The Early Church on Speaking In Tongues

[the68]

Actually if you are looking for views from the early church the 1850's aint it.

I apologize, I should have been more clear; I am particularly interested in extra-Biblical early church information concerning the topic, but I am also interested in any extra-Biblical pre-1906 information concerning speaking in tongues, ecstatic utterances and the like.

And whatever went on in the 1850's as posted in this thread it was not biblical tongues.

Your insistence that whatever went on in the 1850's was not Biblical is unnecessary, please read my stance concerning Biblical tongues in my OP. Again, with this insistence you are continuing to to take this thread in a direction I have repeatedly stated I do not intend for it to go. Did you read any of the information I posted by Mr. Sullivan? Perhaps you should, given your stance on the topic I think you would find it quite interesting and reading it would give you a basis from which to contribute to this thread.

And I have not posted 100's of posts on this topic here or anywhere else.

I was being facetious, my apologies. You've posted enough on the topic that I understand your stance concerning it.

Just for clarification's sake; I am not looking to start a classical continuation vs. cessation debate, of which there is no shortage. I am looking for any pre-1906 extra-Biblical information pertaining to the history of ecstatic utterance/prayer languages, as well as information pointing to an earlier understanding concerning speaking in tongues such as those Mr. Sullivan has posted on his website (from Epiphanius, etc). I'm mostly interested in the pre-1906 era as there seems to be relative church silence on the topic for 1900 years prior. Even though I disagree with plain_n_simple's earlier statements concerning the topic, he did subsequently post exactly the kind of information I am looking for from his position on the topic. If everyone follows his example in this thread will fulfill its intended purpose.

 

[the68]

Well read perhaps, but his research is slanted, geared to prove his unbiblical view of tongues despite the biblical evidence that the gift has ceased, and that the "tongues" practiced today are so far from anything biblical as to be suspect as inspired by a spiritual force of a much different nature than God.

Sullivan is notorious for using bad or deliberately misleading interpretations of the biblical accounts, and twisting the meaning of extra-biblical writings in defending his incorrect doctrine.Yes, he's a prolific writer for an erroneous and false teaching.McGee is of the same ilk, and another "researcher" who sets out with a premise and an intent to prove it, whether he has to stick to the truth or not.Well, you've obviously got mine.As Rev said, touching on the 1850s violates your own OP regarding an "early church" view of tongues.

What? It seems you are mistaken. I've spoken with Sullivan personally on this topic and here is what he said:

I am certain the prayer languages and heavenly languages were theologies built after 1906. My premise from reading so far, though this is considered unsubstantiated and could change, is that it occurred after the theological crisis caused by the Azusa Street Revival. The outpouring that happened at Azusa and other places during this period was the perceived supernatural outpouring of the spirit which gave missionaries the spontaneous ability to speak in a foreign language. When these missionaries arrived at their foreign destinations, they discovered that they did not have this ability. This forced the pentecostal movement either to admit they were wrong and discredit the movement or redefine the dogma. The latter was chosen and this is what gave birth to the idea of tongues being a heavenly or prayer language.

I agree with you concerning McGee's research. However I don't see how Sullivan's above stated opinion lines up with what you've said about him.

I have taken part on a couple of charismatic forums in the past. What I have found is they do not like opposing views. I suspect that is the concern of the op writer here as well.

Exactly. However, I have found what you stated to be true of both sides of the argument which is why I would prefer to avoid it.

Thread Title: "The Early Church on Speaking in Tongues"

By what standard is "pre-1906" "early church"? The accepted definition of the Early Church is the first one to three centuries after Christ. Fox, the charismatic movement, the pentecostal movement -- all that is far past the time frame defined by the thread title, and the OP violates his own guidelines. That is because from the true Early Church, there are virtually no writingsrelative to tongues. Irenaeus wrote of very isolated tongues practices (ironically, mostly around the original church of Corinth), and Tertullian spoke of what he called "a questionable practice" he had come across of tongues with interpretation. Other than that, the gift is only mentioned in the past tense in reference to Paul's writings. There is no more proof positive that the gift had ceased in the first century.

This I believe to be correct! I apologize for the confusion concerning parameters for the early church, I did later expound that I was also interested in any information prior to 1906, but am mostly interested in early church writings and opinions. All of the church fathers I mentioned earlier seem to hold to this belief that you have stated.

This thread is nothing more than an effort to promote a false teaching.

Incorrect. I already stated that I hold to what I believe is the Biblical understanding of tongues which is that the Apostles were speaking in known human languages. I do not hold to private prayer languages, heavenly languages or ecstatic utterance. But to reiterate; I am not here to debate continuationism vs. cessationism. See above.

the68 in restating said pre1906(scroll back), and is looking for reference material, not debate.

Correct, plain_n_simple. Thank you!

Then it was posted in the wrong forum.

Also correct. :tongue3: I thought I was posting in "General Baptist Discussion", not the debate forum. My apologies.

I have to go to work now, will respond to the other posts when I get home.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Andrew Murray 1828-1917 South Africa, wrote extensively on prayer but you would have to dig because tongues did not come til later in his ministry. He wrote paperbacks before they were popular.

 

[gb93433]

1Co 14:22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, ....

The context of that is in church worship. Each day I read my Bible for about one hour. I also take time to take to translate passages from the Greek and Hebrew. That would seldom edify anyone in a worship service in an English speaking congregation or very few in a small group conversation. If I did, the focus would be on self. What is done in a worship service must be done to edify the body not just one or a few.

That is the reason why Paul says there must be interpretation so all are edified.

 

[John of Japan]

Three times tongues speakers have tried and/or succeeded in messing up the church I pastor. This has happened to many, many churches. If the doctrine were of God it would not harm the church of Jesus Christ, but it quite often does.

 

[gb93433]

Three times tongues speakers have tried and/or succeeded in messing up the church I pastor. This has happened to many, many churches. If the doctrine were of God it would not harm the church of Jesus Christ, but it quite often does.

The abuse/misuse of any gift harms the church. Many churches have been destroyed by poor leadership. It is estimated that 70-80 percent of the churches in America are plagued by one or more antagonists. A failure to exercise leadership is a failure to use giftedness properly. Many churches have been left behind in destruction by a preacher who did not properly use his giftedness to glorify God but glorified self.

 

[John of Japan]

The abuse/misuse of any gift harms the church. Many churches have been destroyed by poor leadership. It is estimated that 70-80 percent of the churches in America are plagued by one or more antagonists. A failure to exercise leadership is a failure to use giftedness properly. Many churches have been left behind in destruction by a preacher who did not properly use his giftedness to glorify God but glorified self.

I'm not talking about the abuse of a gift within a church. I'm talking about 3 times my church was attacked from outside by tongues speakers. This is the whole basis of the tongues heresy as evidenced in the Charismatic movement (as opposed to traditional Pentecostalism): turning non-tongues churches into tongues churches, often splitting or even destroying the church in the process.

 

[the68]

Well read perhaps, but his research is slanted, geared to prove his unbiblical view of tongues despite the biblical evidence that the gift has ceased, and that the "tongues" practiced today are so far from anything biblical as to be suspect as inspired by a spiritual force of a much different nature than God. Sullivan is notorious for using bad or deliberately misleading interpretations of the biblical accounts, and twisting the meaning of extra-biblical writings in defending his incorrect doctrine.Yes, he's a prolific writer for an erroneous and false teaching.McGee is of the same ilk, and another "researcher" who sets out with a premise and an intent to prove it, whether he has to stick to the truth or not.Well, you've obviously got mine."

A Short Linguistic Analysis, by Charles Sullivan

The initial intention was to do an etymology of the religious word tongues from a literary and linguistic perspective: first it was to discover its usage, various synonyms and potentially finding extra adjectives among the various pieces of Greek literature throughout the centuries. The second stage was to be comparing the Latin, Syriac and later translations.

By doing this, one could theoretically deduce whether tongues was intended to be ecstactic utterances, heavenly or earthly languages or any combination of the three.

As the translation work went on with the Ecclesiastical writers both in the Greek and the Latin, it became wholly clear that this was unnecessary.

The consistent message among the first fourteen centuries clearly demonstrated that it was a human language. This was so strong and clear, there was no reason to defend this. How this human language happened and the mechanics behind this were the sources of debate.

The focus of the project evolved and turned into a Rabbinic form of inquiry. Where did it start, who influenced who, why did it change and when, and how did it evolve to the definition we have today? A map is being developed about the key thinkers and movements who have passed down their dogmas and ideologies on the subject from one generation to another and why it has influenced many to believe what they do today on the subject.

The Gift of Tongues Project is the place to go for all the details on this journey which travels deep into history, language, theology, philosophy, institutional movements, and more.

Again, I am rather at a loss as to where you came to your conclusion concerning Sullivan. Please, I believe it would benefit you muchly to take a look at the source material Sullivan provides especially given your stance on the topic (though I believe his research could be of vital interest to any Christian).

Well, I assume by the apparent radio silence that the initial contempt and confusion is over with and everyone is on the same page as to the intent of this thread. I have very close Christian brothers and sisters on both sides of the debate whom I love very dearly. plain_n_simple, even though I disagree with your position as stated in your first post I greatly appreciate and respect your subsequent willingness to contribute to this thread in the way I had intended for everyone to contribute. Kudos my friend. I will add these instances you mentioned to my research.

Blessings to all. I look forward to reading more about this topic and seeing what others have to contribute.

 

[John of Japan]

Concerning the OP, the only evidence of non-linguistic glossalalia in the early church/church fathers is concerning the Montanist movement. That's it, period, until modern Christianity. If there were other instances the Charistmatic scholars would have found it and be touting it all over the Internet.

A book by Charismatic scholars I have on the history of their movement doesn't even mention the Montanists or church fathers, but starts with the 19th century Irvingites (Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. by Vincent Synan). Thus, modern glossalalia is virtually non-existent in the history of Christianity, and thus one more aberrant movement trying to put us back in 1st century Christianity, which is impossible, as witness the heretical Church of Christ and similar efforts.

Edited in: To be fair, in the book mentioned above there are four mentions in passing of the Montanists, but no examination of the movement.

 

[the68]

Concerning the OP, the only evidence of non-linguistic glossalalia in the early church/church fathers is concerning the Montanist movement. That's it, period, until modern Christianity.

I agree, that seems to be the indication according to my own research. I've been hard-pressed to find any other instances before the advent of Modern Christianity despite multiple intensive excursions and inquiries. If anyone has any information to the contrary it would be greatly appreciated.

A book by Charismatic scholars I have on the history of their movement doesn't even mention the Montanists or church fathers, but starts with the 19th century Irvingites (Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. by Vincent Synan). Thus, modern glossalalia is virtually non-existent in the history of Christianity.

Synan's works have been recommended to me by Mr. Sullivan. It's probably time I acquired some of his literature. Thanks!

Edited in: To be fair, in the book mentioned above there are four mentions in passing of the Montanists, but no examination of the movement.

This seems to be true of all information concerning the Montanists. Does Synan view the movement positively?

 

[plain_n_simple]

Fascinating website the68, thanks for joining.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree, that seems to be the indication according to my own research. I've been hard-pressed to find any other instances before the advent of Modern Christianity despite multiple intensive excursions and inquiries. If anyone has any information to the contrary it would be greatly appreciated.

Good luck with that. Unless new manuscripts are discovered you'll not find any such evidence.

Synan's works have been recommended to me by Mr. Sullivan. It's probably time I acquired some of his literature. Thanks!

Synan is a genuine scholar, which is a rarity among the Charismatics IMO. So it is worth the effort to read his stuff as long as you are researching the history.

This seems to be true of all information concerning the Montanists. Does Synan view the movement positively?

Synan is the editor of this work, so he only writes the intro. Larry Christenson mentions them twice in his article about the Irvingites, but only historically as a Charismatic movement opposed by traditionalists. Martin Marty (not a Charismatic that I know of) mentions them on two pages of his article on Pentecostalism, quoting the negative comment by Eusebius on Montanus, and then quoting from Donald Gelpi as a Catholic Charismatic who traced his lineage through the Montanists.

 

[John of Japan]

"Although reports of healing and other miracles are not uncommon in the corpus of surviving Christian literature, evidence for the appearance of glossalalia, at least from the late second century to the eighteenth or nineteenth century, is scarce and frequently obscure. Quite often, for example, speaking in tongues is not clearly differentiated from the gift of prophecy. After the first century until the modern period, there are only a few references to glossalalia in Christian discourse" (The New Charismatics, by Richard Quebedeaux, p. 20).

So my question is this. If tongues are so rare in church history, though there is an abundance of Bible-based church movements down through the centuries, why are we supposed to believe that glossalalia is a Biblical expression of tongues? It seems to me arrogant to say, "We speak in tongues, though almost no one did down throughout church history, but we are Biblical in this."

We're not talking about doctrine, but practice. Doctrine has periods of learning, but not practice. Down through the ages, churches have had worship services, have done evangelism, have sent missionaries, have prayed, have sung hymns, and done many other practices of the Christian life. But they haven't talked in unknown tongues. In other words, unknown tongues are unknown in church history!!! :saint:

 

[prophet]

1Co 14:10
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

Herein is the limit set.

The Evil one has no new tactics.
One does not have to do any exhaustive research to know that possession-enhanced babbling wasn't delivered to George Fox first.

Azusa St. was a re-run.

I am as curious as any, that we have actual written evidence, but that is selfish on my part. I have led several Azusa St. products, including a C.O.G.I.C. minister, to the Lord by simply walking them through Acts 2, and ICorinthians 12-14 slowly.
When asked plainly: "is this (what we read in Scripture) how it is practiced in your church, a product of the Holy Spirit, or is it a product of another spirit?" , The sincere answer is "No", and "another spirit".

Not trying to distract from the discussion, just give the thoughts that it triggered in me.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Again, I am rather at a loss as to where you came to your conclusion concerning Sullivan. Please, I believe it would benefit you muchly to take a look at the source material Sullivan provides especially given your stance on the topic (though I believe his research could be of vital interest to any Christian).

As long as Sullivan leaves room for the existence of unbiblical tongues -- I see him attempt to make distinction, then apologize for those who practice gobbledy-gook -- I can't accept anything he says as being a valid viewpoint. Sorry.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Please, I believe it would benefit you muchly to take a look at the source material Sullivan provides especially given your stance on the topic

Is "muchly" a word? jus sayin

 

[gb93433]

I'm not talking about the abuse of a gift within a church. I'm talking about 3 times my church was attacked from outside by tongues speakers. This is the whole basis of the tongues heresy as evidenced in the Charismatic movement (as opposed to traditional Pentecostalism): turning non-tongues churches into tongues churches, often splitting or even destroying the church in the process.

If tongues speakers are causing division then they are using their gift as a means to cause division. Evangelists can cause division by the abuse/misuse of their gift. Gifts are for the edification of the body and that which does not edify is not of God. I know tongues speakers who do not cause division and they have never made it an issue. Those who cause division can possess any gift and use it to divide the church. The thief come to steal, kill, and destroy. Satan will use whatever means possible. 70-80 percent of the churches are plagued by one or more antagonists. That means the leaders and people are allowing division and doing nothing about it.

 

[the68]

Fascinating website the68, thanks for joining.

I'm glad you found Sullivan's website fascinating, plain_n_simple. Thanks so much for welcoming me!

thisnumberisdisconnected,

Many of your assumptions and assertions concerning this thread have proven to be incorrect thus far. As a matter of respect I rebuffed your other assertions concerning my intentions for this thread via PM and I am still awaiting a response to my last transmission.

As long as Sullivan leaves room for the existence of unbiblical tongues -- I see him attempt to make distinction, then apologize for those who practice gobbledy-gook -- I can't accept anything he says as being a valid viewpoint. Sorry.

That is slightly antithetical to your previous assertion.

his research is slanted, geared to prove his unbiblical view of tongues despite the biblical evidence that the gift has ceased, and that the "tongues" practiced today are so far from anything biblical as to be suspect as inspired by a spiritual force of a much different nature than God. Sullivan is notorious for using bad or deliberately misleading interpretations of the biblical accounts, and twisting the meaning of extra-biblical writings in defending his incorrect doctrine.

...leaves room for the existence of unbiblical tongues

is rather removed from

...geared to prove his unbiblical view of tongues

and most certainly removed from

...notorious for using bad or deliberately misleading interpretations of the biblical accounts, and twisting the meaning of extra-biblical writings in defending his incorrect doctrine.

So which is it? It seems to me that you are now saying that when it comes to anyone who may merely be allowing for the possibility that he might be mistaken or flawed in his fallible human understanding of a given topic you simply throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That being said, I think you need to read this again;

I am certain the prayer languages and heavenly languages were theologies built after 1906. My premise from reading so far, though this is considered unsubstantiated and could change, is that it occurred after the theological crisis caused by the Azusa Street Revival. The outpouring that happened at Azusa and other places during this period was the perceived supernatural outpouring of the spirit which gave missionaries the spontaneous ability to speak in a foreign language. When these missionaries arrived at their foreign destinations, they discovered that they did not have this ability. This forced the Pentecostal movement either to admit they were wrong and discredit the movement or redefine the dogma. The latter was chosen and this is what gave birth to the idea of tongues being a heavenly or prayer language.

Any Charismatic worth their salt would disagree with such a conclusion.

Though Sullivan claims to be unbiased in his research (which I believe he is, to whatever extent it is humanly possible) as I see it his research on early church history rather obviously supports the Cessationist position concerning glossolalia and languages.

So my question is this. If tongues are so rare in church history, though there is an abundance of Bible-based church movements down through the centuries, why are we supposed to believe that glossolalia is a Biblical expression of tongues?

Down through the ages, churches have had worship services, have done evangelism, have sent missionaries, have prayed, have sung hymns, and done many other practices of the Christian life. But they haven't talked in unknown tongues. In other words, unknown tongues are unknown in church history!!!

John of Japan; this is exactly my suspicion, and is also why I found Sullivan's research concerning the early fathers and the dogma not being accepted to the extent it currently is until the late 19th century so fascinating. I do want to be sure that this is a solid argument before I employ it, thus my research and inquiry. Thanks for your sources, it looks as though I have literature to acquire and reading to do.

Azusa St. was a re-run.

Prophet; it's funny, but I contribute under the pseudonym "Prophet" to several other boards and have done so for years. Thank you for your thoughts. It is also my belief that similar occurrences happened before Azusa and I wish to understand this better, thus my interest in any such happenings pre-1906 as plain_n_simple provided.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Many of your assumptions and assertions concerning this thread have proven to be incorrect thus far.

Really? By whose reckoning?

As a matter of respect I rebuffed your other assertions concerning my intentions for this thread via PM and I am still awaiting a response to my last transmission.

Continue to wait. The content of your last PM was too negative to bother replying.

That is slightly antithetical to your previous assertion.

his research is slanted, geared to prove his unbiblical view of tongues despite the biblical evidence that the gift has ceased, and that the "tongues" practiced today are so far from anything biblical as to be suspect as inspired by a spiritual force of a much different nature than God. Sullivan is notorious for using bad or deliberately misleading interpretations of the biblical accounts, and twisting the meaning of extra-biblical writings in defending his incorrect doctrine.

is rather removed from

...leaves room for the existence of unbiblical tongues

and most certainly removed from

...notorious for using bad or deliberately misleading interpretations of the biblical accounts, and twisting the meaning of extra-biblical writings in defending his incorrect doctrine.

So which is it?

There is nothing about any of those quotes from my posts that are in anyway antithetical to one another, so your question is irrelevant.

It seems to me that you are now saying that when it comes to anyone who may merely be allowing for the possibility that he might be mistaken or flawed in his fallible human understanding of a given topic you simply throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That may be the way it seems to you, but that is not the case. Sullivan defends gobbledy-gook, and does so by defending any use of tongues beyond the First Century. The gift died before John did, therefore any defense of the use of the gift in the post-apostolic church is invalid and unbiblical. I've never said anything less than that.

That being said, I think you need to read this again;

Followed by your color highlighted quote from Sullivan which fails to take into consideration his insistence elsewhere in his writing that tongues is not now, even today, a "dead gift," as is stated biblically to be the case. Sullivan believes "known language" use of tongues is still valid. I do not, and see biblical evidence to support that view.

Though Sullivan claims to be unbiased in his research (which I believe he is, to whatever extent it is humanly possible) as I see it his research on early church history rather obviously supports the Cessationist position concerning glossolalia and languages.

This is the part of your conclusion I utterly fail to understand. He goes to great lengths in his Origen on the Dogma of Tongues -- interestingly, publicly and loudly renamed from the original Origen on the Gift of Tongues -- to conclude, illogically, that the great church father wrote extensively, not on the cessation of the gift of tonuges, but of the gift of knowledge, and goes to the greater length of retranslating Origen to prove his point. He utterly fails, primarily due to his short-sighted agenda.

As you cease addressing my concerns here, I will also cease addressing your concerns, though I believe you are reaching illogical conclusions equally severe as Sullivan's.

 

[plain_n_simple]

For the68:
Out of all the supernatural happenings I've witnessed or read about, it's usually healings that get reported. Tongues and interpretation while they were done, isnt usually at the top of the list or talked about much. It's when a terminal illness or a child gets healed that gets told. Mariah Woodworth was known as a trance evangelist. People would get knocked out for hours and it was quite a sight according to newspapers. Healings would also get reported, but tongues rarely did. Woodworths staff and followers spoke tongues all the time(pre1900). If a body spoke tongues as prayer all the time, it's kind of a given, normal operation to them. So in the study you are involved with you may or may not find much beyond healings, and if elders are against it, it will not be recorded at least in there reach.