Tongues

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dennis1963

Dennis1963

Puritan Board Freshman
Is the gift of tongues active today amongst Christians, or did it die out after the early church and the Apostles?
In 1 Corinthians 14:22 Paul speaks about tongues are a sign to unbelievers. Does this mean today as well? Or does this have another meaning that Paul was teaching from Isaiah 28:11.

I am looking for answers to this subject, Myself I tend toward believing tongues went out after the Apostles, but I am not 100% sure. Any help and insight here would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I am presently in a debate over this at another board. If anyone cares to check it out, here is the address: It is in Apologetics: Vision and Prophecy. ChristianBoard.com :: Index

Again any help would be appreciated.
 
Yes, tongues are for today....thanks to the painstaking work of translators.
The closed canon is now in over a hundred different tongues!

My main thing about "tongue talkers" is that their theology is horrible!
How can that be the Holy Spirit?
 
Thanks for the quick replies, I will look at them. I have one more question: Like I said I am in a debate with a couple people, and I was confronted with a statement and question that I had hoped I wouldn't. Here is the question: "Dennis teaches that Tongues are not for the Church today. Paul teaches us forbid not to speak with Tongues. So, What do you suggest that believers in Christ do today Dennis?" ----------Here is the situation, I do not believe tongues is for the church today, but I do not want to accuse many Christians, that the tongues they speak in is phony! I am not sure how to answer this question. Do I tell them all the tongues they speak in is fake? When they believe it is genuine? ----I can remember back about 10 years ago, before I came to the reformed faith, I was told that I could speak in tongues if I desired, and also I should desire this. I did not speak in tongues, but I can remember kinda building myself up to it and waiting for it to happen. Suppose it did happen, I could see how one could be convinced it is real. Then what kind of answer would I accept in this situation? I am not sure. I do know I would probably be insulted that someone told me it was fake. Understand where I am coming from?----How do I speak the truth in love in this situation?
 
non dignus said:
Yes, tongues are for today....thanks to the painstaking work of translators.
The closed canon is now in over a hundred different tongues!

My main thing about "tongue talkers" is that their theology is horrible!
How can that be the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
Lol, Thanks I need that, that was probably the funniest thing I heard all week. And at the same time true.
 
non dignus said:
Yes, tongues are for today....thanks to the painstaking work of translators.
The closed canon is now in over a hundred different tongues!

My main thing about "tongue talkers" is that their theology is horrible!
How can that be the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...

That's a gross generalization. Not all "tongue talkers" have bad theology. There are plenty of non-cessationists with good theology: John Piper, D. A. Carson, Mark Dever, C. J. Mahaney, Sam Storms, and many others.
 
Dennis:

It seems to me that the idea of speaking in tongues was so that there was an objective way in which men could authenticate the word which was spoken to be from God Himself. Like miracles during the time of Moses and Elijah, and also in Jesus' time, the tongues given to the Apostles after Jesus ascended and the Holy Spirit descended was a way to authenticate the words of these men of God, that the words were inspired by God Himself and did not come from men.

Now that the canon is closed, what would be the use of speaking in tongues in our day?

Calling someone's subjective experiences or feelings into question is hardly necessary. If they are convinced in their hearts, who are you to say from your heart they are wrong? But the Word of God can judge these things.

What the Church has maintained as the unchanged teaching throughout the ages, which we have summarized in our Confessions, is that the Word gives us everything we need that we may worship God in good conscience, revealing it to us in plain language. What are we trying to authenticate, then, by speaking in tongues if not the authenticity of our own hearts toward God? Is that not better shown by the life we live and the virtues that guide our lives? Is it not that the witness of the true believers after the time of these miraculous signs was, "Behold what love they have for one another"?

Well, that would be my answer, or something along those lines.
 
Hello Dennis,

Along with the excellent, Signs of the Apostles, these following two deal in-depth with the topics of tongues & prophecy, and look closely at 1 Cor. 13, and also 1 Cor 14:

The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today, by O. Palmer Robertson, and,


Charismatics and the Word of God, by Victor Budgen.

Before tangling with opponents on the issues of tongues and prophecy it is vital that one be clear oneself, as well as familiar with the arguments of both sides. To deal with folks over such on a non-Reformed board is opening oneself to a confusing wrangle, as there are no agreed-upon foundations for understanding the Scriptures. I see it as non-productive. Perhaps that is because my time is so precious I do not have time to spend arguing where we cannot agree on the definitions of the words and concepts we are using.

I no doubt will be arguing against Charismatic/Pentecostal doctrine and practice in my city, but there it will be for high stakes: the integrity of the Gospel, and the maturity and stability of individuals who may be caught up in it, or at risk of being so. And that will be a delicate operation, as some of the pastors who teach what I aim to oppose are my friends!

I would first make sure you know what you believe.

Steve
 
JohnV said:
Dennis:

It seems to me that the idea of speaking in tongues was so that there was an objective way in which men could authenticate the word which was spoken to be from God Himself. Like miracles during the time of Moses and Elijah, and also in Jesus' time, the tongues given to the Apostles after Jesus ascended and the Holy Spirit descended was a way to authenticate the words of these men of God, that the words were inspired by God Himself and did not come from men.

Now that the canon is closed, what would be the use of speaking in tongues in our day?

Calling someone's subjective experiences or feelings into question is hardly necessary. If they are convinced in their hearts, who are you to say from your heart they are wrong? But the Word of God can judge these things.

What the Church has maintained as the unchanged teaching throughout the ages, which we have summarized in our Confessions, is that the Word gives us everything we need that we may worship God in good conscience, revealing it to us in plain language. What are we trying to authenticate, then, by speaking in tongues if not the authenticity of our own hearts toward God? Is that not better shown by the life we live and the virtues that guide our lives? Is it not that the witness of the true believers after the time of these miraculous signs was, "Behold what love they have for one another"?

Well, that would be my answer, or something along those lines.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, I wonder myself why when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in chapters 11-14, he is writing telling them how to use the gifts correctly and never tells them they should not even be using them. It leaves one with the impression that they were intended to be in use.
Also there is the belief that, "That which is perfect" refers to the bible among the cessasionalists. Among non-cessasionalists they believe this refers to the return of Christ. Therefore, this would mean that gifts would be in effect until Christ returns.
This does not mean that bouncing off walls, roaring like lions and rabid pandemonium is what God intended this also violates what Paul was correcting in Corinthians.

I would have to say for me the issue is still not settled. Not because of experience but because of certain things in the bible that do not seem to be emphatic. It is a difference in belief systems. We should not be so quick to discount something just because someone else is abusing it. It seems so often that a belief system arises either because of a lack of it by the group as a whole, or the abuse of it by a certain other group. I think we should weigh everything the bible says of the issue and then decide. I believe it is better to have the truth than to dogmatically hold onto a certain doctrine. :2cents:
 
shackleton said:
JohnV said:
Dennis:

It seems to me that the idea of speaking in tongues was so that there was an objective way in which men could authenticate the word which was spoken to be from God Himself. Like miracles during the time of Moses and Elijah, and also in Jesus' time, the tongues given to the Apostles after Jesus ascended and the Holy Spirit descended was a way to authenticate the words of these men of God, that the words were inspired by God Himself and did not come from men.

Now that the canon is closed, what would be the use of speaking in tongues in our day?

Calling someone's subjective experiences or feelings into question is hardly necessary. If they are convinced in their hearts, who are you to say from your heart they are wrong? But the Word of God can judge these things.

What the Church has maintained as the unchanged teaching throughout the ages, which we have summarized in our Confessions, is that the Word gives us everything we need that we may worship God in good conscience, revealing it to us in plain language. What are we trying to authenticate, then, by speaking in tongues if not the authenticity of our own hearts toward God? Is that not better shown by the life we live and the virtues that guide our lives? Is it not that the witness of the true believers after the time of these miraculous signs was, "Behold what love they have for one another"?

Well, that would be my answer, or something along those lines.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, I wonder myself why when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in chapters 11-14, he is writing telling them how to use the gifts correctly and never tells them they should not even be using them. It leaves one with the impression that they were intended to be in use.
Also there is the belief that, "That which is perfect" refers to the bible among the cessasionalists. Among non-cessasionalists they believe this refers to the return of Christ. Therefore, this would mean that gifts would be in effect until Christ returns.
This does not mean that bouncing off walls, roaring like lions and rabid pandemonium is what God intended this also violates what Paul was correcting in Corinthians.
Click to expand...

There is also the dispensational cessationists that believe in 1 Cor 13:8-12, both maturity and Second Advent are intermingled in the text and are some how supplementing one another. Most (Dispensational) cessationists take verse 11 as referring to maturity while verse 12 referring to the Second Advent (John Macarthur and Robert Thomas). The distinction between dispensational cessasionists and Reformed cessationists is because in my experience, (Gaffin, Gentry, Warfield) Reformed cessationists take the entirety of verses 8-12 to be speaking of the maturity of the church; the closure of the canon.
 
Last edited:
Is not the paramount issue in this matter, have the revelational gifts ceased, or do they continue? Prophecy was a vehicle for direct revelation from God to His fledgling NT church, as were tongues/languages when they were interpreted (1 Cor 14:5). When they were interpreted they were equal to infallible prophetic utterance. Their usefulness to the young church was that they did not have the complete revelation that is in the full canon of Scripture, and the Lord used prophecy and prophecy through tongues/languages on an interim basis to guide His flock.

If the revelational gifts continue to this day, does this not mean that the Scripture is not "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim 3:16, 17) and is found to falsely attest to itself?

Of course this cannot be.
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
Is not the paramount issue in this matter, have the revelational gifts ceased, or do they continue? Prophecy was a vehicle for direct revelation from God to His fledgling NT church, as were tongues/languages when they were interpreted (1 Cor 14:5). When they were interpreted they were equal to infallible prophetic utterance. Their usefulness to the young church was that they did not have the complete revelation that is in the full canon of Scripture, and the Lord used prophecy and prophecy through tongues/languages on an interim basis to guide His flock.

If the revelational gifts continue to this day, does this not mean that the Scripture is not "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim 3:16, 17) and is found to falsely attest to itself?

Of course this cannot be.
Click to expand...

However, I think the 3rd Wavers would say, "Yes, the cannon is closed, but prophecy and tongues continue not with the same authority, however."

Why don't the Reformed confessions have more to say on this issue?

Also, I found this sermon by Sam Waldron very helpful: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11100643815
 
My point was that you have to have a good basic understanding of what these things are all about. If you read the I Cor. text in the context that these signs would cease as the Apostles were finishing the teaching which the Spirit endowed them with, that is, finishing the revelation, so also would cease the residual effects. That was what was happening at that time. Paul was not forbidding the sign, but was forbidding the abuse and misuse of it. It should be the same for us.

Do such signs signify the same thing today among those who believe they are continued? Hardly. More and more they are used to show that the Spirit is upon people, not to open up the gospel but to charismatize (if I may make up a word) a few before God's people.

If speaking in tongues were utterances of the Spirit through the ordinary believer, then whatever would be said in those tongues would be in complete agreement with the Word, and would not reveal anything more that what is in the Word.

In other words, speaking in tongues in our day as if they never ceased is a recipe for chaos, not for furthering the gospel.

It's not a question, it seems to me, of whether speaking in tongues is a sign for our time. It is plain enough to me that this same sign is being used to pull people away from the Word, to put trust in men instead of in God. That doesn't mean, however, that God cannot still use the speaking of tongues in our day. The point of the matter is that it is not now what it was in the time of the revelation of the New Testament, now that the NT is fully revealed. It's purpose would be entirely different, individual, personal, and not evangelical. Because the focus of the Bible is and always has been the gospel of grace, which is now fully written for us.


And remember, that in the middle of that part of Scripture is ch. 13.
 
JohnV said:
If speaking in tongues were utterances of the Spirit through the ordinary believer, then whatever would be said in those tongues would be in complete agreement with the Word, and would not reveal anything more that what is in the Word.
Click to expand...

This is a key point. In order to dodge it the Charismatics have to redefine "prophecy." It's no longer absolutely authoritative information from God that gives the law and gospel and in general explains redemptive history. Now the "encouragement" (1 Cor 14) from prophecy is taken to be characterized by personal "words" from God to specific individuals instead of the types of things I just mentioned for the whole Church. Some Charismatics also believe that it is predictive with regard to an individual or group. It boils down to "words" like "God wants you to know that you are a beautiful flower full of personality and warmth" or "You should 'serve' the Church in X fashion/go to India/etc."
 
Ken,

Some may indeed say,

"Yes, the cannon is closed, but prophecy and tongues continue not with the same authority, however."
Click to expand...

Yet the Scripture knows no such thing. It is then the prophecy of man, and not of God.

It is a crying shame to see people depending on experiences and "mighty men of God who prophesy," instead of the Lord Himself and His living word.
 
JohnV said:
Dennis:

It seems to me that the idea of speaking in tongues was so that there was an objective way in which men could authenticate the word which was spoken to be from God Himself. Like miracles during the time of Moses and Elijah, and also in Jesus' time, the tongues given to the Apostles after Jesus ascended and the Holy Spirit descended was a way to authenticate the words of these men of God, that the words were inspired by God Himself and did not come from men.

Now that the canon is closed, what would be the use of speaking in tongues in our day?

Calling someone's subjective experiences or feelings into question is hardly necessary. If they are convinced in their hearts, who are you to say from your heart they are wrong? But the Word of God can judge these things.

What the Church has maintained as the unchanged teaching throughout the ages, which we have summarized in our Confessions, is that the Word gives us everything we need that we may worship God in good conscience, revealing it to us in plain language. What are we trying to authenticate, then, by speaking in tongues if not the authenticity of our own hearts toward God? Is that not better shown by the life we live and the virtues that guide our lives? Is it not that the witness of the true believers after the time of these miraculous signs was, "Behold what love they have for one another"?

Well, that would be my answer, or something along those lines.
Click to expand...
Well that is a good answer, thank you. I think I have become a little lost in this debate, and forgot about the love part.
"Calling someone's subjective experiences or feelings into question is hardly necessary. If they are convinced in their hearts, who are you to say from your heart they are wrong? But the Word of God can judge these things."
You are right, thanks again.
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
Ken,

Some may indeed say,

"Yes, the cannon is closed, but prophecy and tongues continue not with the same authority, however."
Click to expand...

Yet the Scripture knows no such thing. It is then the prophecy of man, and not of God.

It is a crying shame to see people depending on experiences and "mighty men of God who prophesy," instead of the Lord Himself and His living word.
Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing with you, and I appreciated your advice about 'knowing what you believe' before entering the fray. I guess I stop short of throwing all tongues-speakers into the same group and accusing them of 'bad theology'. I think the fact that I lean toward cessationism is largely due to the fact that I have never had the experience of speaking in tongues while some of my Third Wave brothers might be just the opposite. I have a great deal of prayerful study to do in this area.
 
ok, confession time...

I have experienced what most charismatics would consider "speaking in tongues" - I genuinely believe that my experience was "authentic" (and uninterpreted) - BUT - as I matured in the faith and understood that this gift was the very least of all spiritual gifts, I left this gift behind as it is seemed an "elementary teaching" and not as profitable or edifying as the other gifts.

This is not to disparage the spiritual gift - it is to contextualize it as, I believe, Paul did.

Funny, I just disqualified myself as a potential missionary in the denomination I serve.

...or did I?
 
jdlongmire said:
Dennis1963 said:
jdlongmire said:
my earnest question - why all the hub-bub over the LEAST of the gifts? Why has this become the litmus test?
Click to expand...
well to me it is not. But look at the debate, most of these christians swear by it.
Click to expand...

so what does that say about them? :detective:
Click to expand...
I believe they for the most part have believed this before they knew scripture in truth on this subject (my opinion) Like most things in life with human nature when we practice something we grow to love it, it becomes a part of our lives so much, we don't want to let it go, we have grown to love it. And all the talk from someone else can very rarely change that. It has to come from God Himself.
So i also understand if I continue this debate in the same manner, it will just cause hard feelings.

Thank You, and God Bless.
 
jdlongmire said:
ok, confession time...

I have experienced what most charismatics would consider "speaking in tongues" - I genuinely believe that my experience was "authentic" (and uninterpreted) - BUT - as I matured in the faith and understood that this gift was the very least of all spiritual gifts, I left this gift behind as it is seemed an "elementary teaching" and not as profitable or edifying as the other gifts.

This is not to disparage the spiritual gift - it is to contextualize it as, I believe, Paul did.

Funny, I just disqualified myself as a potential missionary in the denomination I serve.

...or did I?
Click to expand...

I too have had the experiences and think it was all phony emotionalism.
 
jdlongmire said:
ok, confession time...

I have experienced what most charismatics would consider "speaking in tongues" - I genuinely believe that my experience was "authentic" (and uninterpreted) - BUT - as I matured in the faith and understood that this gift was the very least of all spiritual gifts, I left this gift behind as it is seemed an "elementary teaching" and not as profitable or edifying as the other gifts.

This is not to disparage the spiritual gift - it is to contextualize it as, I believe, Paul did.

Funny, I just disqualified myself as a potential missionary in the denomination I serve.

...or did I?
Click to expand...

The SBC just cannot make up its mind! You could always team up with Sovereign Grace Ministries!
 
KMK said:
jdlongmire said:
ok, confession time...

I have experienced what most charismatics would consider "speaking in tongues" - I genuinely believe that my experience was "authentic" (and uninterpreted) - BUT - as I matured in the faith and understood that this gift was the very least of all spiritual gifts, I left this gift behind as it is seemed an "elementary teaching" and not as profitable or edifying as the other gifts.

This is not to disparage the spiritual gift - it is to contextualize it as, I believe, Paul did.

Funny, I just disqualified myself as a potential missionary in the denomination I serve.

...or did I?
Click to expand...

The SBC just cannot make up its mind! You could always team up with Sovereign Grace Ministries!
Click to expand...

:lol: I wish! - this is not the season, though...:)
 
I had a similar experience as I started my Christian life in a Pentecostal church. I have also been Charismatic. Both believe in speaking in tongues. The Pentecostals believed that the Spirit of God came on people and it was so powerful it caused them to speak in tongues. The Charismatics mostly pushed it as a prayer language citing Romans 8:26, 27. The "Third Wavers" believe in a little of both, I also attended a Vineyard church for a couple of years. (I have a very sordid church past)
This "tongues" experience did something for me when I was young in the faith and was still a "milk drinker." Now, whatever that was is gone, I have matured and now I am a "meat eater". It takes sound doctrine to fulfill the same thing tongues did then.

If the "signs and wonders" were to verify the person speaking, proving them to be a man of God, then they would have ceased with the last prophet or Apostle, John. If the canon is complete, and it completely outlines God and salvation, since all the OT types and shadows are fulfilled, salvation being complete, except for glorification, what else would there be for a prophet to say? Since most of what Pentecostal "prophets" speak about pertains to extra revelation, it would have to be false and unnecessary since all we need to know about God and salvation is already written down. Extra revelation is unnecessary. They would have to believe that the bible is not sufficient.

In spite of this I am trying to make sense of why Paul wrote what he did in Corinthians, unless it only pertained to them and not us, like the verses that pertain to slavery.



jdlongmire said:
ok, confession time...

I have experienced what most charismatics would consider "speaking in tongues" - I genuinely believe that my experience was "authentic" (and uninterpreted) - BUT - as I matured in the faith and understood that this gift was the very least of all spiritual gifts, I left this gift behind as it is seemed an "elementary teaching" and not as profitable or edifying as the other gifts.

This is not to disparage the spiritual gift - it is to contextualize it as, I believe, Paul did.

Funny, I just disqualified myself as a potential missionary in the denomination I serve.

...or did I?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Andres
  • Locked
Typing in tongues
2
Replies
43
Views
9K
black_rose
black_rose
Back
Top