Speaking in Tongues a Cessationist View

[Dave L]

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.

You cannot support that position with scripture.

 

[Jeff Wiebe]

Actually I can. For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. Is this different than Pentecost? Tongues used by the Disciples on Pentecost was for man. Tongues used in Church is confusion if not interpreted. Paul hates confusion. The only time the gift of tongues was used was to teach to the new borne Church at Pentecost. All other times tongues simply means another language. If someone has the gift its purpose is to teach in a different language. A language the student will understand. Tongues is for the non believer and all it is is the ability to speak another language. That's why Paul wishes everyone had the gift like him, to teach.

 

[Dave L]

Actually I can. For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. Is this different than Pentecost? Tongues used by the Disciples on Pentecost was for man. Tongues used in Church is confusion if not interpreted. Paul hates confusion. The only time the gift of tongues was used was to teach to the new borne Church at Pentecost. All other times tongues simply means another language. If someone has the gift its purpose is to teach in a different language. A language the student will understand. Tongues is for the non believer and all it is is the ability to speak another language. That's why Paul wishes everyone had the gift like him, to teach.

This is not what scripture teaches.

 

[Jeff Wiebe]

Than we have a different understanding. Can you show me where you think I'm mistaken?

 

[amadeus]

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.

And it would seem from your words that your conclusion is the final one. Do we really know these things better than God?
The interpretation must be necessary as the there are so many opposing ones on this forum alone. Without a proper interpretation who could understand the Bible correctly. Some apparently is not hearing or paying attention to God all of the time. If they were would we not all be without disagreements here all of the time... on God and things of God in any case?

 

[Dave L]

And it would seem from your words that your conclusion is the final one. Do we really know these things better than God?
The interpretation must be necessary as the there are so many opposing ones on this forum alone. Without a proper interpretation who could understand the Bible correctly. Some apparently is not hearing or paying attention to God all of the time. If they were would we not all be without disagreements here all of the time... on God and things of God in any case?

Today's tongues are nothing like the originals. If you study independently of the Pentecostal framework, tongues messages were the first words spoken that became the New Covenant, along with prophecy. They were in fragments, when collected became the complete (perfect) revelation along with Jesus' words and the book of Revelation. They ceased when scripture became complete.

 

[Jeff Wiebe]

Tongues was used to teach. That's its original purpose and that's its purpose today. If someone has that gift its the ability to spread the Gospel in another language. Pentecost was a gathering of hundreds if not thousands of people. What better way to teach to everyone the good news than have everyone understand the message. I don't believe that gift has ceased. But it certainly isn't what's going on today. That's deception and counterfeit that comes from false teaching and misunderstanding Gods intention for this gift.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

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?

I'm saying that God Holy Spirit gifted a Christian with a miraculous gift sometimes more than one. When it comes to speaking in tongues the Christian was able to speak a foreign language that he had not acquired learning it at any school or from anywhere else. It even possible this Christian doesn't know what he's saying if he doesn't have the gift of translation from the Holy Spirit. However the speaking in tongues that happened back in the Apostle days doesn't happen anymore. The speaking in tongues we're done away with when the scriptures or Bible was finished. The so called tongues today that people talk about are not from God.

 

[Dave L]

Tongues was used to teach. That's its original purpose and that's its purpose today. If someone has that gift its the ability to spread the Gospel in another language. Pentecost was a gathering of hundreds if not thousands of people. What better way to teach to everyone the good news than have everyone understand the message. I don't believe that gift has ceased. But it certainly isn't what's going on today. That's deception and counterfeit that comes from false teaching and misunderstanding Gods intention for this gift.

Tongues came only through the laying on of an apostle's hands, besides the two outpourings. They ended with the Apostles.

 

[Waiting on him]

1 Corinthians 14:22 KJV
[22] Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Tongues was used to teach. That's its original purpose and that's its purpose today.

Tongues are for a sign.

 

[bbyrd009]

However the speaking in tongues that happened back in the Apostle days doesn't happen anymore.

perhaps not in your experience anyway yes

 

[bbyrd009]

The speaking in tongues we're done away with when the scriptures or Bible was finished.

ok, but I wouldn't etch that in stone just yet if I were you ok

The so called tongues today that people talk about are not from God.

again, so you say, but I can read Paul talking about it, and I don't see him condemning it? When I was a child I spoke like a child, too, should I now be condemning children iyo? Fwiw glossololia helped me to see many things, how I was ruled or at least swayed by my emotions, lots of other tthings

And aren't we all supposed to become like little children? Granted I'm prolly incorrectly mixing metaphors now, but what if I m wrong

 

[bbyrd009]

Tongues came only through the laying on of an apostle's hands, besides the two outpourings. They ended with the Apostles.

honest injun, they did not. It's just that a logical/literal understanding is being attempted, and that will not work imo

 

[bbyrd009]

I'm saying that God Holy Spirit gifted a Christian with a miraculous gif

Um, and they were pretty much all Jews I think, the listeners anyway

 

[bbyrd009]

You cannot support that position with scripture.

Why do you say this Dave, how do you justify them being the same? With Scripture? You got "no interpretation needed" and you got "interpretation needed," right?

 

[Dave L]

honest injun, they did not. It's just that a logical/literal understanding is being attempted, and that will not work imo

You need to provide scripture showing other ways of receiving. It's not there.
“And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,” (Acts 8:18)

“For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established;” (Romans 1:11)

 

[Dave L]

Why do you say this Dave, how do you justify them being the same? With Scripture? You got "no interpretation needed" and you got "interpretation needed," right?

You need to define scripture with scripture, not by unfounded ideas that seem convenient.

 

[bbyrd009]

You need to provide scripture showing other ways of receiving. It's not there.
“And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,” (Acts 8:18)

its not there based upon your current definitions dave, I agree. But that doesn't mean it isn't there ok Dave. "Hands" doesn't mean what you think it means, heck "laying on" would take a day or so to get defined properly, iow not the way that takes two eyes to see, I guess even "Apostles" is disputed huh

Romans 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart some spiritual gift

"for I long to see you..." lol, sublime misdirection.
words taken to an art form

 

[Jeff Wiebe]

Tongues came only through the laying on of an apostle's hands, besides the two outpourings. They ended with the Apostles.

Well I've heard of people going into countries to teach not knowing the native language and being able to either learn the language very quick or be able to communicate clearly. To me that is a gift.

 

[bbyrd009]

You need to define scripture with scripture, not by unfounded ideas that seem convenient.

What unfounded ideas? "No interp needed" or "interp needed and being chided?"
I mean are you denying the diff in xenoglossy and glossololia Dave?