Restrictions on tongues

[rlvaughn]

I was recently gifted Charismatic Gift of Tongues by Ronald E. Baxter. I have found it a very insightful book. In chapter 3, Baxter writes about the restrictions Paul places on tongues when he writes to the church at Corinth. He presents one point in a way in which I had not thought about with the same degree of specificity that he achieves. (All below by Ronald E. Baxter, pp. 34-35.)

C. TONGUES MUST BE INTERPRETED

Paul’s argument on this point is particularly devastating. Notice these statements from 1 Corinthians 14:5.

I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

...He wants them to be able to speak in tongues, but only if they themselves can interpret. Only then will tongues have profit for the entire assembly...the apostle writes his coup de grâce on the matter. Note the following, “Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret” (1 Cor 14:13). Do you see that in this verse he effectively neutralizes tongues in the church? What is the sense of speaking of a matter twice -- once in an unknown language, and once in an interpretation -- when a single delivery in simple understandable speech will do?...Eventually one would be bound to say, “Why give the foreign language portion at all? I may as well simply give the interpretation to begin with, so that the people may understand and be edified.”

[Note: I am not sure what is wrong, but BB is not allowing me to create this thread without adding a poll. In order to beat the system and create the thread, I have just added a question of whether or not you agree with Baxter's premise above.]

 

[SavedByGrace]

What does Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 13:1, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels", where "Ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων" shows that there are 2 distinct classes meant, "humans" and "angels". Even though the former does refer to our earthly languages; the latter clearly does not?

 

[Revmitchell]

1 Corinthians 14:22

So there are two kinds of tongues going on. One is natural known languages but unknown by some in the same congregation. If one stands and gives a testimony in Hebrew but some only speak Greek then someone must interpret that.

Then there is the kind of tongues that goes on that is directly of the Holy Spirit and need not interpretation nor does it need restrictions placed on it by Paul. An example of it is seen in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost.

Men do not now nor have they ever spoken in the tongues of angels. While I am quite sure they speak to each other Paul was using hyperbole to make a broader point.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Men do not now nor have they ever spoken in the tongues of angels. While I am quite sure they speak to each other Paul was using hyperbole to make a broader point.

correct. though Paul could have had the gift of "heavenly" languages?

 

[SavedByGrace]

One of Paul's accounts of his conversion, is interesting, "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew (or, Aramaic) language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads" (Acts 26:14)

 

[Revmitchell]

correct. though Paul could have had the gift of "heavenly" languages?

No such monster

 

[SavedByGrace]

No such monster

well, read what Paul himself says, "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter." (2 Corinthians 12). Here Paul is speaking of his own experience, where he was caught up into paradise, and he heard things that cannot be told, and which cannot be repeated. "ἤκουσεν ἄρρητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι", means that Paul did not have the "right" to repeat what he had heard, not that he was unable to undersatand what was being said!

 

[rlvaughn]

What does Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 13:1, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels", where "Ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων" shows that there are 2 distinct classes meant, "humans" and "angels". Even though the former does refer to our earthly languages; the latter clearly does not?

This is primarily a figure of speech in which Paul argues that all things said absent of love ring a harsh and empty tone. It is the “more excellent way“ set over against the Corinthians elevation of tongues over other gifts.

Whatever we do not about the language of angels, we do know that when they addressed mankind they spoke in a language they could understand.

1 Corinthians 14:22

So there are two kinds of tongues going on. One is natural known languages but unknown by some in the same congregation. If one stands and gives a testimony in Hebrew but some only speak Greek then someone must interpret that.

Then there is the kind of tongues that goes on that is directly of the Holy Spirit and need not interpretation nor does it need restrictions placed on it by Paul. An example of it is seen in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost.

I think part of the genius of the restrictions mentioned by Paul is that ultimately they have no effect (or restriction) on a true gift of tongues, and therefore in the end most likely restricted those who did not have it. “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.“

Men do not now nor have they ever spoken in the tongues of angels. While I am quite sure they speak to each other Paul was using hyperbole to make a broader point.

Agreed.

 

[rlvaughn]

Further, it seems to me that by “fencing in” the gift of tongues, a lot of arguments become secondary or extraneous. So, “does that fellow speak in the language of angels?” Does not really matter. No one understands him and he cannot interpret, so “let him keep silence.” This also indicates that what they were doing was not irresistible -- as in “I cannot help it, God made me say it.” The command “let him keep silence” acknowledges that the tongues speaker has the ability to willfully “keep silence,” or else there is no reason to give such a command.

 

[SavedByGrace]

This also indicates that what they were doing was not irresistible -- as in “I cannot help it, God made me say it.”

Acts 2:4 says that the Holy Spirit gave those who spoke in "other languages", the ability to do so: "And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability." This is no doubt a gift where a person can speak in a gathering in a language other than their native tongue. It has been witnessed by missionaries, where they were sometimes able to speak to those they were reaching with the Gospel, in their language, having never learned the language. I do believe this is true, and that the Lord does do this even today.

 

[rlvaughn]

Acts 2:4 says that the Holy Spirit gave those who spoke in "other languages", the ability to do so: "And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability." This is no doubt a gift where a person can speak in a gathering in a language other than their native tongue. It has been witnessed by missionaries, where they were sometimes able to speak to those they were reaching with the Gospel, in their language, having never learned the language. I do believe this is true, and that the Lord does do this even today.

I will not speak to what others claim, but I personally do not know of any missionaries who did not have to learn the language(s) of the people(s) to whom they took the gospel. Further, I see no evidence that the gift of tongues spoken of in the Bible was necessary for the purpose of communicating with someone with whom you could not communicate with otherwise. It was a sign gift.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I will not speak to what others claim, but I personally do not know of any missionaries who did not have to learn the language(s) of the people(s) to whom they took the gospel. Further, I see no evidence that the gift of tongues spoken of in the Bible was necessary for the purpose of communicating with someone with whom you could not communicate with otherwise. It was a sign gift.

Acts chapter 2 is the best example! The disciples spoke in the languages that were known to their hearers, but they had not learned, as the Spirit give them the ability, so that they too were able to hear what Peter said. I see no other interpretation to this passage. If the Holy Spirit did this on the Day of Pentecost, why is He restricted in doing so today? God is God, and is able to do all things, even though our "theology" might not allow it!

 

[SavedByGrace]

5And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” 12So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?”

 

[rlvaughn]

Yes, the disciples spoke in different languages that they had not learned, and that were known to their hearers. However, this was for a sign, not so that the people could understand what they said. When we inspect Acts 2 closely, we find that the people present were able to communicate with one another in a common language. Notice especially verses 7 and 12 -- “saying one to another.” They discussed the phenomena among themselves in one language they all understood.

 

[Revmitchell]

I myself am not a cessationist. What goes on in the church walls under the guise of tongues is ungodly. If it happens it will happen on the mission field.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Yes, the disciples spoke in different languages that they had not learned, and that were known to their hearers. However, this was for a sign, not so that the people could understand what they said. When we inspect Acts 2 closely, we find that the people present were able to communicate with one another in a common language. Notice especially verses 7 and 12 -- “saying one to another.” They discussed the phenomena among themselves in one language they all understood.

where in the NT does it say that God cannot or does not do this since this time, and even today? It is our personal theology that puts God into a box and sort of tells Him what He can, and cannot do!

 

[SavedByGrace]

What goes on in the church walls under the guise of tongues is ungodly

what evidence do you have for this? I am not Pentecostal, but have friends that are, and went to a big Pentecostal Church in London many years ago. I saw first hand the Mighty Works of our Great God! You could be in danger of grieving the Holy Spirit by saying this is "ungodly"!

 

[Iconoclast]

Acts chapter 2 is the best example! The disciples spoke in the languages that were known to their hearers, but they had not learned, as the Spirit give them the ability, so that they too were able to hear what Peter said. I see no other interpretation to this passage. If the Holy Spirit did this on the Day of Pentecost, why is He restricted in doing so today? God is God, and is able to do all things, even though our "theology" might not allow it!

God has given all we need that pertains to life and Godliness. The canon is closed by God Himself.

 

[rlvaughn]

where in the NT does it say that God cannot or does not do this since this time, and even today? It is our personal theology that puts God into a box and sort of tells Him what He can, and cannot do!

You seem to be creating a red herring. No one can put God in a box. He can and will do whatever he pleases. That does not change the fact that Paul placed numerous restrictions on the use of tongues in the church, or that tongues on the day of Pentecost was for a sign rather than necessary for communication. The people there spoke a common language.

 

[SavedByGrace]

God has given all we need that pertains to life and Godliness. The canon is closed by God Himself.

WHAT has that got to do with the Gift of Tongues? It is mans "theology" that gets in the way of the Work of the God of the Holy Bible!