Tongues what do you think? (MERGED TOPIC)

[crab3]

I never had that knowledge, and neither did you, the knowledge we have is the Bible, we have the potential to 'know it all,' our knowledge is growing.

my point about Jud talking about the present of that time, and Paul talking of the future is simple, Paul says once that perfect thing comes (the Bible), those gifts will cease, Jud isn't even aknowledging the fact that a perfect thing will come, so it is irrelevant to our debate, any thing relevant to our debate has to include the ceasing of those gifts. also, when it says in 1 Cor that those gifts would cease, it doesn't say specifically that a couple gifts would cease, or only raising the dead, it said ALL GIFTS WILL CEASE, including tounges, prophecy, healing, raising the dead, and the rest. so comparing my example to yours doesn't make sense, the price of corn has nothing to do with how tall you are, but raising the dead and tounges were both gifts taken from this world, all or none.....

beside the point i think, but if people aren't raising the dead, people aren't speaking tounges

its simple.....

just for the record, i am a baptised, repenting christian, i'm not trying to denounce the faith, and in the end we may have to agree to disagree, though that me be awhile from now

peace

crabs><>

Edited May 25, 2006 by crab3

[Mark777]

I have been thinking about the tongues issue and decided there is another possible explanation other than a conglomerate prayer language that allows others to hear the message in their own language:

In Act 2 there is a large group of believers there when the Spirit falls on them. Every one heard "them" speak in their own tongue. So, I revise my list of possibilities to include:

1. That tongues are solely earthly languages that the Spirit speaks through the individual as opposed to some conglomerate language that allows everyone to hear their own language. They heard multiple languages because multiple people were speaking in tongues.

The same for 1 Corinthians 14. No man understands the tongue unless the speaker knows the language, or there is someone there that knows the language, and if someone is there that God allows to interpret the message. Paul, in verse, 10 refers to earthly languages in this context.

The reason I believe that tongues are probably "mostly" phased out is - that the messages would be words from God - wouldn't that put them on par with Scripture! I believe Scripture is complete. I think maybe God uses tongues in a situation where missionaries confront people that have a unknown language. (Very rare these days.)

There are my thoughts today.

Mark

[crab3]

The reason I believe that tongues are probably "mostly" phased out is - that the messages would be words from God - wouldn't that put them on par with Scripture! I believe Scripture is complete. I think maybe God uses tongues in a situation where missionaries confront people that have a unknown language. (Very rare these days.)

There are my thoughts today.

Mark

to true, and i don't see God disobeying Jesus, (himself) by crossing the Rev verse, "....do not add or take away......"

[tah]

Crab..I want to make sure I understand what you are saying..

You believe that in this scripture..

1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

that it is speaking of the "Bible"?

[crab3]

The part about that which is perfect, yes the Bible,

that which is perfect in this case, is referring to the Bible.

Look further down, if in this instance, that which is perfect, is referring to Jesus, Paul would not tell us that we will still need faith hope and charity, for when Jesus comes, we'll need no faith. But since it isn't Jesus, but the Bible that he is referring to, we will still need faith, until He does come.

So Paul is saying that the gifts will not be needed when that which is perfect is come, which is the Bible, if it were Jesus, he wouldn't tell us that we will need faith, when that which is perfect arrives, because we'll need faith no more when Jesus arrives, that is why charity or love is the greatest, because after His return, hope and faith will not be needed........

crabs><>

[crab3]

Of course remember the tense here, Paul is talking about the future, that is where the confusion comes from, when we read it Paul is talking about a period to come for them, but past for us,

[Isaiah-smiles]

Tongues-speaking is a subject of widespread Christian interest. Pentecostals and charismatics (which include members of mainline Protestant, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholic congregations) practice speaking in tongues as an evidence of spiritual renewal and devotion. Yet, it's not just a Christian experience. Many in the occult and in Eastern Mysticism, both in and out of the New Age movement, also speak in tongues.

Regrettably, tongues have become a source of confusion and division among many Christians. This is partly because some tongues- speakers declare it to be a necessary companion to the baptism of the Spirit and see Christians who don't speak in tongues as deficient in spiritual experience. But the fire of this controversy is also fanned by an over-reaction on the part of some noncharismatics.

The testimonies of tongues-speakers and the writings of scholars who have studied the phenomenon give us mixed signals. On the one hand, men like John Sherrill tell of instances when they have heard people speak fluently in languages they had never learned. On the other hand, linguists and anthropologists who have investigated these reports have not been able to verify them.

The testimony about tongues today is therefore quite mixed. It neither proves nor disproves the practice of miraculous speech in real languages among Christians. If the tongues problem is to be solved, it must be on the basis of what the Bible says.

In seeking to eliminate the disruption tongues- speaking was bringing into the church, Paul faced a real problem. He couldn't be there personally to stop someone who started speaking with the counterfeit nonlanguage form of tongues. Many Pentecostal and charis- matic pastors today are frank to admit that they don't accept all tongues-speaking as God-given and that they sometimes ask problem people to refrain from speaking. Besides, Paul probably realized that some of the Corinthian believers were well-meaning people who enjoyed the experience. They might have been devastated if told that their tongues-speaking was not from God. Then too, since the real gift was still present, Paul didn't want to give the impression that all speaking in tongues was to be avoided. He wanted to leave room for the exercise of this gift. Therefore, after expressing some pros and cons about tongues-speaking in which he neither fully endorsed nor totally discouraged the practice, he set forth eight rules for its exercise. Here they are as given in 1 Corinthians 14:26-40:

1). Public tongues-speaking was to benefit and build up the body (v.26).

2). Only two or three were to speak in tongues in a service (vv.27, 30).

3). They were to speak in turn (vv.27, 30).

4). Tongues were to be spoken only when interpreted (vv.27, 28).

5). Discerning people were to weigh the message to determine its validity (v.29).

6). Women were not to speak in tongues (v.34).

7). Tongues were not to be forbidden but to be given a lower place than prophecy (v.39).

8). A proper and orderly atmosphere in church services was to be maintained (v.40).

Why did God enable people to speak in languages they had never learned? The apostle Paul answered this question by giving us its primary and secon- dary purposes. He wrote, "Therefore tongues are for a sign" (1 Cor. 14:22) and declared that as a spiritual gift it was bestowed on "each one for the profit of all" (1 Cor. 12:7).

The Sign Function. While we cannot find in Acts a specific statement that tongues-speaking functioned as a sign, we can easily see how it did. On the Day of Pentecost the tongues-speaking was the phenomenon that drew the crowd, and it undoubtedly was a powerful factor in opening the hearts of Jewish people to Peter's message. It served as a sign, authenticating the apostles as representatives of the risen Christ. We can also assume that it was an assuring sign to the apostles themselves. They could see it as a partial fulfillment of Christ's promise, "And these signs will follow those who believe: . . . they will speak with new tongues . . ." (Mark 16:17). They may have even taken the fact that they spoke in 15 Gentile dialects as a sign that the good news was, as Jesus had said, for all the world (Matt. 28:19; Acts 1:8).

The sign function of tongues-speaking is also quite obvious in the other two incidents recorded by Luke. When the Roman centurion and his household (Gentiles who had not become proselytes of the Jewish faith) believed, they spoke in tongues. They did it in the presence of "those of the circumcision who believed" (Acts 10:45), Jewish Christians. Peter saw this as a sign that these Gentiles were to be baptized because they "have received the Holy Spirit just as we have" (Acts 10:47). It was a sign to these Jewish believers that Gentiles were fellow-members with them in the body of Christ. The tongues-speaking of the 12 people in Acts 19:1-7 was undoubtedly a sign to them that they had received the Holy Spirit (whom they hadn't yet heard of) and a sign of Paul's authority to everyone present.

When we turn from Acts to 1 Corinthians, we find Paul listing tongues among the sign gifts (12:7-11) and declaring, "Therefore tongues are for a sign" (14:22). This gives us a solid basis for concluding that even though tongues-speaking occurred in church services here and was termed a "gift," it still retained its sign function.

Paul didn't rule out the possibility that uninterpreted tongues might have had some value for self-edification. But interpreted tongues went a step further and brought a degree of spiritual benefit to the church. And Paul never suggested that people seek the gift of tongues for the purpose of edifying either themselves or others. In this role it was far inferior to prophecy--declaring a message from God in plain, everyday speech. To emphasize this point, Paul proceeded to list seven ways in which uninterpreted tongues were less valuable to the spiritual welfare of the church than prophecy.

1). Speaking in uninterpreted tongues edified only the speaker, not the church (14:1-6).

2). Speaking in tongues could lead to confusion; prophecy brought illumination (14:7-12).

3). Speaking in tongues did not benefit the mind of either speaker or hearer; prophecy brought understanding (14:13-15).

4). Praying in tongues, unlike prayer in a known language, didn't benefit those who heard it (14:16,17).

5). Speaking in tongues could be an indication of spiritual immaturity--a tendency to prefer the more showy gift of tongues to the more solid gift of prophecy (14:20).

6). Hearing unknown tongues was once a punishment for the Jews because they had despised the plain words of Isaiah (14:21,22).

7). Too much tongues-speaking in a public service could be a hindrance to the salvation of nonbelievers present; unlimited prophecy could be the means of bringing conviction and salvation (14:23-25).

It follows that edification through tongues--for oneself or the church--is not its major purpose. Proclaiming and hearing God's message in common speech is far superior and desirable.

Did tongues cease before AD 100? They probably did. The testimony of the New Testament and church history strongly point in this direction. The writer of Hebrews used the past tense when he declared that God had confirmed the apostolic witness with "signs and wonders," "various miracles," and "gifts of the Holy Spirit" (Heb. 2:1-4). Tongues-speaking would certainly come under the category of "signs and wonders." Moreover, church historians have found no evidence of tongues-speaking among the church fathers of the second century. The practice was present only among a few heretical followers of Montanus. And until recent times, tongues-speaking has been unknown among the vast majority of the Lord's people.

Even though there is good reason to believe that tongues-speaking ceased with the ending of the apostolic age, the Bible doesn't specifically state that this is the case. Many use 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 to prove that the miracle of tongues- speaking is an absolute impossibility today, but this passage isn't conclusive.

Some take the words "when that which is perfect has come" (13:10) to be a reference to the New Testament. They point out that the Greek word used in relation to the gifts of prophecy and knowledge is katargeo in the passive voice. They say that these gifts were "rendered inoperative" by the acceptance of the New Testament and that tongues simply stopped (pauo) at some point before the completion of the New Testament Scriptures.

Some Bible scholars believe that this verse is referring to the maturity of the church, while others maintain that it is the second coming of Christ. The logic for all these views is good, but none of them can be proven with absolute certainty. I believe that it's best to see the expression "that which is perfect" as a reference to eternity. It is only then that we will see "face to face" and "know just as I also am known" (13:12).

In summary, we can advance solid reason for believing that tongues ceased at the close of the apostolic age. But we cannot prove that they did on the basis of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13.

IN CONCLUSION

What about private praying in tongues? Many Christians who never speak in tongues publicly are enthusiastic about using tongues as a private prayer language. They admit that they don't understand what they are praying, but they claim that it makes them sense God's presence and leads them into real words of praise, adoration, petition, and intercession. They support this practice from certain verses in 1 Corinthians 14. Paul spoke about speaking in tongues "to God" in verses 2 and 28. And he specifically referred to praying in tongues in verses 14 through 17.

It seems very unlikely, however, that the apostle Paul was either referring to or encouraging a valid private prayer language. Although such an interpretation can be read into the text, it doesn't seem natural to the flow of what he was saying. If Paul did tell his readers to practice uninterpreted tongues in private rather than in public, he certainly wasn't emphasizing this private use. His emphasis was that they were not to do it in public.

To interpret Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 14 as an affirmation of private tongues-speaking is to miss his point. It is like a child saying that because his parents told him to keep his mess in his own room, they are condoning and encouraging a messy life. When in reality, the parents just didn't want the whole family to have to live with it.

Furthermore, it's important to realize that Paul was in a position of having to regulate the intrusion of counterfeit tongues in the church. Certainly the Holy Spirit was not giving utterance to that which was so unprofitable and disorderly. But because the apostle was not on the scene in Corinth to pass judgment on each case, and because the real gift of tongues was still in existence, he did a very wise thing. He gave inspired principles for regulating tongues so that it would not continue to be a disruptive force in the church.

That is far different from saying that Paul was affirming and dignifying a new way of praying--a new spiritual gift that would enable us to talk to God without using our minds. This is not consistent with the way the Lord asks us to approach Him, nor with the purpose of tongues as a supernatural sign for people whose faith needed to be kindled or developed.

[thepreacher]

I never had that knowledge, and neither did you, the knowledge we have is the Bible, we have the potential to 'know it all,' our knowledge is growing.

my point about Jud talking about the present of that time, and Paul talking of the future is simple, Paul says once that perfect thing comes (the Bible), those gifts will cease, Jud isn't even aknowledging the fact that a perfect thing will come, so it is irrelevant to our debate, any thing relevant to our debate has to include the ceasing of those gifts. also, when it says in 1 Cor that those gifts would cease, it doesn't say specifically that a couple gifts would cease, or only raising the dead, it said ALL GIFTS WILL CEASE, including tounges, prophecy, healing, raising the dead, and the rest. so comparing my example to yours doesn't make sense, the price of corn has nothing to do with how tall you are, but raising the dead and tounges were both gifts taken from this world, all or none.....

beside the point i think, but if people aren't raising the dead, people aren't speaking tounges

its simple.....

just for the record, i am a baptised, repenting christian, i'm not trying to denounce the faith, and in the end we may have to agree to disagree, though that me be awhile from now

peace

crabs><>

Read Jude, he says all these wicked people come out of the Christian church. In other words they are also baptised, repenting, christians. So that would be no proof according to scripture of a person being right or wrong in the end.

Paul in other book(s) says the same thing. Paul even rejects two christians for saying the resurrection is already past and tells other christian not to fellowship with them. Two christians die for lying to the Holy Spirit in Acts.

As far as I am concerned, it is always peaceful and I take no offense my self. I just believe you are on thin ice and tried to warn you. I will try not to reply in the future.

If you choose not to believe that the Holy Spirit is still working in gifts today, then I have no further help for you.

[crab3]

[germanJoy]

Edited May 26, 2006 by germanJoy