The Ways of God in the Context of the Modern Tongues Movement

[JD731]

I am starting this thread on "the ways of God." No one talks about this subject here but one reason for raising up the nation of Israel is so God could teach the world his ways. He says he is the same always in character but his ways sure change. Yet there is always the same purpose in all the changes and each one brings us closer to the fulfilment of that purpose. We must learn his ways.

This is the reason I reject the modern Protestant tongues movement that began in the same year the Pentecostal tongues movement began in the Charles Parham's Bethel Bible college in Topeka KS in 1901 when Agnes Osmond (? spelling) was the first to speak in tongues after an all night "tarrying" meeting. The flood gates for the Protestants were unlocked and opened with the publication of the ASV. Both these new movements have their prophets and apostles who have new revelations and words for the people of God. There is little difference in them. One of them just wears suits and ties and brags about social standing and education credentials and personal accomplishments while the other have come mostly from the ignorant uneducated backwoods emotionally based people.

Hebrews 3:10
Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

The ways of God are oneness, holiness, and unity among his people and the Protestant tongues movement has produced more division than the Pentecostals, in my view.

1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1 Corinthians 4:17
For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

Where am I wrong?

 

[JonC]

I'd be cautious not to condemn tongues in all instances (remember Paul also mentioned the legitimate use of tongues). And I'd be cautious not to be dismissive of the "emotional" elements (to avoid the opposite extreme of the issue).

 

[JD731]

I'd be cautious not to condemn tongues in all instances (remember Paul also mentioned the legitimate use of tongues). And I'd be cautious not to be dismissive of the "emotional" elements (to avoid the opposite extreme of the issue).

Thanks for the warning JonC, but I already practice caution.

 

[37818]

I'd be cautious not to condemn tongues in all instances (remember Paul also mentioned the legitimate use of tongues). And I'd be cautious not to be dismissive of the "emotional" elements (to avoid the opposite extreme of the issue).

Banning Biblical cessationism? 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, James 1:17, James 1:25. 2 Corinthians 5:8.

 

[JonC]

Banning Biblical cessationism? 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, James 1:17, James 1:25. 2 Corinthians 5:8.

That would be the caution.

Tongues have been misused (it is not a gift I have any familiarity with, but I have seen it misused....i.e., what I believe is fake).

But I would not discount instances of biblical use as a sign for the unbeliever or in private prayer because God can use whatever means He wants without it being any of my business.

 

[37818]

That would be the caution.

Tongues have been misused (it is not a gift I have any familiarity with, but I have seen it misused....i.e., what I believe is fake).

But I would not discount instances of biblical use as a sign for the unbeliever or in private prayer because God can use whatever means He wants without it being any of my business.

As a Biblical cessationist, I hold the Biblical gift of tongues has been inoperative per 1 Corinthians 13:8-12. When the Biblical gift of tongues was God speaking per Acts 2:4, . . . to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
And per 1 Corinthians 12, and per 1 Corinthians 14. The book of Revelation was yet future, Revelation 22:18.

 

[JonC]

As a Biblical cessationist, I hold the Biblical gift of tongues has been inoperative per 1 Corinthians 13:8-12. When the Biblical gift of tongues was God speaking per Acts 2:4, . . . to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
And per 1 Corinthians 12, and per 1 Corinthians 14. The book of Revelation was yet future, Revelation 22:18.

I don't. The reason is the purpose of tongues (for the unbeliever). It was to validate what was said to unbelievers.

"But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" is, IMO, a principle (as evidenced by the context and focus on love enduring).

If we look at Scripture then the giving of Scripture concluded when Scripture was completed. But tongues was not a method of communicating Scripture.

So while I do not practice tongues, or attend a church that does (it is foreign to my experience), I can't discount the possibility that God can still use this gift in places where it would be meaningful to His purposes as a sign to unbelievers.

 

[Deacon]

...
Hebrews 3:10
Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

The ways of God are oneness, holiness, and unity among his people and the Protestant tongues movement has produced more division than the Pentecostals, in my view.

1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1 Corinthians 4:17
For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

Where am I wrong?

I tend to agree with you JD.
But I'm not a cessationalist.
And I'm not convinced by the few passages that are often used to promote cessationalism.

Yet I do not believe that what is found in many Pentecostal churches are biblical gifts of the Spirit (granted, my experience is quite limited)
From what I've seen and heard:

• They are not being employed in a NT manner.
• I don't see the response to the gifts that I would expect.
• I observe a self-gratifying feeling of elation or release, rather than a glorification of God.

But JD, you asked: "Where am I wrong?"
I believe you've taken each of those verses out of context.

One could use them against just about any belief...Why even the gospel can cause division (Luke 12:49-56)!

So I guess that makes me a Continuationalist... I believe God can still empower people with gifts...
I don't believe it is prominent... God generally uses his people as the body of Christ to spread the gospel.

But I heard stories, told among missionaries and peoples of the third world, places where the gospel of Jesus is generally absent,
Stories of dreams, visions, appearances, that point seekers to Christ... direct them to people that can lead them to Jesus.

I find these reports hard to dismiss.

Rob

 

[37818]

I remain a cessationist. Not to be a cessationist is not to affirm the written word of God to be the.sole word of God given to men.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I remain a cessationist. Not to be a cessationist is not to affirm the written word of God to be the.sole word of God given to men.

Amen. If the BIBLE (God's actual Words, provable, inspired, preserved) is not the SOLE SOURCE of both our Faith and our Practice, we are set adrift from the FIRST distinctive of being "Baptist". If God's inspired revelation can come in dreams, visions, tongues, councils, popes, or traditions, then this is attack on inspiration and on the Word itself that proclaims IT is truth. Not "some" truth.

 

[Deacon]

If God's inspired revelation can come in dreams, visions, tongues, councils, popes, or traditions, then this is attack on inspiration and on the Word itself that proclaims IT is truth. Not "some" truth.

But I wonder...

You see I'm not saying that extra-biblical revelation occurs. In that respect I am a cessationist.
God certainly will not annul any previous revelation and he won't provide additional revelation more than that obtained through the knowledge of Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:2).

But God has promised to reveal himself to those who seek him (Matt. 7:7-8).
In closed countries where the gospel is not present or very scarce, there are stories of the wondrous acts of God; dreams and visions directing people to Jesus.
These events do not have the authority of Scripture but fall under the umbrella of what has already been revealed.
Those that experience the phenomena are not prophets (they are not revealing an unknown truth).
And yet they are able to profess (witness) what was revealed to them.

I don't have direct contact with any who have had such event happen, but I do have an old college friend who works with Christians in Northern Africa.
He has told me stories of such events.

I don't believe the Pentecostal Movement is authentic.
But I also don't believe God has stopped working in our world today.

Rob

 

[37818]

But God has promised to reveal himself to those who seek him (Matt. 7:7-8).

Romans 8:16, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: . . .

 

[John of Japan]

Not sure what this thread is doing in "Bible Versions and Translations", but to give it the proper slant for this forum, here is my input:

Glossa (γλῶσσα) in the NT should always, without exception, be translated as "language." And by that I mean earthly discernable language. That's what it means, not some impossible to understand babble, some divine or angelic language not understandable by living humans. The KJV translators meant "language" because that is what "tongue" meant in 1611.

There is not a shred of evidence that I have been able to find that the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic version of tongues existed either in the first century or in 1611.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Not sure what this thread is doing in "Bible Versions and Translations"

Thanks for pointing that out, John, and thread moved to Theology and Bible Study with my super-powers

 

[JonC]

Amen. If the BIBLE (God's actual Words, provable, inspired, preserved) is not the SOLE SOURCE of both our Faith and our Practice, we are set adrift from the FIRST distinctive of being "Baptist". If God's inspired revelation can come in dreams, visions, tongues, councils, popes, or traditions, then this is attack on inspiration and on the Word itself that proclaims IT is truth. Not "some" truth.

I agree. But I do not see how that would support the position that tongues have ceased.

 

[John of Japan]

We must distinguish between revelation and witness. Hypothetical: Say a missionary preaches the Gospel to an unreached tribe. If the tribe told him later he was speaking in their language when he was speaking in his own, that would be biblical tongues, but not revelation. Revelation is when one claims to have a direct prophetic message from God equivalent to Scripture, that is adding to the Word of God, since revelation has ceased.

Here's another word: guidance. This is when the Holy Spirit speaks to one person and guides their life, like when God called me to Japan. It was not Scripture, it was only for me. God guided me in His will, but it was not revelation, and not to be inscripturated.

Relevance: often tongues speakers claim to have revelation from God in their tongue, and they ask for an interpreter, who spews some nonsense that is not truth.