# Tongues



## Dennis1963

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.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Take a look at this and see if any of it is what you are looking for.


----------



## Scot

I'd suggest reading this: CVBBS: Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service - Christian Books and Bibles


----------



## non dignus

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?


----------



## Dennis1963

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?


----------



## Dennis1963

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?


Lol, Thanks I need that, that was probably the funniest thing I heard all week. And at the same time true.


----------



## Dennis1963

Scot said:


> I'd suggest reading this: CVBBS: Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service - Christian Books and Bibles


Thanks, this book is very practical, clear and easy to understand. It has answered many questions.


----------



## panta dokimazete

my earnest question - why all the hub-bub over the LEAST of the gifts? Why has this become the litmus test?


----------



## elnwood

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?



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.


----------



## JohnV

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.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

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


----------



## shackleton

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.



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.


----------



## Jaymin Allen

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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

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.


----------



## KMK

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.



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


----------



## JohnV

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

KMK said:


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



I think it is perfectly consistent that they don't say anything more than they do.


----------



## Davidius

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.



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."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ken,

Some may indeed say,



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



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.


----------



## Dennis1963

jdlongmire said:


> my earnest question - why all the hub-bub over the LEAST of the gifts? Why has this become the litmus test?


well to me it is not. But look at the debate, most of these christians swear by it.


----------



## panta dokimazete

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?
> 
> 
> 
> 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?


----------



## Dennis1963

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.


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.


----------



## KMK

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ken,
> 
> Some may indeed say,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Yes, the cannon is closed, but prophecy and tongues continue not with the same authority, however."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.


----------



## panta dokimazete

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?


----------



## Dennis1963

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?
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
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.


----------



## Davidius

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?



I too have had the experiences and think it was all phony emotionalism.


----------



## KMK

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?



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


----------



## panta dokimazete

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


 I wish! - this is not the season, though...


----------



## shackleton

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?


----------



## shackleton

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church are open to the gifts of the Spirit. They even added to extra sections to the WCF on the Holy Spirit and Evangelism. 

EPC.org | Online home of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church
http://www.epc.org/about-epc/beliefs/westminst_confession.pdf


----------



## panta dokimazete

good post, shack - my "initiation" experience was Vineyard...


----------



## KMK

Is Vineyard considered 'Third Wave'? And doesn't Vineyard treat tongues-speaking as a vehicle for intercessory prayer, ala Rom 8:26?


----------



## elnwood

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> 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."



If I'm not mistaken, many (most?) Reformed interpreters have taken New Testament "prophecy" to be preaching. That always seemed like a redefinition as well.


----------



## JohnV

Don:

I don't think it is a redefintion. It is more of commonality between OT and NT. Prophecy did not derive from man, but was used through man by God. It was man speaking God's Word. That's no different now in the NT. What has changed is that the canon is closed, that God is not revealing more. So it a difference of time: new words from God vs. words already revealed from God. But prophecy remains the same.


----------



## KMK

Is there any relevance in this argument to the fact that there were words that the OT prophets spoke that were never written down and are therefore not a part of the canon?


----------



## Dennis1963

I think John Owen says it well:
John Owen,
gifts of the Spirit:
These extraordinary gifts were "signs of the Apostles", vindicating their ministry and mission,
just as miracles had testified to the divine origin of God's servants 
and prophets, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, Daniel and Christ.


----------



## timmopussycat

Dennis1963 said:


> 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?



My answer is a little different than the answer that some on this list would give. I would say the following.
1)The Holy Spirit is the sovereign giver of the gifts and he gives them whenever and to whomever he pleases (1 Cor. 12:11) to build up the church (1 Cor. 14:12) and glorify God (1Cor. 14:25).
2) We know that tongues in Scripture were human languages previously unknown to their speakers who found themselves suddenly praising God in those languages fluently and supernaturally.
3) We do not know that tongues have ceased. While inferring that premise from 1 Cor. 13:13 is valid inference from that verse, it cannot stand as a valid deduction from Scripture as a whole since one may also infer, with equal validity that "knowledge [is not] done away" before the end of the age (1 Cor. 14:8) and it is an equally valid to infer from 1 Cor. 14:12 that the point at which we shall "see face to face" is also the end of the age. Therefore any given case of tongues today MAY be valid and must be tested by Scripture to see if it is valid. 
4) We do not know that tongues of Scriputure were those of "angels". While the gift of tongues includes "angelic languages may be inferred from 1 Cor. 13:1, that inference is not a necessary deduction from that Scipture. Paul could well have been using hyperbole to trump the Corinthians tongues excess. Given that...
5) We know that what is often presented to us today as biblical tongues is not human languages but something that sounds like run on English syllables. This pheonomenon called glossolalia can be produced by people who have no pretensions to Christianity....
6) any given case of tongues today MAY NOT be valid.
7) So what criteria does the Bible provide to help us manage tongues?
8) We know that the purpose of tongues were 
a) that of being a sign to unbelieving Jews (1 Cor. 14:21,22)
and b) speaking to God in private prayer (1 Cor. 14:2) Therefore
8) Those who have the gift should ONLY use it privately unless someone known to have the gift of interpreting tongues iis in the congregation, (1 Cor. 14:28) for
9) Public misuse of tongues hinders evangelism (1 Cor. 14:23)
Yet
10)It should be remembered that public use of previously unknown languages taught by the Holy Spirit did not always harden unbelieving Jews in their unbelief. Some heard the praises of God, wondered what was going on and asked for further information. Result: Peter's Pentecost sermon and the launch of the church. (Acts 2:7-12). And there have been some odd instances in later church history where something of this sort seems to have happened. One incident was recounted like this. According to the writer, a minister, one night in a prayer meeting, he asked his wife (whose prayer tongue was a known language) to pray aloud. She did so and the minister knew enough French to recognize that she was offering praise to God. Another lady with the gift of interpretation then translated (accurately as far as the minister could tell.) After the meeting a young Jewish girl was introduced to him. She had been invited to the meeting by Christian friends as her heart was under conviction. Now she wanted to become a Christian, but she had one question. "Why did that one lady speak in French in the middle of the meeting and the other lady translate?" "How do you know that was French?" asked the minister. "It's my major. Not only that I'm specializing in that particular dialect" replied the girl. "Was the translation accurate?" the minister then asked and got the response "Yes" Then he said: "Would you believe that neither of those two ladies knows French?" and pointed her to 1 Cor. 14:21. Imagine what that did for the girl's nascent faith.

What are we to make of this? One reason I can't dismiss the account as an outright lie is that the minister concerned was Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapels fame. If he had descended to deception over this account, I must wonder why he later broke from John Wimber when Wimber decended into the deeper aberrations. Usually deceivers go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived, (2 Tim. 3:13) and if this was deceit one would have expected Smith to go with him.

I can't answer whether tongues continue today or no. But the tactic I take in discussions with charismatics is not to put forward the unprovable premise that tongues have ceased with the coming of the canon. I ask instead "Are we managing the gift in the way Paul instructs us to manage it? and go on from there. This approach does a number of things: first it keeps the discussion on the ground of what Scripture teaches rather than on what charismatics will rightly recognize as not necessarily valid inferences from Scripture: second, if God blesses my words to edification of the hearer, it reduces non biblical glossolalia and unbiblical uses of tongues in his or her circle.


----------



## christianyouth

Great post Timmo! 

tbh, the history of the movement is what repels me. Very questionable beginning, and coming around rather late in Church History, don't ya think?


----------



## shackleton

timmopussycat said:


> Dennis1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't answer whether tongues continue today or no. But the tactic I take in discussions with charismatics is not to put forward the unprovable premise that tongues have ceased with the coming of the canon. I ask instead "Are we managing the gift in the way Paul instructs us to manage it? and go on from there. This approach does a number of things: first it keeps the discussion on the ground of what Scripture teaches rather than on what charismatics will rightly recognize as not necessarily valid inferences from Scripture: second, if God blesses my words to edification of the hearer, it reduces non biblical glossolalia and unbiblical uses of tongues in his or her circle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a very good point. Most Charismatics and Pentecostals are of the impression that gifts of the spirit means that anything goes in church. This is not the case and this is what Paul was writing about in Corinthians.
> 
> Anything the Spirit does should be decent and in order. In Acts 2 where a mighty wind came on them and they began to speak in tongues as the spirit gave them utterance, does not mean they were bouncing off the walls and completely losing control, which is what Pentecostals assume. It simply states that they spoke in other languages and it was languages the people around them knew, 3,000 people were saved as a result and God was glorified.
> 
> The "sheer pandemonium" is what usually turns most people off to the idea of the gifts being active today. Tongues is only one gift and if it is real not everyone would have it, just like everyone would not have the gift of teaching or preaching. Tongues, and the hysteria that follow, is very easy to fake or copy. Plus, it is fun to go to church and have a "holy ghost ho-down," it is not like the stuffy old dead churches. Dead meaning churches that do not practice said tongues activities.
> 
> I should also state that I have heard a lot of "tongues" and their interpretation in my time. Not one had any relevance to anything. It was always, "He ye my messenger (the Holy Ghost always uses good King James English) heed what he says, he speaks the truth." Things along these lines. It always backed up whatever the preacher had just spoke on.
> 
> Maybe I should not make this observation, but, it was always women that "had the gift." It was a good way to draw attention to themselves and make them important. After all, God _was_ speaking through them and not you and using them in a _mighty way_.
Click to expand...


----------



## shackleton

I will also say that tongues experiences was always accompanied with people bouncing uncontrollably, jirating, laughing hysterically, falling down and shaking uncontrollably for up to an hour at a time. . A person would literally be out of their mind. It never once had anything to do with the cross, the blood, sin or salvation. It was all about you and what God wanted to do for you. It was a good time with God. 

I think that something is really going on here, but I believe it has more to do with people working themselves up into a sort of hypnotic state. It was always accompanied by, repetitive drum beats with loud exiting music. Singing songs with repetitive lyrics over and over and over again. The whole atmosphere is geared to get people into a certain mood. The way you "got it" if you did not have it was for a pack of people to circle you, hold your arms up in the air, and literally scream in your ear coaxing you on, "Come on you can do it..." All the while they are speaking in tongues. This is not how it happened in Acts and it is definitely what Paul is speaking against. This was my experience both in the Pentecostal church and in the Vineyard when John Wimber came to town. 

The belief also is that it is an extra blessing, something one gets in addition to salvation, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. When in reality, it is this baptism that we get upon conversion. Plus, in Mark, Luke and John it is said that Jesus is the one who baptizes with the Spirit and with fire. It is associated with salvation, not as some extra blessing that God gives later.


----------



## Mushroom

Long ago and far away I was a pentecostal/charismatic. Thought I spoke in tongues. Am now convinced it was an emotion-driven desire to be a qualified part of the group, and it was run-on syllables with no meaning, either to me or any interpreter. In the same churches I heard all sorts of "Thus saith the Lord" prophecies out of the mouths of a variety of folk that never came to fruition, and were many times just nutty. All that chaos brought me to study more closely the Word and how these gifts were to be practiced, and I don't think I ever saw a single church even attempt to do so biblically.

I've heard all the urban legends like the Chuck Smith case above, and just have a hard time believing they are true. Why would the Holy Spirit ever contradict Himself and grant new special revelation? I try to be more charitable these days, but after newly being brought to the understanding of the doctrines God's sovereignty, I was pretty hot against these practices, since it appeared to me that those who practiced them were largely arminian or semi-pelagian (at least from my experience), and therefore a huge stumbling block for many of the elect. I considered it heresy, and can't say that I'm far away from that opinion now.

Everything Shackleton says above fits my experience with this stuff.


----------



## elnwood

JohnV said:


> Don:
> 
> I don't think it is a redefintion. It is more of commonality between OT and NT. Prophecy did not derive from man, but was used through man by God. It was man speaking God's Word. That's no different now in the NT. What has changed is that the canon is closed, that God is not revealing more. So it a difference of time: new words from God vs. words already revealed from God. But prophecy remains the same.



I don't buy it. Prophecy and teaching are two different things in the OT and in the NT. For the most part, prophets aren't called teachers/preachers and vice versa. I don't see the reason to merge the two categories.


----------



## JoeRe4mer

Dennis1963 said:


> 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.



Brother Dennis, I dont know how much help it will be, but when I am dealing with tongues speakers I usally follow a silightly different approach. 
1) I make sure to review with them HOW TONGUES LOOKED in the early church. Most of the time this is the best idea because as we all know what is going on today in the Churches does really not stand up to the Biblical model of how tongues was ment to be practiced by the Church.
2) Dont bother debating cessation with people, debate what is going on today compared to how Paul commands the gifts to be used. This will take the rug out from under tongues speakers in most cases since they never follow the rules anyway.
3) Dont ever let them give you that nonsense about there being 2 or 3 differnt kinds of tongues (angles,prayer language, ect.)... Thats silly and can be proven false without any trouble.

4) And most improtantly NEVER debate on the ChristianBoard thouse guys are nuts! LOL JK


----------

