DO YOU BELIEVE IN SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Tongues were a sign gift given to the early church as a sign to Israel that the New Testament was being inscripturated. By the close of the canon about 100 AD tongues had completely died out as a spiritual gift. They were no longer being given even when Paul was still writing in about 60 AD, and by 100 AD all those who already had the gift had passed on and the gift, no longer being necessary, passed on with them.

 

I agree Mr. Cassidy.

 

Your questions illustrates the problem. There are folks out there who "believe" in tongues in that such a performance is necessary to prove one is saved. The bottom line is, does the NT lead us to believe that speaking in tongues is still viable today?
No. Tongues advocates must make the case that they are viable. The burden of proof is not on cessationists to say that they have stopped. I do not believe that such a positive case is possible by the tongues advocates. If they actually looked at the text to formulate their tongues guidelines, they would find that the tongue was a known language, heard and understood by someone present. There was always to be an interpreter. There was supposed to be order--only one at a time. It was presented by Paul as a lesser gift, one that would clearly not last. It is absent from the later NT material. It is absent from the material written by the early church fathers.

The case for tongues is indeed weak.

Chick

 

I do believe tongues are "for today" and, no I don't speak in tongues.

The problem is that the vast, vast majority of instances where "tongues" are uttered are unbiblical and most people who speak in tongues today can't even tell you what the Biblical guidelines are.

I briefly attended a church a few years ago where it was permitted (not encouraged, just permitted) and it seemed that once every two months or so, the pastors had to admonish someone for being disruptive of speaking in tongues when there was no interpretation available, when it was disruptive, etc.

Every now and then, someone would get up and say, "shondala, shondala, shondala (you get the idea) this is what the Lord your God says:" and would then go on to say the dopiest most unbiblical thing you'd ever heard.

The good news is that you could immediately hear the "woooosh" of Bible pages flipping and our "prophets" would usually be instantly called to account by either pastors or other congregants.

It can also be very manipulative. Some churches and denominations lead people to believe that they are somehow lacking something if they don't speak in tongues.

Around the same time I attended this church, a friend asked me to go with her to Victory Christian Fellowship in Wilmington Delaware.

Distraught about some personal problems, she went up for the alter call where she was led into a side room.

A woman (I was told later that it was the pastor's wife) tried to "make her" speak in tongues. She prodded and even berated her. By this point, my friend was hysterical because this woman had convinced her that there was something wrong with her because she couldn't speak in tongues.

I literally had to pick her up and carry her out. She was so traumatized that she couldn't bear to come to church and it took us weeks to get her straghtened out.

I know this isn't the case with every church that practices tongues but it only takes a few, I guess.

I can't rule out tongues altogether, but in all my thirteen years of walking with Christ, I've only heard one example that stands up to Biblical scrutiny.

[ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]

 

Smoke,

If they are "for today" and you don't do it, then why? Is is just for some, and not others? When it is done "right" according to you, what purpose does it serve? Remember that the NT repeatedly indicates that it is the Jews that demand a sign. Please spell out the one example that you considered valid, and I'll bet those of us on the board who think tongues are not for today can shoot holes in it.

Chick

 

"Tongues," as presently practiced by "charismatics" and some Baptists, is glossolalia, which means nonsensical or invented speech. Tongues as revealed in the NT by Paul always referred to real and discernable languages.

It’s first occurrence in Acts is quite clear on this: Acts 2:4-8 (NIV)
4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.
6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?
8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?

When Paul said that he spoke in “tongues” more than any to the Corinthians, he was referring to being gifted by the Holy Spirit to speak in the local language in the many places his three journeys had taken him. The practice of glossolalia may be harmless, but it also may be a detraction and deterrent to true faith and worship, and it is absolutely unscriptural.

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

Let us put something into perspective. When tongues were used in Acts they were used to communicate to the many seperate groups of people so they could understand in their own language. This was a gift from the Holy Spirit, much like healing was used to show the power of Jesus Christ as God.

In Corinthians, Paul was admonishing new Christians who had joined the church and were "misusing" many things they called gifts so he wrote them a list of rules to go by. Remember, when we accept new Christians we know they are going to use some of their old ways such as slip with a curse word, etc. but as they grow in Christ the world will leave them. It was a practice of temple prostitutes to go into the streets at night and speak in "babbling" or unknown languages. Paul was laying down the rules and being VERY diplomatic so as not to run off these Christians. He said, first you must have an interpreter, so people who can't understand your language can be edified. He HIGHLY discouraged the use or tongues. In fact, the entire book of Corinthians was to help the Corinthian church get over many problems they had, such as accepting direct communication from the Holy Spirit and stating it in front of the church--some were even saying Jesus was not a diety and Paul really chided them on that one. Tongues was never mentioned in a New Testament Church after Paul basically laid down the rules that limited the use of tongues to the point that it was fairly useless to the new Christians. Take Corinthians IN CONTEXT--not out of context as our Pentecostal friends do--using it as an excuse to do something that Paul was really not happy with. READ all about tongues in Corinthians and I think you can see the pattern emerge. God Bless.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:
"Tongues," as presently practiced by "charismatics" and some Baptists, is glossolalia, which means nonsensical or invented speech. The practice of glossolalia may be harmless, but it also may be a detraction and deterrent to true faith and worship, and it is absolutely unscriptural.

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, put John! I hope I didn't damage your post with mine. God bless you.

 

Glad to see you respond, Shy One. I think you should check out the other thread you started, "slain in the spirit."

By the way, it's obvious from your post that you're not a Baptist. I imagine someone will be moving this thread, and your other one, to the "Other Religions" forum pretty soon.

In the meantime, please explain to us: What exactly is a "prayer language"? If it's what I'm familiar with, it's a language that only you and God know; in which case, I'd have to ask, do the angels know this language as well?

 

Don, I dont speak in tongues, but how can you say that if someone does beleive in speaking in tongues and does speak in tongues that somehow they are not Baptist?
Are you the one that determines what Baptist is? I beleive that one of the main tenents of what a Baptist is is soul liberty, like it or not, that means that sometimes other Baptists will interpret the Bible differently then you do. But that doesnt make them anymore not Bpatist than you or me.

So to me, if you dont beleive in shy_one's soul liberty actually you are the one that isnt being Baptist not shy one.

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: dfd2 ]

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: dfd2 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dfd2:
Don, I dont speak in tongues, but how can you say that is someone does beleive in that and does that somehow they are not Baptist?
Are you the one that determines what Baptist is? I beleive that one of the main tenents of what a Bpatist is is soul liberty, like it or not, that means that sometimes other Baptist will interpret the Bible differently then you do. But that doesnt make them anymore not Bpatist than you or me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only time I've ever heard of gossilalia outside of the pentacostal churches in my area has been in a baptist church. They were without a pastor and had been for a long time so they called a members relative who was a pentacostal preacher. He has on many occasions called himself Bapticostal.

I said all that to say this speaking in tounges=other than Baptist. I can't point to the scripture right now but I studied on this once and I remember scripture that refers to signs and seasons and the correlation was made between the time the Jews spent in the desert and the gifts of the Apostles.

Side line here the area I live in may still be in the Guiness Book of records for most churches per capita and square mile. Though I think that square mile thing was based on city limits size. If you want a certain kind of worship experince we got it. Doesn't make me expert but I've seen some wierd things.

 

dfd2, please re-think your words, and the attitude with which you presented them.

In the meantime, I'd like to hear Shy One's response to my question.

 

Don,

I was bringing up the important fact that if you are a Baptist then you most hold to soul liberty. So your comment about shy one not being a Baptist based solely on the fact that he speaks in tongues is not right.

For a Baptist soul liberty is just like freedom of speech. We might not agree with something but we must defend that person's right to interprete and beleive that way if in fact we hold to soul liberty which is an essential Baptist distincitve. I was attempting to show how your comment that based on shy one's belief in tongues that that makes them not Baptist is clearly against a Baptist distincive.

I dont agree with much of the charasmatic belief either, but I will defend a person's right to beleive that way. Those baptist can associate amongst them selves. Soul liberty is why there are soo many different Baptists. It has its good and bad points. Without it we would all be under the church of England, but with it we have numerous divisions, etc..

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: dfd2 ]

 

dfd2, Baptists believe in the soul liberty of the Believer. Baptist doctrine, however, does not include speaking in tongues, because it is considered extra Biblical in our age, with the Canon being complete.

Soul liberty of the Believer would allow for a Believer to believe in speaking in tongues, and that one's salvation may or may not be questioned, but it is also within reason to point out that one can not be Baptistic, and still believe doctrine that is not. This is no way undermines soul liberty of the

Believer.

Attendance at a particular church does not necessarily make one a Baptist, or a Believer. There are Believers in other denominations, and their are those of other beliefs who attend or belong to Baptist churches.

 

Joy,

Whose Baptist doctrine says that if you beleive in tongues than you are not Baptist.
I know several Baptist that have pretty good proofs from Scripture that is sill is for today. Just because your view of Baptist doctrine says it has ceased doesnt mean that goes for all Baptist is all im saying.

John Piper is the most notable Baptist that would argue that the "signs" havent ceased.
So by your definition of proper Baptist doctrine then he must not be Baptist. All I'm trying to do is expand your mind alittle, hopefully not in an argumentative spirit. Outside of the key Baptist distinctives: Biblical authority, autonomy of the local church, priesthood of the beleivers, 2 ordinances, individual soul liberty, saved baptised church membership, seperation of church and state. Historically, from my study, these are the distictives in which makes a baptist a baptist.
All im saying is that you have to allow other Baptist to believe and interpret (soul liberty) the Word responsibily. I dont agree with charisma beliefs, but those Baptist have every right as Baptist to beleive that if they so chose, thats all im saying.