Tounges.

Short answer no it is not.

There is no such thing as a tongue of angels, or at least not one mentioned in the Bible. If you look at what Paul said in 1 Corinthians he was exagerating the extreme to make a point.

Unless you can prove to me that Paul fathomed all mysteries and all knowledge (even though later he states he knows only in part), or that he gave all that he possesed to the poor and surrendered his body to the flame, then I have to reason to believe that he spoke in the tongues of angels.

He used an extreme to make a point. If there was a tongue of angels that he could speak, it would still be meaningless without love.

And the apostles did, it says many will do these things, not all.

And those tongues were specific languages that everyone understood. Acts 2:5-12

Yes, but 1 Corinthians 13 tells us that tongues will cease some day.

Yes and Paul pointed that out because they wrong in doing so. Gifts were given for one reason, to build up the church.

Again, Paul never said that he did, he said IF he did, without love it was worthless.

There is no private prayer language, that is a myth started about 100 years ago.

~Lorelei

 

1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

I understand this to mean that if you have a language that you want to use in conversation with God, and there is no one there to interpret, you should keep it between yourself and God because it would be confusing to the rest of the church.

But, and this is my problem with "tongues" and "prayer language", why would God want to have someone use a language, or some utterance, that nobody in the church could understand, or that (in the case of an interpreter being present) only two could understand?
Wouldn't that be authoring confusion?

God could easily give another new language to learn, but in the meantime how could we know that the one prophesying and the one interpreting were actually speaking God's message. There would be no way to check it until this new language was taught to others. I'd like to know if anyone who speaks in a tongue has actually taught others their "tongue" to fulfill the requirement of verse 27 (let it be by two, or at the most by three).

[ January 26, 2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: JamesJ ]

 

As Dr. Bob has pointed out, the Bible doesn't say He who is perfect will come, it says that which is perfect.

That Which is perfect is the Word of God. James 1:25 calls it the "perfect law of liberty". 2 Timothy 3:17 says that scripture is give so that the man of God "may be perfect".

Show me one other verse in the Bible where Jesus is referred to as that. You can't do it. Paul would have clearly said HE had he been referring to His Lord.

God gave miraculous gifts to edify the church and to prove that His Spirit was behind it all. So that the Jews and the World would know that this new dispensation took place. Now that we have the written word, these gifts are not necessary and not utilized. The Holy Spirit's power is indeed still here and God can, and still will, work miracles, but he doesn't use men as the mediator as he did at the beginning. If he did, you wouldn't see freaks on tv healing people and offering no verifiable proof that anything has been accomplished, you would see on the news everyday reports about hospitals that were emptied because an apostle with the gift of healing set them all free!

Now why is it all we hear is a bunch of people spouting off gibberish and not edifying the body or healing the people who are REALLY sick or for that matter raising the dead? When is the last time you heard of THAT happening? I will give you a clue, it's recorded in the book that replaced the need for such miracles to take place. Now is the time for us to heed the words the Lord spoke to Thomas. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

~Lorelei

 

The wonderful truth is this:
The blessed Holy Spirit is the one who administers the gifts. Not any human man. (This makes some very angry). Man loves to resist the work of the Holy Spirit, just as deacon Stephen said (Acts 7:51). Paul wrote: "He (the Holy Spirit) gives them to each one, just as He determines." This is the foundational basis. If your practice is different than this, you might do well to read Acts 7. The voice of Stephen can still be heard in our day.

1 Cor 12:4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. [5] There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. [6] There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
1 Cor 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. [8] To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, [9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, [10] to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. [11] All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

 

Stephen was talking to Jews who resisted the Spirit and rejected Christ. He was not talking to believers that were resisting to use a gift of the Spirit for self edification. You might do well to read it again, in context.

Men will continue to resist the Spirit and as Paul warned, many will follow other spirits.

~Lorelei

 

Ben, I'd like to focus on the supposed tongue of angels.

Have you ever done a search throughout the entire bible for the words "angel" and "angels"? I have. And in every instance, the messenger God sent apparently spoke in the tongue of the person they were speaking to.

In other words, there is no evidence for an actual tongue of angels in the scripture.

 

The Bible being the perfect is the argument cessassionists have used for years. Even though they have been proven wrong they won't let go of this belief.

The fact that the tongues the 120 were speaking were known languages on the Day of Pentecost does not prove anything. THis was a supernatural feat in itself how these Jews who would have only known a couple of languages could have spoke fluently in so many divers languages. God allowed the tongues to be known so people would believe on the gospel.

When God poured out the spirit upon the Gentiles the Book of Acts said they spoke in tongues. Peter said they received the Holy Spirit just like he had. When Paul met some of John the Baptists apostles he asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed on Jesus and they replied they did not even know about this. When Paul laid his hands upon them they were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in Tongues.

In I Corinthians 12 Paul speaks about UNKNOWN TONGUES. Well unknown means not known by anyone.
So yes this could be the tongues of angels. It is not known to man.

According to this chapter there are gifts of the spirit. One Gift is Tongues or giving messages in tongues and another is the ability to interpret the message given in tongues.

When Paul asked the question does all speak in tongues he was not saying tongues are done away with. He had let it be known that this is a gift.
This has to do with the gifts of the Spirit. The gifts of tongues and interpretation. To show you there is a difference in the fourteenth chapter of I Corinthians Paul said that if your gift is the gift of tongues you will be talking to God but not to people. You will be speaking by the power of the spirit. Paul said that he prayed in the spirit when he prayed in tongues so yes there is a prayer language. He said he did not understand what he was praying but the spirit did.

The problem with this whole issue is the fact that there is a gift of the spirit called Tongues and another is the interpretation of those tongues then there are tongues that are used in prayer.

The Bible shows that everyone who was filled with the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues in the Book of Acts. We know that Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost and we know that he too spoke in tongues.
This is why so many groups believe that when a person is saved the Holy Spirit comes upon them but not in them.

The tongues issue has nothing to do with salvation so why people object is not understandable.

 

I did not get saved until I was 32 years of age. When I got saved. God gave me a "new tongue".

Sue

 

My tongue, which once swore and blasphemed,
no longer did either. Mine, then, was also a new
tongue. I remember being so surprised when
someone pulled out in front of me, and I had to
slam on my brakes, because my tongue did not
say what it once did. And when it happened
again, and the old words were not there, I knew
for sure--I had a new tongue.

 

From hrhema:

Would you agree that an unknown tongue could be a tongue (language) you don't know?

If so, then there is still no scriptural evidence of a tongue of angels.

 

You should have read it in context. Look at the 3 verses preceding it.

He is talking about the word here. He also uses a similiar example as Paul does in 1 Corinthians, both are using illustrations of a looking glass.

Well, our discussion here is over if you are going to say that God's Word is not perfect. Versions may have errors, but the original texts do not. If you aren't going to believe all the Word of God, then why believe any of it, why just tongues?

Then how can you believe what it says about the one who is perfect?

It either tells the truth or lies.

~Lorelei

 

I have yet to see it proven wrong. I have yet to see one other verse in the entire Bible that calls Jesus a that. Prove it wrong, show me what that could be.

Well, if you are going to ignore the fact that their tongues were real languages, then no it doesn't. The thing is, we are supposed to believe all the Bible, not just the parts that fit our doctrine.

God allowed all tongues to be known. The Bible NEVER speaks of a tongue that is not known to some man.

The word UNKNOWN is in italics in your Bible to inform you that the word UNKNOWN is NOT part of the orignil texts.

That is an assumption on your part, even if the word was in the texts, which it was not...look it up in any interlinear, you won't find it...it could be unknown to the speaker only.

There is no such thing as a tongue of angels, I beleive I covered that already. If you are going to say there is, show me where Paul surrendered his body to the flames or tell me why in that one chapter he claims to have all knowledge but then later says he only knows in part. No where else is there even the thought of tongues of angels, they don't exist. Pual was saying IF they did they would be useless without love.

Please stop ignoring this context.

Yes, and according to chapter 14 the rules for using this gift are given, ones that people today ignore.

No there is not a prayer language, he is still talking about the gifts not something else. He is talking about the gift of tongues and how it should be used to edify the body.

He did say it was possible to pray in tongues and not understand (if you had the gift of tongues), but if that did happen what were you supposed to do? Were you supposed to keep on doing it and praise God you didn't know what you said? Was that edifying the body? NO Paul said:

That way your prayer can be fruitful. Guess what if it's not fruitful, that means it is fruitless. It is fruitless, meaningless, to pray in tongues without understanding.

Show me in the context of those 3 chapters where Paul transitioned from talking about the gifts of the Spirit as used to edify the body to talking about a separate tongue in a personal prayer life.

The fact is there is no transition because the context is always the same. READ IT IN CONTEXT. The subject doesn't change!

You have been taught to think of it as different, but in reality there is no separate tongue used in prayer. You only see it because someone told you it was so. Read the passage with only one tongue in mind, the gift, and you will see it differently. Never change the topic until the author does, it is heresy to do so.

So I suppose those that joined the church after Peter's sermon in Acts chapter 2 were not filled with the Holy Ghost, even though he promised them they would be?

People who believe this contradict the Word of God.

The Spirit is what gives us life! We are never saved without the Spirit living IN us. You either have the Spirit and are saved, or you don't and are not saved. It's all or nothing, the Bible is quite clear on that.

If you weren't baptized by the Spirit you aren't saved. No verse ever says that tongues is the evidence of that baptism.

If you read the verses above, it is very understandable. People who are experiencing this mystical sensation of speaking gibberish are trying to say that this is the evidence of God's Holy Spirit. One is not saved without God's Spirit. The problem is many pagan religions also speak in such a mystical gibberish that sounds exactly like what so many so called christians are partaking in. Without understanding the tongue, how can anyone prove it is indeed from God?

~Lorelei

 

Ben, I must disagree with both you and Lorelei. While it is true that Jesus is perfect and the Word of God is truth and without error, IMO "that which is perfect" refers to neither.

In 1 Cor. 13, love is the theme of the entire chapter. But verse 9 says that our knowledge of love is limited. Then comes verse 10, "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away".

"That which is perfect" is the perfect love of God and we will not understand it entirely until we are in His presence.

IMO this is not assumption, but is within the contex of the entire chapter.

 

Doc,

Very interesting interpretation and I appreciate the fact that you are trying to keep it in context. However, I have to disagree that the only context of the chapter is love.

We must first remember that the chapters were separated by man not the original author. The context is still the spiritual gifts. Paul is speaking about spiritual gifts from chapter 12 all the way through chapter 14.

At the end of chapter 12 he tells us to desire the the greater gifts, and he wants to show us a more excellent way.

The love chapter, as we have come to call it, is speaking about love being our primary motivation for what? The context is for love to be the motivation for using our spiritual gifts. Without love, the gift is meaningless (v 1-3).

Verse 9 does not say the "the knowledge of love is limited". It says that "For we know in part and we prophesy in part". In chapter 12, both word of knowledge and prophecy are listed as spiritual gifts.

Verse 8 shows us that he is still talking about gifts, he mentions how prophecy tongues and knowledge will fail, cease and vanish. These are all spiritual gifts that will no longer be needed when "That which is perfect has come".

He didn't mean love, because he ends the chapter stating that now these 3 remain, faith, hope and love. If love remains, meaning it was and is still here, then it wasn't what is yet to come when the other gifts ceased.

~Lorelei

 

How do we know for certain that "perfect" refers to the Canon, or completed Scripture?
Is it an opinion that this is so, or is it backed up somewhere?
What are the options that you have seen for the meaning of "perfect"?

 

Yes, Abiyah! That was the new tongue I was referring to. I remember hitting my thumb with a hammer shortly after I got saved and "Praise the Lord" came out. I truly was a 'new creature' and I truly did have a 'new tongue'.


Sue

[ January 28, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: I Am Blessed 16 ]