Did Speaking In Tongues Pass Away With The Early Church ?

[Angelina]

Tongues is not a ritual. Forgive me if I have misunderstood what is being said but tongues is a spiritual gift. The Eucharist is a ritual as well as water baptism etc but not tongues.

 

[bbyrd009]

Forgive me if I have misunderstood what is being said but tongues is a spiritual gift.

speaking in such a way so as to need an interpreter is a gift? Or do you mean the other kind of tongues? See how we have this dichotomy at even the definition of tongues? This is not unintentional imo, this is constructed on purpose.

also, i don't mean to imply "ritual, bad" ok, that is not what i meant. But the ritual has a real world application, and that is what is important, whereas the ritual without the understanding is meaningless.

imo

 

[Angelina]

Speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift. The intepretation of tongues is a spiritual gift. If someone is speaking a language they have never been taught and it is understood by someone who speaks that language...that is a spiritual gift.

 

[bbyrd009]

Speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift. The intepretation of tongues is a spiritual gift. If someone is speaking a language they have never been taught and it is understood by someone who speaks that language...that is a spiritual gift.

a perfectly acceptable understanding, imo; for a "church" setting. A point is that there are more rungs on that ladder

 

[Angelina]

Where?

 

[bbyrd009]

Where?

well, IRL, when you contemplate how your entire definition of tongues has been given to you by someone else engaged--with the best of intentions--in "church." Unless you believe that the highest function of "tongues" is for someone in a church to utter Scriptural truths already written for all into an unintelligible language, merely so someone else can "interpret" back into what was written; with no evidence--save hear-say--of the other kind of tongues, what you would currently describe as the "miraculous" one, prolly, or at least that is how i would describe it, the one where someone speaks and another hears in their "language."

 

[bbyrd009]

i have examples of the unintelligible kind, here onsite, unfortunately they would cast the objects in an ungenerous light, but basically any reply of "i don't understand what you mean there" when the post to be understood (or rather not understood) is perfectly understandable to other people, but the guy praying the Pharisee's Prayer without realizing it, and elevating himself above those he wishes to condemn, just does not like the comparison. You get me here? The "So few people love Jesus (like i do)" kind of thing.

 

[DicipleofJesus]

Don't worry. Thee and thou are second person singular pronoun of the old English.language which very.well had its supply of vulgar words used in the day. Nothing reverent about thee and thou despite it sounding so.

 

[Helen]

i notice how Speaking in Tongues has gone from an interaction between two people who normally would not be able to communicate verbally, as indicated in Scripture, to something that ppl do all alone now, or worse imo to some spurious "interpretation" like a little stage show, and of course the "how do we hear him in our own language?" is completely tossed now basically.

Paul talks about "gurgling and cooing like a baby," and imo most interpretations of "speaking in tongues" faithfully follow that principle.

Tut tut...you are obviously speaking about something that you know nothing about.
'A man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument. '

You have no idea what you have been missing in the Lord.
Ask Him.
Bless you...H

 

[bbyrd009]

Tut tut...you are obviously speaking about something that you know nothing about.
'A man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument. '

You have no idea what you have been missing in the Lord.
Ask Him.
Bless you...H

well, i don't blame you here, ok, i am perceived to be attacking a Sacred Cow, but the hope is "life, more abundantly," not "church, more abundantly." And of course we must all admit that our initial definition of tongues comes from church, just like most of our other definitions for what end up being real-life principles. I put plenty of years into UPI churches ok, not putting that down.

if your current def of tongues--which no one could even state without objection by someone else, as it has been intentionally occluded, which tongues are we even talking about now?--serves you, then bam hang on to it, as long as it serves you.

An OT study of "tongues" and "speaking in tongues"--pretty much exclusively a NT subject, right?--might guide one on their way here. Where is "tongues" in the OT, iow? Did Jesus or the Apostles invent tongues, or what?

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all. addressing the OP only, before one can answer this, lets define the terms. what tongues are we speaking of. a. the unknown tongue. b. other tongues, or c. new tongue. I assume it's b. other tongues, or divers kinds of tongues. speaking in another language have nothing to do with the PERSON, us, as to say the "GIFT" if it have or has not Pass Away With The Early Church. speaking in tongues (another language) is controlled by God, the Lord Jesus himself. so the answer lay in the source of the gifts as the apostles, Peter and Paul said respectively. Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance". so if God gave them utterance in the early church, he can do it today, for he is no respecter of person. now Paul, 1 Corinthians 12:10 & 11 "To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will". so to clearly answer this question, go to God and ask him if he have stopped his gift. for it is the source and work of the Spirit.

 

[amadeus]

no, pretty normal, and i am not surprised at the confusion, just as ppl keeping milk on a shelf separate from meat does not surprise me, even if i understand that that is not the intention of Scripture at that concept now. So all i'll say here is that Tongues is alive and well, and "church" just is not the place to observe it, although a ritual of it might be conducted or observed. But, just like "women head covering," or 100 other spiritual concepts, the ritual/reminder has become the real thing, and the mundane application--the only one that matters--remains to be rediscovered.

Actually I believe that the place to observe it is the place that God says is the right place. At times that is where people gather together "in His name". Each of us needs to be aware that what we do even "in His name" may offend others. The key is to be in tune with what God wants and then go that Way. Since all of us probably at time miss His Way at times, then at times we are going get in trouble with Him. I am sorry to offend others, but how sorry should I be when God says it is necessary that I walk that way? Offending others UNnecessarily needs to be avoided, but sometimes it may well be necessary.

And i don't mean to say by this that you or your wife's experiences were not genuine, more like the concept is so powerful that even the observance of the ritual will manifest signs, something like that. I did all that stuff, too, at one point. Imo there are 3 poorly delineated "tongues" in Scripture mostly to see who wants to argue about spiritual things that Scripture already assures us we do not know, and only see dimly.

Of course imo too many church gatherings today have little if any of the "in His name" part and therefore He is not "in their midst" which means that if I am also NOT going to be "in His name, I might as well be attending a baseball or football game. People have at times made a big thing about "church" attendance with two verses often in mind:

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

The second one is good advice for a believer but... it may be pointless if the first one is ignored or misunderstood.

Many people as I understand it have not a clue as to what Jesus means by the "in my name". I believe that I do and others here do as well, but outside too many ministers with positions or titles, such as pastor, do not know. That is a problem.

Am I ever not "in His name"? I am afraid so, but hopefully my times out of His name are diminishing. When I am praying in tongues, I am always "in His name". I cannot speak for everyone else.

It seems most ppl get to your understanding of tongues at some point--although i am guessing there--but natch since new seekers arrive every day, and old ones go from their previous belief to a better understanding, the debate appears to be frozen, like the faith/works one, or most of the other ones, about Original Sin, or Trinity, etc.

LOL I do understand your point here. In the Spirit growth proceeds among believers as natural growth proceeds among natural people. Speaking tongues in a public setting, even in the "church" group can be a problem if no one is willing or able or allowed to explain what is happening. In many assemblies there is no such person... or if there is he is not be allowed to speak what he knows or understands... even if it is from God. This is one reason for strength of democracy in assemblies today, as I see it. Look at Acts 2 where Peter felt the need to explain for some people did not have a clue as to what was happening:

"But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;" Acts 2:14-16

So, yesterday's Trinity Expounders are today's Trinity Deniers, and this is even admitted, "ya, i used to believe that too" etc, which is of course taken the wrong way, heard differently...which is essentially the common problem, i guess, huh

There needs to be growth toward God among believers and the precise route does vary from person to person according to where that person is in God already and what that person's function is to be in the Body of Christ.

"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30

Obviously as we look around this forum alone, we see that are differences of opinion as to what constitutes growth toward God what if anything needs to be done by the individual to accomplish it or to allow it to be accomplished.

 

[amadeus]

Speaking in tongues made a comeback with the Classical Pentecostal Movement at the turn of the 19th century. There may be a scarce pre-existence before then, it's debatable. This was followed by the Neo-Pentecostal Movement, meaning charismatic prayer groups forming within churches without starting new denominations. This occurred in the '50's and ''60's. Then came the third stream; the Catholic Charismatic Movement, which began in the late '60's.
Tongues is not a badge of holiness. It should be used as a form of group praise and is very beautiful when properly done. It should not be contrived or forced. You either have the gift or you don't. It makes for excellent private prayer.

Good words. When I was a practicing Catholic, I had never heard of tongues. While working for the Social Security Administration in San Francisco many years ago an already old tongue talker and a member of the UPC I met an active Catholic charismatic who worked there as well. We formed a group for worshipping the Lord together during our lunch breaks. It worked very well for both of us and for the small but steady group who joined us from across the Christians. My friend was a Catholic tongue talker in the 1970's. Our differences in doctrines did not cause opposition. That is what charity can do.

 

[Helen]

@bbyrd009 I think the confusion come when we muddle things up...as Angelina has already mention the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation ( along with the gift of healing , faith, wisdom etc)

But there is also tongues which we use in worship...in private, in the car etc, which seems to bother you.
They are two different things...Paul show us here:-
1 Cor 14:18 "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."
Two different uses of tongues. .. two different types. Some people can speak in tongues in their worship time...but they don't have the 'gift of' tongues for the church meeting.

Just saying....

 

[amadeus]

see, what we are doing in the rituals is acting out how we misunderstand IRL, or how we are misunderstood. If one can accept it, Speaking in Tongues is perceived as a good thing, a "gift," when even Paul would counsel differently, and it is the "interpretation" that is important, for that "kind" of tongues--which equates to someone saying something you cannot understand--or, better, it is the fact that "everyone can hear in their own tongue"--denoting someone who has learned how to speak another person's "language."

and these are powerful, even life altering skills, that few ppl ever master, i'm 55 and i still do not have a clue, but some ppl have a gift for it, obviously. But of course these cannot be presented that way, or they will just be disregarded, like we currently pretty much disregard "life, more abundantly" in favor of "i can't wait to die to go to heaven and be with Jesus, and prolly Spuds McKenzie too, in that Eternal Party in the Sky," only say it with Religious Reverence, toss some thee's and thou's in there somewhere lol.

Each of who is following the Lord must follow the precise pathway on which He leads us. I started speaking in tongues when I was in the UPC. When I arrived in the UPC my only background was Catholic and I had never read the Bible. In the UPC I was taught also to read the Bible. When I became aware, I began to disagree with them on several points. One such point was that a person who did not receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues could not be saved. I could not argue to point because I did not understand all that was involved, but I disagreed, it was one of the reasons I finally left that denomination in 1987.

Where I went next and also where I am now the beliefs on many things changed radically from the UPC, but not on this point. Fortunately, this is one of the few places perhaps where it is not necessary to agree with the ministry on every point to remain. I preach and teach regularly where I am but so far the question has never arisen for discussion, although I know my pastor's beliefs is very close to the UPC on this point.

I really stand alone, hopefully with God, on my overall set of beliefs. I have only one man outside of forums who agrees with me on most things, but he attends no church services regularly because he is quite insistent about telling everyone why he is right and they are wrong on any issue where they disagree. This last point is the one where he and I part company. I tolerate him, but almost no one else anywhere does after one or two conversations.

 

[amadeus]

i have examples of the unintelligible kind, here onsite, unfortunately they would cast the objects in an ungenerous light, but basically any reply of "i don't understand what you mean there" when the post to be understood (or rather not understood) is perfectly understandable to other people, but the guy praying the Pharisee's Prayer without realizing it, and elevating himself above those he wishes to condemn, just does not like the comparison. You get me here? The "So few people love Jesus (like i do)" kind of thing.

Yes, people sometimes do not realize that the tongues are also, as I understand it, only one stepping stone, which is not on everyone's pathway. What I see in tongues is a clear relationship between them and the parables Jesus told. His explanation of why he spoke in parables could also be an explanation for speaking in tongues... if we can understand it:

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear." Matt 13:10-16

The prophet Isaiah also throws some Light on the subject:

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." Isaiah 28:9-13

 

[bbyrd009]

so, anyone find the OT analogy of Speaking in Tongues yet?

 

[bbyrd009]

Tongues is not a ritual

lol, no, it's just something confined to what you consider "church" now, that's all.
Like praying to Jesus or Mary has nothing to do with idols either, see.

 

[Helen]

lol, no, it's just something confined to what you consider "church" now, that's all.
Like praying to Jesus or Mary has nothing to do with idols either, see.

Neither will you find the the Holy Spirit was given in the O T. either.
With Gideon, Samson , and others the Holy Spirit came upon them...but only in the NT does it say that the Holy Spirit dwelt within them.
The gifts and the Gift of the Holy Spirit is NT. The age of grace.

 

[bbyrd009]

With Gideon, Samson , and others the Holy Spirit came upon them...but only in the NT does it say that the Holy Spirit dwelt within them.

sounds like a semantics disagreement, essentially. The Spirit dwells within an unrepentant "believer" now, NT? Moses did not have the Spirit dwelling within? Enoch? Melchizedek? Job, after Chapter 42 (after repenting of his sin)?

Debatable at least, right