Define the angel tongue of I Cor 13

[Trotter]

"Ecstatic utterances" were practiced by the pagan religions of the time, especially around Corinth. The Corinthian Christians were practising the same thing.

I believe this is a matter of Christian conscience and Christian liberty. As long as it is done privately, not in the church, I must leave it in the hands of God.

Conscience and liberty are great, but not when it contradicts scripture, whether in private or not.

 

[Revmitchell]

"Ecstatic utterances" were practiced by the pagan religions of the time, especially around Corinth. The Corinthian Christians were practising the same thing.


Conscience and liberty are great, but not when it contradicts scripture, whether in private or not.

Which is why the prohibition of this within Convention IMB qualifications is necessary. Those who practice something so contrived and unscriptual has judgment issues that need to be addressed. The support for this is rather odd. Those who practice these ecstatic Utterances know they are contrived.

 

[DHK]

I believe that the tongues of angels were just that: "tongues or languages of angels." How did the angel speak to Joseph, Mary, Zechariah, Manoah, John (in Revelation), Isaiah (ch. 6), etc.

Angels spoke in the language that they were required to speak in. Therefore they could speak in any language that God commanded them. That is one attribute they have. They could speak in any language.
Secondly, they could speak perfectly. It is doubtful that they ever made a mistake in grammar, no matter what language they spoke. Can you do that? I can't even speak grammatically correct in my mother tongue, let alone in a second language!
They could speak masterfully and beautifully. In other words their vocabulary was extensive in whatever language they needed to speak. Whatever they spoke, they spoke it very eloquently, never without any loss of words.

These are some of the characteristics of what would be the language of angels.
It would come from God, at His bidding. Language is communication. They were sent by God to minister to believers. They were able to do that effectively.

Though the statement is a conjecture or a condition: "IF I could....
speak with that same ability that the angels have in speaking, and have not love..."

 

[Bob Alkire]

The apostle was writing in general hypothetical terms. I know of no biblical teaching of any special angelic language that people could learn to speak.http://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1240168#_ftn1
http://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1240168#_ftnref1


The Corinthians considered these tongues to be languages of the angels. Such was the association of tongues—speaking in pagan worship at Corinth. When a priest or some one spoke in tongues the people of the temple considered that he spoke in the language of the godshttp://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1240168#_ftn1.

 

[DHK]

The apostle was writing in general hypothetical terms. I know of no biblical teaching of any special angelic language that people could learn to speak.



The Corinthians considered these tongues to be languages of the angels. Such was the association of tongues—speaking in pagan worship at Corinth. When a priest or some one spoke in tongues the people of the temple considered that he spoke in the language of the gods.

True it was hypothetical. But it had to be positively hypothetical; something that some believer would want to do. You couldn't pay me to speak in an ecstatic tongue or a pagan tongue. Why would that be something that the believers wanted. That doesn't fit the context.

"If I could have all the garbage of the world and have not love..."
Hypothetical or not, it has to fit the context and make sense.

 

[canadyjd]

"Ecstatic utterances" were practiced by the pagan religions of the time, especially around Corinth. The Corinthian Christians were practising the same thing.

Conscience and liberty are great, but not when it contradicts scripture, whether in private or not.

If the Apostle Paul had prohibited the practice of "tongues" (estatic utterances) at Corinth, then it would contradict scripture.

But the Apostle Paul did not prohibit the practice of "tongues". The Apostle Paul gave instructions for the practice of "tongues" in the church, which included interpretation; and if no one could interpret (in the church), then the person must remain silent in the church; limiting the activity to himself and God.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Which is why the prohibition of this within Convention IMB qualifications is necessary. Those who practice something so contrived and unscriptual has judgment issues that need to be addressed. The support for this is rather odd. Those who practice these ecstatic Utterances know they are contrived.

The SBC is overstepping. They are holding Christians to a higher standard than scripture allows. That is wrong.

Paul did not prohibit the practice of tongues. He gave instructions concerning its practice.

BTW, it is also wrong for you to assume you know the mind of other Christians. It is unscriptural as well. That area has been reserved for God alone.

peace to youraying:

 

[ajg1959]

If the Apostle Paul had prohibited the practice of "tongues" (estatic utterances) at Corinth, then it would contradict scripture.

But the Apostle Paul did not prohibit the practice of "tongues". The Apostle Paul gave instructions for the practice of "tongues" in the church, which included interpretation; and if no one could interpret (in the church), then the person must remain silent in the church; limiting the activity to himself and God.

peace to youraying:

Paul gave instructions to the church at Corinth, and it was during the time when the church was being established. Paul himself said that the tongues would end, and when the Bible was completed, there was no more need for tongues. We no longer need prophesy because we have the completed and perfect Word of God.

Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct any other church to practice tongues in any form except to the church at Corinth. Just because it was there for them doesnt mean that it is here for us today.

Lots of things are told about in the Bible that are for our instruction but not for our duplication. For instance, have you seen God speak to you thru a burning bush? Can you take off across the Mississippi River walking? Can you grow enough hair to make you stronger than anyone in the world?

Unless we are members of the Church of God at Corinth during the first century AD then I doubt it pertains to us. And the reference to tongues of angels is taken completely out of context. Its like saying "if I only had wings"...it is a metaphor.

AJ

 

[Trotter]

The SBC is overstepping. They are holding Christians to a higher standard than scripture allows. That is wrong.

No one mentioned SBC. Exposed nerve there?

You seem to be looking for a fight over this. I, for one, won't give you one. There is no scriptural support for a "private prayer language" or using "ecstatic utterances" unless the words of the bible are pulled out of their context, no matter how someone argues it.

McArthur put it this way: "We are to experience the teachings of the bible, not teach the experiences of the bible." In other words, we should learn from the bible, not try to mimic what happened to the people of the early church.

 

[Revmitchell]

The SBC is overstepping. They are holding Christians to a higher standard than scripture allows. That is wrong.

Paul did not prohibit the practice of tongues. He gave instructions concerning its practice.

BTW, it is also wrong for you to assume you know the mind of other Christians. It is unscriptural as well. That area has been reserved for God alone.

peace to youraying:

Not really. Since it is not a move of the Spirit, any gibberish that comes from anyone is contrived and has to be known to the person making up the contrived gibberish. As far as the convention over stepping their bounds well if the behavior is contrived, false, fake, and distorts a true picture of God by acting in a nonsensical manner then it is within biblical boundries.

 

[gb93433]

We were on another thread discussing private prayer language and I did not want to hijack the thread.

Please give us scripture for there being any other tongue that an angel can speak other than the one of whom the angel was speaking to.

This invitation is kindly given to those folks who believe in (estatic utterances).

It is a situation defined by "if." It is a third class conditional sentence. It is not supposed to be reality. It could very well be a hypothetical situation used for argument sake to compare love to what might be considered so lofty and spiritual.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Canadyjd,

Last question from Bartimaeus. Just want to clear the air here. I am pastoring New Song Baptist Church in Lafayette, Tn.

Would you please tell me the full name and location of the Baptist Church that you attend?

Thank you very kindly.

Bartimaeus

 

[canadyjd]

Paul gave instructions to the church at Corinth, and it was during the time when the church was being established. Paul himself said that the tongues would end, and when the Bible was completed, there was no more need for tongues.

I believe he was referring to the 2nd coming of Christ as the time that all those things would cease.

Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct any other church to practice tongues in any form except to the church at Corinth. Just because it was there for them doesnt mean that it is here for us today.

I did not say Paul was giving them instructions to start practicing tongues. He addressed something that was already occurring at Corinth and disrupting the fellowship.

The point I have repeatedly attempted to make, which no one seems to understand, is that Paul did not prohibit the use of tongues "estatic utterances", but rather gave instructions on their use.

Lots of things are told about in the Bible that are for our instruction but not for our duplication. For instance, have you seen God speak to you thru a burning bush? Can you take off across the Mississippi River walking? Can you grow enough hair to make you stronger than anyone in the world?

Paul gave numerous instructions to the Corinthians that are applicable today. These included church discipline, orderly worship, the taking of the Lord's Supper, instructions concerning the importance of the resurrection...and so on. They also include instructions concerning the use of "tongues" in the fellowship. Since people are still using "tongues", Paul's instructions still apply.

What you, and others, are attempting to do is disregard what God has revealed in His Word as the proper response to the issue of those who speak in "tongues", and replace God's instructions with man-made rules, such as:

"If you speak in tongues, your not welcome here...go find someplace else to worship."

"If you speak in tongues, you can't be a missionary for us"

"If you speak in tongues, I can see your heart and read your mind and I know that you know that its all gibberish, and contrived, and unscriptural...therefore you should be excluded."

Those kinds of attitudes are clearly unbiblical. You cannot replace God's wisdom on this issue with man's wisdom.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

No one mentioned SBC. Exposed nerve there?

Read the posts again.

Originally Posted by RevmitchellWhich is why the prohibition of this within Convention IMB qualifications is necessary. Those who practice something so contrived and unscriptual has judgment issues that need to be addressed.

The "Convention IMB" refers to the Southern Baptist Convention International Mission Board.

You seem to be looking for a fight over this.

That is just silly. I have responded to OP by sticking to scripture and explaining my position.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Would you please tell me the full name and location of the Baptist Church that you attend?

Why do you ask?

peace to youraying:

 

[PK]

I was in one service where someone started "exercising their gift" by mumbling and I could not understand them in my own "tongue".

Acts 2:7 - And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
Act 2:8 - And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

I also notice that the Bible gives a clear definition here for tongues as "wherein we were born."

 

[canadyjd]

I was in one service where someone started "exercising their gift" by mumbling and I could not understand them in my own "tongue".

It appears he was violating God's instructions in scripture if there was no one there to interpret. He should have remained silent in church.

peace to youraying:

 

[Trotter]

You seem to have your own mind made up about the matter, no matter what is said.

"If you speak in tongues, your not welcome here...go find someplace else to worship."

"If you speak in tongues, you can't be a missionary for us"

"If you speak in tongues, I can see your heart and read your mind and I know that you know that its all gibberish, and contrived, and unscriptural...therefore you should be excluded."

When people spoke in other languages throughout the book of Acts, it was in the languages of those around them and was readily understood by them. even the members of Cornelius' household spoke in other languages, and there were those around them who understood them.

The Corinthians were not exercising a spiritual gift of other languages. If they had been, they would have been preaching the Gospel to those around them and would not have been corected by the apostle. Instead, they were speaking in an "unknown" language, which went against what had happened in Acts. Paul told them to be silent unless someone understood; in other words, "if it ain't real, sit down and shut up."

I am not one who claims that the gift of languages does not exist today. God still grants people the ability to speak and understand other languages. But this gift is the languages of other people around the receiver of the gift, and will allow them to share the Gospel with them. Not to pray, not to be seen and/or heard, not to show their spirituality. People today seem to have overlooked that little tidbit.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yea.. I am not a cessationist either. But the issue I find clear and convincing is the nature of tongues which is explained without doubt in v. 22.

 

[Amy.G]

I attended a couple of charasmatic churches when I was first saved and heard lot's of "utterances", but not one was a real language and it was never interpreted.
It was just basoblsoblablajogokoooddaaamarishkahargatay.