Featured 1 Cor. 12-14

I agree that it does need repeating. As was pointed out in the other thread, tongues takes a speaker, an interpreter, and a message edifying to the church. You said you had experienced this. Can you share with us what the message from the Lord was? I have not experienced this in sixty years.

 

Unless the person speaking tongues was speaking a known tongue, but unknown to him, then it wasn't real. That is what tongues are: the ability to apeak a known language that you previously could not speak. The interpreter merely needs to be another person that speaks that known language. God doesn't speak any new word. Sorry, but all the tongues I have ever seen are bogus.

 

Have any of you ever seen someone raised from the dead?

Do any of you know anybody that ever did it?

Me neither.

 

Tongues in the NT are clearly known languages.

(1) In Acts 2, we are actually told so. The word Greek word glossa (language, or the literal tongue in your mouth as in Acts 2:3) is used, but if one doubts if that be literal languages, the languages are listed after a different Greek word is used, dialektos, which other than in Acts 2 (Acts 2:6 & 28) occurs 5 more times in Acts: Aramaic (1:19), and three times for Hebrew (21:40, 22:2 and 26:14. So the word glossa in Acts 2 must mean literal languages. In fact, in Acts 2:9-11 those languages are named, with glossa the word for "tongue" in v. 11.

(2) In 1 Cor. 12-14, there is nothing to indicate unknown (not in the Greek, but added in the English). In the whole three chapters the impression is the opposite, that normal languages are being referred to. If they were tongues as in Acts 2, then interpretation would not be needed. In fact, if they were miraculous in any way, what would be the need of interpreters? I've preached in an international church here in Japan, with interpreters into Thai, Chinese and Japanese, and that fit exactly what is being said in 1 Cor. 12-14.

(3) Historically, the original "revival" at Azusa St. in 1906 viewed their tongues as a means to reach the world for Christ, therefore modern tongues speakers do not understand tongues the way they did. Why? The original Pentecostal missionaries went to the fields of the world and discovered that they had no miraculous gift of languages, that they had to go to language schools instead. The whole story is told by a Pentecostal scholar in Azusa Street and Beyond: Pentecostal Missions and Church Growth in the 20th Century, by L. Grant McClung, Jr. (pp. 13-14). So it is only due to failure in this area that modern Pentecostal/Charismatic churches have the doctrine of the unkenown tongue.

(4) The Biblical gift of the Holy Spirit's baptism/fullness was always to do God's work and win souls, not to have some gift the make you happy and feel so blessed. See this clearly in Acts 4:31--"And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness." The result of their prayers and the fullness of the Holy Spirit is clearly the bold proclamation of the Word of God, not tongues or healing.

I could give more, but hopefully this will start you thinking. I also strongly object to the idea of a healer (no where in the Bible; the healing of Christ was incidental to the proclamation of the Gospel), and the terrible Charismatic doctrine of the manifest sons of God.

 

1 Corinthians 14:6 - Now, brothers,1 if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?

1 Corinthians 14:18 - I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

1 Corinthians 14:23 - If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

1 Corinthians 14:39 - So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

Based on these and other verses. I think there are two extremes to avoid:

a. Saying ALL tongues are definitely ceased for all times and all places...that God cannot and will not use miraculous signs including language to reveal himself in the times that he chooses.

b. Saying that the tongues are a sign of spiritual maturity that every true or mature believer must have to show that he is truly following God. I think Paul is pointing out that NT tongues, while spectacular, were not the highest gift, or the most helpful.

That said...

1. It seems that the way tongues are practiced in most churches today seems a different animal than the way they were used in the NT.
2. It is interesting that Tongues were not widespread from about 100AD untill about 100 years ago.
3. It is interesting that the vast majority of Biblical Scholars over the last 2000 years put very little emphasis in their writings on tongues...either denying their validity completely (an error, I think), or severely limiting their helpful application.
4. It is interesting that while I have known Godly Christians who spoke in tongues, I have never known a Christian upon whom the gift of tongues came unbidden, without their church teaching them to do it, or being in a group that encouraged it.
5. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit, when it came, would magnify and glorify HIM, Christ. To the degree that supposed manifestations of the Holy Spirit draw attention only to the Spirit, or to the great giftedness of the individual person, we must suspect that it may not be what it is claimed to be.