Tongues in the Reformed community

[Herald]

For those that believe tongues is still operational today (and for those cessationists who have asked the same question), what is the substance of the gift and how is to be practiced?

Is the gift revelation from God, or is it private expression through a known language (whether human or angelic)?

If the gift is revelation from God, how does it not usurp scripture?

Does the practice of the gift require an interpreter? If so, how is the interpreter validated as accurate?

If it is a private prayer language, how does it prevent creating a caste system with the church? The haves and the have nots.

Lastly, how would a reformed continualist reconcile his continualist view with confessionalism?

[Jimmy the Greek]

Good questions.

It makes me wonder. Is "private prayer language" a use of the gift of "tongues" in Scripture?

[FenderPriest]

I don't think you're going to get many replies from tongue-speaking Calvinists since all of the threads like this have been closed in the past.

[whitway]

[Jon 316]

For those that believe tongues is still operational today (and for those cessationists who have asked the same question), what is the substance of the gift and how is to be practiced?

1 COR 14: 2For(E) one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

The gift primarily edifies the believer, when interpreted, it can edify the church because that which was spoken in an unknown tongue is now being made known in a known tongue.

It can be used in private and it can be used publically, with interpretation.

If the gift is revelation from God, how does it not usurp scripture?

The moon, the stars, the sun and indeed the whole of creation is revelation from God (Romans) and they do not 'usurp' scripture!

Does the practice of the gift require an interpreter? If so, how is the interpreter validated as accurate?

This is something that is discerned both spiritually and doctrinally.

If it is a private prayer language, how does it prevent creating a caste system with the church? The haves and the have nots

Depends if you think 1) all can speak in tongues or 2) the gift is only for some

If you think the gift is only for some, it is no different from any other spiritual gift which the Holy Spirit chooses to impart to some and not others. Are we all to go and cry because the Holy Spirit does not make every one a pastor? Are we to feel left out because we do not have a gifting in an area when another does? Hardly.

If you think all have access to this gift, there is still no issue. Those who desire the gifts can recieve them.

This could be argued on several fronts

1) Paul begins by encouraging the believers in this passage to desire spiritual gifts "earnestly desire the(C) spiritual gifts," 1 Cor 14:1

2) Tongues, in the book of Acts, Seems to be one of the most common gifts dispersed, when a group of people were filled with the Holy Spirit.

4) Paul, says he would like all believers to speak in tongues but he would rather have them prophesy. '1 cor 14:5Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but(F) even more to prophesy.'

5) The gift of tongues is only spiritual gift which serves as a means to personal edification. Every other gift is for the good of the church. It makes sense for this gift to be available to all.

[toddpedlar]

Originally Posted by FenderPriest

I don't think you're going to get many replies from tongue-speaking Calvinists since all of the threads like this have been closed in the past.

Your point? Perhaps it would be good to try to determine WHY such threads have been closed instead of griping about it.

[FenderPriest]

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Your point? Perhaps it would be good to try to determine WHY such threads have been closed instead of griping about it.

I'm not gripping. The board is run so that content does not go against the Westminster confessions, and the propagation of continuationist teaching has historically been judged in contrast to that standard. I'm not gripping, just making an observation. I'm sorry if you read it that way. I could be wrong though, I'm not a prophet.

[ADKing]

Originally Posted by Herald

For those that believe tongues is still operational today

I believe that tongues are too operational in reformed churches. The best advice for them is in Ecclesiastes 5.2 and James 1.19 and James 3

[Herald]

I'm on the road right now (Gettysburg), but I will respond this evening.

[SolaScriptura]

I have a tongue and I'm in the Reformed community.

[Re4mdant]

Me to it looks like this

[Brad]

There are many languages spoken by reformed believers. Some of them are even intelligible. What's the fuss?

[TheocraticMonarchist]

Tongues go against the confession.

3. Prayer with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship,a is by God required of all men;b and that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son,c by the help of his Spirit,d according to his will,e with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance;f and, if vocal, in a known tongue.g

P.S. I graduated from the Arminian school of exegesis

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by Jon 316

It can be used in private and it can be used publically, with interpretation.

This is contrary to 1 Cor. 12:7-11, which states that "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal," and that the Holy Spirit divides to every man severally as He will. There is no private benefit in the giving of these gifts, and hence in 1 Cor. 14 the apostle insists that they ought not to be used for private benefit.

[forgivenmuch]

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Good questions.

It makes me wonder. Is "private prayer language" a use of the gift of "tongues" in Scripture?

No.

[TheocraticMonarchist]

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Then the confession, interpretation of man and not inspired by the Holy Spirit (i.e not the word of God) goes against sripture which is inspired by the Holy Spirit (is the word of God).

1 Corinthians 14:39
Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

I'm pretty sure this part of the confession is referring to the latin mass

Anyway, 'twas a joke.

[Herald]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

This is contrary to 1 Cor. 12:7-11, which states that "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal," and that the Holy Spirit divides to every man severally as He will. There is no private benefit in the giving of these gifts, and hence in 1 Cor. 14 the apostle insists that they ought not to be used for private benefit.

Matthew, excellent observation. The gift of tongues was given to edify the church. The way tongues is practiced today is in the form of unintelligible speech. The person speaking in tongues has no idea what they are saying. They are left to trust that their unintelligible utterance is recognizable to God. The body is in no way built up by this practice.

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by TheocraticMonarchist

Anyway, 'twas a joke.

The Confession should be taken seriously and applied to the claims of modern "tongues," as it reflects the teaching of 1 Cor. 14 that the Christian message edifies only when it is properly understood.

The apostle's statement which forbids not speaking in languages is obviously applicable in the context where he himself thanks God that he speaks with languages more than all the Corinthians, i.e., as an apostle he exercises the gift truly. In a context where there are no apostles then a church is quite right to forbid such activity -- excepting of course the case where a foreign missionary speaks his native language and is translated for the benefit of the congregation.

[Herald]

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Then the confession, interpretation of man and not inspired by the Holy Spirit (i.e not the word of God) goes against sripture which is inspired by the Holy Spirit (is the word of God).

1 Corinthians 14:39
Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

John,

Please deal with Matthew Winzer's assertion:

This is contrary to 1 Cor. 12:7-11, which states that "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal," and that the Holy Spirit divides to every man severally as He will. There is no private benefit in the giving of these gifts, and hence in 1 Cor. 14 the apostle insists that they ought not to be used for private benefit.

[Jon 316]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

This is contrary to 1 Cor. 12:7-11, which states that "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal," and that the Holy Spirit divides to every man severally as He will. There is no private benefit in the giving of these gifts, and hence in 1 Cor. 14 the apostle insists that they ought not to be used for private benefit.

Paul's purpose in writing the corinthians is to rebuke their selfish use of the gifts and to remind them that the overall purpose of the gifts is for the edification of the church.

Paul, in his teaching, clearly destinguishes tongues from other gifst (specifically prophesy)

1 COR 14: 2For(E) one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

The gift of tongues, uninterpreted, is clearly explained as having the purpose of personal edification.

To take Paul's general principle 'Gifts are for the upbuilding of the body', and to then use it to contradict another statement which Paul clearly makes is to force an interpretation into the text which is not there.

[TheocraticMonarchist]

Are tongues inspired like Scripture, or are they a lesser revelation?

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by Jon 316

The gift of tongues, uninterpreted, is clearly explained as having the purpose of personal edification.

1 Cor. 14:2, misinterpreted, is being used to create a contradiction in Paul's instructions. If we go back to the maxim laid down at the beginning of his discussion in 12:1-3, we see that being carried away by unintelligible utterances was characteristic of the Corinthians in their heathen state. When the apostle states in 14:2, that a man speaking in tongues cannot be understood, he is obviously referring to such activity in the negative light in which he has cast it in 12:1-3. There is no possibility of testing such speech to discern whether it proclaims Jesus is Lord, and so there is no way of discerning whether it comes from the Spirit of God. When the apostle proceeds to state, "howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries," he is obviously referring to the claim of those Corinthians who used the gift for private benefit, not providing some supplementary reason for using it.

[kalawine]

[toddpedlar]

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Paul's purpose in writing the corinthians is to rebuke their selfish use of the gifts and to remind them that the overall purpose of the gifts is for the edification of the church.

Paul, in his teaching, clearly destinguishes tongues from other gifst (specifically prophesy)

The gift of tongues, uninterpreted, is clearly explained as having the purpose of personal edification.

To take Paul's general principle 'Gifts are for the upbuilding of the body', and to then use it to contradict another statement which Paul clearly makes is to force an interpretation into the text which is not there.

Jon, it seems you have conveniently disconnected verses 2-4 of 1 Cor 14 from the remainder of the chapter, verses 7-11 that were quoted above, and also the connecting verse 6. This is not good exegesis. You claim to have found some "purpose" for private prayer languages, when in fact Paul is not doing anything of the kind in stating some sort of "purpose" here. When read properly, what Paul is doing is claiming that when a tongue is in fact "private" it has the RESULT of being self-serving only. There's no description of some special "purpose" for "private" languages here at all, unless you approach the text with the assumption that that is what is to be found there.

In what sense is this tongue you refer to in verses 2-4 a "private prayer language" and how is it a gift if it is such a "private" affair? Gifts are NOT given for private edification, period. That is the general tenor of Scripture concerning gifts, and you cannot divorce this gift from the rest, which are ALL said to be given for the benefit of the church. It is that foundation upon which ALL gift discussions are to be grounded. You can't take this one, single gift away from all the others and make it out to be somehow different than the rest. That's simply eisegesis - reading Scripture to say what you are committed to seeing it to be saying.

In verse 4, it is not the speaking of the tongue, by the way, that edifies. It is the speech itself, and the point Paul is making here, I believe, is that if the person is speaking a tongue that is not understood or interpreted, he can only edify himself, and noone else. Paul in fact here is making a rather negative statement, just like he is in verse 6 later on. Rather than proclaim some sort of "private" gift of tongues, Paul says here that speech that is unknown to others cannot serve as a gift for the upbuilding of the church. One speaks only, as it were into the air, so he uplifts prophecy instead as the primary means of building up the church, since it is done in a tongue that is understood to the hearers.

There is NO justification whatsoever for a "private prayer language" that somehow mystically does some magical edification to the believer - and even if there was, it would be hard to justify calling it a "gift". Tongue speaking in the Scriptures, it seems QUITE clear, is the speaking of human languages. If known to the audience, and interpreted to those who do not understand the language - a good thing. If not known, and/or not interpreted, they can only edify the speaker (and are thus not promoted by the apostle as a good thing).

If Paul came, he said in verse 6 of chapter 14, speaking a tongue (implication - a tongue that the hearers could not understand) then what good is it to them? He's asking why in the world would he do that, since all it could possibly do is serve him, since God understands all. His further explication of this teaching in verses 7-9 make this evidently clear, and make quite clear what he's spoken of in verse 2-4. He is NOT speaking about some nonesense gibberish private prayer language as some gift. Tongues is *A* gift and was used for the promotion of the gospel to those who would not otherwise be edified.

Please take a look at ALL of this discussion of gifts TOGETHER. It is really much more clear when you don't pick out pieces of the chapter to serve a given purpose and dispense with the rest when it doesn't fit the preconceived notion that is desired to be found.

[toddpedlar]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

1 Cor. 14:2, misinterpreted, is being used to create a contradiction in Paul's instructions. If we go back to the maxim laid down at the beginning of his discussion in 12:1-3, we see that being carried away by unintelligible utterances was characteristic of the Corinthians in their heathen state. When the apostle states in 14:2, that a man speaking in tongues cannot be understood, he is obviously referring to such activity in the negative light in which he has cast it in 12:1-3. There is no possibility of testing such speech to discern whether it proclaims Jesus is Lord, and so there is no way of discerning whether it comes from the Spirit of God. When the apostle proceeds to state, "howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries," he is obviously referring to the claim of those Corinthians who used the gift for private benefit, not providing some supplementary reason for using it.

The much more concise Rev. Matthew has struck the chord of my rather more distended comments.

[toddpedlar]

Originally Posted by TheocraticMonarchist

Are tongues inspired like Scripture, or are they a lesser revelation?

They are not revelation AT ALL.

[TheocraticMonarchist]

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

They are not revelation AT ALL.

They are usually lumped together with prophecy.

[Jon 316]

When the apostle states in 14:2, that a man speaking in tongues cannot be understood, he is obviously referring to such activity in the negative light in which he has cast it in 12:1-3.

What you state as 'obvious' is hardly the case.

1 COR 14: 2For(E) one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

Paul, is giving instruction and correcting certain abuses. The instruction he gives, in the midst of his correction, is the nature and purpose of the gifts of tongues and prophesy.

Paul is not describing a pagan practice, nor is he responding to some justification for 'private use'. He is clearly explaining the nature and purpose of the gift of tonges.

1) He who speaks in a tongue speaks to God not to men. Your point about Tongues as an evangelistic resource for apostles is a moot point. Tongues are speaking to God. 'one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God;'

2) Tongues are naturally unintelligable 'for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.' Earthly languages are ruled out here. the nature of the 'tongues' are glossalalia (unknown language) and not xenolalia (known language)

3) The purpose of speaking in tongues is given and contrasted with prophesy '4The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.' Paul is very clear. Speaking in tongues brings a personal edification. Why is this? Point 1 showed that 'tongues' are directed to God, in other words it is a form of prayer.

4) Tongues is defined as a form of prayer that is direct from the spirit and not from the mind. '14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.' Paul is giving even more detail here. When a believer 'prays' in a tongue his spirit is praying.

5) and again in 14 'I will sing praise with my spirit,' Tongues are now being associated with praise and singing. Again This clearly applies to the apostle's use of tongues that is not associated with 'evangelistic languages'.

Paul was keen for order in the church, he desired the edification of the church. However within his correction he revealed some striking insights about the nature of 'speaking in tongues'. He clearly endorses the practice.

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Paul is not describing a pagan practice, nor is he responding to some justification for 'private use'. He is clearly explaining the nature and purpose of the gift of tonges.

The terms he uses ipso facto equate the unintelligible tongue speaking with the heathen past of the Corinthians as mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:2. He is essentially saying that it is not the Spirit-led gift being manifested for the edification of the body, but an idolatrous self-centred manifestation of deluded spiritually.

Originally Posted by Jon 316

1) He who speaks in a tongue speaks to God not to men. Your point about Tongues as an evangelistic resource for apostles is a moot point. Tongues are speaking to God. 'one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God;'

But why does he speak to God and not to man? "For no man understandeth him." The very purpose of the gifts is to give the church as a whole a better understanding of God. To say something that only God can understand is cast in a negative light because of its associations with the idolatrous past.

Originally Posted by Jon 316

2) Tongues are naturally unintelligable 'for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.' Earthly languages are ruled out here. the nature of the 'tongues' are glossalalia (unknown language) and not xenolalia (known language)

Yes, earthly languages are ruled out, which is another indication that they are not Spirit-given. Paul has made it clear that Spirit-given communication can be propositionally tested as to whether it proclaims Jesus is Lord, 12:3. The exegete is not at liberty to discard the clear principles laid down at the beginning of the discussion in chapter 12 when interpreting the apostle's practical instructions in chapter 14.

Originally Posted by Jon 316

3) The purpose of speaking in tongues is given and contrasted with prophesy '4The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.' Paul is very clear. Speaking in tongues brings a personal edification. Why is this? Point 1 showed that 'tongues' are directed to God, in other words it is a form of prayer.

Prayer to God and prophesy to man is not the point of the contrast, for "prayer" in this chapter is likewise considered in terms of its benefit for men, and requires intelligible speech, v. 14, 15. The point of the contrast is to show that speaking in tongues has no profitability in it for the very reason that it is unintelligible, whereas prophecy is intelligible and can therefore be understood, tested, and applied for the benefit of all.

Originally Posted by Jon 316

4) Tongues is defined as a form of prayer that is direct from the spirit and not from the mind. '14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.' Paul is giving even more detail here. When a believer 'prays' in a tongue his spirit is praying.

"Spirit" in this section of the discussion reflects the original claim of the Corinthians that their tongue speaking was in some sense a spiritual activity which could be carried on without intelligible speech, which meant that it could not be proved either by the content of what was spoken or the effects on the congregation. Paul maintains in opposition to this idiocy that he will not engage in any spiritual activity which renders the understanding unfruitful or inactive, but will use his spiritual gifts with intelligence for the benefit of others.

Originally Posted by Jon 316

5) and again in 14 'I will sing praise with my spirit,' Tongues are now being associated with praise and singing. Again This clearly applies to the apostle's use of tongues that is not associated with 'evangelistic languages'.

The singing with the spirit indicates yet again that the apostle is reflecting the claim of the Corinthians to be engaging in unintelligible yet spiritual activity. V. 16 explicitly corrects this false notion: "Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?"

[DonP]

What does this mean if there is no private use of tongues?

1 Cor 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. NKJV

Is this not referring to tongues at all?

As for revelatory, look how many people say, God told me to do this or God guided me or the Spirit moved me to say, etc etc.

Now all things even if we called them revelatory would not supersede scripture but would not be from the spirit if not consistent with scripture.

So all we are left with is, were they of some special sign gift that marked the beginning of the NT age and validated the preaching of the word as from God as signs always did.
And if so, why didn't Paul say this, say there would be a canon and then no need for signs anymore? Obviously he did not know these things so he couldn't have addressed them. And we are left with, do not forbid to speak with tongues.

If they were a sign for the word of God and we believe in a closed canon then there is no need for them.

If they are not just a sign but some normal ecstatic state, o a supernatural miracle then can God do miracles anymore, even f there are not people who do miracles at their own will or anytime they want.

And could they still be used for evangelism to people of a language we don't know as some missionaries have said has occurred even though they never before or since spoke in tongues of any kind. I hear so many stories of people I would not call unsaved or fanatics.

Does it seem plausible that in history God would give signs that one is bringing His word to people or a new people group in the past but now requires all people just to accept canonization?

For me the hardest point of faith is canonization. And I don't think Critical text people hold to it as hard since for many finding a letter in an old trash can could change what they believe of God.

After all, Regeneration is a miracle.

Not speaking for, just raising questions because some seem to think this is so easy and clear.
In His Service,

[DonP]

Hey what about casting out demons? Are there demons today? Demon possession? And can we cast them out? Or is that miraculous??

[Manuel]

Originally Posted by Herald

For those that believe tongues is still operational today (and for those cessationists who have asked the same question), what is the substance of the gift and how is to be practiced?

Is the gift revelation from God, or is it private expression through a known language (whether human or angelic)?

If the gift is revelation from God, how does it not usurp scripture?

Does the practice of the gift require an interpreter? If so, how is the interpreter validated as accurate?

If it is a private prayer language, how does it prevent creating a caste system with the church? The haves and the have nots.

Lastly, how would a reformed continualist reconcile his continualist view with confessionalism?

Tongues, as the Scripture clearly states, were a sign to the unbelieving Jews.

1Co 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
1Co 14:22 Thus tongues are a SIGN not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

Every single passage in the Bible where we see the gift of tongues in action is used as a sign of the introduction of a new covenant (the last days) and the end of the old one, nowhere in the scriptures we find the notion of a private prayer language, a self-edification gift, or revelation being transmitted in a different language.

[Herald]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The terms he uses ipso facto equate the unintelligible tongue speaking with the heathen past of the Corinthians as mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:2. He is essentially saying that it is not the Spirit-led gift being manifested for the edification of the body, but an idolatrous self-centred manifestation of deluded spiritually.

But why does he speak to God and not to man? "For no man understandeth him." The very purpose of the gifts is to give the church as a whole a better understanding of God. To say something that only God can understand is cast in a negative light because of its associations with the idolatrous past.



Yes, earthly languages are ruled out, which is another indication that they are not Spirit-given. Paul has made it clear that Spirit-given communication can be propositionally tested as to whether it proclaims Jesus is Lord, 12:3. The exegete is not at liberty to discard the clear principles laid down at the beginning of the discussion in chapter 12 when interpreting the apostle's practical instructions in chapter 14.



Prayer to God and prophesy to man is not the point of the contrast, for "prayer" in this chapter is likewise considered in terms of its benefit for men, and requires intelligible speech, v. 14, 15. The point of the contrast is to show that speaking in tongues has no profitability in it for the very reason that it is unintelligible, whereas prophecy is intelligible and can therefore be understood, tested, and applied for the benefit of all.

"Spirit" in this section of the discussion reflects the original claim of the Corinthians that their tongue speaking was in some sense a spiritual activity which could be carried on without intelligible speech, which meant that it could not be proved either by the content of what was spoken or the effects on the congregation. Paul maintains in opposition to this idiocy that he will not engage in any spiritual activity which renders the understanding unfruitful or inactive, but will use his spiritual gifts with intelligence for the benefit of others.

The singing with the spirit indicates yet again that the apostle is reflecting the claim of the Corinthians to be engaging in unintelligible yet spiritual activity. V. 16 explicitly corrects this false notion: "Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?"

Matthew, thank you.

For the record, I do not speak in tongues, nor do I believe the gift is active today. The topic has been discussed previously on the PB. Unfortunately those discussions were prone to turn south in short order. I'm not going to allow that to happen with this thread.

My main concern with tongues is that it separates the individual from the body of Christ. It becomes a private line of communication with God, that doesn't involve the mind. Indeed, the person praying in tongue has no idea what they're saying, yet they still passionately defend the practice. In any other area of Christian living we cannot find a positive command to act ignorantly.