S eh?

That is quite interesting.. and could actually
be brought to the 90's...

Or for that matter.. up to a couple months ago
on knowlege about something being granted..

Thats okay though.. entirely up to you what you
believe..

now earlier you stated this...

"Show me one Charismatic Church where you can verify, by empirical evidence, (perhaps professional linguists) that the tongues being spoken in that church are real genuine languages unknown to the speaker but known to some other person. That is what the gift of tongues is. If the gift of tongues were operable today, then why are missionaries still required to learn foreign languages? Why doesn't God just give them the gift of tongues? "


First off. I did give you an example elsewhere..

Secondly.. I agree with you in what the gift of
tongues actually is..
BTW.. so does an OldTime Pentecostal I know..

Thirdly.. as to the missionaries.. perhaps they
never asked for it?
More likely though.. we now have more resources
available to us to learn languages so it is not
often necessary.


sez Mark.. who in spite of this post actually IS
a Fundy Baptist who does not speak in tongues..

 

\Ii personally reject the word "gibberish" can you give me a greek word that a grammarian will translate as "gibberish"
This term is just a cutsie word that is thrown around by folowers of the cessationist heresy.

 

Vern Poythress called it a "T-speech" (T for tongue).

Also I think "heresy" is a bit strong to describe the cessationist view.

 

could you define heresy?

 

Heresy?

"Adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma" according to MW.

The cessationist view is far this. It is a well-debated topic. I certainly agree that there is no absolute prohibition on tongues - but I think evidence still favors at least and "open but very cautious" view.

 

First, their have been professional linguists that have gone to Charismatic meetings and done the research and have proven that the tongues of today are not languages. They are simply a string of syllables repeated over and over again. They have no comparison to any language. Granted there have been cases where there have been cases where some have spoken in a real language. This has always turned out to be the cause of demon possession, such as the case in the Vancouver area when a visiting pastor from Greece attended a Charismatic church and was shocked to hear one person in the church repeat over and over in perfect Greek: "I love the devil; I love the devil; I love the devil." This does happen. But most of it is a repetition of a string of syllables that some Charismatic teachers even teach their congregations HOW to speak in tongues: by telling them which syllables to speak over and over. Do a search. You can find the instructions in various Charismatic websites on the internet.

Second, Those that spoke in tongues spoke in real languages. That is evident from Scripture.

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.

Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Acts 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
--The word "tongues" and "languages" are interchangeable. They mean the same thing, as they do today. What is your mother "tongue?" The 120 spoke in actual languages. They spoke in the languages that were representative of the 13 plus nations that were there on the Day of Pentecost. They are there listed for you.

If you hear a genuine language being spoken, you probably hear someone who is demon possessed. Otherwise it is psychological phenomena that has its roots in an event in Kansas in 1906, and previous to that date was unknow in church history. If it is for today, why was it unknown for 1800 years. I guess the "filling of the Holy Spirit" was deprived to those people and only applicable to thos of the 20th century onward. That has the markings of a cult--to claim knowledge that was previously unknown in the church.

The passage is very clear. Every statement is conditional. Every statement starts with "though" or "if." It is like saying, "If I had a million dollars I would buy property in Hawaii and live there." But I don't, and probably never will. "If I have my own space shuttle, I would take a trip to the moon" It's not going to happen. It's conjecture. It's conditional. All of Paul's statements were just like that. If Paul spoke with angelic tongues then he also gave away all his money to the poor--NOT, and he also gave his body to be burned--NOT!! IF: those are conjectural statements. They did not happen, and never would. Paul did not speak with the tongues of angels, could not speak with the tongues of angels. It was impossible to do so.

First, that is anectodal; can't be proven. Second, if it did happen, it is the exception not the norm. Third, can give or provide a man an ability if He so desires. But that does not negate the Biblical teaching that the gift of tongues has ceased.

Here is anecdotal experience by Heyford that cannot be proven. The same preachers tell us how they have been transported up to heaven and back down to Hell again. Why should I believe them? I don't trust in experiences that cannot be proven; I trust in the Word of God. The Word of God is my foundation not experience. You can't build a foundation on experience.

You heard; but can't verify. More experience. My theology is based on the Word of God, not someone's experience.

Paul was correcting the abuse of tongues in Corinth. In doing so he said, "I thank God that I have spoken in tongues more than you all." Why do you suppose that he said that? The Lord took Paul on three missionary journeys through several parts of Asia, Asia-minor, Europe, etc., and he established over 100 churches. The Lord gave Paul the gift of tongues so that he would have been able to minister to these people in their own language. But remeber that wherever he went that the Jews had been scattered abroad throughout all the nations. It wasn't just a matter of preaching in another tongue for the sake of another people. The universal language at the time was Greek. It was a sign to the Jews as well; those Jews that did not believe the gospel message was for the Gentiles.

Quite correct. It was wrong. and so it is today.

It is very typical of the Third Wave Movement. There is plenty of it going around. They bark like a dog, roar like a lion, hiss like a snake--all of which is supposedly a sign of the Holy Spirit.

It is not consistent with God's nature to do those things that go against His Word. God is a God of order and not of chaos or confusion. Satan is the god of confusion. Which god do you advocate?
DHK

 

DHK mention demon possesed tongue speaking and that reminds me of my aunt who was possessed. She is a Taoist/Buddhist (they often worship both gods together) and was dabbling into Feng Shui (geomancy?) when she was possessed by I suspect more than 1 demon. She was spewing vulgarities in Thai and Cantonese (a Chinese dialect) which she had never ever learned. She was also able to fight off 7 men who tried to restrain her but they finally managed to get her to a mental hospital. This is a clear case of demon possession but the doctor insist it to be mental illness. That was about 6-7 years ago and till this day she remained unsaved.

 

DHK wrote,
**First, their have been professional linguists that have gone to Charismatic meetings and done the research and have proven that the tongues of today are not languages. They are simply a string of syllables repeated over and over again. They have no comparison to any language.**

Actually, I had a look at one of those studies in the library when I was a linguistics student. One thing to keep in mind is that the principles of language apply to human language. If someone is speaking a heavenly language, there is not reason to believe that the principles of phonetics, phonology, morphology, etc. will apply to angelic languages. Angelic languages may not be inflected for meaning in the same way human languages are. Another thing to keep in mind is that if a message in tongues is repeating the something several times, it may sound like gibberish. I read once of a little girl in a foreign country who kept repeating the same thing over and over in tongues. It was English “I love Jesus. I love Jesus.” It would probably have sounded like gibberish to someone who didn’t know English. (I read this account on a discussion group on the Internet, so it’s not firsthand.)

I do not argue that all tongues are genuine. Some may be learned ‘psychological tongues.’ That does not diminish the reality of the true gift any more than it diminishes the reality of the gift of tongues in the first century. If a linguist argues that some tongues he heard did not obey the rules of human language, this does not disprove the Acts 2 account does it? His findings only apply to the subjects he was studying, not to all occurrences of tongues in the world now, or throughout history.

What we need to look at is what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God gives the gift of tongues, among other gifts, to the church. Our ‘default’ understanding should be that God still does give this gift _unless _ scripture teaches that he stopped giving it. Our approach should _not _ be to assume that God doesn’t give tongues and try to squeeze that interpretation into a passage of the Bible. (E.g. trying to make I Corinthians 13 say that tongues has already ceased.)

**Granted there have been cases where there have been cases where some have spoken in a real language. This has always turned out to be the cause of demon possession, such as the case in the Vancouver area when a visiting pastor from Greece attended a Charismatic church and was shocked to hear one person in the church repeat over and over in perfect Greek: "I love the devil; I love the devil; I love the devil."**

Why is it that when you hear a story about false tongues, you believe it automatically believe it. But when you hear an account of genuine tongues that other people understand, you say it is not proven. That is what you did with the Jack Heyford account. Were you in Vancouver when this happened? Did you hear the person speaking? Do you understand Greek? Why do you accept this story as fact, but you dismiss Jack Heyford’s account out of hand?

** This does happen. But most of it is a repetition of a string of syllables that some Charismatic teachers even teach their congregations HOW to speak in tongues: by telling them which syllables to speak over and over. Do a search. You can find the instructions in various Charismatic websites on the internet. **

I don’t know of any leader in the Charismatic movement who consciously teaches other people to ‘speak in tongues’ in this way. You might find arguments that some leaders unintentionally do this, not realizing that the people in the congregation are just repeating what they hear. If this happens, it is a psychological thing, and not something generally done on purpose. And it is not a commonly taught Charismatic teaching that tongues are to be learned. If this does occur (and I think it does because of some of the things I’ve witnessed) then it doesn’t diminish true speaking in tongues in the least any more than it diminishes the truth of the Acts 2 account. Apples with apples. Oranges with oranges.

**Second, Those that spoke in tongues spoke in real languages. That is evident from Scripture.**

I am not debating this point.

**If you hear a genuine language being spoken, you probably hear someone who is demon possessed. Otherwise it is psychological phenomena that has its roots in an event in Kansas in 1906, and previous to that date was unknow in church history. If it is for today, why was it unknown for 1800 years. I guess the "filling of the Holy Spirit" was deprived to those people and only applicable to thos of the 20th century onward. That has the markings of a cult--to claim knowledge that was previously unknown in the church. **

Tongues was not unknown to the church. It is in the Bible that has been used for nearly 2000 years.

You say that tongues were unknown for 1800 years. Does that mean that you allow for the idea that tongues in 200 AD in Ireneas day were genuine?

Also, there are other accounts of tongues since 200 AD. Look in _The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity _ by Burgess for a lengthy treatment for this and other issues that uses real quotes from primary sources (or English translations of such quotes.)

Your paranoia about tongues as real languages always being demonic doesn’t square with what Jesus said in Luke 11. Many people speak in tongues after diligently seeking God and asking to be filled with the Spirit—which is a good thing.

Luke 11:
11. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12. Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13. If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Also, I do not believe that tongues is the exclusive evidence of filling with the Spirit, so I would not say it was restricted to people who lived after the 20th century.

**The passage is very clear. Every statement is conditional. Every statement starts with "though" or "if." It is like saying, "If I had a million dollars I would buy property in Hawaii and live there." But I don't, and probably never will. "If I have my own space shuttle, I would take a trip to the moon" It's not going to happen. It's conjecture. It's conditional.**

There is such a thing as a million dollars. It is not something made up. Space shuttles exist. You are assuming here that tongues of angels do not exist, which isn’t consistent with the examples you give.

** All of Paul's statements were just like that. If Paul spoke with angelic tongues then he also gave away all his money to the poor--NOT, and he also gave his body to be burned--NOT!! IF: those are conjectural statements. They did not happen, and never would. Paul did not speak with the tongues of angels, could not speak with the tongues of angels. It was impossible to do so. **

Opinion opinion and no scripture. Was it possible for Paul to give away all his money? Yes. Was it possible for Paul to give his body to be burned? Yes. Was it possible for Paul to have all faith to remove mountains. According to Christ, yes. (If ‘moving mountains’ is a figure of speech, then it would be possible to move mountains in this figurative sense. If Christ meant it literally, then it is possible to do literally. So no matter how you interpret it, the answer should be ‘yes.’)

Think about Paul’s life. He traveled around preaching and did not accumulate houses, etc. It is very possible that he gave his last dinari away to feed a poor person on many occasions. Could Paul have given his body to be burned? Of course. The ‘if’ parts of these statements are all things that are possible, so why would speaking in the tongues of angels be impossible?


**First, that is anectodal; can't be proven. Second, if it did happen, it is the exception not the norm. Third, can give or provide a man an ability if He so desires. But that does not negate the Biblical teaching that the gift of tongues has ceased. **

You are being inconsistent here. I gave an example of a man who prayed in tongues—a known Charismatic, and the people who were praying for knew what he was saying because he was speaking in their language. And you say if it happened, then the gift of tongues has still ceased. If God gave the man the ablity to speak in Maori, then the man had a _gift from God.

**Here is anecdotal experience by Heyford that cannot be proven.**

It could conceivably. You want to argue that real tongues do not exist. You are bold enough to make such statements, but when you hear accounts like this, you do not have the gumption or the commitment to go to California, look up Heyford, do some research, find the guy he spoke in tongues to, and get his side of the story. The Old Testament says by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. If you were committed enough to learning about this, you could do some research.

I do not plan to do this kind of research. But I am not the one making statements that assume that I have all knowledge of everything going on in the world. I do not say that there is no genuine speaking in tongues today. You are the one promoting this position. When shown wrong, you should either stop making such statements, or else be willing to go do the research to show that the cases that prove you wrong are not true.

** The same preachers tell us how they have been transported up to heaven and back down to Hell again. Why should I believe them?**

“The same preachers…” You judge people by categorizing them in ways God does not. Show me a quote from a Heyford sermon or book where he ever claims to have gone to heaven or hell. And show me some scripture that says that this cannot happen to preachers who claim to have experienced it. My Bible shows me that a man was shown the Third Heaven, so I cannot deny that such things are possible.

** I don't trust in experiences that cannot be proven; I trust in the Word of God. The Word of God is my foundation not experience. You can't build a foundation on experience.**

You can’t prove your case from the Bible. Even many of your fellow cessationists, particularly those who know Greek, disagree with the way you interpret I Corinthians 13.

**You heard; but can't verify. More experience. My theology is based on the Word of God, not someone's experience.**

If you want to verify it, do some research. Find some witnesses.
You sure use a lot of experiential arguments in your posts, a lot more than your arguments from scripture so far.

**Paul was correcting the abuse of tongues in Corinth. In doing so he said, "I thank God that I have spoken in tongues more than you all." Why do you suppose that he said that? The Lord took Paul on three missionary journeys through several parts of Asia, Asia-minor, Europe, etc., and he established over 100 churches. The Lord gave Paul the gift of tongues so that he would have been able to minister to these people in their own language.**

Opinion, opinion. Where is the scripture to back up what you are saying. When Paul said he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians, it is in the context of a passage in which he says that no one understands the speaker in tongues without interpretation. There is no evidence in scripture that tongues were used to preach the Gospel or that the Acts 2 experience was ever repeated. You are just conjecturing here. You do not have any scripture to back up your opinion. If Paul ever used tongues in evangelism, the Bible does not record it. Guesswork is not a basis for doctrine.


** But remeber that wherever he went that the Jews had been scattered abroad throughout all the nations. It wasn't just a matter of preaching in another tongue for the sake of another people. The universal language at the time was Greek. It was a sign to the Jews as well; those Jews that did not believe the gospel message was for the Gentiles. **

Paul never says tongues were sign specifically for the Jews. He said they served as a sign to unbelievers, and showed how unbelievers reacted to them with unbelief. Paul was trying to persuade men. It seems more likely he would have preferred to use the gift of prophecy in evangelism, based on what he writes in I Corinthians 14.

**It is very typical of the Third Wave Movement. There is plenty of it going around. They bark like a dog, roar like a lion, hiss like a snake--all of which is supposedly a sign of the Holy Spirit.**

I think you are reading some old websites. I’ve been to Toronto. This like this seem to come and go, and I would doubt if this kind of stuff was going on a lot at Toronto anymore. The Vineyard let Toronto go pretty quickly when this started. The Vineyard is considered ‘Third Wave.’ This stuff was controversial within ‘Thid Wave’ churches when it was going on.

If I am not mistaken, the term ‘Third Wave’ was something C. Peter Wagoner came up with to describe evangelical churches that believe in the gifts that were not a part of the historical Pentecostal movement or the Charismatic movement. Some churches categorized as ‘Third Wave’ are rather conservative. I am not sure if Wagoner would categorize Calvary Chapel as Third Wave. The only difference between one Calvary Chapel church service I went to and a lot of Baptist churches I have been to is the style of music.

 

Atestring,

It's from an old issue of WTS Journal - maybe 20 yrs ago? I can dig up the citation if you like.

 

First, their have been professional linguists that have gone to Charismatic meetings and done the research and have proven that the tongues of today are not languages. They are simply a string of syllables repeated over and over again. They have no comparison to any language. Granted there have been cases where there have been cases where some have spoken in a real language. This has always turned out to be the cause of demon possession, such as the case in the Vancouver area when a visiting pastor from Greece attended a Charismatic church and was shocked to hear one person in the church repeat over and over in perfect Greek: "I love the devil; I love the devil; I love the devil." This does happen. But most of it is a repetition of a string of syllables that some Charismatic teachers even teach their congregations HOW to speak in tongues: by telling them which syllables to speak over and over. Do a search. You can find the instructions in various Charismatic websites on the internet.

Second, Those that spoke in tongues spoke in real languages. That is evident from Scripture.

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.

Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Acts 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
--The word "tongues" and "languages" are interchangeable. They mean the same thing, as they do today. What is your mother "tongue?" The 120 spoke in actual languages. They spoke in the languages that were representative of the 13 plus nations that were there on the Day of Pentecost. They are there listed for you.

If you hear a genuine language being spoken, you probably hear someone who is demon possessed. Otherwise it is psychological phenomena that has its roots in an event in Kansas in 1906, and previous to that date was unknow in church history. If it is for today, why was it unknown for 1800 years. I guess the "filling of the Holy Spirit" was deprived to those people and only applicable to thos of the 20th century onward. That has the markings of a cult--to claim knowledge that was previously unknown in the church.

The passage is very clear. Every statement is conditional. Every statement starts with "though" or "if." It is like saying, "If I had a million dollars I would buy property in Hawaii and live there." But I don't, and probably never will. "If I have my own space shuttle, I would take a trip to the moon" It's not going to happen. It's conjecture. It's conditional. All of Paul's statements were just like that. If Paul spoke with angelic tongues then he also gave away all his money to the poor--NOT, and he also gave his body to be burned--NOT!! IF: those are conjectural statements. They did not happen, and never would. Paul did not speak with the tongues of angels, could not speak with the tongues of angels. It was impossible to do so.

First, that is anectodal; can't be proven. Second, if it did happen, it is the exception not the norm. Third, can give or provide a man an ability if He so desires. But that does not negate the Biblical teaching that the gift of tongues has ceased.

Here is anecdotal experience by Heyford that cannot be proven. The same preachers tell us how they have been transported up to heaven and back down to Hell again. Why should I believe them? I don't trust in experiences that cannot be proven; I trust in the Word of God. The Word of God is my foundation not experience. You can't build a foundation on experience.

You heard; but can't verify. More experience. My theology is based on the Word of God, not someone's experience.

Paul was correcting the abuse of tongues in Corinth. In doing so he said, "I thank God that I have spoken in tongues more than you all." Why do you suppose that he said that? The Lord took Paul on three missionary journeys through several parts of Asia, Asia-minor, Europe, etc., and he established over 100 churches. The Lord gave Paul the gift of tongues so that he would have been able to minister to these people in their own language. But remeber that wherever he went that the Jews had been scattered abroad throughout all the nations. It wasn't just a matter of preaching in another tongue for the sake of another people. The universal language at the time was Greek. It was a sign to the Jews as well; those Jews that did not believe the gospel message was for the Gentiles.

Quite correct. It was wrong. and so it is today.

It is very typical of the Third Wave Movement. There is plenty of it going around. They bark like a dog, roar like a lion, hiss like a snake--all of which is supposedly a sign of the Holy Spirit.

It is not consistent with God's nature to do those things that go against His Word. God is a God of order and not of chaos or confusion. Satan is the god of confusion. Which god do you advocate?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]can you provide Greek Pastors name that is from the vancouver area that heard a person saying things about the devil.
This made up story is usually about a chineese laundryman and has been circulating all of my life without proof and names that can be validated.

 

Yes I can document it. In other words, I can provide the names that you are looking for, the dates, and the name of the church. But I won't. A man is entitled to his privacy. It would be unethical for me to post a person's name on a board like this without permission to do so.
DHK

 

Andy,

The citation for that Poythress article is WTS 1980 Spring Vol 42 #2 p.367.

Here's the passage:

"Al Carlson
of the University of California recorded speech samples from T-speakers and from volunteers told to speak unknown language. The samples were then rated by T-speakers. The nonreligious free vocalization actually received better ratings. In a second experiment, Werner Cohn at the University of British Columbia took students to Pentecostal meeting, asked them to imitate T-speakers in the laboratory, and received approving evaluations of the recorded samples from T-speakers."

CM