Tongues in the Reformed community

[DonP]

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

 

[Manuel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Herald]

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

Matthew, thank you.

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

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