Speaking in Tongues a Cessationist View

[bbyrd009]

Definition of Speaking in Tongues that everyone can agree with:
who can say it?

 

[bbyrd009]

This brought to a close the apostolic age and the gifts that flowed through their hands.

So you say, Dave, but you maybe don't realize what you are admitting to here, see, bc if ppl manifest those gifts today then you are incorrect, and if you misinterpret the nature of the gifts the apostles were recorded manifesting you are incorrect, heck if you have a deficient def of Apostles you are also incorrect, see, lotta ways for you to be wrong here and only one way to be right right.

See maybe you just don't get "12" yet, what that symbolizes, or maybe you haven't had 2 foreign language speakers leave a room that you are in to talk even though they know that you can't speak their language but you have evinced somehow understanding it--a six year old Tuareg girl showed me that btw--lotsa maybes Dave.

Making 12 literal is never a good idea imo, you wanna make 12 literal then you should have no probs listing the 12 fruits I guess right. Nothing in the NT that doesn't work just as good for apostles today as it did then imo

 

[bbyrd009]

"Speaking in fire" is written the exact same way fwiw, same word

 

[bbyrd009]

Another Old Testament passage is used to show that “prophecy was not to continue indefinitely in the messianic age,” Zechariah 13:2-6 -
And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the

LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the
idols out of the land, and they shall no more be
remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and
the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.
And it shall come to pass, that when any shall

yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that
begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live;
for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and
his father and his mother that begat him shall
thrust him through when he prophesieth.
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the

prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision,
when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a
rough garment to deceive:
But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman;

for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.
And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds

in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which
I was wounded in the house of my friends.


by Douglas Judisch. (n.d.). Notes on “An Evaluation of Claims to the Charismatic Gifts” .

ok well no offense but he may as well be on the senate floor reading double-down Scripture like it was the thing to do ok, but at least "hands" was not occluded like in many trannies. Well he might only be saying that this is often used for that w/o necessarily agreeing too? Dunno
Zechariah 13:6 If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds on your chest?' he will answer, 'These are the wounds I received in the house of my friends.'
clicking the link shows the others

 

[rockytopva]

???

Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.- Mark 3:30

When in fact he had the Holy Spirit

 

[Helen]

Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. - 1 Corinthians 14:39

Forbid not..... Which means don’t disallow it!

AMEN!!
There are those who know that they know....and there are those who chose not to! Their loss!

All glory be to God!
The Lord the same, yesterday, today, and forever!!!

 

[amadeus]

I guess it’s the immaturity just gets under my skin sometimes.

Immaturity in children is perfectly acceptable and even expected. In adults it is hard to stomach.

Tiny children babble before they talk and communicate. This babbling is what a new born Christian might do, but as he grows and matures [if he does] the spiritual babble will certain become a language and real communication with God will occur...

 

[amadeus]

Paul also said tongues will cease when the perfect (complete) arrived. Tongues were fragments of NT scripture being written. NT scripture is the completed product.

No, the completed product is the whole of the Body of Christ with Jesus as the Head and believers as all of the rest of it.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Well BB, xenoglossy did not require interpretation though right, it was the unbeliever who understood in his own language

If the person speaking in a tongue was unable to translate, then he did not understand what he himself was saying nor would others who were not familiar with that tongue, or language. Hence, Paul encouraged those having the gift of tongues to pray that they might also translate and thereby edify all listeners. From the foregoing, it can readily be seen why Paul, under inspiration, ranked speaking in tongues as a lesser gift and pointed out that in a congregation he would rather speak five words with his mind (understanding) than 10,000 words in a tongue.—1Co 14:11, 13-19.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Well BB, xenoglossy did not require interpretation though right, it was the unbeliever who understood in his own language

No I don't think so.

 

[Dave L]

No, the completed product is the whole of the Body of Christ with Jesus as the Head and believers as all of the rest of it.

Paul contrasts tongues, interpretation of tongues, and knowledge with love, faith and hope. If as some say, prophecy, tongues and interpretation remain until the end of the world, Paul's comparison is meaningless.

 

[Dave L]

So you say, Dave, but you maybe don't realize what you are admitting to here, see, bc if ppl manifest those gifts today then you are incorrect, and if you misinterpret the nature of the gifts the apostles were recorded manifesting you are incorrect, heck if you have a deficient def of Apostles you are also incorrect, see, lotta ways for you to be wrong here and only one way to be right right.

See maybe you just don't get "12" yet, what that symbolizes, or maybe you haven't had 2 foreign language speakers leave a room that you are in to talk even though they know that you can't speak their language but you have evinced somehow understanding it--a six year old Tuareg girl showed me that btw--lotsa maybes Dave.

Making 12 literal is never a good idea imo, you wanna make 12 literal then you should have no probs listing the 12 fruits I guess right. Nothing in the NT that doesn't work just as good for apostles today as it did then imo

What I'm saying is today's claims for having the gifts are based on a misunderstanding of the gifts. People sincerely think they have them but the originals were nothing like what they claim for today.

As a Pentecostal, I always questioned why tongues were learned and not spontaneous as the originals were. And why the whole church did not have what a few obscure sects claimed to have. My questions kept running along these lines but nothing ever added up.

 

[bbyrd009]

If the person speaking in a tongue was unable to translate, then he did not understand what he himself was saying nor would others who were not familiar with that tongue, or language. Hence, Paul encouraged those having the gift of tongues to pray that they might also translate and thereby edify all listeners. From the foregoing, it can readily be seen why Paul, under inspiration, ranked speaking in tongues as a lesser gift and pointed out that in a congregation he would rather speak five words with his mind (understanding) than 10,000 words in a tongue.—1Co 14:11, 13-19.

But you are addressing glossololia, and not xenoglossy, yes. And I suggest that this is an intentional puzzle, which we have not even included private "groanings" yet, that exists for a reason, and we can look at the pre Christian history of glossololia too if you like, where did that come from? And more important why did you go to that when I was pretty clearly talking xeno? Do you think?

 

[bbyrd009]

Well BB, xenoglossy did not require interpretation though right, it was the unbeliever who understood in his own language

No I don't think so.

pardon? "How is it we can hear him?" etc?

 

[bbyrd009]

ok well no offense but he may as well be on the senate floor reading double-down Scripture like it was the thing to do ok, but at least "hands" was not occluded like in many trannies. Well he might only be saying that this is often used for that w/o necessarily agreeing too? Dunno
Zechariah 13:6 If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds on your chest?' he will answer, 'These are the wounds I received in the house of my friends.'
clicking the link shows the others

Not that I blame them ok, this is a tempting passage for that, but it can be seen that prophecy was inhibited here, and did not "cease" bc it was no longer necessary to warn?

it's hard to interpret this passage bc we honor those prophets at our remove, but prophets do not get this honor in the moment, they get honored after the fact, after the truth comes out. Then come the hairy garments to deceive I guess

 

[Jeff Wiebe]

According to scripture, God enabled believers to speak to him in a heavenly language. A language unknown except by him and those to whom he gave a gift for interpreting it (1 Corinthians 14:27–28).

I believe this is false. When a person speaks his or her native language nobody can understand except God. That is why Paul said there needs to be an interpreter. The reason he said this is because the Church of Corinth was a hub for many people of many nations and languages so he didn't want confusion in the Church.
27 If any man speake in an vnknowen tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one interprete.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keepe silence in the Church, and let him speake to himselfe, and to God.

 

[Dave L]

I believe this is false. When a person speaks his or her native language nobody can understand except God. That is why Paul said there needs to be an interpreter. The reason he said this is because the Church of Corinth was a hub for many people of many nations and languages so he didn't want confusion in the Church.
27 If any man speake in an vnknowen tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one interprete.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keepe silence in the Church, and let him speake to himselfe, and to God.

They were not speaking in human languages. Paul says; “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” (1 Corinthians 14:2)

 

[Jeff Wiebe]

Yes they were. Just a language foreign to them that's all.

 

[Dave L]

Yes they were. Just a language foreign to them that's all.

You do not agree with Paul. They spoke in a heavenly language at Pentecost and the devout Jews also received the gift of interpretation, each interpreting the message in their own native tongue.

 

[Jeff Wiebe]

I agree with him completely. Two different situations though. Pentecost was a miracle because they ALL understood. Church of Corinth is a totally different situation.