Tongues

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is Vineyard considered 'Third Wave'? And doesn't Vineyard treat tongues-speaking as a vehicle for intercessory prayer, ala Rom 8:26?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :rofl:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top