Why You Should Strive to Speak in Tongues

[Deadworm]

Nope, nope, and nope.

AustinC: "Truth: Paul wanted the Corinthians to speak in tongues for the edification of all, not for selfish pride, which was the problem at Corinth. The believers were very prideful."

AustinC: "Truth: Tongues is always brought up as a sign to the pagans. There are four times in the book of Acts where tongues are recorded. They are all different means by which they are manifest, but they are always a demonstration to pagans that God is greater than their paganism."

I refuted this claim and you have no answer. Indeed, there are 3 (not 4) cases of tongues in Acts and none of them are experienced by pagans! Jews and proselytes are NOT pagans.

AustinC: "They are never for personal use, just as none of the gifts God gives are for personal use. All gifts are given for the edification of others."

Nope! Read a modern scholarly commentary just on 1 Corinthians and you'll note the consensus that Paul distinguishes between messages in tongues that need interpretation and private prayer languages that assist in praise directed at God
For tongues as praise see 14:15.

You don't read my posts carefully; so I need to repeat the texts that imply the role of tongues as prayer languages:
"Those who speak in an unknown tongue BUILD UP ("edify") THEMSELVES (1 Cor. 14:4)."
"If there is no interpreter, let them be silent in church and speak [om tongues] to themselves and to God (14:28)."
When Paul says, "thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (14:18), he is referring to his private prayer language.
And I remind you the tongues spoken in Cornelius's household and by the Ephesian "disciples" are neither understood nor interpreted.

 

[rockytopva]

Praying in tongues with your power preacher…RW Schambach…

 

[AustinC]

Deadworm wrote:
I refuted this claim and you have no answer. Indeed, there are 3 (not 4) cases of tongues in Acts and none of them are experienced by pagans! Jews and proselytes are NOT pagans.

None of them were Christians.
Tongues was given as a sign to these different groups. In each case they were manifested differently, yet for the sole purpose of showing God's authority.
They were not Christians.

Deadworm wrote:
Nope! Read a modern scholarly commentary just on 1 Corinthians and you'll note the consensus that Paul distinguishes between messages in tongues that need interpretation and private prayer languages that assist in praise directed at God
For tongues as praise see 14:15.

Why modern commentaries? It seems you mean commentaries that agree
with you.
Paul is very clearly rebuking the Corinthian church for trying to mix in their pagan babbling into the Church and he tells them they are being selfish. Paul admonishes them to prophesy, not tongues. He tells them that if they are going to do that babbling, then do it at home. Paul then tells them that God has given him the actual gift of tongues as a front line missionary and a sign to pagans. Paul can speak in tongues, but it's not his preferred method.

Deadworm wrote:
You don't read my posts carefully; so I need to repeat the texts that imply the role of tongues as prayer languages:
"Those who speak in an unknown tongue BUILD UP ("edify") THEMSELVES (1 Cor. 14:4)."
"If there is no interpreter, let them be silent in church and speak [om tongues] to themselves and to God (14:28)."
When Paul says, "thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (14:18), he is referring to his private prayer language.
And I remind you the tongues spoken in Cornelius's household and by the Ephesian "disciples" are neither understood nor interpreted.

You are forcing an implication that Paul never actually states. He says "even if" which means, that he's being hypothetical.
Where does the passage about Cornelius ever say no one understood the tongues being spoken? You are using conjecture.
What we know is that the Corinthian church was being abusive, selfish, and ignoring holiness. It was a big mess of theological garbage with people thinking about themselves first and God later. Anyone basing their tongues on Corinth is already going down a carnal path.

 

[Deadworm]

AustinC: "None of them were Christians.

Wrong! You need to actually react the Book of Acts. The tongues speakers in Acts 2 were ALL Christians. So were the Ephesian tongues speakers, who are called "disciples," that is, disciples of Jesus. Their imperfect baptismal practice and theology in no way changes that fact.
Cornelius was a "god-fearer" and there NOT an idolater. Indeed, your claim that all 3 cases were idolatrous pagans has no merit.


Why modern commentaries? It seems you mean commentaries that agree
with you.
In other words, you have never even read a modern critical book commentary 1 Corinthians. C. K. Barrett and Hans Conzelmann are eminent secular (non-Pentecostal~) New Testament scholars who have written magisterial commentaries on 1 Corinthians. Here a sample of what they wrote on 14:4-5 and 14:28:

Barrett, pp. 316, 328:
"He who speaks in a tongue builds up (edifies) himself (14:4)" and thus his speaking is a profitable exercise as far as he himself is concerned...The inevitable conclusion follows: "I wish you all to speak with tongues (14:5);" for speaking in tongues is a good thing, a gift from God by which you may all INDIVIDUALLY be built up."
"What he [the tongues speaker] does at home, privately, is another matter. It [prayer tongues] is genuine prayer, addressed to God..."Let him speak only to himself and to God (14:28).""

Conzelmann, p. 245 on 14:28:
"The rule that he should speak in tongues "at home" (Greek: heautou"= "for himself") is in harmony with verse 2."

Now I challenge you to find even one MODERN critical Commentary on 1 Corinthians alone that disagrees with this British and German scholarly consensus and agrees with you.

 

[Deadworm]

The giving of that speaking gift ended with the giving of the Revelation 22:18.

This comment merely draws attention to the spiritually impovershed experience of your Baptist church.
All academic book commentaries on Revelation agree that 22:18 only has the Book of Revelation in mind, not the entire NT. John's warning if prompted by the tendency to add to the revelations of other Jewish apocalypses. Baptists who cite 1 Cor. 13:8 to buttress their cessationist claim can be refuted on 2 grounds:
(1) The context makes it clear that "tongues will cease" only when we see Christ "face to face" at the parousia (13:12)...
(2) 13:8 teaches that "knowledge will cease" when "tongues will cease," but knowledge has dramatically increased since the apostolic age. So clearly the reference is to the cessation of earthly knowledge and tongues at the parousia.
Once the ongoing legitimacy of all the spiritual gifts is recognized, Baptists are faced with the yawning chasm between normative paranormal life in the Spirit as taught by Paul and their own cherry-picked spiritual principles that treat the Holy Spirit like a wildman, whose gifts are too unmanageable and fanatical to be of any practical use for modern Christians.

 

[37818]

This comment merely draws attention to the spiritually impovershed experience of your Baptist church.

Your answer shows you know nothing of the sort. Now had you offered a better interpretation of Revelation 22:18 you might have something of truth. But you offered nothing but a denial of the instruction to the hearer of that prophecy, ". . . For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, . . ."

 

[AustinC]

This comment merely draws attention to the spiritually impovershed experience of your Baptist church.
All academic book commentaries on Revelation agree that 22:18 only has the Book of Revelation in mind, not the entire NT. John's warning if prompted by the tendency to add to the revelations of other Jewish apocalypses. Baptists who cite 1 Cor. 13:8 to buttress their cessationist claim can be refuted on 2 grounds:
(1) The context makes it clear that "tongues will cease" only when we see Christ "face to face" at the parousia (13:12)...
(2) 13:8 teaches that "knowledge will cease" when "tongues will cease," but knowledge has dramatically increased since the apostolic age. So clearly the reference is to the cessation of earthly knowledge and tongues at the parousia.
Once the ongoing legitimacy of all the spiritual gifts is recognized, Baptists are faced with the yawning chasm between normative paranormal life in the Spirit as taught by Paul and their own cherry-picked spiritual principles that treat the Holy Spirit like a wildman, whose gifts are too unmanageable and fanatical to be of any practical use for modern Christians.

The bold made me laugh out loud.
It is also sad that you imagine people are "spiritually impoverished" by not having a tongues experience. From that statement we can extrapolate that all the Old Testament saints were "spiritually impoverished." "Hey Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, Daniel, etc, according to Deadworm your lack of experiencing tongues means you were spiritually impoverished."

I know you cannot see your pride in this area. You have bought the same spirit of the Corinthians, which Paul tried to correct.

As for myself, I am not a cessationist. God is unhindered in giving all the gifts as He chooses. Yet, tongues is primarily a missionary gift to those who are sharing the gospel to the unreached that have never heard the gospel. Except for the abusive church at Corinth, you only ever see the gift of tongues in relation to first time evangelism of the unreached. Corinth is a terrible church to model tongues after as it was a very selfish and childish church.

Yet, here you are, lifting up a childish and selfish church while telling everyone who doesn't speak in tongues that they are "spiritually impoverished." Deadworm, that may be the heart of arrogance on your part to make such a foolish claim. You have openly implicated the vast majority of saints as "spiritually impoverished" and you have played the role of accuser.

 

[AustinC]

Your answer shows you know nothing of the sort. Now had you offered a better interpretation of Revelation 22:18 you might have something of truth. But you offered nothing but a denial of the instruction to the hearer of that prophecy, ". . . For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, . . ."

37, can you explain how Revelation fits in with tongues? I am not seeing the connection.

*Revelation 22:18-20*

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

 

[Salty]

This comment merely draws attention to the spiritually impovershed experience of your Baptist church.
...

Since you are not a Baptist -
Let me remind you that there is NO such thing as "The Baptist Church"
There are many Baptist churches - each autonomous and independent of each other.
and in addition - there are many Baptists who do claim to speak in tongues.

 

[Piper]

Since you are not a Baptist -
Let me remind you that there is NO such thing as "The Baptist Church"
There are many Baptist churches - each autonomous and independent of each other.
and in addition - there are many Baptists who do claim to speak in tongues.

True, I was a member of Bethlehem Baptist with John Piper for 15 years and we believe that all of the gifts are active.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I sat under Pastor George Gardiner when he was Senior Pastor of Calvary Undenom in Grand Rapids Michigan. He had been raised in the charismatic/holiness church and attended a pentecostal college. He recounted a test that he and his friend did at a chapel service in college. His friend knew the 23rd Psalm in Yiddish so his friend quoted it in the service. A few students got up to interpret what had been said and not one of them got the message even remotely close. It was a moment when Pastor Gardiner changed his view on tongues and realized the pentecostal movement was promoting self-centered carnal activity. Below is a link to his small booklet titled, The Corinthian Catastrophe.

https://www.amazon.com/Corinthian-C...&dplnkId=11fbf269-b572-4749-8fe4-d2262226bb46

My aunt (God rest her soul) went to a pentecostal church. She was so afraid that everyone spoke in tongues when she did not. so one day she made up a bunch of stuff. Someone got up and interpreted what she said, and got amen's from the whole congregation. She got up and never went back in fact sadly. she never entered a church again after this,,

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Holy Spirit bestows His gifts as HE chooses, & men cannot change His choices. In a true Godly congregation, He enables every member to do his/her job within that church, from pastor to deacons, to groundskeepers to pew-polishers. Again, the gifts are of HIS choosing, not ours.

Amen

Paul said he gave SOME this gift and SOME that gift as he wills..

God does not need everyone to speak in an unknown language.

 

[AustinC]

My aunt (God rest her soul) went to a pentecostal church. She was so afraid that everyone spoke in tongues when she did not. so one day she made up a bunch of stuff. Someone got up and interpreted what she said, and got amen's from the whole congregation. She got up and never went back in fact sadly. she never entered a church again after this,,

When we pin our relationship with God on human experiences rather than upon God and His word, we get these great disappointments that can hinder faith. I am sad to hear of your aunt's experience. I wish she could have found peace in God's word which would have pointed her away from such things.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

When we pin our relationship with God on human experiences rather than upon God and His word, we get these great disappointments that can hinder faith. I am sad to hear of your aunt's experience. I wish she could have found peace in God's word which would have pointed her away from such things.

me too brother

 

[Deadworm]

Your answer shows you know nothing of the sort. Now had you offered a better interpretation of Revelation 22:18 you might have something of truth. But you offered nothing but a denial of the instruction to the hearer of that prophecy, ". . . For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, . . ."

My comments reflect the scholarly consensus and iou can find no academic book commentary on Revelation that offers a different interpretation than the one I gave. In the expression "this book" John obviously refers to Revelation and no other NT book. Indeed, there was no NT as a canonical collection of books for a few centuries and what should be included was widely disputed. As I pointed out, forgers were notorious for adding onto Jewish apocalypses and John didn't want his books to suffer tampering. So your claim is irrelevant to the ongoing legitimacy of the prophecy charism.

 

[robycop3]

My comments reflect the scholarly consensus and iou can find no academic book commentary on Revelation that offers a different interpretation than the one I gave. In the expression "this book" John obviously refers to Revelation and no other NT book. Indeed, there was no NT as a canonical collection of books for a few centuries and what should be included was widely disputed. As I pointed out, forgers were notorious for adding onto Jewish apocalypses and John didn't want his books to suffer tampering. So your claim is irrelevant to the ongoing legitimacy of the prophecy charism.

I'm sure God caused it to be preserved in the words HE wanted us to have today.

 

[AustinC]

AustinC: "None of them were Christians.

Wrong! You need to actually react the Book of Acts. The tongues speakers in Acts 2 were ALL Christians. So were the Ephesian tongues speakers, who are called "disciples," that is, disciples of Jesus. Their imperfect baptismal practice and theology in no way changes that fact.
Cornelius was a "god-fearer" and there NOT an idolater. Indeed, your claim that all 3 cases were idolatrous pagans has no merit.


Why modern commentaries? It seems you mean commentaries that agree
with you.
In other words, you have never even read a modern critical book commentary 1 Corinthians. C. K. Barrett and Hans Conzelmann are eminent secular (non-Pentecostal~) New Testament scholars who have written magisterial commentaries on 1 Corinthians. Here a sample of what they wrote on 14:4-5 and 14:28:

Barrett, pp. 316, 328:
"He who speaks in a tongue builds up (edifies) himself (14:4)" and thus his speaking is a profitable exercise as far as he himself is concerned...The inevitable conclusion follows: "I wish you all to speak with tongues (14:5);" for speaking in tongues is a good thing, a gift from God by which you may all INDIVIDUALLY be built up."
"What he [the tongues speaker] does at home, privately, is another matter. It [prayer tongues] is genuine prayer, addressed to God..."Let him speak only to himself and to God (14:28).""

Conzelmann, p. 245 on 14:28:
"The rule that he should speak in tongues "at home" (Greek: heautou"= "for himself") is in harmony with verse 2."

Now I challenge you to find even one MODERN critical Commentary on 1 Corinthians alone that disagrees with this British and German scholarly consensus and agrees with you.

Let me rephrase: None of the persons whom God gave the gift of tongues were Christian before that event.
In every case there was a sign to a new people group, given to show the Supremacy of God over the sinful, godless worship that was happening. In each case tongues is used as a missional sign. It never is revealed as a self-centered gift. Yet, you are promoting it as a self gratifying experience. What you are promoting is not what God presents in his word. You seem consumed with your self and discontent with God.

 

[Deadworm]

Eternally Grateful: "Paul said he gave SOME this gift and SOME that gift as he wills."

Baptists misinterpret 12:31 to mean not every believer is intended to exercise these spiritual gifts, including tongues and prophecy. They misconstrue Paul's questions in 12:31 to imply that God never intends everyone to prophesy and speak in tongues. What Paul is really saying is this: "we observe that not everyone actually speaks in tongues or prophesies, leaving open the question of what God intends. Paul then makes it clear that at least the gifts of prophecy and tongues are meant for every believer. Thus, he goes on to teach, "You can ALL prophesy one at a time (14:31)." Similarly, when Paul says, "I want you ALL to speak in tongues (14:5)," he implies that this gift too is intended for everyone and then he encourages more of them to exercise this gift by saying, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (14:18). This teaching echoes the pattern in Acts where initial reception of the Spirit is attested by speaking in tongues (2:4: 10:44-47; 19:6).

Eternally Grateful: "God does not need everyone to speak in an unknown language."

God needs nothing; we need the spiritual gifts, including tongues, a gift for every believer.

AustinC: "Let me rephrase: None of the persons whom God gave the gift of tongues were Christian before that event."

Wrong! The 120 disciples who were constantly at prayer (Acts 1:14-15), tarrying for the outpouring of the Spirit. Included in this prolonged prayer vigil were Jesus' mother and brothers, His female disciples, and the 12--all Christians. The Ephesian tongues speakers were "disciples" of Jesus (19:1). Cornelius was a god-fearer (not an idol-worshiping pagan) and he and his household in effect became Christians some time between sending messengers to bring Peter to explain more and hearing Peter's Gospel sermon. Remember, unlike Paul, Luke has no concept of the need for a regenerating work of the Spirit prior to the impartation of the gift of tongues.

Your error is the result of your failure to understand the sign significance of tongues for unbelievers in 1 Cor. 14:21-22 citing Isaiah 28:11-12). I will address that question in my next planned post.

 

[AustinC]

Eternally Grateful: "Paul said he gave SOME this gift and SOME that gift as he wills."

Baptists misinterpret 12:31 to mean not every believer is intended to exercise these spiritual gifts, including tongues and prophecy. They misconstrue Paul's questions in 12:31 to imply that God never intends everyone to prophesy and speak in tongues. What Paul is really saying is this: "we observe that not everyone actually speaks in tongues or prophesies, leaving open the question of what God intends. Paul then makes it clear that at least the gifts of prophecy and tongues are meant for every believer. Thus, he goes on to teach, "You can ALL prophesy one at a time (14:31)." Similarly, when Paul says, "I want you ALL to speak in tongues (14:5)," he implies that this gift too is intended for everyone and then he encourages more of them to exercise this gift by saying, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (14:18). This teaching echoes the pattern in Acts where initial reception of the Spirit is attested by speaking in tongues (2:4: 10:44-47; 19:6).

Eternally Grateful: "God does not need everyone to speak in an unknown language."

God needs nothing; we need the spiritual gifts, including tongues, a gift for every believer.

AustinC: "Let me rephrase: None of the persons whom God gave the gift of tongues were Christian before that event."

Wrong! The 120 disciples who were constantly at prayer (Acts 1:14-15), tarrying for the outpouring of the Spirit. Included in this prolonged prayer vigil were Jesus' mother and brothers, His female disciples, and the 12--all Christians. The Ephesian tongues speakers were "disciples" of Jesus (19:1). Cornelius was a god-fearer (not an idol-worshiping pagan) and he and his household in effect became Christians some time between sending messengers to bring Peter to explain more and hearing Peter's Gospel sermon. Remember, unlike Paul, Luke has no concept of the need for a regenerating work of the Spirit prior to the impartation of the gift of tongues.

Your error is the result of your failure to understand the sign significance of tongues for unbelievers in 1 Cor. 14:21-22 citing Isaiah 28:11-12). I will address that question in my next planned post.

No error on my end. I believe God chooses to give gifts to each individual and I am very content speaking to God in English with a smidge of Spanish thrown in.
God has graciously redeemed me and given me an eternal inheritance. What need is there beyond God's grace? Must I tell God it isn't enough, I need some ecstatic experience to fulfill what his salvation neglected? Honestly, is Christ alone not enough?

 

[Deadworm]

No error on my end. I believe God chooses to give gifts to each individual and I am very content speaking to God in English with a smidge of Spanish thrown in.
God has graciously redeemed me and given me an eternal inheritance. What need is there beyond God's grace

What you need is determined by God and not by you. Your attitude is snip because it assumes that the gifts of the Spirit are optional. By your argument, you don't need "the (9) fruit of the Spirit" either because God's grace has allowed you to punch your ticket to Heaven. How selfish is that? Nor can you reply that if God wants you to exercise one of the spiritual gifts like tongues, He is free to give this to you. Why not? Because God's Word tells you that you must "earnestly strive for spiritual gifts" (12:31; 14:1). Besides, you need to "earnestly strive" to speak in tongues precisely because God's Word admonishes you,
I want you all to speak in tongues (14:5) and Paul encourages you, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you(14:18)." And Paul repeatedly urges us to imitate him, even as he imitates Christ.