So I get the speaking in tongues at Jerusalem (Acts 2:4, 11) but not at Caesarea (Acts 10:46) and at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).
Impressions:
1. We understand tongues in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, to be other languages (Acts 2:11). I don’t think anyone would dispute the obvious.
2. But at Caesarea, in Cornelius house, Are we talking other known languages? Was Cornelius native tongue Italian, but he spoke Aramaic/Hebrew before the Jews because of the baptism of the Spirit?
Peter and his companions seemed to have understood what was being said, or we might venture that they just acknowledged that tongue-speaking was taking place, without really understanding (Acts 10:46).
3. Now at Ephesus, things seem a bit more tricky to me. It’s just Paul and about twelve men. Why the tongues? Were the guys native tongue Greek, but then, through the Holy Spirit they started speaking Aramaic to make a believer out of Paul, of their new identity?
Conclusion:
Well, I always thought tongues were known languages, spoken somewhere, and not just some heavenly, unknown…
‘My’ tongues has always seemed to be in real language, and I’ve had experiences of speaking in different languages divinely. Hence I tend to agree with you. I don’t know what to do about people whose tongues sound like ‘bubabababablub’. But, even if there were a heavenly, unknown language we speak in, I doubt very much that the babble that much tongues takes the form of is any kind of language at all. It certainly displays no characteristics of language.
Damian, whatever we think of the Acts anomalies, we must agree that Paul has written the definitive chapter on tongues – 1 Cor 14.
I have never been really sure on the known somewhere on earth v heavenly language issue. I have not stopped to consider whether my own use of the gift is one or the other. In the case of Acts 2, the simple meaning of the text says earthly language to me. And once I read a testimony where a “tongue” touched and convicted a random visitor whose native langauge it was!
Yet I am not sure that I can rule out a heavenly language. 1 Cor 13 v1 talks of toungues of angels. How do others read Paul here? Perhaps we can expect both earthly and heavenly.
I will follow others thoughts with interest and openness. Damian’s post reminds us that there may be counterfeits of this – as any – gift.
Colin, 1 Cor 13:1 is quite interesting in this discussion. But what are angelic tongues?
TC: You might find the comments to this post helpful. There’s a good exchange between John Poirier and Michael Metts that addresses the issue of known vs. unknown languages in Acts. I even throw my two cents in which is basically this: there’s nothing to indicate that known languages were spoken anywhere other than Acts 2.
Damian: What is the reason for your doubt exactly? It’s an observed global phenomenon that what you deem “babble” is quite common amongst tongue talkers. And I’m not sure what to do with your comment that it displays no characteristics of language. Who gets to arbitrarily decide that? And if it’s a ‘tongue that no man understands’ then what’s the real problem?
Nick, thanks for the link. That fellow Michael really made a mess of “just as” in Acts 11.
Do you speaking in tongues? If so, How do you know that it is Spirit-driven?
I’m probably one of the few people that will dispute #1
: )
Bryan L
FWIW, some older commentators, i.e. before the so-called Charismatics, pointed out that the gift of tongues would have included the Hebrew language. This could help to explain Acts 10.
Adam Clarke notes on 1 Cor. 14
FWIW, some older commentators, i.e. before the so-called Charismatics, pointed out that the gift of tongues would have included the Hebrew language. This could help to explain Acts 10.
Adam Clarke notes on 1 Cor. 14
Regarding 1 Cor 13:1, I see it nothing more than hyperbole.
I am choosing not to enter the overall discussion here as I am a fully engulfed charismatic. However, I believe there is something that should be observed about the Jerusalem incident.
These Jews did not need “tongues” (or known languages as I agree this was). Everyone in the world spoke Greek and many of these people would have been Hebrew speaking people as well. So something else is up.
I think it is a tie into what the Jews considered the first Pentecost when God spoke to them from the mountain. If one will dig deeply into that “thunder and lightening” causing the people fear, one will find it was “voices.” The Jews have some tradition around this, but the end result is they were looking for a repeat of the “voices of God” to indicate the Messiah had come. They got one, but this time it was through a human being as that is now the way the message comes. The temple is a human — not a mountain.
It was an InterVarsity Press book that first alerted me to this tradition and sent me digging. It has been fun! But it puts a bit of a different “purpose” spin on the passage and also lets us know it was a bit more that the brief sermon that Peter preached that got their hearts.
Just interesting — I think.
Richard, the revered Lightfoot’s take is based on pure conjecture. We need more substance than that.
1 Cor 13:1 is “hyperbole,” you say. Let me look into that one.
Iris, thanks for your input, but How do you explain Acts 2:11?
Surely 1 Corinthians 14:2 makes it clear that tongues, as spoken in Corinth and approved by Paul, are not languages which are likely to be understood in the normal human way by anyone who listens. Whether a tongue is actually one of the 6000+ living human languages or the larger number of extinct ones, or is possibly an angelic one, is not important. What is important is that interpretation of them, understanding the message, is not a matter of knowing or learning foreign languages but is a spiritual gift, one which should be sought, 14:13.
TC, I would say that it is helpful to look at how pre-Charismatic commentators esp the Church Fathers understood these passages because it helps to get a balance on our approach to the texts.
I wouldn’t say it was conjecture, read his actual exegesis of 1 Cor. 14! Clarke assesses his view in his own commentary which is quite helpful.
TC: Yes, I speak in tongues and I don’t know how to explain how I know it’s Spirit driven. I guess the same way I know that I’m saved, I just do.
Peter: Well said!
Actually the tongues of Acts (all chapters) was King James English. They were unknown since King James English had not yet developed.
With the publication of the authorized version, unknown tongues went away.
Peter, thanks for raising 1 Cor 14 and what Paul is really getting at. I just consulted Fee. I see the point being made NOW.
Nick, I grew up in a cessationist tradition. In fact, when people say the Lord laid something on their hearts, I still find that a bit strange.
But the whole charismatic is something I’m still investigating.
I always thought Paul was being sarcastic, but now I see something else: self-edification vs. church-edification. Hmm… Let me chew on this one some more.
Richard, I’m really not seeing what Clarke concluded. There is virtually no hint of what he’s arguing. What am I missing?
Blackhat, humor is also encouraged around here.
Sorry for the delay.
I think I’ll post on my views; you’re right, T.C. about 1 Cor 14, and also right about the concepts of church-edification vs. self-edification being important.
I think the ‘tongues of angels’ is an example of hyperbole; “tongues of men – and even of angels!”; the fact that the hyperbole extends tongues of men is contra Peter’s claim that tongues should not be in any of the languages of man.
That said, I think he’s right that they’re not expected to be known by their listeners – that is what the gift of interpretation is for. But I do think they’re actual languages.
Nick, what I meant by my doubt is that a) the ‘babble tongues’ phenomenon seems to be used in an unbiblical sense, at least in my experience (in public, without interpretation); lacking characteristics of language is from my linguistic background – it is a repetition of syllables, akin to the early phase of linguistic development known (ha ha) as babbling. There are no recognisable phonemes or other units that might contain meaning. I’m not being arbitrary, just observatory. If someone could present tongues of this nature in a way that I could imagine communicates meaning, then I would be happily proven wrong.
And you say that if nobody can understand it, why does it matter that if it can communicate language? I think that, given those two facts, I suspect there could be, as Colin said, forms of counterfeit tongues occurring throughout the church. I’m not asserting that; it’s just something I fear.
I do not, however, deny that ecstatic utterances (‘babble tongues’, in this instance), like devotional utterances (foreign language chain-prayers like the kyrie eleison, or ave maria, or even English language prayers prayed for meditative reasons rather than contemplative), can serve a meditative purpose. That is, it can create a mood, focus the mind on prayers or thoughts, which can definitely have positive spiritual impact. I think this is the impact that ‘babble tongues’ seems to have.
I’m just not sure that that is the purpose of tongues as stated in scripture.
Pingback: The gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians and Acts « Castle of Nutshells
I think it can be both/and, perhaps the upper room incident was supernatural, I don’t know. I tend to think we need to let Luke be Luke and Paul be Paul and not look to Paul to explain Luke – Luke is a theologian in his own right. He has a message to convey in Acts in the story he tells. Check out I. Howard Marshall’s Luke: Historian and Theologian.
As to the situation at Cornelius’s house, the point isn’t what kinds of tongues, the point is that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles, fulfilling Acts 1:8.
In understanding Paul’s overall point in 1 Cor 14, add “in the congregation” after references to tongues.
Perhaps 1 Cor 13:1 supports the idea that tongues are either or not one or the other.
Damian, 1 Cor 13:1 might be an example of Pauline hyperbole for all we know.
Brian, I don’t want to get it down to a science, if the data isn’t there.
Why isn’t tongue-speaking present in all denominations?
Huh? I never said that, Damian! I said that most commonly they were not in any of the small subset of human languages understood in any particular congregation.
The tongues I have heard, including the one I speak in, are mostly not “babbling” but use a wide range of distinct phonemes and phonetically resemble real human languages. People who babble repeatedly and claim to speak in tongues probably are not really doing so; this could be a counterfeit perhaps intended to convince others that they are truly Spirit-filled, or perhaps it is how they begin just as babies begin to speak by babbling. The culprit here may be churches which value tongues only as initial evidence – a bit like if we marvel when a baby speaks its first comprehensible words but then make no effort to encourage it to develop this into proper adult speech.
See for example this Youtube video (which I found by a simple search) of a man speaking and singing in tongues, using a wide range of phonemes, not the same set as he uses when speaking English. It certainly sounds like a real human language. Maybe it is, but I don’t recognise it.
TC, speaking in tongues is not present in all denominations because some, in fact most, have historically forbidden it, probably because it does not fit in with the fixed liturgies and one-man ministry models they have tended to follow. However, these days there are probably charismatic tongues speakers in every denomination, in many cases not being allowed to use their gift in the church.
TC, speaking in tongues is not present in all denominations because some, in fact most, have historically forbidden it, probably because it does not fit in with the fixed liturgies and one-man ministry models they have tended to follow. However, these days there are probably charismatic tongues speakers in every denomination, in many cases not being allowed to use their gift in the church.
Peter, thanks for shedding some light on the issue. Is this then a case of limiting the Spirit or the Spirit limiting its gifting, in a particular denomination?
My apologies Peter – I must have misread you.
People who babble repeatedly and claim to speak in tongues probably are not really doing so; this could be a counterfeit perhaps intended to convince others that they are truly Spirit-filled, or perhaps it is how they begin just as babies begin to speak by babbling. The culprit here may be churches which value tongues only as initial evidence – a bit like if we marvel when a baby speaks its first comprehensible words but then make no effort to encourage it to develop this into proper adult speech.
I agree that there are definitely tongues speakers who do speak with a range of phonemes wide enough to be regarded as language. I like the idea that ‘babbling’ is a symptom of not developing into true speech – that’s something interesting to consider, as that it really does sound exactly like that stage of development; but considering I hear most babbling in contexts I would consider contrary to Paul’s teachings, I would tend towards the ‘counterfeit’ argument.
Why isn’t tongue-speaking present in all denominations?
Is this then a case of limiting the Spirit or the Spirit limiting its gifting, in a particular denomination?
I think there’s also the issue that there are miracles that occur more frequently in certain denominations. I’ve never heard of stigmata outside the Catholic church, for example. Tongues is, as you say, most common in Charismatic churches, interpretation seems rare, but prophecy is common. Healings and the raising of the dead seems to be spread throughout churches who are continuist. I wouldn’t claim that they limit the gift (although some certainly do), but rather perhaps that, as different parts of the body, they have different giftings.
because some, in fact most, have historically forbidden it, probably because it does not fit in with the fixed liturgies and one-man ministry models they have tended to follow. However, these days there are probably charismatic tongues speakers in every denomination, in many cases not being allowed to use their gift in the church.
Peter, according to 1 Corinthians 14, tongues speakers should not be allowed to use their gift in the church, but only in private. I expounded this in more detail at my blog. So I would argue that this ban is a biblical one.
Damian: I certainly do believe in counterfeit tongues and I’ve witnessed them. I’d also point out that speaking in tongues is not unique to Christianity, so there’s always the possibility that a force other than the Holy Spirit is ‘giving the utterance.’
Peter: Thanks for that YouTube link. That guy rolls his Rs quite a bit, which I do also. I’d say that his tongues more resemble Russian sounds (although I’m well aware that he’s not speaking Russian) while mine resemble Spanish sounds (although I’m certainly not speaking Spanish). If tongues like that are enough to relieve the charge of ‘babbling’ then I can say that the vast majority of people I know who speak in tongues do NOT babble.
I wouldn’t claim that they limit the gift (although some certainly do), but rather perhaps that, as different parts of the body, they have different giftings.
Damian and anyone who wishes to answer, here’s a question I seek an answer to: Why wouldn’t every denomination of the Body of Christ demonstrate some kind of charismata?
Is the Holy Spirit to be seen as discriminating?
Peter and Nick, that Youtube video is a sham. It’s a mockery. The circumstances are not every correct, in my opinion.
I hope you guys don’t sanction that sort of practice.
TC:
How many denominations are there? You’re asking that every single denomination should express particular gifts of the Holy Spirit regardless of their beliefs or practices. What if you just consider major denominations?
I think someone may have mentioned either here or in another post that those with particular beliefs and practices tend to go to other churches and denominations where those beliefs and practices are encouraged. If someone experiences a particular gift that their denomination and church tell them are not of God, not for today or shouldn’t be practiced there’s a good chance that they’ll just go somewhere else.
Look at the SBC and their stance on tongues and especially with IMB’s stance on missionaries and tongues as an example of a denomination that seems to be trying to discourage those particular gifts from being practiced even though its members are experiencing them.
Bryan L
Bryan L, it’s my conviction that every legitimate local church, whether denominational or not, should demonstrate spiritual gifts, if the Spirit is at home there.
After all, it’s the Spirit who is doing the gifting for his end in the local church. Maybe you see things differently.
TC:
I guess I believe that people can resist or quench the Holy Spirit. Not only that but they can forbid certain practices (Paul seemed to realize this when he said not to forbid speaking in tongues) so that even though the Spirit is willing to gift people with those particular gifts, they are then forbidden to exercise them.
Also can’t a church demonstrate spiritual gifts without demonstrating all of them, and especially the more controversial ones?
Bryan L
Bryan L, good points. I believe you’re correct per Scripture. Yes, that seems to be the case. If the Spirit wants to so work, then we should be willing vessels.
Well, I believe some cessationists would speak like that. They would claim certain gifts.
Interesting, I say…
TC, I think it’s more people limiting the Spirit. The Spirit doesn’t limit his gifts although he doesn’t generally force them on people who don’t want them. I agree that they should be demonstrated in every local church, but if they are not in some, that is the error of the church in not following biblical guidelines, not the fault of the Holy Spirit.
As for the Youtube video, I do have reservations about tongues being used in this way as a demonstration. But if God told him to do this, who am I to say that he shouldn’t? I note that he does give a brief interpretation. Also I cannot vouch for its genuineness – I know nothing about this guy except for what is on the video. But the tongue certainly has the phonetic characteristics of many genuine tongues I have heard.
Damian, that’s not what it says. It says that tongues should be allowed in church only when there is present someone who can interpret (vv.27-28), and that someone should typically be the person who gives the message in tongues (vv.5,13). In fact you seem to say the same as me in your post, so why are you contradicting yourself in your comments here?
TC, I think it’s more people limiting the Spirit. The Spirit doesn’t limit his gifts although he doesn’t generally force them on people who don’t want them. I agree that they should be demonstrated in every local church, but if they are not in some, that is the error of the church in not following biblical guidelines, not the fault of the Holy Spirit.
Peter, well, it does make sense in light of 1 Thess 5:19ff.
I just looked at Fee’s commentary, and he uses 1 Cor 1:7 as support for the continuist view. I thought the verse was quite interesting – one that has me thinking on the whole issue.
Well, the guy in the video – I don’t have a good feeling about it all.
Pingback: T.C. Robinson is Discussing Tongues and the Charismata « azusaremixed.com
TC:
I don’t know if you’re serious or joking with that comment. The smiley face is confusing me. If you are serious then here’s my response:
(1) How do know it’s a sham?
(2) What do you find mocking about it?
(3) I’m not sure what circumstances you think are correct.
(4) I certainly do sanction (or at least I don’t see a problem with) speaking in tongues at home (or anywhere else). I pray in tongues like that daily, although I don’t videotape it and post it on YouTube.
I did not mean to disappear on this one. I was ordained and had Thanksgiving in one week — so plate was full. Now to respond to your question?
I urge you to re-read my comment. I fully agree they heard in their own native tongue (Bible clearly states so). My point is that it was not necessary for God to speak this way to get the message to them, for they all spoke at least one common language. He chose to use their own tongues as part of the sign to them. I do believe “tongues” are languages and have known them to be “translated” instead of “interpreted.” So all I intended to do was alert to possible purpose beyond the language issue.
I have spoken in tongues for years and have found it not only a valid gift, but a very important one as we travel in the Kingdom and seek His heart.
Why wouldn’t every denomination of the Body of Christ demonstrate some kind of charismata? Is the Holy Spirit to be seen as discriminating?
Unlike Peter and Bryan, I wouldn’t so much say that people are ‘limiting’ the Spirit. I would more likely point it towards the missional leanings of the church that would mean that the Spirit supplies them with specific gifts. However, I don’t have any scriptural basis for this.
Peter, I apologise. In my haste here I summarised myself messily. You are correct. I was referring (in my head at least) to the habit of having multiple speakers of tongues simultaneously, which is forbidden in 1 Cor 14:27.
I pray in tongues like that daily, although I don’t videotape it and post it on YouTube.
Nick, I wasn’t joking. There’s a bit of skepticism in me, for good or evil.
What’s the motive behind a YouTube post.
Iris, thanks for the clarification. Yes, it was certainly a sign.
Did you seek the gift or was it given at your rebirth?
Damian, but not every case of tongues is missional. I would see I guy on TV preaching and then he takes off in a tongue.
What am I to make of that?
Nick, you say pray in tongues like that daily, do you understand what you are saying?
Further, there is no indication that such a gift is to be used privately:
TC: I can’t speak to the man’s motives, but I’d assume that he simply intended to demonstrate speaking in tongues.
Richard: No, I don’t understand what I’m saying, nor does anyone else (1Cor. 14:2). In as much as people can pray/praise in tongues then I think that is an indiciation that it can be used privately. I also think that 1Cor. 14:18-19 shows that Paul speaks in tongues outside of the church when he says:
And there is also an argument to be made from Jude 1:20 that would see “praying in the Holy Spirit” as including praying in tongues (see e.g., Craig Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary: NT, 756).
Nick, throughout 1 Cor 14 the fact that one cannot understand tongues is a bad thing, i.e. 1 Cor. 14:2 is part of Paul’s argument against untranslated tongues.
I fail to see how 1 Cor. 14:18-19 demonstrates Paul speaks in tongues outside of the church.
I would refer you to Eph 6:18 as what Jude is about, i.e. by the aid of the Holy Spirit.
TC: I messed up a tag on the previous comment. Can you delete it and just leave this one? Thanks.
Richard: The overarching theme of 1Cor. 12-14 is the edification of the body through love. Paul’s argument is not that uninterpreted tongues is bad in an of itself, but rather that uninterpreted tongues in the midst of the congregation does not edify the body, it merely shows the individual’s gift… this is not love.
1Cor. 14:18-19 is self-evident. Paul thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all of the Corinthians, but IN THE CHURCH he’d rather speak so that they can understand. The implication is that he speaks in tongues outside of the church.
Marion L. Soards says:
Gordon Fee says:
And Craig Kenner again:
Concerning Ephesians 6:18, I see nothing to exclude praying in tongues as being ‘by the aid by the Spirit’ in fact I believe that praying in tongues is impossible without the aid of the Spirit.
T.C.,
You’re right, T.C. But the case of a TV preacher going off in tongues without interpretation is flat out contrary to the instructions given in 1 Corinthians 14, so that’s not a good example. It could even be suggested it’s counterfeit, as it’s a gift from God being used in a way scripture countermands. But it was just a suggested regarding why different charismata are present in different churches.
Nick,
The overarching theme of 1Cor. 12-14 is the edification of the body through love. Paul’s argument is not that uninterpreted tongues is bad in an of itself, but rather that uninterpreted tongues in the midst of the congregation does not edify the body, it merely shows the individual’s gift… this is not love.
Good stuff.
I can’t speak to the man’s motives, but I’d assume that he simply intended to demonstrate speaking in tongues.
But what is the purpose for any believer to simply demonstrate tongue-speaking?
I would think such should be more devotional and so on.
You’re right, T.C. But the case of a TV preacher going off in tongues without interpretation is flat out contrary to the instructions given in 1 Corinthians 14, so that’s not a good example. It could even be suggested it’s counterfeit, as it’s a gift from God being used in a way scripture countermands. But it was just a suggested regarding why different charismata are present in different churches.
Damian, that is exactly how I feel about such demonstration.
Yes, doesn’t seem to line up with 1 Cor 14.
Maybe he (the Youtube guy) just put it out there for people who may have wanted to hear what tongues sounded like. I don’t think this guy was sinning majorly and I’m not even sure he’s disobeying 1 Corinthians 14 since his speaking in tongues is not in the context of a church so it causes no disruption or disorder in the community. Besides whoever decided to watch the video made that decision for themselves and wasn’t forced to watch this guy speak in tongues. Hey, maybe someone on the internet was given an interpretation (if in fact the tongues was legitimate).
Bryan L
Bryan, as I noted before the Youtube guy gives a summary interpretation of his own tongue, as recommended (for the church context) in 1 Corinthians 14:5,13. So I don’t see how we can say he was wrong. We can only guess his motivation, but my guess would be that it was to inform discussions just like the one we have been having, perhaps in response to people curious about what tongues actually sound like etc. I don’t see anything wrong in helping people in this way to understand God’s ways better.
You asked me if I sought for tongues or was I given them at the time of my new birth. I personally received them upon asking for them. However, I strongly suspect (and this is a very non-Pentecostal answer — but an honest one, none-the-less) that they are given to all at the time of the new birth and then when one is willing to allow their release, the release occurs. Same process with all the gifts. When we receive the Holy Spirit — then all He is lives within. His gifts (and they remain His) are then available for His use when one will allow.
Iris latest comment has got me pondering again – oh no you say.
I received the gift of tongues in 1990 – or was released into it if you prefer – when those ministering to me one time said they felt the hHoly Spirit wanted to release it in me but did I want to receive it. In other words an almost direct challenge to “want to receive it” – be open to it perhaps.
To reflect on the teaching on tongues and perhaps the other more spectacular giftings I have had over the years, the line I have usually picked up is that they are all potentially available to all of us at our conversion. However they are imparted to us in accordance with God’s will for us. That might even mean that some will be for a season, some for a lifetime. His sovereignty is paramount. Our own born again free will in being open and willing is necessary. We can all quench the Spirit.
So I have tended to see the gifts being available as one thing, but actually being given as something different.
I must look up that You Tube Peter has linked us to.
Bryan L, it seems like the guy made his own video, but he never states why.
Peter, Who says that I must accept this as genuine tongue-speaking? What if I have the gift of discernment in this situation?
Iris, your answer is more in tune with what I personally believe about spiritual gifts.
Colin, yes, I believe the Spirit is the one who assigns the gifts as he wishes (1 Cor 12:11).
But why are we so obsessed with tongue-speaking?
Are we obsessed? If it is, this obsession is a remarkably recent phenomenon. I find it hard to believe that the first 2000 years of Christianity were not aware, did not experience or did not believe in tongues.
I think the difference is that recent Charismatic movements have concluded that tongues is a mark of the presence of the Holy Spirit, and that therefore it must be a universal gifting.
The importance of tongues might have been elevated past its actual importance. There is certainly an importance attributed to it, but really, it does not carry anywhere near the weight of many other new testament concepts.
So, it becomes a topic of discussion, because the tongues-speaking church feels the non-tongues speaking church have no gifting from the holy spirit, and the non-tongues speaking church looks to its history, miracles, and saints and says: But look! Tongues is not the only sign of Christ!
Damian, along with the other manifestations, this debate is going to be ongoing. I still need to get over my skepticism about tongue-speaking. I’m not one to readily embrace every tongue-speaker.
We should most certainly not be obsessed with tongue speaking. Those of us who do exercise it are not first class Christians, or better than those who don’t. Neither are we worse. I have occaisionally detected a note of near pride in the past when some have implied they don’t “need such things”.
It occurs to me that one aspect of the Body of Christ idea is that we need to accept and encourage each other to find and use what God has for each of us – and bless each other in it.
A soundbite I once heard from David Pytches which he applied to toungues, but perhaps should guide us in all giftings. “All may, none must, some do”.
Colin, I do think we need to encourage each other to discover, develop, and deliver our spiritual gifts for the building up of the body of Christ.
To the Corinthians, Paul says that they needed to be eager to prophesy. I don’t see that emphasis today.
John Piper, who is somewhat of a continuationist, believes that we don’t have the gift of prophecy with us today. He’s ok with tongues.
Just another reason to disregard Piper…
Well, he’s still not the normal Baptist…
This debate is becoming more appropriate on the more recent thread?
Like Nick – I think? – I don’t have a problem with prophecy – though it is clearly not of the kind which led to the OT Prophetic books. More a case of exhortation, encouragement and warnings for present day situations. Agabus in Acts 21 comes to mind as a “type”.
I won’t comment on John Piper himself as I have not read or heard much from him.
Colin, but Agabus is pointing to future experiences?
Er, OK, to ladle it a bit. If Paul went (now) to Jerusalem, he would, when he got there (future), be bound and tried etc! My point is that Agabus was recognised as a prophet (assuming the NIV I keep in my office desk is accurate). And what he delivered here did not become Scripture, such as Amos Hosea etc, but a word for someone or some situation in front of him at that moment. That is what I meant by him being a reasonable type for prophecy today. And yes I know the episode is recorded in Scripture, and today it would not be. But then does anything we do today becomes recorded in Scripture.
TC, I am not insisting that you take the Youtube guy seriously. I only said it sounds like genuine tongues, suggesting that it is either genuine or a clever imitation. If you genuinely spiritually discern something wrong, I will accept that. But if your only problem is that he has dared to make a recording of speaking in tongues, then I think you need to prove that that is in fact both wrong and evidence that the tongue is not genuine. I note that abuse of a gift is not proof that it is not a gift.
Meanwhile it was you who brought up the subject of tongues, so who is the one obsessed with this? It was a hot issue in the 1980s but much less so now at least here in the UK, with most evangelicals here accepting that it can be genuine and few people now insisting that all should speak in tongues. Few would reject David Pytches’ “All may, none must, some do”. In fact these days I see much more interest in prophecy of the Agabus kind, not always healthy interest but at least this is more in line with Paul’s emphasis.
Peter, I’m also aware that the Pretender likes to imitate the genuine to deceive, hence my skepticism.
I see my giftedness more in the area teaching and leading, not discerning, though each believer has been called to a certain level of discernment.
I’m not really obsessed with tongues. Engaging in a discussion about tongues does not amount to obsession over the same.
Hey TC,
I didn’t know that you spoke with a Spanish accent, in your first response to Nick you said “Do you speaking in tongues? ” You sound like one of relatives from Mexico
BTW: I also speak in tongues. And I agree with Peter, Nick, and Bryan so nuff said. I recently learned that a word that I have been speaking in tongues was a Hebrew word.
Robert, I got you. I see that you have the gift of discernment too.
Tongue-speaking is new frontier for me. I’m still researching the matter.
OK, TC, you’re not obsessed with tongues, but then I don’t see anyone around this conversation who is.
Peter, I was not pointing out any commenter here. Rather, I was making a general statement about churchgoers I’ve heard.
In discussions, tongues become the first focus. Maybe because the hearing of it stands out.
You are wise to “research the matter.” However, bottom line is not in the understanding but in the doing. I know it is tempting to get involved in what others do or do not do (and there are a lot of “crazies” on both sides of this fence — so that determines nothing), but the reality of the engagement with our Lord in and through the gifts is a doing through willingness of the individual.
It is hard for us to allow the Lord to govern totally, language wise, what comes out of our mouths. Although one must always be a “thinking” and “discerning” individual, the mind is not terribly involved in this action. I can speak in tongues and drive very much alert to my surroundings. This supernatural gift is often a “door opener.” Once it is participated in and with, then the other supernatural gifts flow more easily. They may be participated in prior to the participation in tongues, but are most generally not developed well until tongues are present. This may be one of the reasons the focus and attention is usually here. In my life this gift has been somewhat of a trainer in how these matters flow in the Spirit and spirit realm.
The gifts teach us about themselves. One cannot understand them looking at them — researching them, if you will. It is in participation that understanding comes (faith’s walk) — whether it is the new Life in Jesus, or the gifts of the Holy Spirit in Jesus — looking from the outside in, just does not accurately “see” the reality of the matter.
Praying for you in your exciting journey. Our Lord has many for us all. Bless you!
Iris, thank you so much. Yes, it is indeed a journey. I’m discovering so many new exciting spiritual realities along the way.
I just want to be obedient to the Word and the work of the Spirit in my own life.