DHK wrote,
**First, their have been professional linguists that have gone to Charismatic meetings and done the research and have proven that the tongues of today are not languages. They are simply a string of syllables repeated over and over again. They have no comparison to any language.**
Actually, I had a look at one of those studies in the library when I was a linguistics student. One thing to keep in mind is that the principles of language apply to human language. If someone is speaking a heavenly language, there is not reason to believe that the principles of phonetics, phonology, morphology, etc. will apply to angelic languages. Angelic languages may not be inflected for meaning in the same way human languages are. Another thing to keep in mind is that if a message in tongues is repeating the something several times, it may sound like gibberish. I read once of a little girl in a foreign country who kept repeating the same thing over and over in tongues. It was English “I love Jesus. I love Jesus.” It would probably have sounded like gibberish to someone who didn’t know English. (I read this account on a discussion group on the Internet, so it’s not firsthand.)
I do not argue that all tongues are genuine. Some may be learned ‘psychological tongues.’ That does not diminish the reality of the true gift any more than it diminishes the reality of the gift of tongues in the first century. If a linguist argues that some tongues he heard did not obey the rules of human language, this does not disprove the Acts 2 account does it? His findings only apply to the subjects he was studying, not to all occurrences of tongues in the world now, or throughout history.
What we need to look at is what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God gives the gift of tongues, among other gifts, to the church. Our ‘default’ understanding should be that God still does give this gift _unless _ scripture teaches that he stopped giving it. Our approach should _not _ be to assume that God doesn’t give tongues and try to squeeze that interpretation into a passage of the Bible. (E.g. trying to make I Corinthians 13 say that tongues has already ceased.)
**Granted there have been cases where there have been cases where some have spoken in a real language. This has always turned out to be the cause of demon possession, such as the case in the Vancouver area when a visiting pastor from Greece attended a Charismatic church and was shocked to hear one person in the church repeat over and over in perfect Greek: "I love the devil; I love the devil; I love the devil."**
Why is it that when you hear a story about false tongues, you believe it automatically believe it. But when you hear an account of genuine tongues that other people understand, you say it is not proven. That is what you did with the Jack Heyford account. Were you in Vancouver when this happened? Did you hear the person speaking? Do you understand Greek? Why do you accept this story as fact, but you dismiss Jack Heyford’s account out of hand?
** This does happen. But most of it is a repetition of a string of syllables that some Charismatic teachers even teach their congregations HOW to speak in tongues: by telling them which syllables to speak over and over. Do a search. You can find the instructions in various Charismatic websites on the internet. **
I don’t know of any leader in the Charismatic movement who consciously teaches other people to ‘speak in tongues’ in this way. You might find arguments that some leaders unintentionally do this, not realizing that the people in the congregation are just repeating what they hear. If this happens, it is a psychological thing, and not something generally done on purpose. And it is not a commonly taught Charismatic teaching that tongues are to be learned. If this does occur (and I think it does because of some of the things I’ve witnessed) then it doesn’t diminish true speaking in tongues in the least any more than it diminishes the truth of the Acts 2 account. Apples with apples. Oranges with oranges.
**Second, Those that spoke in tongues spoke in real languages. That is evident from Scripture.**
I am not debating this point.
**If you hear a genuine language being spoken, you probably hear someone who is demon possessed. Otherwise it is psychological phenomena that has its roots in an event in Kansas in 1906, and previous to that date was unknow in church history. If it is for today, why was it unknown for 1800 years. I guess the "filling of the Holy Spirit" was deprived to those people and only applicable to thos of the 20th century onward. That has the markings of a cult--to claim knowledge that was previously unknown in the church. **
Tongues was not unknown to the church. It is in the Bible that has been used for nearly 2000 years.
You say that tongues were unknown for 1800 years. Does that mean that you allow for the idea that tongues in 200 AD in Ireneas day were genuine?
Also, there are other accounts of tongues since 200 AD. Look in _The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity _ by Burgess for a lengthy treatment for this and other issues that uses real quotes from primary sources (or English translations of such quotes.)
Your paranoia about tongues as real languages always being demonic doesn’t square with what Jesus said in Luke 11. Many people speak in tongues after diligently seeking God and asking to be filled with the Spirit—which is a good thing.
Luke 11:
11. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12. Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13. If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Also, I do not believe that tongues is the exclusive evidence of filling with the Spirit, so I would not say it was restricted to people who lived after the 20th century.
**The passage is very clear. Every statement is conditional. Every statement starts with "though" or "if." It is like saying, "If I had a million dollars I would buy property in Hawaii and live there." But I don't, and probably never will. "If I have my own space shuttle, I would take a trip to the moon" It's not going to happen. It's conjecture. It's conditional.**
There is such a thing as a million dollars. It is not something made up. Space shuttles exist. You are assuming here that tongues of angels do not exist, which isn’t consistent with the examples you give.
** All of Paul's statements were just like that. If Paul spoke with angelic tongues then he also gave away all his money to the poor--NOT, and he also gave his body to be burned--NOT!! IF: those are conjectural statements. They did not happen, and never would. Paul did not speak with the tongues of angels, could not speak with the tongues of angels. It was impossible to do so. **
Opinion opinion and no scripture. Was it possible for Paul to give away all his money? Yes. Was it possible for Paul to give his body to be burned? Yes. Was it possible for Paul to have all faith to remove mountains. According to Christ, yes. (If ‘moving mountains’ is a figure of speech, then it would be possible to move mountains in this figurative sense. If Christ meant it literally, then it is possible to do literally. So no matter how you interpret it, the answer should be ‘yes.’)
Think about Paul’s life. He traveled around preaching and did not accumulate houses, etc. It is very possible that he gave his last dinari away to feed a poor person on many occasions. Could Paul have given his body to be burned? Of course. The ‘if’ parts of these statements are all things that are possible, so why would speaking in the tongues of angels be impossible?
**First, that is anectodal; can't be proven. Second, if it did happen, it is the exception not the norm. Third, can give or provide a man an ability if He so desires. But that does not negate the Biblical teaching that the gift of tongues has ceased. **
You are being inconsistent here. I gave an example of a man who prayed in tongues—a known Charismatic, and the people who were praying for knew what he was saying because he was speaking in their language. And you say if it happened, then the gift of tongues has still ceased. If God gave the man the ablity to speak in Maori, then the man had a _gift from God.
**Here is anecdotal experience by Heyford that cannot be proven.**
It could conceivably. You want to argue that real tongues do not exist. You are bold enough to make such statements, but when you hear accounts like this, you do not have the gumption or the commitment to go to California, look up Heyford, do some research, find the guy he spoke in tongues to, and get his side of the story. The Old Testament says by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. If you were committed enough to learning about this, you could do some research.
I do not plan to do this kind of research. But I am not the one making statements that assume that I have all knowledge of everything going on in the world. I do not say that there is no genuine speaking in tongues today. You are the one promoting this position. When shown wrong, you should either stop making such statements, or else be willing to go do the research to show that the cases that prove you wrong are not true.
** The same preachers tell us how they have been transported up to heaven and back down to Hell again. Why should I believe them?**
“The same preachers…” You judge people by categorizing them in ways God does not. Show me a quote from a Heyford sermon or book where he ever claims to have gone to heaven or hell. And show me some scripture that says that this cannot happen to preachers who claim to have experienced it. My Bible shows me that a man was shown the Third Heaven, so I cannot deny that such things are possible.
** I don't trust in experiences that cannot be proven; I trust in the Word of God. The Word of God is my foundation not experience. You can't build a foundation on experience.**
You can’t prove your case from the Bible. Even many of your fellow cessationists, particularly those who know Greek, disagree with the way you interpret I Corinthians 13.
**You heard; but can't verify. More experience. My theology is based on the Word of God, not someone's experience.**
If you want to verify it, do some research. Find some witnesses.
You sure use a lot of experiential arguments in your posts, a lot more than your arguments from scripture so far.
**Paul was correcting the abuse of tongues in Corinth. In doing so he said, "I thank God that I have spoken in tongues more than you all." Why do you suppose that he said that? The Lord took Paul on three missionary journeys through several parts of Asia, Asia-minor, Europe, etc., and he established over 100 churches. The Lord gave Paul the gift of tongues so that he would have been able to minister to these people in their own language.**
Opinion, opinion. Where is the scripture to back up what you are saying. When Paul said he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians, it is in the context of a passage in which he says that no one understands the speaker in tongues without interpretation. There is no evidence in scripture that tongues were used to preach the Gospel or that the Acts 2 experience was ever repeated. You are just conjecturing here. You do not have any scripture to back up your opinion. If Paul ever used tongues in evangelism, the Bible does not record it. Guesswork is not a basis for doctrine.
** But remeber that wherever he went that the Jews had been scattered abroad throughout all the nations. It wasn't just a matter of preaching in another tongue for the sake of another people. The universal language at the time was Greek. It was a sign to the Jews as well; those Jews that did not believe the gospel message was for the Gentiles. **
Paul never says tongues were sign specifically for the Jews. He said they served as a sign to unbelievers, and showed how unbelievers reacted to them with unbelief. Paul was trying to persuade men. It seems more likely he would have preferred to use the gift of prophecy in evangelism, based on what he writes in I Corinthians 14.
**It is very typical of the Third Wave Movement. There is plenty of it going around. They bark like a dog, roar like a lion, hiss like a snake--all of which is supposedly a sign of the Holy Spirit.**
I think you are reading some old websites. I’ve been to Toronto. This like this seem to come and go, and I would doubt if this kind of stuff was going on a lot at Toronto anymore. The Vineyard let Toronto go pretty quickly when this started. The Vineyard is considered ‘Third Wave.’ This stuff was controversial within ‘Thid Wave’ churches when it was going on.
If I am not mistaken, the term ‘Third Wave’ was something C. Peter Wagoner came up with to describe evangelical churches that believe in the gifts that were not a part of the historical Pentecostal movement or the Charismatic movement. Some churches categorized as ‘Third Wave’ are rather conservative. I am not sure if Wagoner would categorize Calvary Chapel as Third Wave. The only difference between one Calvary Chapel church service I went to and a lot of Baptist churches I have been to is the style of music.
