----------------
The author proposes a question in the title, but answers a different one. He doesn't actually examine the idea of the gifts of tongues persisting till today. Rather, he wants to prove that the way charismatics practice tongues is incorrect. The question he actually answers is, "Is the way charismatics practice tongues valid?"
Despite this and other problems, one thing does bring joy to our hearts, and that is that the author actually quotes some Scripture. This is an extremely rare phenomenon among the "Doctrinal Police." And his presentation is largely absent of the mockery and derision often leveled against theological opponents.
Despite this and other problems, one thing does bring joy to our hearts, and that is that the author actually quotes some Scripture. This is an extremely rare phenomenon among the "Doctrinal Police." And his presentation is largely absent of the mockery and derision often leveled against theological opponents.
Nevertheless, the author spectacularly fails to make his case. Since we covered tongues in detail here, we shall try to avoid repeating those arguments.
Lastly, we are going to provide red typeface for any appeal to contemporary practice. What charismatics do or believe is not relevant to the author's stated purpose to biblically demonstrate the practice or non-practice of tongues.
----------------
(...)
What Does the Bible Says About Tongues?
The question that needs answering is this - what does the Bible say? (Indeed, we hope for a clear biblical presentation of what the Bible says about tongues. We shall see if the author is able to do this.)
(...)
What Does the Bible Says About Tongues?
The question that needs answering is this - what does the Bible say? (Indeed, we hope for a clear biblical presentation of what the Bible says about tongues. We shall see if the author is able to do this.)
The problem is not to try to explain experiences that people have had, but to determine, "what does God say on the matter." If God's Word says that tongues is a valid gift for today then the matter is settled. If it teaches that tongues ceased after the establishment of the early church and after the fall of Judaism then the course is equally clear, tongues should be abandoned.
Will we seek to answer a series of questions which will address the issue.
B. The second times (sic) tongues is mentioned in Scripture is three years later in Acts 10:44-48. Cornelius, a Roman Centurion, after hearing and believing the Gospel as Peter preached, experienced the same exact circumstances (This is false. The circumstances were quite different.)
C. The Third time tongues is mentioned in Scripture is twenty-two years later in Act 19:1-8. These were the disciplines of John the Baptist. They were not Christians, but saved Old Testament saints who lived in Ephesus who had repented and followed the message of John the Baptist. Probably they had heard John preach on a pilgrimage they had made to Jerusalem. They, however, had not heard about Jesus Christ, his life, death and resurrection. They were still looking for the Messiah to come, and did not know that He had already come. Although the sound as a mighty rushing wind and the cloven tongues of fire are not mentioned there is no reason to not believe that they were present. (The author must say this because of his previous assertion criticizing charismatics for lacking these features. But yet again the Scripture doesn't mention this. And, the author should not argue from silence to support theories, especially a theory he places as central to his cessationist argument.)
In this account, some Jews at Ephesus believed in the Messiah. However, even after Paul had taught there for three months, some Jews hardened their hearts and spoke evil of the Gospel. Paul then left the Jewish synagogue where he had been preaching and separated the believing disciples from these unbelieving Jews. They then began to meet daily at the school of Tyrannus which was a lecture hall. Paul for two years discipled these Jews who accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. The result was that ". . . all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks." (Acts 19:10) They too fulfilled Christ's prediction that, "Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem , and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.: (Acts 1:8) Again the purpose of tongues was a sign to unbelievers and those that received the gift of tongues used it to witness of Christ. That is not the modern day use of tongues as will be discussed later.
D. In Acts 19, when John the Baptist's disciples received the gift of tongues (Again, there is no mention of this being the "gift" of tongues.)
E. These are the only three times an account of the receiving the gift of tongues is recorded. There is no reason from Scripture to believe that the three events were different. Modern churches which practice tongues make note that in Acts 19, the account does not mention the sound as a mighty rushing wind or the cloven tongues of fire. (This is the fifth time the author brings this up, again without biblical documentation. The author continues his obsession with this point for reasons unknown.)
Romans 8:26 says, "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." In this verse tongues is not mentioned or is in the picture. (The fact that something is not mentioned in a verse has never troubled the author before...)
A careful reading of Chapter 14, clearly reveals several things:
1. A person is not to seek the gift of tongues but rather of prophesy. (preach and teach the Word of God) (1Co. 14:5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The author lies to us.
2. There is no reference in the Bible of a woman speaking in tongues. (We remind the reader of Joel's prophecy, quoted by Peter:
On the Day of Pentecost: "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? . . . Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. (Acts 2:8, 13) In Acts 19:7, it says, "And all the men were about twelve." (Acts 19:7) In Acts 10:44, the Bible says the Holy Ghost fell on all who heard the word. Women could have been present although it was not their custom to have women present when men were meeting. Customs of the day separated the men and women in all public meetings (If this is true, then how could women be asking their husbands questions [1Co. 14:35] if they weren't allowed in meetings? And could a woman be required to prophesy and pray with her head covered [1Co. 11:5] if they had to remain silent? The nonsense is mounting up to intolerable levels.)
Notice that Paul is following his comments about order in the church. So if a someone thinks he is a prophet, he should agree with Paul about proper order, or be ignored. Then Paul directly tells the reader to not forbid speaking in tongues!)
(...)
In 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, Paul clearly states that tongues would cease as well as "prophecies" and "knowledge." (We deal with this thoroughly here. Suffice to say, the author's statement is completely false. in fact, most cessationists reject this Scripture as a proof text for the ending of the "supernatural" spiritual gifts.)
Will we seek to answer a series of questions which will address the issue.
I. Is the practice of the gift of tongues the same as it was in the New Testament? (This is an irrelevant question to the biblical case for tongues.)
A. Absent today from the modern practice of tongues is "a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto the cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." (Acts 2:3-4) (Hmm. the author will need to biblically demonstrate that every expression of tongues must be accompanied by the sound of wind and the appearance of tongues of fire. He will reference this idea frequently, but will not demonstrate it.)
A. Absent today from the modern practice of tongues is "a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto the cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." (Acts 2:3-4) (Hmm. the author will need to biblically demonstrate that every expression of tongues must be accompanied by the sound of wind and the appearance of tongues of fire. He will reference this idea frequently, but will not demonstrate it.)
Further, each of those present at Pentecost were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the Gospel in a language that the person had not learned. "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. (Acts 2:6) Verses 9-11 lists the sixteen languages which were spoken. These Jewish pilgrims had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Pentecost, as they had been done for centuries. God wanted the Jews to hear the "wonderful works of God." (Acts 2:11) The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem had rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah. Many of these pilgrims, being only recent visitors to Jerusalem, did not know about Jesus Christ and what He did.
These Jewish pilgrims surely could understand Greek and Aramaic. It was not necessary for them to hear the news of Christ's coming in the language of the nation in which they lived. The disciples gathered in the upper room who were indwelled by the Holy Spirit could have spoken Greek or Aramaic and communicated with these pilgrim Jews. The reason for the miracle (sign) was God bringing attention to the prophecy of Joel 2:28f. (This is one cited Bible passage conspicuous by it not being quoted. Let's quote it:
These Jewish pilgrims surely could understand Greek and Aramaic. It was not necessary for them to hear the news of Christ's coming in the language of the nation in which they lived. The disciples gathered in the upper room who were indwelled by the Holy Spirit could have spoken Greek or Aramaic and communicated with these pilgrim Jews. The reason for the miracle (sign) was God bringing attention to the prophecy of Joel 2:28f. (This is one cited Bible passage conspicuous by it not being quoted. Let's quote it:
Ac. 2:16-21 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 “`In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. 20 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord." 21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
Note that Peter appeals to this prophecy as being fulfilled at that very moment. Peter establishes several conclusions from this premise. These are now the Last Days, because
- God has poured out His Spirit on all flesh, even our children, the old and young, and men as well as women
- they all will prophecy, dreams and visions, and see signs in the heavens.
- These will continue to the Day of the Lord
- A harvest of souls is coming
So the phenomena present at this inaugural Pentecost (wind, tongues of fire, and speaking in tongues) were signs validating Joel's prophecy of the pouring out of His Spirit.)
Tongues was a special sign gift, (There is no mention of this being a gift here, let alone a "special sign gift." This phrase is designed to prejudice the reader by affixing a descriptor that appeals to the author's position.)
given to the Galilean disciples to show the unbelieving Jews that Jesus whom they had crucified was indeed the Messiah. (No, tongues were part of the signs to prove Joel's prophecy was being fulfilled at that very moment.)
(...)
Clearly, God used the miracle sign gift of languages (tongues) (Again, there is no mention of this being the gift of tongues. And again the author refers to "sign gift," a phrase not found in the Bible.)
so that each one of them heard the Gospel, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ in their own language and understood that Jesus was the promised Messiah.
Why did God present the Gospel to them in this way?
We can better understand this if we consider what Paul said about the Jews in 1 Corinthians 1:22, "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:" God has throughout the history of Israel always used signs to speak His Word to them. All those who heard the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost were Jews or Jewish proselytes. They believed because they witnessed the unmistaken sign miracle of hearing men who had not learned their language speaking to them in their native tongue. This was the reason that God used this method to tell them of the Messiah and the reason for using the sign gift of tongues. (Again, there is no mention of this being the gift of tongues. And again we object to the phrase "sign gift.")
Why did God present the Gospel to them in this way?
We can better understand this if we consider what Paul said about the Jews in 1 Corinthians 1:22, "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:" God has throughout the history of Israel always used signs to speak His Word to them. All those who heard the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost were Jews or Jewish proselytes. They believed because they witnessed the unmistaken sign miracle of hearing men who had not learned their language speaking to them in their native tongue. This was the reason that God used this method to tell them of the Messiah and the reason for using the sign gift of tongues. (Again, there is no mention of this being the gift of tongues. And again we object to the phrase "sign gift.")
The Bible says that tongues was accompanied by three supernatural acts, the sound of the mighty rushing wind, the appearance of cloven tongues of fire and the speaking the Gospel in a language the men had not learned. The first two are conspicuously absent from what is practiced as tongues today. Although it is claimed that modern languages are being spoken by those who practice tongues, it is very difficult to verify. However, even if a language were to be spoken, the other two supernatural acts a absent today. There is no sign of a mighty rushing wind or cloven tongues of fire. One must conclude then that tongues as described by the Word of God on the day of Pentecost is not what is happening today. (The author repeats his claim, again without documenting or explaining it.)
There are only three examples in Scripture that describes tongues and they each are identical with the first occurrence. (This is false.)
There is no example in the Bible of tongues being used as a prayer language or anything different than what happen on the Day of Pentecost and the two other recorded occurrences. (This is also false. We discuss this in detail here.)
B. The second times (sic) tongues is mentioned in Scripture is three years later in Acts 10:44-48. Cornelius, a Roman Centurion, after hearing and believing the Gospel as Peter preached, experienced the same exact circumstances (This is false. The circumstances were quite different.)
as did those on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Peter reported back to the Jewish believers and said, "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:17) Peter says God gave them the "like (literally the "same") gift as he did unto us." (The author deceives us. "The same gift" is previously identified in Ac. 10:45 as the Holy Spirit, not tongues.)
What happened at Cornelius' house was the same as on the Day of Pentecost. (No rushing wind or tongues of fire are reported here.)
Cornelius was a Gentile who had been proselytized to Judaism. He was "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway."
(...)
Here again the gift of tongues (Again, there is no mention of this being the gift of tongues.)
Here again the gift of tongues (Again, there is no mention of this being the gift of tongues.)
was a sign to the Jews back in Jerusalem that the Gentiles had received Christ the same as had the Jews in Jerusalem. One thing is clear, those that received the gift began to speak the Gospel to those around them. Acts 10:45, says, "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Now the author quotes the verse that refutes his previous assertion. Hmm.)
It greatly impressed the Jews (they of the circumcision) that God had poured out on these Gentiles the Spirit in the same way as He had the Jewish believers. The reason is obvious. God wanted the Christian Jews to know that Jesus was the Messiah, and the Gospel was for Jew and Gentile alike.
C. The Third time tongues is mentioned in Scripture is twenty-two years later in Act 19:1-8. These were the disciplines of John the Baptist. They were not Christians, but saved Old Testament saints who lived in Ephesus who had repented and followed the message of John the Baptist. Probably they had heard John preach on a pilgrimage they had made to Jerusalem. They, however, had not heard about Jesus Christ, his life, death and resurrection. They were still looking for the Messiah to come, and did not know that He had already come. Although the sound as a mighty rushing wind and the cloven tongues of fire are not mentioned there is no reason to not believe that they were present. (The author must say this because of his previous assertion criticizing charismatics for lacking these features. But yet again the Scripture doesn't mention this. And, the author should not argue from silence to support theories, especially a theory he places as central to his cessationist argument.)
Often in Scripture you will find an event mentioned without all the details given. It is totally conceivable that since Luke had already fully described the matter earlier he only mentions does not include all the details. (We are having difficulty understanding the author's preoccupation with this. He has mentioned it over and over for superficial reasons.
In fact, Scripture doesn't tell us anything about this, and such speculation is only designed to conform the author's narrative to a theory, not the testimony of Scripture itself.)
The details he does mention is the fact they spoke in other languages (tongues) and prophesied. This testifies as to the effect of the experience on the men and those who witnessed it.
Why did these men at Ephesus receive the gift of tongues? (Again, there is no mention of this being the "gift" of tongues.)
Why did these men at Ephesus receive the gift of tongues? (Again, there is no mention of this being the "gift" of tongues.)
It was a sign to prove to these Jews in the synagogue, who did not believe in Christ and who were ignorant of His death, burial and resurrection, that Jesus Christ was in truth the Messiah. This gift of tongues (Again, there is no mention of this being the "gift" of tongues.)
was received by those who believed and was a sign to those who witnessed the event that Messiah had surely come. (The author is persistently vague and imprecise with his language. The manifestations of tongues in Acts was for a singular purpose: To demonstrate to the apostles that the gentiles were included in the promise of salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is the repeated principle in Acts:
Ac. 10:45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
Ac. 11:15-17 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: `John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?
That is, the very same gift they had received, the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Peter had to learn this lesson about the gentile inclusion into the Holy Spirit several times, even though he preached this very thing in his first sermon in Acts 2. He then had Cornelius come to him [lesson #2]. He had the sheet with unclean creatures come down [lesson #3]. But Peter still did not learn this lesson that the Holy Spirit was for the gentiles too. Paul confronted him [lesson #4, Ga. 2:11] about it.
So all of the tongues speaking in Acts, all of it, was to show the apostles that salvation was for the nations and not just the Jews. It is not the spiritual gift.
Like Peter, the author just doesn't seem to get it.)
Note also that only about twelve men spoke in tongues and prophesied. Prophesied, simply means they spoke or gave witness to the Word of God. It does not mean they foretold future events. (The author is again arguing from silence. He has no idea what they spoke. The Bible tells us they prophesied, therefore they prophesied.)
In this account, some Jews at Ephesus believed in the Messiah. However, even after Paul had taught there for three months, some Jews hardened their hearts and spoke evil of the Gospel. Paul then left the Jewish synagogue where he had been preaching and separated the believing disciples from these unbelieving Jews. They then began to meet daily at the school of Tyrannus which was a lecture hall. Paul for two years discipled these Jews who accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. The result was that ". . . all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks." (Acts 19:10) They too fulfilled Christ's prediction that, "Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem , and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.: (Acts 1:8) Again the purpose of tongues was a sign to unbelievers and those that received the gift of tongues used it to witness of Christ. That is not the modern day use of tongues as will be discussed later.
D. In Acts 19, when John the Baptist's disciples received the gift of tongues (Again, there is no mention of this being the "gift" of tongues.)
they clearly became Christians. They were saved Old Testament saints who after hearing the Gospel believed it and were immediate indwelled by the Holy Spirit and became a part of the body of Christ. The effect was that as in the other two accounts they became witnesses to the Gospel. (Acts 1:8)
E. These are the only three times an account of the receiving the gift of tongues is recorded. There is no reason from Scripture to believe that the three events were different. Modern churches which practice tongues make note that in Acts 19, the account does not mention the sound as a mighty rushing wind or the cloven tongues of fire. (This is the fifth time the author brings this up, again without biblical documentation. The author continues his obsession with this point for reasons unknown.)
They point to this as support for the absence of these supernatural acts in the modern practice of tongues. However, they are forcing a point that is not stated. They are in fact admitting the supernatural acts are absent in modern tongues and are trying to use this account as an example when these supernatural acts were not present. As stated, that is forcing the point. There is no valid reason, apart from trying to justify the modern experience, for believing that in all events the exact thing happened.
How Does the Modern Gift of Tongues Compare to the Examples in the Book of Acts?
1. Missing in the modern practice of tongues is the supernatural acts of God as the the event being accompanied by the sound as of a mighty rushing wind which fills the whole house and the appearance of cloven tongues of fire. (Sixth time.)
2. The modern gift of tongues is used as a so called "prayer language." There is only one verse in the Bible that seems to associate tongues with prayer. In 1 Corinthians 14:14-15, Paul says, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the result then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit and will also sing with understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say, `Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? You indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all, yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue." Paul goes on to say, "Brethren, do not be children in understanding: however, in malice babes, but in understanding be mature." (Hmm. "Pray in a tongue" is pretty clear. Paul DOES associate tongues and prayer.)
The Definition of the Word "Tongues." First we need to define what is a "tongue." In every reference in the New Testament the word simply means a language. In old English the word "tongue" means language. In Acts 2:6, the Greek word is "dialektos" and mean a language or "dialect." It is the word used in Acts 1:19, 2:6 & 8, 21:40, 22:2; 26:14 which record the three times that the "tongues" is recorded as happening in the New Testament. In the other passages the Greek word is "glossa" it refers to the tongue as the organ of speech. (see Mark 7:33, Rom. 3:13, 14:11, 1 Cor. 14:9, Phil. 2:11, James 1:26, 3:5-6 & 8, 1 Pet. 3:10, 1 John 3:18, and Rev. 16:10 ) This word means the supernatural gift of speaking in an unlearned language. In every case the word refers to a language, and there is no New Testament valid reference to "glossa" being ecstatic speech. (1Co. 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no-one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.)
Paul then states the reason for tongues. "Therefore, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe."
Is tongues a valid pray (sic) language? The answer is no. At Pentecost it was a sign to unbelieving Jews, in which they heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In Acts 2:11, it says that those present testified, ". . . we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." (Acts 2:11) Paul in 1 Corinthians 14: 14, is correcting the error of using tongues as prayer language. (Let's quote the verses:
How Does the Modern Gift of Tongues Compare to the Examples in the Book of Acts?
1. Missing in the modern practice of tongues is the supernatural acts of God as the the event being accompanied by the sound as of a mighty rushing wind which fills the whole house and the appearance of cloven tongues of fire. (Sixth time.)
2. The modern gift of tongues is used as a so called "prayer language." There is only one verse in the Bible that seems to associate tongues with prayer. In 1 Corinthians 14:14-15, Paul says, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the result then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit and will also sing with understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say, `Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? You indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all, yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue." Paul goes on to say, "Brethren, do not be children in understanding: however, in malice babes, but in understanding be mature." (Hmm. "Pray in a tongue" is pretty clear. Paul DOES associate tongues and prayer.)
The Definition of the Word "Tongues." First we need to define what is a "tongue." In every reference in the New Testament the word simply means a language. In old English the word "tongue" means language. In Acts 2:6, the Greek word is "dialektos" and mean a language or "dialect." It is the word used in Acts 1:19, 2:6 & 8, 21:40, 22:2; 26:14 which record the three times that the "tongues" is recorded as happening in the New Testament. In the other passages the Greek word is "glossa" it refers to the tongue as the organ of speech. (see Mark 7:33, Rom. 3:13, 14:11, 1 Cor. 14:9, Phil. 2:11, James 1:26, 3:5-6 & 8, 1 Pet. 3:10, 1 John 3:18, and Rev. 16:10 ) This word means the supernatural gift of speaking in an unlearned language. In every case the word refers to a language, and there is no New Testament valid reference to "glossa" being ecstatic speech. (1Co. 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no-one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.)
Paul then states the reason for tongues. "Therefore, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe."
Is tongues a valid pray (sic) language? The answer is no. At Pentecost it was a sign to unbelieving Jews, in which they heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In Acts 2:11, it says that those present testified, ". . . we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." (Acts 2:11) Paul in 1 Corinthians 14: 14, is correcting the error of using tongues as prayer language. (Let's quote the verses:
1Co. 14:14-15 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
The author errs, for Paul clearly says he will pray both with his spirit and his mind. And Paul attribute it to God:
1Co. 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.)
He says, in verse 15, that he would pray and sing both with his understanding, because to do otherwise is unfruitful. (We just quoted the verse, so we can see the author is misrepresenting it.)
Earlier in verse 2, he concluded that when men spoke in tongues no one understood but God. He points out the singing and praying in a language that no one else knows does not help that person by teaching those present the truth. This is always in view in the Biblical and correct use of tongues. Paul emphatically states that tongues is not for believers, but a sign for unbelievers who hear the Gospel truth in their own language. The whole thesis of Paul addressing "tongues" in 1 Corinthians is that no one should be speaking tongues in the presence of others hearers who could not understand what was being said. (1 Cor. 14:33-40) (Unless interpreted...)
Using tongues as prayer language clearly violates 1 Corinthians 14:22, (This is a strange claim. Let's quote the "violated" verse:
Using tongues as prayer language clearly violates 1 Corinthians 14:22, (This is a strange claim. Let's quote the "violated" verse:
1Co. 14:22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.
We are unable to discern how a prayer language would violate this Scripture, especially since Paul tells us,
1Co. 14:27-28 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two — or at the most three — should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
So Paul counsels us to speak in tongues privately, because only one's self is edified when there is no interpreter. Hmmm.
Further, tongues as a sign for unbelievers is not the sole purpose of tongues.
1Co. 14:26-27 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
Interpreted tongues are edifying.)
and this condemns the modern tongues movement as false, because it teaches in error it is special prayer language. (Even if the author is correct about his view on tongues, a mistaken position on a secondary doctrine does not condemn the entire charismatic movement.)
Romans 8:26 says, "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." In this verse tongues is not mentioned or is in the picture. (The fact that something is not mentioned in a verse has never troubled the author before...)
The verse says that the intercession of the Holy Spirit is NOT audible, but "with groaning which cannot be uttered." Modern praying in tongues is verbal and audible, this verse says that the work of the Holy Spirit in prayer is something that CANNOT be uttered. (Whaaat? If the work of the Holy Spirit in prayer requires unutterable words, then Houston we have a problem. Paul writes in Ep. 6:18:
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.
The author has just made it impossible to pray out loud.)
Note that the word "spirit" is not capitalized in 1 Corinthians 14:14. This is not praying in the Holy Spirit, but praying in a persons spirit. Paul says it is, "my spirit prayeth" that prays. (As previously mentioned, Paul attributes this praying to God:
1Co. 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.
The spiritual nature of man is an established fact of Scripture. It is entirely specious to claim that Paul was referring to a fleshly act!
Is. 26:9 My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you.
Lk. 1:46-47 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior...
Ep. 6:18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.
Jude 20 But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.)
Using 1 Corinthians 14:14, as an example of "praying in tongues" is a gross error. Praying in the spirit, as practiced by the modern tongues movement is promoted as being something highly desired. It is presented as a special spiritual communication with God. The Bible does not teach this anywhere! In Verse 9, Paul says that speaking in tongues as the Corinthians were doing was "speaking into the air."
1 Corinthians 14, is a lengthy admonishment against the practice of speaking in tongues. (Again untrue. Spectacularly false, in fact:
1 Corinthians 14, is a lengthy admonishment against the practice of speaking in tongues. (Again untrue. Spectacularly false, in fact:
1Co. 14:26-27 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two — or at the most three —should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.
Tongues "must be done." That seems pretty clear.)
It is clear that what the Corinthians were practicing was not Scriptural and Paul is admonishing them to stop. (Where? Where is this admonishment?
And how a a practice "not Scriptural" when the NT did not exist? Further, the principal teaching on tongues is found in 1 Corinthians, the letter which the Corinthian church was just then reading. How is it possible to violate Scripture that did not exist and violate the correction they were just then receiving?
The author has descended into nonsense.)
Paul says in verse 19, "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." (1 Corinthians 14:19) Clearly Paul is saying there is no benefit in a person saying something they or others who hear them do not understand. (1Co. 14:4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself...)
In Verse 6, he says, "Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?" (1 CORINTHIANS 14:6)
A careful reading of Chapter 14, clearly reveals several things:
1. A person is not to seek the gift of tongues but rather of prophesy. (preach and teach the Word of God) (1Co. 14:5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The author lies to us.
Further, without explanation the author dishonestly reinterprets the meaning of the word "prophecy" to mean preaching and teaching.)
Verses 1,3,5,6,13,16,19,23. Paul says in Verse 26, ". . . Let ALL things be done to edifying." The word "edify" means to "build up." So Paul is saying one should seek to be empowered of God to be a preacher or teacher of God's word, not to seek to practice a sign gift. (There is no such thing in the Bible as a sign gift.
Now the author starts to wander off the tracks in earnest. Having redefined prophecy without explanation, he separates it from being a "sign gift." Apparently the spiritual empowerment to preach is fine with him, but the spiritual empowerment to speak in tongues is not.
The problem is, all spiritual gifts are supernatural empowerments:
1Co. 12:7-11 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
All of these are manifestations of the Spirit, whether a message of wisdom [teaching] or prophecy. "He gives them to each one, just as he determines." Each one is a supernatural gift, separate and distinct, apportioned by the Holy Spirit.)
2. There is no reference in the Bible of a woman speaking in tongues. (We remind the reader of Joel's prophecy, quoted by Peter:
Ac. 2:16-20-21 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 “`In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
So how is it that women will prophesy, but they will not speak in tongues?)
In 1 Corinthians 14:34, women were forbidden to speak in tongues in public. (??? We are growing very concerned. The author is becoming increasingly erratic. Let's quote the passage:
1Co. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.
33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to enquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Paul isn't even talking about tongues! He has just completed an explanation about proper order in prophesying. Then he asserts that God is not a God of disorder. He moves on to more points of order, telling women should remain silent in churches. Why? They were inquiring about things and it was out of order! They were to not ask their questions until they were home.
This has nothing to do with tongues, or even prophesying for that matter.)
Today, in tongues speaking churches, it is practiced mostly by women and they are allowed to speak. Paul says if they had questions they were to ask their husbands at home. This is a command. If women were not to speak in tongues in public, when were they to practice tongues? The Biblical example is that tongues was a sign gift which was always done in public in front of unbelievers. It leaves no other time for women to use tongues except in private and then one would ask for what reason would speak in tongues in private when there are no unbelievers to hear. In two accounts in Scripture of tongues being practiced it specifically states it was men who received the gift. (In this paragraph of nonsense we can clearly see where false assumptions lead a person astray.)
On the Day of Pentecost: "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? . . . Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. (Acts 2:8, 13) In Acts 19:7, it says, "And all the men were about twelve." (Acts 19:7) In Acts 10:44, the Bible says the Holy Ghost fell on all who heard the word. Women could have been present although it was not their custom to have women present when men were meeting. Customs of the day separated the men and women in all public meetings (If this is true, then how could women be asking their husbands questions [1Co. 14:35] if they weren't allowed in meetings? And could a woman be required to prophesy and pray with her head covered [1Co. 11:5] if they had to remain silent? The nonsense is mounting up to intolerable levels.)
and when other men visited the home. Paul says in verse 37, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 14:37) Note it says that all these admonishments against tongues was the commandment of the Lord! In verse 38, Paul is literally saying a man who will not respect and accept these instructions should not have his words respected in turn. "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." (1 Corinthians 14:38) (*sigh* Let's quote the passage:
1Co. 14:37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. 39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
(...)
In 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, Paul clearly states that tongues would cease as well as "prophecies" and "knowledge." (We deal with this thoroughly here. Suffice to say, the author's statement is completely false. in fact, most cessationists reject this Scripture as a proof text for the ending of the "supernatural" spiritual gifts.)
"Prophecies" and "knowledge" are both references to the supernatural writing of the Scriptures. Paul begin by giving a contrast. "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. " (1 Cor. 13:8) He says love would not cease, but prophecy, tongues and knowledge would. The word "prophecies" is plural and refers to many prophecies. The word is made up of two Greek words "pro" meaning "before" and "phemi" meaning "to speak." Literally is means to "speak before." Its primary use was in speaking "before" people and preaching or proclaiming the word of God. (Oh, my. This is terrible teaching. The word here is
prophéteia) prophecy, i. e. discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; especially by foretelling future events.
"Speaking before people?" What? There is no such meaning contained like speaking before people! That's patent nonsense:
prophēteía (from 4396 /prophḗtēs, "prophet," which is derived from 4253 /pró, "before" and 5346 /phēmí, "make clear, assert as a priority") – properly, what is clarified beforehand; prophecy which involves divinely-empowered forthtelling (asserting the mind of God) or foretelling (prediction).)
Its normal meaning was not "forth telling" or telling the future before in time, but preaching the Word of God. (Entirely false undocumented claim.)
In the early churches the Apostles literally spoke the Word of God that was not yet written. This is what the passage is referring to. After 95 A.D. when the canon of Scripture was complete this type of prophecy ended. (Undocumented claim. This, in fact, is the topic under discussion, which the author must prove. He cannot simply assume his conclusion.
This author has a lot of theories, but precious little biblical understanding. We are at loss to explain how a plain sentence in the Bible can be twisted and malformed into a completely different meaning.
The author deviates further and further from the Bible as he goes, to the point that we would question the his ability to comprehend basic truths.)
(...)
No comments:
Post a Comment