Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
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?
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?