When is 'Speaking in Tongues', true versus false.

[Berserk]

Now if we look back at the 'questionable' sources, we see the false kind by those who were led by Montanus who was a just recent convert into the early church when he first began speaking in tongues and 'prophesying'. He had two female colleagues, Prisca and Maximilla, who likewise claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They spoke in ecstatic visions and claimed they received the prophetic gift from the prophets and to have been part of a line of prophetic succession stretching all the way back to Agabus and the daughters of Philip the Evangelist. In time, the it spread from Montanus' native Phrygia across the Christian world.[exc..Tabbernee, William. Prophets and Gravestones: An Imaginative History of Montanists and Other Early Christians. pp. 37, 40-41, 89.]

Now this speaking in tongue by the Montanist in the early church was quickly seen for what it was...

"Some of those who heard his spurious utterances at that time were indignant, and they rebuked him as one that was possessed, and that was under the control of a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit, and was distracting the multitude; and they forbade him to talk, remembering the distinction drawn by the Lord and his warning to guard watchfully against the coming of false prophets....Thus by artifice, or rather by such a system of wicked craft, the devil, devising destruction for the disobedient, and being unworthily honored by them, secretly excited and inflamed their understandings which had already become estranged from the true faith. And he stirred up besides two women, and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely, like the person already mentioned. And the spirit pronounced them blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up by the magnitude of his promises.... For the faithful in Asia met often in many places throughout Asia to consider this matter, and examined the novel utterances and pronounced them profane, and rejected the heresy, and thus these persons were expelled from the Church and debarred from communion"...Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume I, Oak Harbor, WA: Logos, 1997, Book V. Chapter XVI.

So there was a tremendous example of the wrong kind of speaking in tongues so that it disappeared from the early church as they saw what kind of spirit was directing these people, so we need to see how it was identified and understood for what it was, and then ask how has it got back into the church?"

First, there is not a shred of evidence that the Montanists spoke in tongues. I challenge you to find it.
2nd, the label "Montanist" stems from Catholic critics. These Spirit-filled believers referred to themselves as the "New Prophecy."
3rd, you are slandering Montanists through the jaundiced eyes of their ungodly critics. Their movement was so Spirit-anointed that they converted the greatest orthodox theologian of the early 200s, Tertullian.
4th, the New Prophecy was also an inspiring women's liberation movement. When these women were excommunicated, they in turn excommunicated the Catholic bishop and then appointed women to leadership roles throughout the Mediterranean world. This movement came at a time when women were considered morally inferior to men. [Maybe I should start a separate thread on how Paul acknowledge female leaders in his churches. [No 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 amd 1 Timothy 2:9-15 don't refute this claim. But that is a complicated issue of a non-Pauline interpolation that requires a separate thread.]

 

[Deborah_]

Tongues today are not even close to the originals. If they were genuine, the whole church would speak in them, not just a couple of sects with questionable origins. Moreover, today's tongues are learned and coached. The originals were spontaneous and came only through an apostle's hands, or through the two outpourings. Also, first century tongue speakers were edified because they knew what they were saying. Today's tongue speakers do not know what they are saying.

"Tongues today are not even close to the originals."
How would you know?

"If they were genuine, the whole church would speak in them, not just a couple of sects with questionable origins."
There are people with the gift in all denominations - even Roman Catholics.

"Moreover, today's tongues are learned and coached."
A lot of them are (sadly) - but not all. Mine wasn't.

"Also, first century tongue speakers were edified because they knew what they were saying."
Paul says in I Corinthians 14:13, "The one who speaks in tongues should pray that they may interpret what they say." If they knew what they were saying, they wouldn't need to pray for the ability to interpret it!

 

[Dave L]

"Tongues today are not even close to the originals."
How would you know?

"If they were genuine, the whole church would speak in them, not just a couple of sects with questionable origins."
There are people with the gift in all denominations - even Roman Catholics.

"Moreover, today's tongues are learned and coached."
A lot of them are (sadly) - but not all. Mine wasn't.

"Also, first century tongue speakers were edified because they knew what they were saying."
Paul says in I Corinthians 14:13, "The one who speaks in tongues should pray that they may interpret what they say." If they knew what they were saying, they wouldn't need to pray for the ability to interpret it!

Speaking in Tongues a Cessationist View

 

[Episkopos]

Speaking in Tongues a Cessationist View

But not a biblical view.

Dave, you are always comfortable with labels...preferring the seeming simplicity of a man-inspired label to the perilous quest for truth.

 

[Dave L]

But not a biblical view.

Dave, you are always comfortable with labels...preferring the seeming simplicity of a man-inspired label to the perilous quest for truth.

You need scripture, not opinion to prove I'm wrong.

 

[Berserk]

These 7 statements are biblical sound. If a skeptic wants to dispute them, I want to him to first establish his awareness of the texts that establish each claim. If he can't, then he hasn't done his homework and is not worth debating. If he can, I will start a separate thread that defends each claim. I don't want to derail this thread.
(1) Paul distinguishes private prayer in tongues from messages in tongues in church that must be interpreted.
(2) Like prophecy, speaking in tongues is a charism intended for every believer.
(a) The NT repeatedly commands us to pray in the Spirit and glossolalia is one form of praying in the Spirit.
(b) Paul wants us all to speak in tongues and thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than the Corinthians.
(3) The tongues speaker builds himself up and receives an enhancement of heartfelt praise.
(4) Modern scholars agree that there is no biblical grounds for cessationism (certainly not 1 Cor. 13:8-12).
(5)The Greek word "glosse" ("tongue") need not mean "language" when applied to ecstatic speech. [See the Kittel word study of the use of "glosse" in the Greco-Roman world.]
(6) The outpouring in Acts 2 is the only clear NT example of tongues as human languages in the NT. To that end it is designated "dialect" and "prophecy" to distinguish it from validly uninterpreted tongues which are clearly distinguished from prophecy.
(7) For Paul "tongues" can even designate angelic speech.
(8) There are many examples of human languages being spoking in modern glossolalia by people who don't know those languages.

 

[Dave L]

These 7 statements are biblical sound. If a skeptic wants to dispute them, I want to him to first establish his awareness of the texts that establish each claim. If he can't, then he hasn't done his homework and is not worth debating. If he can, I will start a separate thread that defends each claim. I don't want to derail this thread.
(1) Paul distinguishes private prayer in tongues from messages in tongues in church that must be interpreted.
(2) Like prophecy, speaking in tongues is a charism intended for every believer.
(a) The NT repeatedly commands us to pray in the Spirit and glossolalia is one form of praying in the Spirit.
(b) Paul wants us all to speak in tongues and thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than the Corinthians.
(3) The tongues speaker builds himself up and receives an enhancement of heartfelt praise.
(4) Modern scholars agree that there is no biblical grounds for cessationism (certainly not 1 Cor. 13:8-12).
(5)The Greek word "glosse" ("tongue") need not mean "language" when applied to ecstatic speech. [See the Kittel word study of the use of "glosse" in the Greco-Roman world.]
(6) The outpouring in Acts 2 is the only clear NT example of tongues as human languages in the NT. To that end it is designated "dialect" and "prophecy" to distinguish it from validly uninterpreted tongues which are clearly distinguished from prophecy.
(7) For Paul "tongues" can even designate angelic speech.
(8) There are many examples of human languages being spoking in modern glossolalia by people who don't know those languages.

The big problem with this is that tongues came in only two ways. The two outpourings or through an apostle's hands. There's much more wrong with your outline. But this is enough for starters.

 

[Berserk]

The big problem with this is that tongues came in only two ways. The two outpourings or through an apostle's hands. There's much more wrong with your outline. But this is enough for starters.

Nonsense! I didn't think you knew how Pentecostals defend their position. So you are reduced to groundless pontifications. I repeat my challenge: provide the texts they cite to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. I didn't think you could; that's why I provided that outline without biblical references.

 

[Berserk]

The big problem with this is that tongues came in only two ways. The two outpourings or through an apostle's hands. There's much more wrong with your outline. But this is enough for starters.

We patiently wait for Dave to copy (1)-(7) in my list of key points with appended chapters and verse to show that he at least grasps how Pentecostals defend their position. Meanwhilr, let's dispose of his quoted claim.

Dave of course is referring to the 2 outpourings in Acts 2 and 10. His claim that the gift of tongues is otherwise imparted "through the apostles' hands can be dispatched by 2 points:
First, there is no evidence that the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on the Samaritans in Acts 8 was accompanied by glossolalia. The fact that Simon the Magician offers money for the ability to confer the Spirit does not imply speaking in tongues.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is not a shred of evidence that the gift of tongues was imparted to the Corinthians through the laying on of hands, let alone Paul's hands. Indeed, this seems unlikely because Paul would likely have already issued instructions on the need for interpretion of glossolalia during public worship, if he himself had imparted the gift through the laying on of hands.

 

[Dave L]

We patiently wait for Dave to copy (1)-(7) in my list of key points with appended chapters and verse to show that he at least grasps how Pentecostals defend their position. Meanwhilr, let's dispose of his quoted claim.

Dave of course is referring to the 2 outpourings in Acts 2 and 10. His claim that the gift of tongues is otherwise imparted "through the apostles' hands can be dispatched by 2 points:
First, there is no evidence that the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on the Samaritans in Acts 8 was accompanied by glossolalia. The fact that Simon the Magician offers money for the ability to confer the Spirit does not imply speaking in tongues.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is not a shred of evidence that the gift of tongues was imparted to the Corinthians through the laying on of hands, let alone Paul's hands. Indeed, this seems unlikely because Paul would likely have already issued instructions on the need for interpretion of glossolalia during public worship, if he himself had imparted the gift through the laying on of hands.

You cannot add to scripture saying the temporary gift of tongues came in any other way than through the two outpourings or through an apostle's hands. It is safe to assume the Samaritans spoke in tongues after the apostles laid hands on them because Luke calls it "receiving the Holy Spirit" also in the passages he mentions tongues being imparted through their hands.

Nobody knows less about the book of Acts and the gifts of the Spirit than the typical Charismatic or Pentecostal. They got it wrong from the start at Bethel and Azusa street.

 

[Dave L]

Nonsense! I didn't think you knew how Pentecostals defend their position. So you are reduced to groundless pontifications. I repeat my challenge: provide the texts they cite to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. I didn't think you could; that's why I provided that outline without biblical references.

I spent several years believing just as you do. It the gifts were for today the whole church would have them.

 

[Episkopos]

I spent several years believing just as you do. It the gifts were for today the whole church would have them.

You are confusing a spiritually apostate church which is devoid of spiritual life and functioning, having very zealously religious people ....with a lack of church attendance. Just because people are sitting in the pews doesn't mean they have experienced life in the spiritual sense.

 

[Dave L]

You are confusing a spiritually apostate church which is devoid of spiritual life and functioning, having very zealously religious people ....with a lack of church attendance. Just because people are sitting in the pews doesn't mean they have experienced life in the spiritual sense.

It doesn't add up. God is no respecter of persons. If any of the Charismatic gifts were for today, they would have remained over the millennia and all of the Church would have them. Have you ever studied the origins of Pentecostalism?

 

[Berserk]

Dave,

I take by your deafening silence that you are incapable of appending the relevant texts to my list of 7 biblical points about tongues. To me, that means that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you can't even articulate the Pentecostal's detailed justification for their position on speaking in tongues. I continue to await your reply.
]
Dave L: "If any of the Charismatic gifts were for today, they would have remained over the millennia and all of the Church would have them. Have you ever studied the origins of Pentecostalism?"

Can it be that you are ignorant of the history of speaking in tongues from the 2nd century to the early 1900s?

Dave L: "It the gifts were for today the whole church would have them.

What makes you think that spiritual gifts were distributed any more widely in the first century thay today?
Besides, Paul teaches that we need to "strive for spiritual gifts" like speaking in tongues and prophecy. I don't see many Christians in noncharismatic denominations actively tarrying to receive these gifts. And what makes you imagine that the number of people exercising the gifts determines the authenticity of the gifts? You're not making sense.

 

[Dave L]

Dave,

I take by your deafening silence that you are incapable of appending the relevant texts to my list of 7 biblical points about tongues. To me, that means that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you can't even articulate the Pentecostal's detailed justification for their position on speaking in tongues. I continue to await your reply.
]
Dave L: "If any of the Charismatic gifts were for today, they would have remained over the millennia and all of the Church would have them. Have you ever studied the origins of Pentecostalism?"

Can it be that you are ignorant of the history of speaking in tongues from the 2nd century to the early 1900s?

Dave L: "It the gifts were for today the whole church would have them.

What makes you think that spiritual gifts were distributed any more widely in the first century thay today?
Besides, Paul teaches that we need to "strive for spiritual gifts" like speaking in tongues and prophecy. I don't see many Christians in noncharismatic denominations actively tarrying to receive these gifts. And what makes you imagine that the number of people exercising the gifts determines the authenticity of the gifts? You're not making sense.

The points are meaningless. Tongues ceased as Paul said. Had they not they would have continued throughout church history. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. You imply they did.

 

[farouk]

Dave,

I take by your deafening silence that you are incapable of appending the relevant texts to my list of 7 biblical points about tongues. To me, that means that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you can't even articulate the Pentecostal's detailed justification for their position on speaking in tongues. I continue to await your reply.
]
Dave L: "If any of the Charismatic gifts were for today, they would have remained over the millennia and all of the Church would have them. Have you ever studied the origins of Pentecostalism?"

Can it be that you are ignorant of the history of speaking in tongues from the 2nd century to the early 1900s?

Dave L: "It the gifts were for today the whole church would have them.

What makes you think that spiritual gifts were distributed any more widely in the first century thay today?
Besides, Paul teaches that we need to "strive for spiritual gifts" like speaking in tongues and prophecy. I don't see many Christians in noncharismatic denominations actively tarrying to receive these gifts. And what makes you imagine that the number of people exercising the gifts determines the authenticity of the gifts? You're not making sense.

The context of the sign gifts seems to have been the Apostolic period when the Scriptures were not yet complete.

 

[Berserk]

Dave L: "The points are meaningless. Tongues ceased as Paul said.

Now you demonstrate your misunderstanding of 1 Corinthians 13:10-12. I challenge you to find a single modern academic commentary on 1 Corinthians that agrees with you! In his magisterial commentary on 1 Corinthians Hans Conzelmann speaks for the scholarly consensus on 13:10: "to teleion," "perfect," points to the Parousia (p. 226)," that is, to the Second Coming when we see Christ "face to face (13:12)."

Dave L: "Had they not they would have continued throughout church history."

They did continue off and on, as expected. You need to study church history.

 

[farouk]

The points are meaningless. Tongues ceased as Paul said. Had they not they would have continued throughout church history. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. You imply they did.

The Scriptures are indeed now complete. When Paul was still writing the Epistles they were not yet so.

 

[Berserk]

For a brief demonstration of some of the manifestations of glossolalia after the apostolic age, see:

alkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-is-history-of-tongues.html
T
he ongoing legitimacy of the ecstatic gifts has nothing to do with the closure of the biblical canon and you can cite no biblical text that implies the contrary (certainly not 1 Corinthians 13:10-12).

 

[Dave L]

For a brief demonstration of some of the manifestations of glossolalia after the apostolic age, see:

alkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-is-history-of-tongues.html
T
he ongoing legitimacy of the ecstatic gifts has nothing to do with the closure of the biblical canon and you can cite no biblical text that implies the contrary (certainly not 1 Corinthians 13:10-12).

It's all hearsay. Second hand information just like today. No direct proof. Also highly questionable sources claiming the gifts. If it were for today, all would have the real gifts. Not the phony gifts being claimed today by a couple of sects.