Speaking in Tongues

[Tina]

Do you believe all that stuff about "speaking in tongues"?.......Honestly, I compare it to a little girl getting excited and making noises cuz she's so excited ( I've seen this before both the "tongues speaking" and excited little girls ) So do you take it literately, or symbolically?

[jlay]

Can you be more specific?
I assume you are referring to what we see today in the pentecostal movement.
Tongues is a biblical reality. The question, is what we seeing today an accurate representation? I say no. I am associated in ministry with several pentecostals who believe and practice tongues. They are genuine, sincere, and I value their fellowship. However, I've yet to witness any demonstration that holds to scriptural standards.
My exposure has been diverse ranging from IHOP to Morningstar, to local congregations.

[mum1983]

I believe most people do it with a sincere heart and by that I mean they think it's real. I don't feel comfortable doing it, though. I'm not going to make noises just to try and fit in with my church. If and when the spirit does take me, I'll do it, but as of right now, I have never felt the urge to do it. I couldn't do it with a sincere heart, put it that way. Besides, didn't Paul say that if "tongues" couldn't be translated by a member of the church, that person shouldn't speak in tongues at all?

[Tina]

http://www.rightlydividing.net/Speaking_In_Tongues.htm <----------What about this?

[Danieltwotwenty]

When people spoke in tounges in Biblical times it was not just babbling but was a language they did not know from somewhere on Earth and someone there could interperet it.

Dan

[Silvertusk]

Tongues as Daniel said - was the language of man - as what happened in Pentacost. Although Charasmatics would have you believe different.

[Kurieuo]

Do you believe all that stuff about "speaking in tongues"?.......Honestly, I compare it to a little girl getting excited and making noises cuz she's so excited ( I've seen this before both the "tongues speaking" and excited little girls ) So do you take it literately, or symbolically?

I believe God takes us and can use our eccentricities for His own purposes. So in this respect, yes, tongues as Pentecostals understand would perhaps be very real, the same as miracles that may take place. However, for myself, I've been around tongues and so-called miracle workers, and have not seen one instance I'd bank money on.

Yet, in stories like Chasing the Dragon (Jackie Pullinger), which I find it hard to believe she invented the whole story, God seems to have used her strong pentecostal beliefs and fulfill His will. Or take, The Heavenly Man, or the old and well known Cross and the Switchblade. These stories incorporate much of the healing and supernatural workings that Pentecostals believe in.

So do I believe stuff about "speaking in tongues"? I do not believe it is correct as many Pentecostals practice it, but rather because it is something believed in, God has used such "foolishness" (if it be called that) to fulfill His will. So in virtue of God's using it, it would then become somewhat authentic. Yet, as we see practiced in many Western Pentecostal churches, I'll not entertain it. Yet, out on the mission field with those who sincerely belief in it and whose hearts to true, yes, I believe that is where you would see its authenticity.

Keep in mind God often uses what is foolish to bring about His will (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). We would call adults who act like children foolish, and yet must become like them in some sense to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Paul comments that God does it to shame those who profess to be wise and so noone can boast (1 Corinthians 1:28-29). Yet, just like God might use it for His will, I'm sure He equally denies it to those whose spiritual pride is built upon it may shame them. What matters is ultimately where one's heart is with God. And because God is personal, He meets us where we are at with all our strange beliefs and eccentric behaviour regardless.

[1harpazo]

When people spoke in tounges in Biblical times it was not just babbling but was a language they did not know from somewhere on Earth and someone there could interperet it.

Tongues as Daniel said - was the language of man - as what happened in Pentacost. Although Charasmatics would have you believe different.

Was there a heavenly language of angels that Paul used?

1 Cor 13:1
3 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
NASU

What about a spiritual language?

1 Cor 14:14-15
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also;...
NASU

[1harpazo]

So do I believe stuff about "speaking in tongues"? I do not believe it is correct as many Pentecostals practice it, but rather because it is something believed in, God has used such "foolishness" (if it be called that) to fulfill His will. So in virtue of God's using it, it would then become somewhat authentic. Yet, as we see practiced in many Western Pentecostal churches, I'll not entertain it. Yet, out on the mission field with those who sincerely belief in it and whose hearts to true, yes, I believe that is where you would see its authenticity.

Kurieuo, what's not "correct as many Pentecostals practice (tongues)"? What is the difference between tongues "on the mission field" and "many Western Pentecostal churches"?

[1harpazo]

Do you believe all that stuff about "speaking in tongues"?.......Honestly, I compare it to a little girl getting excited and making noises cuz she's so excited ( I've seen this before both the "tongues speaking" and excited little girls ) So do you take it literately, or symbolically?

Hi Tina.

Yes, I believe "all that stuff about 'speaking in tongues'". I take it literally because the Bible says that there are gifts of (speaking in) tongues and interpretation of tongues.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. 1 Cor 12:4-11 NASU

The apostle Paul summed it up:

Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. 1 Cor 14:39-40 NASU

[jlay]

Harp,

That is a faulty way of looking at it. I'd say every believer in this forum believes, "the Bible says that there are gifts of (speaking in) tongues and interpretation of tongues."
That really isn't the issue, and it's not a sound exegetical method. It is wrong to say things that imply that you beleive the bible, and those who don't practice tongues, don't. Which is in fact what you are doing. I believe in tongues, and so does any believer that trust the scritpures. The issue isn't whether we believe the bible, but whether we believe that what is going on in the charasmatic movement is a genuine representation and continuation of what the scripture reveals. Based on this logic, we could apply the same thing to modern faith healers. The Bibles teaches lots of things that we don't give a 2nd thought to saying are no longer in practice today. Although miracles happen, they most certainly do not happen as in the apostolic era where even the shadow of an apostle would heal. There is a lot of theory as to why, but the point is that things ARE different.

A good example is new scriptural revelation. We know that as Paul was writing, the canon was not closed. But something happened at some point in the 1st century, and as Christians we believe the HS officially stopped inspiring men to pen the written word. We KNOW it STOPPED. We know that by the time the last contemporary apostle of Christ's died, that something was finished and closed, never to open again. What if someone said, since the Bible supports the gift of prophecy, that gift must be operating today, and therefore the writings of a prophet today should be added to the Bible?

1 cor. does not give a descriptive example of such tongues. Acts 2 does. Acts 2 doesn't leave any question as to what was being heard. First Cor. does. I can study the plain reading of tongues in Acts 2 and say for certain that there are zero verified or recorded cases of anything like this happening in the last 1,900 years. If you have different evidence then please provide. So, we know that what happened on the day of pentecost is not what we see today in the charismatic movement. Not by a long shot. The charasmatic movement is therefore left with the text of 1 Cor. to explain their actions as tongues of angels, or some heavenly language. Is this possible? I suppose. And what someone does in private in their prayer life is really of no concern to me. In fact, I would love nothing more than to experience anything that will grow and edify my prayer life.

I would guess you presume, based not on the plain reading of scripture but your theology, that 'interpretation' means someone interpreting the babbling (for lack of a better word) of another person. I think the simplest reading of this says that interpretation means that someone is gifted to understand other tongues (languages). And could in fact have nothing to do with hearing someone else's babbling and then offering some sort of clear interpretation as if the babbling actually meant something.

The HS does distribute as He wills, and just as He willed that God breathed scripture was closed, I believe that authentic tongues is closed, for now at least. I believe that the charasmatic movement, although often sincere and well intentioned, has opened doors for some of the greatest charlatans of our era. Todd Bentley as one prime example.

Much of what is written in 1 Cor. is a rebuke of the Corinthian church, yet so often it is read in a different manner. This ignores context. I won't say I fully understand all that was going on in that church, but neither does anyone else. We simply can't be there. I suspect, that if we were present in this church we'd have a much clearer view of what Paul was instructing in this letter.

[narnia4]

I know more than a few people including my Dad who encountered more "enthusiastically charismatic" Christians in the past (in the case of my Dad and also my pastor, in their college years) who put major pressure on people to speak in tongues or else there was something wrong with them. So of course some of them engaged in gibberish, which I think can end up being misleading just to fake it.

So my pastor in particular was pretty critical of the view some Pentecostals/charismatics have, but he also reported an experience he had on a mission trip where a girl led someone to Christ in Spanish without knowing a word of the language. I've heard similar things, so I'm not going to be the one to say there is no gift of tongues... but it would be used to lead others to Christ or lift up the body, not for vain and selfish purposes. Personally, I think that most of the "babble" is just that, but I'm not in a position to say that all of it is.

[Kurieuo]

So do I believe stuff about "speaking in tongues"? I do not believe it is correct as many Pentecostals practice it, but rather because it is something believed in, God has used such "foolishness" (if it be called that) to fulfill His will. So in virtue of God's using it, it would then become somewhat authentic. Yet, as we see practiced in many Western Pentecostal churches, I'll not entertain it. Yet, out on the mission field with those who sincerely belief in it and whose hearts to true, yes, I believe that is where you would see its authenticity.

Kurieuo, what's not "correct as many Pentecostals practice (tongues)"? What is the difference between tongues "on the mission field" and "many Western Pentecostal churches"?

I can only guess. Why is it God seems to work miracles out on the mission field with those who are putting their lives on the line to actively help others, rather than living comfortably back at home while attending some church where many are vying for spiritual greatness in a church?

[1harpazo]

Harp,

That is a faulty way of looking at it. I'd say every believer in this forum believes, "the Bible says that there are gifts of (speaking in) tongues and interpretation of tongues."
That really isn't the issue, and it's not a sound exegetical method. It is wrong to say things that imply that you beleive the bible, and those who don't practice tongues, don't. Which is in fact what you are doing. I believe in tongues, and so does any believer that trust the scritpures. The issue isn't whether we believe the bible, but whether we believe that what is going on in the charasmatic movement is a genuine representation and continuation of what the scripture reveals. Based on this logic, we could apply the same thing to modern faith healers. The Bibles teaches lots of things that we don't give a 2nd thought to saying are no longer in practice today. Although miracles happen, they most certainly do not happen as in the apostolic era where even the shadow of an apostle would heal. There is a lot of theory as to why, but the point is that things ARE different.

A good example is new scriptural revelation. We know that as Paul was writing, the canon was not closed. But something happened at some point in the 1st century, and as Christians we believe the HS officially stopped inspiring men to pen the written word. We KNOW it STOPPED. We know that by the time the last contemporary apostle of Christ's died, that something was finished and closed, never to open again. What if someone said, since the Bible supports the gift of prophecy, that gift must be operating today, and therefore the writings of a prophet today should be added to the Bible?

1 cor. does not give a descriptive example of such tongues. Acts 2 does. Acts 2 doesn't leave any question as to what was being heard. First Cor. does. I can study the plain reading of tongues in Acts 2 and say for certain that there are zero verified or recorded cases of anything like this happening in the last 1,900 years. If you have different evidence then please provide. So, we know that what happened on the day of pentecost is not what we see today in the charismatic movement. Not by a long shot. The charasmatic movement is therefore left with the text of 1 Cor. to explain their actions as tongues of angels, or some heavenly language. Is this possible? I suppose. And what someone does in private in their prayer life is really of no concern to me. In fact, I would love nothing more than to experience anything that will grow and edify my prayer life.

I would guess you presume, based not on the plain reading of scripture but your theology, that 'interpretation' means someone interpreting the babbling (for lack of a better word) of another person. I think the simplest reading of this says that interpretation means that someone is gifted to understand other tongues (languages). And could in fact have nothing to do with hearing someone else's babbling and then offering some sort of clear interpretation as if the babbling actually meant something.

The HS does distribute as He wills, and just as He willed that God breathed scripture was closed, I believe that authentic tongues is closed, for now at least. I believe that the charasmatic movement, although often sincere and well intentioned, has opened doors for some of the greatest charlatans of our era. Todd Bentley as one prime example.

Much of what is written in 1 Cor. is a rebuke of the Corinthian church, yet so often it is read in a different manner. This ignores context. I won't say I fully understand all that was going on in that church, but neither does anyone else. We simply can't be there. I suspect, that if we were present in this church we'd have a much clearer view of what Paul was instructing in this letter.

Hi jlay-

Tina asked a "yes or no" question that I answered according to my beliefs based on what I read in the Bible. No where did I say or imply that Christians who don't practice tongues don't believe the Bible. On the contrary, the gift of tongues is distributed by the Holy Spirit as He wills and not all speak in tongues. Christians who don't receive this gift are no less Christian. They are gifted in one or more of the other gifts. I quoted 1Cor. 12:4-11 to support why I believe "all that stuff about "speaking in tongues". As far as I know the gifts have not ceased.

You wrote, "Although miracles happen, they most certainly do not happen as in the apostolic era where even the shadow of an apostle would heal. There is a lot of theory as to why, but the point is that things ARE different." My theory is over-education in the five senses. Jesus said that we must have the faith of a child to enter the kingdom of heaven. Is a child highly educated? No. Does a child believe everything until it is taught not to? Yes.

Jesus sent out His disciples out to the surrounding towns to preach the gospel and heal the sick. When they returned to Jesus, they were pumped. They had proclaimed the gospel and healed many. Even the demons were subject to them. I believe that the gospel and healing go together. Maybe through the years the gospel has been watered down.

You compare Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians (14) as two examples of tongues. You said that Acts 2 is self-explanatory and I agree with you. However we disagree about 1 Corinthians. in the first five verses, Paul lays it out.

14 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.1 Cor 14:1-5 NASU

In this case, Paul said that one who speaks in a tongue speaks to God and no one understands and that spiritually he is speaking mysteries. This example of tongues is obviously different from the example in Acts 2. The "tongues" in 1Cor. is for self-edification, unless there is interpretation then the church is edified, whereas the Acts 2 "tongues" is for the edification of others. In 1Cor.14:13-15, Paul further describes the "problem".

13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 1 Cor 14:13-15 NASU

Paul said that in 1Cor. there must be an interpretation of tongues, otherwise, no one understands. In Acts 2, there was no need for an interpretation. So, obviously, there are at least two kinds of tongues.

I would guess you presume, based not on the plain reading of scripture but your theology, that 'interpretation' means someone interpreting the babbling (for lack of a better word) of another person. I think the simplest reading of this says that interpretation means that someone is gifted to understand other tongues (languages). And could in fact have nothing to do with hearing someone else's babbling and then offering some sort of clear interpretation as if the babbling actually meant something.

You guessed wrong. I base my position on the plain reading of scripture. What gift is it if a person understands the language he is interpreting? The gift is when the interpretor does NOT understand the language. I would not be so quick to say when someone babbles (or speaks in tongues for a better phrase) it has no meaning. Or to say that the interpretation is not related to the tongues. Isn't that presuming on God?

I believe that authentic tongues is closed, for now at least.

Is "authentic tongues" the example in Acts 2? If Acts 2 is "authentic tongues" where the hearers understand the speaker, why is there a gift of interpretation of tongues? Is the example in 1 Cor. not authentic? Paul spoke in tongues that were not fruitful to his mind before the canon was closed. Is that not as authentic as Acts 2?

Paul rebukes the Corinthians as far as speaking in tongues thusly: "Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?" (1 Cor 14:23 NASU) All of those assembled were speaking in tongues simultaneously, thereby causing confusion. The rebuke was not that they were speaking in tongues, but that they were all speaking at the same time. I've been in churches where all the people were singing and praying in tongues together and it was noisy and confusing and definitely out of order. The solution was: "What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. (1 Cor 14:26-28 NASU)

The bottom line is that Paul encouraged all to seek to prophesy (edify, exhort and console the body of Christ 1Cor. 14:3) and NOT to forbid speaking in tongues (1Cor 14:39).

[Dallas]

When I hear "speaking in tongues" it makes me think of speaking/praying in a different language, than that of the native tongue there. Correct me if i'm wrong.