# Were all "tongues" genuine at Corinth?



## Eoghan (Jan 15, 2014)

I assume, perhaps wrongly, that we are all familiar with the AV Elizabethan english and the way languages were described as tongues. The introduction to the AV/KJV describes it as a "translation out of the native tongues". 

Some commentators are aware of ecstatic speech amongst the pagan religions. This experience, to be possessed by the gods, was viewed as the acme of spirituality. It seems that something of this viewpoint was carried over into Christianity by converts. It explains why tongues had gained such prominence. It also explains why the excesses that Paul addresses seem to be directed at ecstatic speech rather than the speech in unlearned languages we find in Acts.

Tongues in my opinion and experience is a taught phenomenon of nonsense words (similar to Jazz singing in the opinion of Packer). If it is a taught phenomenon, accessing a latent human talent to speak gibberish that has implications. My point is if it is a taught phenomenon giving a group identity to charismatics today... ...on what basis do we rule it out as a taught phenomenon at Corinth?

If there were "modern day charismatics" faking it at Corinth - what strategy would Paul adopt? I suspect that he would censure indirectly. Indeed this very strategy has led some to question how comfortable Paul was wielding Apostolic "authority". What we do know is that Paul laid down rules which saw the "Corinthian tongues" disappear within some 40 years if Clements epistle is any indication.

The only problem with this (that I can foresee) is that Paul claims to speak in tongues more than any of them. Yet when Paul says he spoke in tongues more than any of them, did he mean foreign languages that he spoke in?


I would be interested to know if anyone else has made or discussed this proposition?


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 15, 2014)




----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 15, 2014)

Quite possibly some of the Corinthian tongues were not genuine. Certainly the strategy Paul adopted would cover that eventuality. I don't see any reason to take Paul's own tongues as anything other than one or more genuine language(s) supernaturally learned


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 15, 2014)

timmopussycat said:


> Quite possibly some of the Corinthian tongues were not genuine. Certainly the strategy Paul adopted would cover that eventuality. I don't see any reason to take Paul's own tongues as anything other than one or more genuine language(s) supernaturally learned



It is probably more accurate to say, genuine languages supernaturally *spoken*, not learned. I Cor. 12 speaks (no pun intended) of speaking in an unknown tongue and then interpretation of an unknown tongue.


----------



## Eoghan (Jan 15, 2014)

timmopussycat said:


> I don't see any reason to take Paul's own tongues as anything other than one or more genuine language(s) supernaturally learned



You give the impression that it was like Joe 90 downloading French or perhaps the Matrix - once given it was part of your normal everyday speech (like French). Am I misunderstanding you or not? I always assumed that the Acts 2 speakers did not know what they were saying, do you think these were used to praise God in a conscious effort by those present?


----------



## Eoghan (Jan 15, 2014)

Is there something in the fact that charismatic churches so blatantly ignore Paul's rules? One of the things I feel is that to judge a prophecy requires systematic theology.

Didn't Finney reject theology totally (or was it D.L. Moody) I mention it because I saw a book Finney's Systematic Theology - it struck me as an oxymoron.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 15, 2014)

Eoghan said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see any reason to take Paul's own tongues as anything other than one or more genuine language(s) supernaturally learned
> ...



Paul's comment about speaking in tongues more than the rest of them would seem to indicate that NT tongues might have worked that way but I don't think we can say for sure.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 15, 2014)

Eoghan said:


> Is there something in the fact that charismatic churches so blatantly ignore Paul's rules? One of the things I feel is that to judge a prophecy requires systematic theology. Didn't Finney reject theology totally (or was it D.L. Moody) I mention it because I saw a book Finney's Systematic Theology - it struck me as an oxymoron.



Some churches that affirm the gifts reject Paul's rules. At least a sizeable minority of the charismatic churches affirm at least some of them.


----------

