I have a question for Steve or other proponents of modern-day speaking in tongues. Let me preface this with an admission. I want to be completely humble and receptive to God on this question, but I have to concede that I have a general emotional stumbling block on this issue, as I (undoubtedly unfairly) have negative associations with Pentacostal-type issues, probably stemming from my atheist background. My own church teaches that tongues were temporary confirmatory phenomena in the early Church that does not continue today and I have not dug deeply into the issue in light of that. To repeat, however, I am committed to obeying the word of God, and not my own predispositions, and so I will strive to be receptive to Steve's views on this question. And, as Steve notes, I would be foolish not to want to enjoy a gift of God that is available to me.
I've listened to one of Steve's presentations on this issue and here's my concern. It seems like, at the end of the day, there is no definitive biblical answer to whether tongues will persist after the close of the canon. Steve makes some good points why it may make sense as a logical matter for tongues to persist, but these arguments are just that -- speculation based on what reasonably makes sense to us. I grant the force of these arguments, but I am troubled by this fact. My admittedly limited reading on the subject has indicated that there have been a number of linguistic studies of tongues that have demonstrated that tongues do not display ordinary elements of language. E.g., they are too repetitive of certain sounds, do not exhibit telltale signs of internal grammar, etc. It's easy to find lots of these sorts of studies by Googling linguistic analysis of glossolalia. Now this isn't dispositive, perhaps, but it leads me to wonder whether -- just as pagans and other non-Christians sometimes engage in religiously inspired glossolalia -- the phenomenon of modern-day tongues may be more of a human psychological artifact stemming from a powerful emotional experience and, in some cases, perhaps conformity with peer expectations, rather than a genuine communication from God. The fact that the phenomenon seems to exist in only a relatively narrow slice of the Church today (and, to be completely candid for purposes of discussion, perhaps a segment of the Church that tends toward more emotional expressions of Church practice) also feeds this concern.
I want to close by repeating my humility on this question and my openness to the truth. It would, to be honest, be quite emotionally difficult for me personally to endeavor earnestly to speak in tongues, but obviously my emotions don't control the truth. But I do wonder if there may be more basis to think that perhaps tongues may have been purely a phenomenon of the early Church in light of the sorts of issues discussed in the previous paragraph. I'd appreciate hearing thoughts about this, pro or con.
Best regards,
CThomas
Question re Tongues
Re: Question re Tongues
I don't think the fact that 'tongues' exists in other cultures/religions...
OR that it is can be an emotional response...
OR that it can be manipulated really...
Really has much bearing on the issue of whether the true gift of tongues exists today
Parallels to all other spiritual gifts exist too, but that doesn't erase the fact that the gifts exist.
I have never seen any impressive exegesis on the side of those who claim tongues ceased in the 1st century. I can certainly understand why God may have made it more prominent in the 1st century than He intended for it to be long term.... but to say it's completely gone seems a stretch.
Just a minor point, certainly not a full response to your thoughts
OR that it is can be an emotional response...
OR that it can be manipulated really...
Really has much bearing on the issue of whether the true gift of tongues exists today
Parallels to all other spiritual gifts exist too, but that doesn't erase the fact that the gifts exist.
I have never seen any impressive exegesis on the side of those who claim tongues ceased in the 1st century. I can certainly understand why God may have made it more prominent in the 1st century than He intended for it to be long term.... but to say it's completely gone seems a stretch.
Just a minor point, certainly not a full response to your thoughts
Re: Question re Tongues
Hello CThomas,
My own views on this subject are influenced entirely by my understanding of scripture, and not by my experience. I first heard about tongues from people in the Jesus Movement, but did not know what to think about it. I had never heard of or studied the subject. I will say I was probably favorably disposed toward the subject because of the positive impression I had of these people, though I don't think I had ever actually heard any of them speak in tongues (it was generally not permitted in the public meetings at Calvary Chapel).
My curiosity led me to study what little was available on the subject in scripture. I also read a popular book at the time, called They Speak With Other Tongues, which documented the research of the authors on the subject in the early charismatic renewal. My impressions, after these considerations, were the following:
1. There is (or once was) a supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit enabling people to speak in languages which they had never learned, and which they apparently did not understand;
2. There were at least two very different uses of this ability: a) when the speakers were speaking a language known by the unbelieving hearers, which served as a supernatural sign in the same sense as would a healing or any other miracle; and b) when a Christian in the assembly would speak some utterance which nobody present could understand, and which would remain unintelligible unless the companion gift of supernatural interpretation were to follow;
3. It seemed possible that, in the latter instances, the language spoken might not be that of any earthly linguistic group—and might possibly even be "the tongues of angels" (1 Cor.13:1);
4. This phenomenon seemed to accompany the baptism in the Holy Spirit with some degree of regularity in the early church, though there is not sufficient data in scripture to demonstrate that it was the universal experience of all who were baptized in the Holy Spirit;
5. I found speaking in tongues (as well as the gift of interpretation) listed among the gifts of the Holy Spirit in some of Paul's lists. Though Paul did make mention of the eventual "ceasing" of certain gifts, he did not mention whether any of the gifts on his lists were to be regarded as more temporary than others—that is, one might well assume from Paul's discussions that all of the gifts will cease at the same time;
6. Paul seemed to anticipate that the gifts would continue until the second coming of Christ (1 Cor.1:7).
I could find no other teaching than the above in the scriptures. I depend entirely on the witness of scripture for my thoughts about this subject, and so I am compelled to believe that it is a mistake to speculate as to some disappearance of any of the spiritual gifts prior to the second coming of Christ.
The fact that the church fathers of the second century and beyond testify to the presence of the gifts in their assemblies would seem to strengthen this conviction. The appearance of glossalalia in various revival movements and also on the mission field in modern history would seem also to fit into this paradigm.
In the book They Speak With Other Tongues, the authors do cite some secular studies comparing the linguistic patterns of certain charismatic tongues speakers against a control group of deliberate "fakes," with results favorable to the charismatics. Of course one can be expected to cite whichever studies may best suit the thesis he or she is advancing. There are clearly studies pointing both directions, and I have no emotional stake in the outcomes, since I am more concerned about what the scriptures teach on the subject than on the genuineness of any particular Pentecostal person's experience.
As a rather dispassionate analyst, however, I do think it is more impressive if one or two studies seem to demonstrate that charismatic tongues-speakers often do exhibit the linguistic structure of actual language (over against a clearly faked control group), than if one-hundred studies showed the opposite. Why? Because any study that showed negative results could be declared to have been conducted upon subjects who, apparently, did not possess the genuine gift—without touching on the question of whether such a real gift actually does exist. But a study or two which definitely suggest the genuineness of the gift in a few subjects does seem to support the existence of the genuine gift.
If some non-charismatic wished triumphantly to point to studies which suggest the practice of a false gift among many Pentecostals, I would, without the slightest discomfort, join in their celebration with them. After all, I have always believed that a large percentage of the alleged supernatural occurrences reported and practiced among Pentecostals and charismatics is merely carnal copy-cat behavior. I should expect research to be available to confirm these suspicions.
My own experience with reference to tongues was initially disappointing. I did not speak in tongues when I was baptized in the Holy Spirit. Later I did so. For me, the phenomenon occurs without any elevation of my ordinary emotional state. Although I have spoken in tongues thousands of times, I have never done so in the presence of other people, so I know I am not doing so under peer pressure, nor to impress anyone. As I listen to myself speak in tongues, I tend to be analytical of the sounds that I hear myself saying. Of course, I have no idea what the meaning of the sounds may be, but I cannot deny that the articulation has the distinct sound of real language to my ears. When I hear myself speaking, there appear to be typical phrasing, syntax, variety of vocabulary, etc., such as I would expect to hear if I were listening to a foreigner speak (and I have listened to foreigners speak in many countries). Of course, I am aware that I could be fooling myself, but I can't think of any reason why I should wish to do so. If some wished to insist that my experience is not an example of the genuine gift of tongues, I would have no interest in changing their minds—but their opinions would probably not result in any interruption of my present prayer habits.
My own views on this subject are influenced entirely by my understanding of scripture, and not by my experience. I first heard about tongues from people in the Jesus Movement, but did not know what to think about it. I had never heard of or studied the subject. I will say I was probably favorably disposed toward the subject because of the positive impression I had of these people, though I don't think I had ever actually heard any of them speak in tongues (it was generally not permitted in the public meetings at Calvary Chapel).
My curiosity led me to study what little was available on the subject in scripture. I also read a popular book at the time, called They Speak With Other Tongues, which documented the research of the authors on the subject in the early charismatic renewal. My impressions, after these considerations, were the following:
1. There is (or once was) a supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit enabling people to speak in languages which they had never learned, and which they apparently did not understand;
2. There were at least two very different uses of this ability: a) when the speakers were speaking a language known by the unbelieving hearers, which served as a supernatural sign in the same sense as would a healing or any other miracle; and b) when a Christian in the assembly would speak some utterance which nobody present could understand, and which would remain unintelligible unless the companion gift of supernatural interpretation were to follow;
3. It seemed possible that, in the latter instances, the language spoken might not be that of any earthly linguistic group—and might possibly even be "the tongues of angels" (1 Cor.13:1);
4. This phenomenon seemed to accompany the baptism in the Holy Spirit with some degree of regularity in the early church, though there is not sufficient data in scripture to demonstrate that it was the universal experience of all who were baptized in the Holy Spirit;
5. I found speaking in tongues (as well as the gift of interpretation) listed among the gifts of the Holy Spirit in some of Paul's lists. Though Paul did make mention of the eventual "ceasing" of certain gifts, he did not mention whether any of the gifts on his lists were to be regarded as more temporary than others—that is, one might well assume from Paul's discussions that all of the gifts will cease at the same time;
6. Paul seemed to anticipate that the gifts would continue until the second coming of Christ (1 Cor.1:7).
I could find no other teaching than the above in the scriptures. I depend entirely on the witness of scripture for my thoughts about this subject, and so I am compelled to believe that it is a mistake to speculate as to some disappearance of any of the spiritual gifts prior to the second coming of Christ.
The fact that the church fathers of the second century and beyond testify to the presence of the gifts in their assemblies would seem to strengthen this conviction. The appearance of glossalalia in various revival movements and also on the mission field in modern history would seem also to fit into this paradigm.
In the book They Speak With Other Tongues, the authors do cite some secular studies comparing the linguistic patterns of certain charismatic tongues speakers against a control group of deliberate "fakes," with results favorable to the charismatics. Of course one can be expected to cite whichever studies may best suit the thesis he or she is advancing. There are clearly studies pointing both directions, and I have no emotional stake in the outcomes, since I am more concerned about what the scriptures teach on the subject than on the genuineness of any particular Pentecostal person's experience.
As a rather dispassionate analyst, however, I do think it is more impressive if one or two studies seem to demonstrate that charismatic tongues-speakers often do exhibit the linguistic structure of actual language (over against a clearly faked control group), than if one-hundred studies showed the opposite. Why? Because any study that showed negative results could be declared to have been conducted upon subjects who, apparently, did not possess the genuine gift—without touching on the question of whether such a real gift actually does exist. But a study or two which definitely suggest the genuineness of the gift in a few subjects does seem to support the existence of the genuine gift.
If some non-charismatic wished triumphantly to point to studies which suggest the practice of a false gift among many Pentecostals, I would, without the slightest discomfort, join in their celebration with them. After all, I have always believed that a large percentage of the alleged supernatural occurrences reported and practiced among Pentecostals and charismatics is merely carnal copy-cat behavior. I should expect research to be available to confirm these suspicions.
My own experience with reference to tongues was initially disappointing. I did not speak in tongues when I was baptized in the Holy Spirit. Later I did so. For me, the phenomenon occurs without any elevation of my ordinary emotional state. Although I have spoken in tongues thousands of times, I have never done so in the presence of other people, so I know I am not doing so under peer pressure, nor to impress anyone. As I listen to myself speak in tongues, I tend to be analytical of the sounds that I hear myself saying. Of course, I have no idea what the meaning of the sounds may be, but I cannot deny that the articulation has the distinct sound of real language to my ears. When I hear myself speaking, there appear to be typical phrasing, syntax, variety of vocabulary, etc., such as I would expect to hear if I were listening to a foreigner speak (and I have listened to foreigners speak in many countries). Of course, I am aware that I could be fooling myself, but I can't think of any reason why I should wish to do so. If some wished to insist that my experience is not an example of the genuine gift of tongues, I would have no interest in changing their minds—but their opinions would probably not result in any interruption of my present prayer habits.
Re: Question re Tongues
Steve,
You wrote:
You wrote:
As I read 1 Corinthians, use (b) is not so much a use of tongues as a misuse of tongues. Paul instructs them to have no unintellible, untranslated speaking in the assembly.2. There were at least two very different uses of this ability: a) when the speakers were speaking a language known by the unbelieving hearers, which served as a supernatural sign in the same sense as would a healing or any other miracle; and b) when a Christian in the assembly would speak some utterance which nobody present could understand, and which would remain unintelligible unless the companion gift of supernatural interpretation were to follow;
Paul indicates that the Corinthians are waiting for the revealing of Jesus, and while they are waiting they benefit from spiritual gifts. The duration of spiritual gifts is not his point. One could also say that Paul expected them to continue until the second coming, but that wasn't his point either.6. Paul seemed to anticipate that the gifts would continue until the second coming of Christ (1 Cor.1:7).
Remember that in Paul's day, not everyone spoke in tongues, or should have expected to speak in tongues.I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you— so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (1 Cor 1:4-9, ESV)
Do all speak in tongues? They expected answer is no. Apparently speaking in tongues was never a sign of being in Christ.Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Cor 12:27-31 ESV)
Re: Question re Tongues
Such a public use of tongues in the church is indeed a misuse, if there is no interpretation. I did not suggest otherwise. However, that is not the same thing as saying that use (b) is a misuse. Paul suggests that this use of tongues, coupled with interpretation, has as much potential value to the church as does prophecy by itself (1 Cor.14:5). Paul does not forbid or discourage this use of tongues any more than he discourages prophecy. He forbids it to be practiced in the church without interpretation (1 Cor.14:13, 27-28). At the same time, he forbids the use of prophecy in the assembly without the companion gift of judging prophecies—i.e., discerning of spirits (1 Cor.14:29).2. There were at least two very different uses of this ability: a) when the speakers were speaking a language known by the unbelieving hearers, which served as a supernatural sign in the same sense as would a healing or any other miracle; and b) when a Christian in the assembly would speak some utterance which nobody present could understand, and which would remain unintelligible unless the companion gift of supernatural interpretation were to follow;
As I read 1 Corinthians, use (b) is not so much a use of tongues as a misuse of tongues. Paul instructs them to have no unintellible, untranslated speaking in the assembly.
Re: Question re Tongues
Thanks to all for the (as usual) thoughtful and helpful replies. Steve, I have to admit that your personal experience with the gift of tongues is particularly relevant to me because you are obviously a sober and analytical person, not given to unusual emotional outbursts or dramatic fluorishes. So I do take that seriously. I take your point about the asymmetrical relevance of positive and negative studies in this area. It's an interesting one. I will have to devote continued thought, study, and prayer to this issue.
God bless!
CThomas
God bless!
CThomas
Re: Question re Tongues
By the way, Steve, you probably addressed this in one of your presentations, but what is God's point -- or what benefit might He be conferring -- in causing someone to speak in an unknown tongue (whether human or angelic) with nobody else present and without the speaker knowing the meaning of the utterances?
CThomas
CThomas
Re: Question re Tongues
I wonder that same thing myself.
Some think it is something of a self-humbling—an admission by us that we do not even know enough to know what to pray for in our own wisdom. If genuine, it does seemingly allow the Holy Spirit to choose the petitions for our prayers more perfectly than we would be able to do in our own limited understanding.
On the other hand, I could be missing God's point about this completely.
Some think it is something of a self-humbling—an admission by us that we do not even know enough to know what to pray for in our own wisdom. If genuine, it does seemingly allow the Holy Spirit to choose the petitions for our prayers more perfectly than we would be able to do in our own limited understanding.
On the other hand, I could be missing God's point about this completely.
Re: Question re Tongues
Here are two thoughts on tongues, for what they may be worth to some:It seems like, at the end of the day, there is no definitive biblical answer to whether tongues will persist after the close of the canon.
Tongues have persisted since the 'close of the canon'. Also, it seems that the 'canon' has grown since that time, and, I do not know exactly what to think of that, as I, also, live in the state of discomfort that, I have been reading, others on this forum do.
For many years I fellowshipped regularly with people who were devoted to having our times together be led by the Spirit of God. There were times at the beginning of the 'service' and in the middle when the Holy Spirit did not seem to be leading anyone in particular to do anything in particular, so the elders would encourage everyone to go 'into the closet', so to speak, and pray in tongues until there was a breakthrough - which we did, and there was a breakthrough.
From the hundreds of tongues and cryings out to God, there was no one interpretation in particular, but it did its work and we had wonderful times in the Lord at that fellowship where many were edified, healed emotionally and physically. The elders, as well as the people, were very astute and quick to move if anything looked like it was about to get crazy and out of order. I miss it and many times feel very lonely for it, but have had to make peace with my circumstances and trust that God is doing just as much with me where I am as where I was.
Bless you all. Jepne
"Anything you think you know about God that you can't find in the person of Jesus, you have reason to question.” - anonymous
Re: Question re Tongues
Thanks for your post, jepne.
If tongues are not continuing, then many of my dearest and closest friends, and others that I do not know personally but trust implicitly, are dirty liars. I simply cannot accept this.
As far as Paul's rhetorical question: "Do all speak in tongues?"-- I believe he is referencing the spiritual Gift (big G) of tongues- i.e. when someone gives a public utterance in tongues that require an interpretation. That listing by Paul in 1 Cor 12:29-30("Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?) seems to reference "offices" i.e. people who function in a certain capacity in the body.
I heard it explained that when someone is baptized in the Spirit, it's not that they HAVE to speak in tongues, but that they GET to speak in tongues. I believe that every spirit-filled believer has the ability to pray in tongues privately, but each spirit-filled believer may not be gifted with the "Big G" gift of speaking in tongues in a public service.
That being said, I was in a service this past Sunday where there was a public utterance of tongues during the worship service, and also an interpretation. The interpretation sounded all right. However, I must say that personally I am not a huge fan of this use of tongues.
TK
If tongues are not continuing, then many of my dearest and closest friends, and others that I do not know personally but trust implicitly, are dirty liars. I simply cannot accept this.
As far as Paul's rhetorical question: "Do all speak in tongues?"-- I believe he is referencing the spiritual Gift (big G) of tongues- i.e. when someone gives a public utterance in tongues that require an interpretation. That listing by Paul in 1 Cor 12:29-30("Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?) seems to reference "offices" i.e. people who function in a certain capacity in the body.
I heard it explained that when someone is baptized in the Spirit, it's not that they HAVE to speak in tongues, but that they GET to speak in tongues. I believe that every spirit-filled believer has the ability to pray in tongues privately, but each spirit-filled believer may not be gifted with the "Big G" gift of speaking in tongues in a public service.
That being said, I was in a service this past Sunday where there was a public utterance of tongues during the worship service, and also an interpretation. The interpretation sounded all right. However, I must say that personally I am not a huge fan of this use of tongues.
TK