Tongues

[Rev Randy]

Actually it talks about a diversity of tongues.

Does that mean different languages or different uses? Check your Greek before answering.

 

[Biblicist]

Actually it talks about a diversity of tongues.

This seems to be a bit of a hangover from our old KJV days where many simply saw 1Co 12:10 “to another divers kinds of tongues;…” as meaning that tongues could be used in various ways, being a communication to God as well as to man. Thiselton on page 970 in his book 1 Corinthians addresses in some depth the meaning of γένη (species of tongues) where he rejects that tongues can be used to speak to man. Fee also rejects the notion that tongues can be used as a communication to man (1 Corinthians pg.598), along with that of Garland (1 Corinthians pg. 584-585) and Ciampa/Rosner pg. 586. Witherington in his Conflict and Community in Corinth on page 258 states that he agrees with Fee in that γένη is referring to tongues as a ‘kind or type of language’.

Even though classic-Pentecostal doctrine teaches that there are two type of tongues, one that is directed toward the Father in prayer/praise and one that is directed toward man when accompanied with an interpretation, this is simply one of our errant doctrines that has no foundation in the Scriptures; so the old Pentecostal adage that tongues + interpretation = prophecy can be considered to be one of our doctrinal oddities that we need to soundly reject. We can add to this that we have no examples in the Scripture where a tongue (along with an interpretation) has been used to communicate a message to any individual or congregation. I know that people like to say that this occurred on the Day of Pentecost but we have two problems with this. The first being that Luke records that the communication was speaking about “the wonders of God” which has nothing to do with any message to the nearby Jews where Peter had to get their attention by providing them with a Gospel message before they could make any sense out of what they had just heard.

The second rather noticeable omission is that the manifestation of interpretation was not in use, so this also tells us that something unusual and unique had occurred. This second point has been noted by some Pentecostals where they try and say that the Spirit gave each of the unregenerate Jews the interpretation. This is of course a rather desperate but mostly an honest attempt on their part to rectify this problem.

Considering that Paul goes to great pains in 1 Cor 14:2-18 by telling us that tongues are always used to communicate to God and not to man, whereas prophecy is always a communication from the Spirit of God to man; then we have to wonder where we get the odd notion that tongues + interpretation = prophecy! I appreciate that we have inherited a number of odd doctrines from the primitive Pentecostals of the first couple of decades of the last century, but at least we Pentecostals ditched the idea by around 1920 that the primary use of tongues was that it could be used for evangelism in Third World countries, though William Seymour fought strenuously for this now rejected view up until his death in 1922.

 

[Biblicist]

Does that mean different languages or different uses? Check your Greek before answering.

What would be your opinion of my previous post?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

AND, in fact, since delivering a REAL message in a tongue, or an interpretation/Prophesy is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE without a specific burden to do so by the Holy Spirit (who has to supply the words), and since such manifestations are Choreographed by the Holy Spirit in perfect order, then the numerical limitations proposed by Paul are essentially meaningless for a meeting that's "In Order".

Essentially ANY "Spoken gift" (tongues, Interpretation, Word of Wisdom, Word of knowledge, Prophesy, Discerning of Spirits, etc.) are ALL essentially "Prophetic" in nature. One is BURDENED by the Holy Spirit to give ministry, and the "Message" which is to be delivered is given specifically for the event by the Holy Spirit, AND the timing of the delivery is also controlled by HIM.

The LIKELIHOOD is that the Corinthians were "SHOWING OFF in they're "prayer tongues" which we can all do anytime we please, BUT which do NOT constitute a "Message in Tongues", any more than a proclamation in English is necessarily a "Prophesy".

Oh - and the "Magic list of 9" in 1 Cor 12 Absolutely CANNOT be taken as an "Exhaustive statement of the available gifts" of which there are hundreds (Probably THOUSANDS) of variations. It's actually more a collection of "Categories" which Paul just "Tosses on the table" as an off the cuff illustration of what he means by "Spirituals".

1 Cor 12 isn't really about "Gifts" at all, but is addressing the rotten ATTITUDE that the Corinthian church had about 'em - i.e. I'm BETTER THAN YOU!! I do miracles!!! and all YOU do is discern SPirits - I don't even NEED you!!!

Paul stresses that "It AIN'T ABOUT YOU!!!" It's the Holy Spirit who empowers ACCORDING TO HIS WILL, and He'll use an A$$ to correct a prophet as easily as he'll use you - depending on the circumstances.

But we LOVE to get all "Legalistic" about what "Should", and "Shouldn't" be done.

 

[Biblicist]

But we LOVE to get all "Legalistic" about what "Should", and "Shouldn't" be done.

It seems that by "legalistic" you are saying that we are to ignore the Scriptures and simply add in our own understanding.

Considering that Paul says that any word in a tongue is ALWAYS directed to the Father and that prophecy is ALWAYS directed to man then the old wives-tale that tongues + interpretation = prophecy should be discarded.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Considering that Paul says"

Except, of course, that Paul doesn't really say either thing, and there's evidence that "tongues" obviously ARE sometimes directed toward man (starting with Baalam's a$$).

"simply add in our own understanding."

Which is what we ALL do anyway - with our own interpretations. Case closed.

 

[Biblicist]

"Considering that Paul says"

Except, of course, that Paul doesn't really say either thing, and there's evidence that "tongues" obviously ARE sometimes directed toward man...

This has been for the classic-Pentecostal movement one of those Achilles heals which the charismatics later picked up on as being a common error which has been all too prevalent within our circles.

The first Pentecostal (AOG) scholar Gordon Fee, in his book 1 Corinthians (1987) effectively addresses this all too common erroneous position that tongues + interpretation = prophecy on page 656:

• “Although it is quite common in Pentecostal groups to refer to a “message in tongues,” there seems to be no evidence in Paul for such terminology. The tongues-speaker is not addressing fellow believers but God (cf. vv. 13-14, 28), meaning therefore that Paul understands the phenomenon basically to be prayer and praise.”

Thiselton, I Corinthians, A Shorter Exegetical & Pastoral Commentary, page 239:

• “but tongues speaking speaks to God…”

David Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians, page 241:

• “In addition to the linguistic perspective just given, the substance of most modern interpretations of a glossa is a message from God to the people gathered, not vice versa. Now Paul is clear that speaking in glossai is directed by the Spirit from the individual believer to the Lord…” “There is, prima facia, not as much edification in listening to a translation of another Christian’s prayer in a glossa, as in receiving a direct communication in response from the heart and mind of God.”

David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, page 633:

• “Paul explains why he prefers prophecy over tongues. Tongues constitute communion with God, not communications with others.”

Simon J. Kistemaker, 1 Corinthians,
Page 477:

• “’For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men [and women] but to God.’ Of the two gifts, prophecy and tongues, Paul takes the latter first and points out that speaking in a tongue is private worship directed to God (see v.4) Speaking to God in a tongue is comparable to personal prayer: The one who prays speaks to himself and to God (v.28) and does so within the context of love…”

Page 480:

• “’He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.’ Paul already indicated that the person who speaks in a tongue addresses not the people but God.

Ciampa/Rosner, I Corinthians, page 670:

• “’Witherington thinks that the fact that Paul says that those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God is a ‘clear indication that glossolalia was seen as a prayer language or as a way to talk to God, not as a human language.”

Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians, page 282:

• “Tongue speaking benefited the speaker as a direct spiritual communication to God (14:2, 16-17),…”

Even though I have certainly not read every book on 1st Corinthians, I would be surprised to see where any academic would stand against the position that tongues are always directed toward God and never to man.

starting with Baalam's a$$

Oh boy…I strongly suspect that you must be enjoying pushing my buttons. I had thought that I had probably heard every way in which an Old Testament Scripture could be misconstrued – then this one pops up!

If you take a look at Numbers 22:31 you will find that it was not the Holy Spirit who spoke through the donkey as it was the Angel of the Lord (Jesus) who allowed the donkey to seemingly speak up for itself. With the New Covenant experience of praying in the Spirit, it is the Spirit of God who prays through us on our behalf and not the Angel of the Lord (being Jesus) or the Father. As Paul specifically states that any word or prayer offered in a tongue is always directed toward the Father then this also goes against your position.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Wait... Did someone just say God was talking out someone's... um... never mind.

 

[Biblicist]

Wait... Did someone just say God was talking out someone's... um... never mind.

OK, so now there's another button pusher on the scene! For the sake of precision; I did mention that it was Jesus and not the Father who opened the mouth of the donkey.

I don't think that I have read this passage for a while and having now checked Bob's reference to it, it seems to me that God's Son may not have merely spoken through him but he may have actually allowed the donkey to speak using his "modified & upgraded" speech facilities.

Shall I include this under Heresy 101 or does it seem feasible?

As the night is growing shorter I think that I should be getting some beauty sleep; not that any of the other nights are long enough to make any real difference.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"I would be surprised to see where any academic would stand against the position that tongues are always directed toward God and never to man."

"Academics" are responsible to teach whatever their denomination wants from them, of course. There are "Academics" in the AoG Colleges that would not support YOUR "Academics" (as you well know). SO there'd be no reason for surprise.

What's being missed is that the HOLY SPIRIT burdens folks to deliver pronouncements in a Tongue. He ALSO Sources the words that are to be spoken, creates the TIMIMG for the utterance, and also sometimes indicates the audience to be addressed.

1 Cor 12:
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a more excellent way.

Looks to me that "Tongues is among the ministries listed as BEING FOR THE CHURCH" - regardless of what your "Academics" think about it.

And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.
31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

2 Pet 2:
15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.

So nothing about "Angels seemingly allowing anything" GOD "opened the mouth of the ass", who spoke with HUMAN VOICE".

Simple as that (The Holy Spirit IS God, don'cha know).

I didn't "Misconstrue" anything. Just presented it as it is, 'ol buddy.

 

[Biblicist]

Simple as that (The Holy Spirit IS God, don'cha know).

When I saw this remark before I left for work earlier today, I wondered how many would jump in to correct your Unitarianism as no Trinitarian would ever dare say that the Holy Spirit is God – having seen the silence today it seems that it has been left up to me to bring out the tar and feathers! As it was Jesus (as the Angel of the Lord) who enabled the donkey to speak, the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with this as it was a sovereign act of the Son of God, now Jesus is not the Holy Spirit nor is he the Father and for that matter the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, they are all unique beings who have one essence.

“Academics” are responsible to teach whatever their denomination wants from them, of course. There are “Academics” in the AoG Colleges that would not support YOUR “Academics” (as you well know). SO there’d be no reason for surprise.

Considering that Dr. Gordon Fee, an accredited minister of the AOG was about the first to stand up in 1987 stating that the AOG and most Pentecostals in general had got it soundly wrong on this point, it sort of leaves your point hanging in the air. Fee is one of many academics who tend to be unconcerned with maintaining any denominational status-quo; though it would be fair to say that few academics are completely immune to denominational influences.

As for the list that I provided on another forum on CF, http://www.christianforums.com/t7723218/ I would be intrigued to see if any of the 37 or so academics have gone against the status quo on this point. I would find it hard to believe that anyone who is well educated theologically would ever say that Paul says that tongues can be used to speak to man – though I suppose it could happen. If anyone has any information where a recognised academic still holds to the view that tongues + interpretation = prophecy or that tongues can be used to speak to man then I would value receiving a link to this information.

Looks to me that "Tongues is among the ministries listed as BEING FOR THE CHURCH" - regardless of what your "Academics" think about it.

Where I have made the odd claim that academia has ever said that tongues is not a ministry for todays church; other than with the cessationist John MacArthur but I suppose he is hardly an academic. What the before mentioned scholars do say, is that Paul explicitly states that tongues along with interpretation is never used to speak to man but when an interpretation is given that it is simply an interpretation of what the Holy Spirit had to say to the Father.

 

[D2wing]

dude, i love to pray and sing in the Spirit. the Presence of God sometimes comes in delightful ways when i do. i have also found that praying in tongues is a powerful spiritual weapon as well - especially in intercession.

Amen! I have to laugh at some of the anti tongue comments. Sounds like the old story of blind men talking about what an elephant is like.

 

[D2wing]

It think it is strange and disturbing that so many Christians label each other and disparage each other. The gifts are from God. If you don't like them take it up with him. The comment that someone could cast a spell on a congregation with false tongues is straight out of the dark ages. How about you just revive the inquisition. Divisions caused by tongues are pretty much always from the people that are against them.

 

[NorrinRadd]

It think it is strange and disturbing that so many Christians label each other and disparage each other. The gifts are from God. If you don't like them take it up with him. The comment that someone could cast a spell on a congregation with false tongues is straight out of the dark ages. How about you just revive the inquisition. Divisions caused by tongues are pretty much always from the people that are against them.

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what Yahu was getting at back in post 10. I don't think he was talking about tongues. He was saying that practically speaking, WoF treats the Bible like a grimoire. I find that a pretty astute characterization.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"no Trinitarian would ever dare say that the Holy Spirit is God"

Don't be silly. EVERY Trinitarian would say that the Holy Spirit is God, and that Jesus is God, and that the Father is God. That's what "Trinitarianism" is, don'cha know.

And there's no reason to think that the "Angel" was "Jesus" (as a theophany), OR that the Angel had anything to do with the A$$ Speaking. Those are nothing more than YOUR paradigmatic interpretations, 'ol buddy.

"I would find it hard to believe that anyone who is well educated theologically would ever say that Paul says that tongues can be used to speak to man – though I suppose it could happen."

AH - the 'ol "Argument from silence" routine!!!

Paul, of course, DOESN'T say that: "tongues can be used to speak to man", and he ALSO DOESN'T say that: "tongues can't used to speak to man". He doesn't even address that issue at all, in fact.

All he DOES say is that when one speaks in tongues and there's no interpretation - one is speaking to God (Duh - nobody else understands him).

If "YOU SUPPOSE IT COULD HAPPEN", then obviously YOU don't really think Paul teaches that it "never happens" either.

And many DO teach that Tongues + Interpretation (which IS "Prophecy") = Prophecy. It's logically inescapable. Derek Prince taught it that way, and so did Bob Mumford, Charles Schmitt, Malcom Smith, and others.

And there are MANY accounts of it happening both in the states, and elsewhere - where a person is spoken to in his "mother tongue" right to the correct regional accent by somebody that doesn't even know where he was from.

 

[D2wing]

What the academics say is well, academic. Pretty much like the Jews in Jesus day. They did not know the Spirits either. It is like a guy reads a couple books on racing, becomes a professor then thinks he can drive a race car better than Jimmie Johnson.
If you do not operate in the Spirit you just have opinions, not knowledge.
If I were you I'd be stocking up on lamp oil.

 

[NorrinRadd]

What the academics say is well, academic. Pretty much like the Jews in Jesus day. They did not know the Spirits either. It is like a guy reads a couple books on racing, becomes a professor then thinks he can drive a race car better than Jimmie Johnson.
If you do not operate in the Spirit you just have opinions, not knowledge.
If I were you I'd be stocking up on lamp oil.

This sounds a lot like the bad ol' days of Pentecostalism, when intelligence and education were despised and ignorance was considered a virtue. A highly educated guy like Paul (or Luke or Moses or Jeremiah or Isaiah, for that matter) would have gotten the stink-eye from most of them.

 

[Biblicist]

What the academics say is well, academic. Pretty much like the Jews in Jesus day. They did not know the Spirits either. It is like a guy reads a couple books on racing, becomes a professor then thinks he can drive a race car better than Jimmie Johnson.
If you do not operate in the Spirit you just have opinions, not knowledge.
If I were you I'd be stocking up on lamp oil.

Probably the greatest weakness of the early Pentecostal church of last century, was that it was unable to develop a workable Pneumatic theology – or at least one that made sense! This may have been the main reason why by the 50's & 60's the Pentecostal movement had stalled to the point where it had essentially lost its way with very little evidence of the power of God being evidenced within its midst.

With the onset of the charismatic renewal of the 60’s and 70’s, these new charismatics quickly discovered that there was very little theological support that they could obtain from their Pentecostal predecessors; even up until the early 80’s the Pentecostal movement was unable to point to any academics within its ranks. By the mid to late 80’s we began to finally encounter some superb work by a number of academics from within the Pentecostal and charismatic movements along with an increasing number of academics who came under the umbrella of what we now term as being “open-but-cautious”. By the end of the 80’s a complete change had occurred in the academic field where cessationism no longer held the high ground. When the three following academics, Gordon Fee (1987), D.A. Carson (1987) and Wayne Grudem (1988) released their research these men (along with others) had sealed the fate of the cessationist worldview.

When I discuss these issues with cessationists, I can confidently point out that the Christian academe is no longer centered around the now dated cessationist worldview; though when we read the many comments from CF members who seem to be fearful of intelligence, I could be forgiven for believing that I am often walking through a time-warp of understanding – one that was discarded by the academe around 25 years ago.

 

[Biblicist]

This sounds a lot like the bad ol' days of Pentecostalism, when intelligence and education were despised and ignorance was considered a virtue. A highly educated guy like Paul (or Luke or Moses or Jeremiah or Isaiah, for that matter) would have gotten the stink-eye from most of them.

In my last post, I made reference to how those who are still stuck in the old cessationist worldview are finding it increasingly hard to source cessationist leaning material from the more respected academics of our day. In many ways the cessationists have something in common with many on this forum (and with the rank and file members of our churches) in that many seem to be fearful of intelligence. Prior to the mid-eighties we could all rightfully dismiss most Christian academics as being a bit dry and lifeless but since the mid to late 80’s the situation has now changed.

Many Full Gospel believers may be confused by the frequent complaints from within the wof movement as to why they do not have any academics and of course this is understandable as wof precepts and Biblical theology simply do not go hand in hand; in some ways these two terms could be considered to be an oxymoron. What many people do not seem to realise is that the vast majority of the respected academics of our day are certainly supportive of Full Gospel precepts though they will soundly reject the distinctives of the wof movement. So we should continue to hear derogatory remarks from with our wof ranks for time immemorial as this part of the Full Gospel movement will never be able to develop a solid theology – whereas for the rest of this, this came to fruition about 25 years ago.

The old cessationist vs. Continuist debate has in most part been well discarded by the academics where their interests seem to be addressing aspects of classic-Pentecostal beliefs and this can be very healthy.

I wonder how many CF members would be able to provide any solid information on a passage such as 1 Cor 12:2-3 or for that matter if they could even explain how this particular passage has been addressed over the years.

 

[D2wing]

Academics are good provided they are honest and open minded. Instead most are looking for loopholes to support their personal heresies and disparage anyone that isn't impressed by their gibberish. Jesus said he would use the foolish things of this world to confound the wise in their own eyes. That appears to be true.and of course the use of blind hateful remarks serves to verify the ignorance and unspiritual nature of those who claim to be wise.
True only comes to those that diligently seek it. Those looking for something else will find it and cling to it. God wants you to have truth and power to overcome. At some point you must trust God. That is that his word is true and beyond your finite understanding.