Tongues Evidence?

[Reformed Baptist]

No, but it does state that those who heard, heard people speaking in these languages. So, the languages the crowd heard where the languages that the speakers were speaking.

 

Sorry brother but I have to strongly disagree. The Apostles on Pentecost were speaking in their own language here...when Peter was speaking his famed sermon he was not speaking in another human language but his own, but each in the crowd "heard them in their own tongue" (3,000 responded and came to salvation) there is nothing to indicate one was speaking in Cerynean, another in Parthian, another in Greek, etc., even when praising and glorifying God.

 

Then, so we are clear my friend (and I will desist after this because I have pointed this out so many times and we both have better things to do then go round in circles) it is not me you are disagreeing with but the plain reading of scripture. In Acts 2:4 we read, And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (NKJ). There is nothing ambiguous or difficult in those words, and they simply cannot be ignored (which it seems to me is happening in a lot of these responses   )  

 

The Apostles on Pentecost were speaking in their own language here...

 

So far, no one has done anything to demonstrate that it was 'just' the apostles that were speaking. This is an assumption, you need to establish the correct antecedent to the 'all' of verse 1 before you can identify with any accuracy who the speakers were, was it just the Apostles, or was it the 120 that had gathered previously?  I point this out again to demonstrate that if there is one assumption in play, maybe there are others  too? 

 

when Peter was speaking his famed sermon he was not speaking in another human language but his own, but each in the crowd "heard them in their own tongue"

 

Not at all, the word of God does not say that my friend. 

 

Rather, we read that the crowd gathered saying, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 "Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 "Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God."  (Acts 2:7-11 NKJ)

 

It is after that (v14) and not before that that Peter stands up with the other Apostles and addresses the crowd in his 'famous sermon.' The crowd heard people speaking in their languages before, not during, Peter's sermon. There is nothing to imply that Peter spoken in anything other then either Aramaic or Greek to the crowd. Remember this crowd were gathered for the feats of Pentecost, they were either diaspora Jews or gentile proselytes, and they shared a common language as we see from the way the communicate in the passage I just quoted, there is nothing in the text to suggest that peter used anything other then that common language in his sermon.   

 

 "heard them in their own tongue"

 

In this discussion so much weight is being put on this one word, so much so that everything else is neglected, there are three relevant expressions we need to consider though, and not just one. 

 

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

 

Acts 2:8 "And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? ( NKJ)

 

Acts 2:11 "Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." ( NKJ)

 

Now, if we only had verse 8 then it might be possible to understand what was happening as you do, but you wouldn't have to. For example I might say, 'you heard me speak in English' meaning I was speaking in English. However we also have verse 4 that is clear that those who were speaking were not speaking in their own language, but were speaking in other tongues (plural) and the final nail in the coffin is found in verse 11 which states that the people said, "we can hear them speaking in our own languages" we hear them speaking in our own tongues. 

 

So, I am sorry you disagree, and that  you disagree strongly, but there is no need to apologize to me my friend, because it is not me you are disagreeing with, you are disagreeing with the words of the eyewitnesses to what was happening on that day of Pentecost, we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God    

[Reformed Baptist]

So, I am sorry you disagree, and that  you disagree strongly, but there is no need to apologize to me my friend, because it is not me you are disagreeing with, you are disagreeing with the words of the eyewitnesses to what was happening on that day of Pentecost, we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God     

 

No! I just disagree with your interpretation of these events and in fact I used the very words of the witnesses you claim I disagree with. 

 

I thought I said I wanted to drop it after this, because this is in danger of turning into a most unfruitful discussion.  

 

To summaries, you appear to be saying that the Apostles spoke in their own tongue and the hearers heard what was being said in their own native tongues. That the miracle was in the hearing, and not in the speaking! Yet you have provided no exegetical support for that claim as far as I can see and it stands in stark contrast to what the eyewitnesses (or ear witnesses) of the events actually said, they said, and I quote, we hear them speaking in our own tongues (NKJ), so we have a text saying that the speaking were speaking in tongues, Acts 2:4, a text saying that the hearers heard their native tongues, Acts 2:8 and that says the crowd heard the speaking speaking in their own tongues, Acts 2:11. The truth is matter is I cannot present any more convincing evidence then this, the Bible says the speakers were speaking in the tongues that were being heard by the listeners. Now, I can't convince you of that, and I am not trying to, but nevertheless this is what the text plainly says.

 

 

So then, in light of your understanding, here is another thing I would like your response to. Paul mentions (as I believe, regarding a second type of tongues) that when one speaks in this way, the person is speaking mysteries to God (1 Corinthians 14:2).

 

 

It is interesting that I am expected to higher a higher degree of evidence then I am being provided with. I have repeatedly asked why Luke and Paul use terms like γλώσσαις never once using  φθέγγομαι  and that never gets a response. I have asked who the 'all' is of v1 and again that doesn't get a response, yet now my friend you seek to move the subject onto another point without addressing these questions. Again, this is why I don't really want to proceed, so much of what I am saying is not being responded to, but rather the same old assertions are just being remade. Why not answer these questions, as well as explaining how Acts 2:11 can be understood in the light of what you are saying was happening please?

 

As to your question, what is a biblical 'mystery' it is merely some truth that is revealed, look for example at how Paul uses that term in Ephesians, so all he is saying here is that one who speaks in a tongue that no one present understands is speaking truths that are not being revealed to other people, so, he is only speaking to God.

 

As for this being a second kind of tongue, where is the exegesis to support that claim?  And if this is anything other then an earthly human language why does Paul use the word γλώσσῃ?

 

 

Note that in this type, it is not God or the man speaking through the person to others. It is not an illumination, preaching, revelation, etc., for someone in the crowd. It is the spirit of the man, by the Spirit, praying to God without intellectual involvement (without the understanding - 1 Corinthians 14:15). The man by the Spirit, speaking to God,and not God, or the man, speaking to others in the crowd or for their benefit and edification (it edifies the speaker).

 

 

I am sorry but again this is pure assumption, where are we told that there is no intellectual involvement - 1 Cor 14:15 speaks of understanding, not intellectual involvement. The idea that the man is not in control of himself, but has been taken over is not to be found in 1 Cor 14. However, even if you disagree with me on this point, do you agree that Paul is saying that such a practice is not to be done? 

 

 

Imagine if cessationists were correct! And tongues, as you define them, ceased...this would mean there are no more human languages (obviously not what Paul was referring to) we would all be mutes....also no more knowledge (thus no one knows anything), no more preaching and teaching (prophesying)...because the final book has been penned! Absurd!

 

 

And here is another reason I think it is unfruitful to continue, you employment of a straw-man caricature of the cessationist position does not predispose me to continue to discuss this any further. This argument is, if you will forgive me for being blunt, utter nonsense. The gift was the ability to speak in other human languages that you have not taken the time to learn, therefore the cessation of the gift is the removal of that ability to speak in languages that you have never learnt, not the removal of the ability to speak any language at all.

 

Honestly my friend, if you really think your 'logical' conclusion is a sound end of the cessionist reasoning then I highly recommend you spend a little more time looking into it. Consider, from the biblical evidence, what the gift was, and how it was manifest and consider the reasons we might say it has ceased. and please brother until then drop the caricature from your arguement because it does nothing to encourage me to discuss this further 

[Reformed Baptist]

I am not closing the thread - as far as I am aware I don't think I have that power. And remember I tried to agree to move on before Nor have I made any effort to insult your intelligence, anything that comes across in that way is my failure to communicate well (my apologies). Now, I am more then happy to disagree on the matter of the cessation/ continuation of tongues, indeed if not for the nature of your last statement to me in the post I addressed I would have left this thread well enough alone. For I have said all that needs to be said, Acts 2:11 is clear, and any understanding of what was happening that runs contrary to what it says is wrong - of course we must bring the whole weight of scripture to bear on our understanding, but if the whole weight of scripture seems to contradict the text we are trying to understand then we have gone wrong somewhere. However you said to me, '...tongues, as you define them, ceased...this would mean there are no more human languages...' so again forgive me if was incorrect to read this as a conclusion that you have drawn from what I have said - but really I see no other way for taking it - as such it is straw man and a caricature and that needed to be spelled out. 

[His_disciple3]

I am not closing the thread - as far as I am aware I don't think I have that power. And remember I tried to agree to move on before Nor have I made any effort to insult your intelligence, anything that comes across in that way is my failure to communicate well (my apologies). Now, I am more then happy to disagree on the matter of the cessation/ continuation of tongues, indeed if not for the nature of your last statement to me in the post I addressed I would have left this thread well enough alone. For I have said all that needs to be said, Acts 2:11 is clear, and any understanding of what was happening that runs contrary to what it says is wrong - of course we must bring the whole weight of scripture to bear on our understanding, but if the whole weight of scripture seems to contradict the text we are trying to understand then we have gone wrong somewhere. However you said to me, '...tongues, as you define them, ceased...this would mean there are no more human languages...' so again forgive me if was incorrect to read this as a conclusion that you have drawn from what I have said

 - but really I see no other way for taking it - as such it is straw man and a caricature and that needed to be spelled out.

when the scriptures says tongues will cease, is when the perfect one comes( and that ain't happen yet), this is not meaning the cannon of scripture as we Baptist have been taught. we can prove that within the very verses that says tongues will cease if you will open your eyes to scripture, not to what you have been taught. look at the text carefully

1 Cor 13:8-13

8 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.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 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.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

KJV

You focus on the tongues ceasing and prophecies failing, for that is what you want to see, but look "whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish. same verse same thought as your tongues ceasing, the Cannon of scriptures did not make knowledge vanish, but just the opposite, for with the cannon of scriptures, knowledge increased. so when do other scriptures teach that knowledge will vanish, when He< Jesus Christ the righteous One, the perfect one comes, and before you go there as most Baptist do, this coming is not referring to His first coming, as a babe. For if it does then we have to discredit Most of scriptures after Pentecost, for if tongues ceased at His first coming, all prophecy and tongues after that would not be of God. and this could contradict Joel's prophecy which Peter preached at Pentecost, after this I will pour out my spirit on all people. your servants and maidens will Prophesy, hey while we are here, this also would prove that our Baptist doctrine that the Gifts were just for the original Apostles is a false doctrine, unless you can prove that one some of the original Apostles were actually handmaidens:

Acts 2:18

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

KJV

Edited December 24, 2013 by His_disciple3

[Reformed Baptist]

You focus on the tongues ceasing and prophecies failing, for that is what you want to see,

 

​With all due respect brother you are in no place to identify what I focus on and what I fail to see, especially as I have not referenced that text in this discussion. You are working off an assumption of what my argument might be.and that is telling - rather then responding to the arguments I have made. Why is it that there is (on this thread) a tendency to refute arguments I have not made, and that actually I would never make. Why are my words not allowed to stand? The truth is I have been discussing this topic for nearly as long as I have been active on Christian forums, and to the best of my knowledge I have never made 1 Cor 13:8 a mainstay of my argument 

 

when the scriptures says tongues will cease, is when the perfect one comes( and that ain't happen yet), this is not meaning the cannon of scripture as we Baptist have been taught. we can prove that within the very verses that says tongues will cease if you will open your eyes to scripture, not to what you have been taught. look at the text carefully

 

Skipping over the pejorative statements like "if you will open your eyes to scripture" which are incredibly unhelpful and completely unnecessary let me address what i believe to be the crux of your argument, however before we do, I need to make one point, 1 Cor 13:10 does not refer to the 'perfect one' as you suppose, it says "that which is perfect"  (ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ τὸ τέλειον). Now τέλειον does not mean 'perfect' in the modern sense of that word, it has the sense of being 'complete'. It cannot be a reference to a person, that is grammatically untenable. 

 

What Paul is actually saying in this pericope is that the gifts that the Corinthian Christians prized so very highly have an inbuilt obsolescence. They are not permanent, and they will not continue into eternity. He is saying they will give way to something beyond them, The verb καταργηθήσεται means “to be abolished,” “to pass away,” or “to be rendered inoperative.” The verb is used in 1:28 for God’s reducing to nothing “the things that are”; in 6:13, for the destruction awaiting “food and the belly”; in 2:6, for the doom awaiting the rulers of this age; in 15:24, for the dethroning of “every ruler and every authority and power”; and in 15:26, for the destruction of “the last enemy, death.” The verb καταργηθήσεται is making it clear that these gifts do not continue or flow into something new, they reach an end. Unlike love that will endure for all eternity - the point is that the Corinthians where craving the spectacular gifts as being all important, and Paul is saying, 'no, they have an end, but love does not not, so seek after that.'

 

Moving on we read, 1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. (NKJ) Paul is recognizing our present limitations, but that recognition is combined with a full confidence in the come of a full truth. Some do interpret the “perfect” or “what is complete” (τὸ τέλειον) as a process that leads to maturity in this life (not the parousia and the ultimate consummation). Hence the argument becomes: the Corinthians had matured beyond the need for this gift. However maturity is an individual thing, and varies from person to person, and besides the gifts were given for the benefit of the church (1 Cor 12:7). As to the argument that τὸ τέλειον being a reference to the scriptures -  well that is simply bad exegesis, indeed I would label it eisegesis.

 

As commentators like Robertson and Plummer 1914: 287, 299–300; Lietzmann 1949: 66, 189; Fee 1987: 646; Schrage 1999: 307–8 demonstrate "the perfect” (τὸ τέλειον) must refer to the state of affairs brought about by the parousia. The battery of future tenses, the disappearance of the partial replaced by the complete, and the reference to knowing as God knows us, all point to the end of this age. Hence Paul is contrasting the present age with the age to come. The “perfect” is shorthand for the consummation of all things and the intended goal of creation. The arrival of the end will displace the partial that we experience now and the  gifts shine that the Corinthians thoughts shone gloriously in this world but will fade to nothing in the presence of the new world. For they will have served their purpose in helping to build up the church however love will endure, it will continue.

 

So, maybe you can please tell me, where in my exegesis of this passage there is room for me to make this text into what you seem to assume I must be making it into for my position to stand? Maybe you can point out to me where I have blinded my eyes so that I only see what my Baptist tradition tells me to see? Or maybe, just maybe, it might be that you have done me a disservice my friend, and you don't actually know my reasoning

 

 

 

and before you go there as most Baptist do, this coming is not referring to His first coming, as a babe.

 

All I can say to that my friend, is that your experience of Baptists must be somewhat limited, as far as I can tell no English particular baptist has ever said that. Can you please point me to the baptist commentators that you base this claim upon on? note, that I am after those who are able to exegete and handle the scripture properly, as sadly there are many who pick up their bibles and think they know what it means despite being ill equipped and having no discernible gift to teach (that is not a refernce to anyone here, just an observation of the type of person I don't need to have cited ). 

 

 

 

hey while we are here, this also would prove that our Baptist doctrine that the Gifts were just for the original Apostles is a false doctrine, unless you can prove that one some of the original Apostles were actually handmaidens:

 

I don't have to! Again the question assumes something I have never said, and is refuting an argument I have not made. For a start there are clear examples in the NT of women who had the gift of prophecy - for example Philips 4 daughters (Acts 21:9). Also, if this gift was limited to the Apostles then Paul's arguemenst in 1 Cor 12-14 would be redundant. However, more pertinent is the question as to why you would make this statement at all in regards to what I am saying? Actually I have been making the point repeatedly that we cannot simply assume the 'all' of Acts 2:1 refers only to the Apostles. I have been implying that the antecedent could well be, and I quote myself "the fledgling church in Jerusalem."  Hence, I have been implying from the beginning that these gifts were for the church as a whole (1 Cor 12:7). However that does not mean everyone in the church had the same gifts (1 Cor 12:8-10).

 

Maybe, just maybe, my friend, my reasons for being a cessationist are little deeper, and more thought out then you have given me credit for. Maybe, just maybe, I know my Bible a little bit, and maybe, just maybe I have a degree of competence in expounding it and therefore maybe, I should be allowed to make my case for myself rather then have it incorrectly assumed for me?

Edited December 24, 2013 by Reformed Baptist

[His_disciple3]

Thank you for letting me know that you are educated in scriptures, But the foolishness of God confines the wise. The Baptist doctrine and yours is that tongues were not unknown or Angel tongues but rather other known languages. the Baptist preach that tongues has ceased, if tongues are not unknown then your conclusion of the matter can only be that we all speak the same language as before the tower, or we quit speaking altogether in any language, so this has not happened yet, so at least we should be able to agree that the Baptist is wrong as tongues shall cease is not a past event, but yet a future one still, you can't have your cake and eat it too, so as educated as you are and I love the way people say well perfect one "DON"T mean what is says. then can't you at least open your eyes and see that if tongues were only other languages then we can't preach that they have already ceased. and thank you for proving my point, again all your focus is on tongues if tongues has ceased please explain when knowledge vanished !

Edited December 24, 2013 by His_disciple3

[Reformed Baptist]

Friend, I have tried to be reasonable, and I have asked politely for you to let me speak. However it seems obvious to me that you believe you understand my theology, and my motives far better then I do and therefore you are not prepared to let my words stand on their own merit - so there is nothing more for me to say! there is one thing that is certain, and that is that one of us appears to be somewhat closed minded. 

Edited December 24, 2013 by Reformed Baptist

[enoob57]

Where in the Bible is it recorded that anyone spoke in unknown tongues upon the baptism of the Holy Ghost?

 

What do you mean by 'unknown' do you mean unknown to the speaker, ie other human language that are in use elsewhere in the world, or do you mean unknown tongues to all who are present, or are you referring to heavenly languages that do not actually correspond to any human language. 

 

it may be interesting to note that the Greek language had a perfectly good word that was well used to describe the ecstatic utterances that were part of Greek temple worship, but Pauland Luke  never once use it, instead they refer to a words whose meaning is in relation to human languages -  γλῶσσα and ἑτερόγλωσσος in such discusions

I am referring to someone speaking words that neither them, nor anyone around them can understand.

But human languages like English, French etc, and not heavenly tongues?

they certainly are when you consider Babel ... it was caused by God and instantaneously! Love, Steven

[NeedYouLord]

Much love to you,

Not referring to what anyone has said or quoted...just this: I saw someone that had recorded her "speaking in tongues" and had taken the recording to a university...They discovered that her "speaking in tongues"-that she didn't understand-was a very little known language-I think they said it was practically extinct...yet she was speaking it!!! My my...

 

I truly believe that if we had a record of "every single thing" that ever happened in the day of Jesus...there wouldn't be enough books to contain it...

 

Much is revealed by The Holy Spirit...Who leads and guides us into All Truth...Whew...Oh Yes He Does...Our Jesus Is Alive and Sits At The Right Hand of The Father...Praying for us...His Word is Alive...and His Word is True...Much love to you In Him...Jesus, Our Lord...

[other one]

Friend, I have tried to be reasonable, and I have asked politely for you to let me speak. However it seems obvious to me that you believe you understand my theology, and my motives far better then I do and therefore you are not prepared to let my words stand on their own merit - so there is nothing more for me to say! there is one thing that is certain, and that is that one of us appears to be somewhat closed minded. 

 

After being here for over ten years now might I suggest that it works best when you just ignore some folks.  Post your thoughts and let the rest of us decide.  We're not all close minded.