Has the gift of tongues ceased, or does it continue to this day?
My view is that the gift of tongues is for today, however, I consider the actual use of the gift in many churches as unbiblical.
Disclaimer: I don't speak in tongues, and don't consider tongues as one of the 'greater gifts' (1 Corinthians 12:31).
The cessasionists usually argue with 1 Corinthians 13:8 that tongues have ceased, or claim that there have not been any occurrences of tongues between the death of the last apostle and the Azusa Street revival.
As for 1 Corinthians 13:8, it speaks of tongues that cease in contrast with love that does not cease. When the Holy Spirit fills someone with love, that love does not cease. The person continues loving when they eat, when they sleep, when they talk to someone, when they drive to work etc. On the other hand, when a person receives the gift of tongues, they will most certainly at some point stop speaking in tongues to do some other things.
As for the claim that there was no gift of tongues between around AD 100 and 1906, this is simply not true. There are numerous examples of spirit filled Christians receiving the gift of tongues during that period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#400_to_1900
On the other hand, there is really good evidence that the gift of tongues has not ceased. 1 Corinthians 12-14 has huge portions just about this topic. Why do we have such amount of inspired Scripture which God saw necessary to preserve in the canon, if it was only for a comparably small group of disciples, and not for all believers of all generations? It even contains a clear warning against cessationism. 1 Corinthians 14:38. "Do not prevent speaking with tongues"
Are tongues human or heavenly languages?
I believe they can be both. Cessationists claim that tongues were exclusively human languages. However:
- 1 Corinthians 13:1 speaks of "tongues of angels".
- There's the gift of interpretation, which would be entirely unnecessary if tongues were mere human languages. They could just be translated instead.
- 1 Corinthians 14:2 says that one can speak in a tongue that no-one except God understands. This is clearly not a human language.
What's wrong in some charismatic churches?
Some churches ignore every single instruction about tongues given in 1 Corinthians 12-14, which causes many conservative evangelicals to reject the charismatic movements as a whole. Some examples:
- There is a distinctive lack of the gift of interpretation. Scripture clearly commands to interpret every single tongue that is uttered during the church service. (1 Corinthians 14:27). Common practice is, however, to speak in tongues without interpretation anyway.
- The one who speaks in a tongue is commanded to pray for an interpretation. (1 Corinthians 14:13). I can't remember to have heard this prayer by anyone ever.
- Some churches don't let the Holy Spirit pour out the gift of tongues, but teach classes for church members to learn it.
- Some claim they're more spiritual than others by ignoring all these teachings, but in fact the exact opposite is the case (1 Corinthians 14:37).
- Some claim that whoever doesn't speak in tongues does not have the Holy Spirit and is not saved (usually taking Mark 16:17 as proof for their claim), whereas 1 Corinthians 12:30 clearly states that not all have the gift of tongues. (And in Mark 16, there's more on the list than just speaking in tongues, such as drinking poison, picking up snakes etc. If speaking in tongues is required for salvation, why not picking up a snake? It's in the same verse.)
Comments
-
I posted this on the old CD forum.
I have some experience in Pentecostalism but became a Cessationist. Anyone can google "Cessationist" and read many good arguments for or against. But here is a rundown of my position if any might be interested.
I'm a cessationist believing tongues, prophecy and word of knowledge would end when "that which is perfect came". That which is perfect (complete) being the writings that now make up the New Testament. The written word serving the same purpose only better.
Paul says, "for we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect [Or "when completion"] comes, the partial will be set aside." 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 (NET)
"And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13:13 (NET)
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.
The Word better than tongues, prophecy & knowledge:
Moreover Peter said; “For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:17–20)
So how does God speak today beyond scripture? How do we know which way to turn? God speaks through the motive of love in our hearts. If you do what love would do, you'll make the right choice regardless. And Paul says; “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:13)
-
As a continuationist my understanding of these verses is as follows:
The key to 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 is 1 Corinthians 13:12. The whole context is that of now vs. eternity, when we see Jesus face to face. This is when "completion comes".
My understanding of 1 Corinthians 13:13 is similar to that of 1 Corinthians 13:8 (already covered in the initial post).
As for the superiority of Scripture over tongues, prophecies, words of knowledge and similar, I fully agree with that.
I would place tongues, prophecies etc. on about the same level as a sermon, or a teaching. Though they are inspired by the Holy Spirit (or rather should be inspired - whether it's always the case I very much doubt), they are not infallible.
Best example is the charismatic church which was attended by a number of young unmarried men, let's say five of them. One day a very beautiful single lady starts attending, and suddenly all the five young men receive a prophecy that they're meant to marry that new lady.
Therefore, the following point needs to be added to the problems in some charismatic churches:
- In some churches, tongues, words, images, prophecies are considered infallible, and on the same level as canonical Scripture - maybe not by official doctrine, but definitely by general practice.
-
Thanks for sharing your understanding of the matter. I think this is the best way to avoid arguing. Everyone shares their views, and let the readers decide.
In fact, the more I think about it, a forum where nobody argues, but shares their views, letting the reader decide would be optimal. Just a thought.
Post edited by Dave_L on -
As a young Christian I gravitated towards the guitar church scene. It was more about music and feeling welcome. So the first church I settled into was an AOG Pentecostal church. They were a large assembly that promoted and made possible many of the Christian Modern artists of the 1970s.
But I noticed a difference in my experience from theirs. I believed I already had what they were telling me to get. That is, I had the Baptism of the Holy Spirit without tongues for a year or so before settling in with them. So when I began speaking in tongues, it was unlike the examples in Acts that happened spontaneously. But, I continued for some time learning their doctrine while cherishing their friendship.
After another similar independent Pentecostal church experience, I began to question the entire movement. I believed these knew Christ personally, but their mimicking the early church was not spontaneous or genuine.
I tried going a while not speaking in tongues to see if it made a difference. And I did not see any change in my spirituality then.
It was at this point I broke away and began studying Reformed and Baptist Theology on my own. I built a sizable library and through the years came to where I am now. But I hold beliefs taken from a broad swath of Christendom where I believe the whole truth remains.
Is it possible I have the Baptism without tongues? Yes. But I never saw the spontaneous speaking forth as in Acts. But always a coached, forced and mimicked approach in any of the Charismatic churches I’ve come across.
-
Let's call it "debate". That's much friendlier than arguing, but would still be an exchange of arguments, and not just only views.
-
@Jan said:
Let's call it "debate". That's much friendlier than arguing, but would still be an exchange of arguments, and not just only views.I think Charismatics get it wrong also when interpreting the events that took place on Pentecost. Did each speak a different human language to be understood naturally by most of the audience? According to their native tongue? (The common view).
Or did they speak only one heavenly tongue, heard by all at the same time, interpreted by members of the audience who also received the gift of interpretation in the outpouring?
Some of the same ethnicity in the audience heard only gibberish, which suggests today's charismatics not only do not understand biblical tongues, they do not have the biblical gift.
Post edited by Dave_L on -
"What's wrong in some charismatic churches?"
It appears that when the individual goes to church and receives the "spirit" and speaks in tongues and sees people healed, scriptural evidence is little likely to play a normative role for him. He has experienced an "encounter" with God, he thinks, that answers all his questions and meets all his needs. Related to the "Encounter Theology" or (neo-orthodoxy --"Barthianism," "dialectical theology," or "crisis theology.") is the charismatic movement. What say ye? CM
-
@Dave_L said:
I think Charismatics get it wrong also when interpreting the events that took place on Pentecost. Did each speak a different human language to be understood naturally by most of the audience? According to their native tongue? (The common view).Or did they speak only one heavenly tongue, heard by all at the same time, interpreted by members of the audience who also received the gift of interpretation in the outpouring?
Since that's the common view not only among charismatics, but among evangelicals in general, that would mean evangelicals in general get it wrong.
Some of the same ethnicity in the audience heard only gibberish,
I see what you mean, and have wondered about the same thing before. It does clearly say that the audience heard them speak in their own tongue. Acts 2:11
which suggests today's charismatics not only do not understand biblical tongues, they do not have the biblical gift.
No, it means the audience usually doesn't have the gift of interpretation.
Whether tongues in charismatic and Pentecostal churches are genuine is an entirely different question. I would definitely say that that's not always the case (remember the classes to learn how to speak in tongues). This is not a generalization. In many cases, I believe tongues and interpretations are genuine, especially if the church follows the instructions given in 1 Corinthians.
@C_M_ said:
It appears that when the individual goes to church and receives the "spirit" and speaks in tongues and sees people healed, scriptural evidence is little likely to play a normative role for him. He has experienced an "encounter" with God, he thinks, that answers all his questions and meets all his needs.I think cases like this could be happening. The pastors that allow this to happen will one day have to answer to God for their false and incomplete teachings that causes people to get lost.
Related to the "Encounter Theology" or (neo-orthodoxy --"Barthianism," "dialectical theology," or "crisis theology.") is the charismatic movement. What say ye? CM
I say you can't generalize. According to RT Kendall, the charismatic movement in America is far more on the loony fringe than in Europe. My experience in charismatic churches in Europe has been a quite balanced one, that charismatic churches usually (not always) are both founded on Scripture and calling for repentance, as well as open to all gifts of the Spirit.
On the other hand, I've seen crazy scenes of charismatic Churches in America on YouTube. I can clearly see where RT Kendall's evaluation comes from.He is providing a very balanced view in his book "Holy Fire":
https://ebooks.faithlife.com/products/40576/holy-fire -
@Jan said:
@C_M_ said:
Related to the "Encounter Theology" or (neo-orthodoxy --"Barthianism," "dialectical theology," or "crisis theology.") is the charismatic movement. What say ye? CMI say you can't generalize. According to RT Kendall, the charismatic movement in America is far more on the loony fringe than in Europe. My experience in charismatic churches in Europe has been a quite balanced one, that charismatic churches usually (not always) are both founded on Scripture and calling for repentance, as well as open to all gifts of the Spirit.
On the other hand, I've seen crazy scenes of charismatic Churches in America on YouTube. I can clearly see where RT Kendall's evaluation comes from.Jan, you seem to be saying that all "Charismatic Churches" are not created equal. You, also, said:
"According to RT Kendall, the charismatic movement in America is far more on the loony fringe than in Europe.
Do I take this to mean that American's "Charismatic Churches"' are a perversion of the real thing or the European "Charismatic Churches?"
Many of the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches in their worship service include the following:
1. APPLAUSE/CLAPPING IN THE WORSHIP SERVICES
2. HAND-WAIVING/THE RAISING OF HANDS
3. DRUMMING OR USE OF DRUMS IN THE WORSHIP SERVICE
4. DANCING IN THE WORSHIP SERVICEOne may make an argument if these things are biblically endorsed and proper for worship, but to what extent? Would it be of any relevance to mention to note that while mainline churches are shrinking, Evangelical and charismatic churches continue to grow?
Geographically speaking, while membership in places such as Australia, Canada, and Europe is shrinking, it is growing in countries such as the Philippines, Brazil, and Mexico. Could it be that the location, education or the practices that shows this growth of charismatic churches? Have we forgotten that "... Our new sectarianism is a sectarianism of worship style. The new sectarian creeds are the dogmas of music."
Possibly, for the American "Charismatic Churches" could it be the lack of maturing? 'German sociologist Max Weber made an observation about the 'routinization of charisma'. Over time, charismatic churches become more mainline in their structure and operation. "If the trend (here) is similar to the US, there will be a time that young people will outgrow the need for entertainment. They may look for something more serious than rah-rah on Sunday or drop out altogether."
Lastly, could it be that the American "Charismatic Churches" are still maturing to help explain what you have seen on the Youtube? Could you blame some churchgoers after they have observed that the mainline churches have boxed up the Spirit's activity in the Scripture and tradition and never let it enter the living church of today? CM
SOURCES:
-- Brian Neumann, Stop Before It’s Too Late (Delta, BC, Canada: Amazing Discoveries, 2005).
-- Michael S. Hamilton, "The Triumph of Praise Songs," Christianity Today (July 17, 1999), p. 29.
-- M. Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, 1900). 11-12 -
@Dave_L said:
As a young Christian I gravitated towards the guitar church scene. It was more about music and feeling welcome. So the first church I settled into was an AOG Pentecostal church. They were a large assembly that promoted and made possible many of the Christian Modern artists of the 1970s.But I noticed a difference in my experience from theirs. I believed I already had what they were telling me to get. That is, I had the Baptism of the Holy Spirit without tongues for a year or so before settling in with them. So when I began speaking in tongues, it was unlike the examples in Acts that happened spontaneously. But, I continued for some time learning their doctrine while cherishing their friendship.
After another similar independent Pentecostal church experience, I began to question the entire movement. I believed these knew Christ personally, but their mimicking the early church was not spontaneous or genuine...
Dave,
You seem to be a "cruisematic". That is one who prowl charismatic churches, going from church to church, trying them out for size, often not sticking around long enough at any one place to serve or grow. "Cruisematics" tend to be spectators, who want to 'do' church but on their own terms. This seems to explain much of your positions expressed here in CD.Regardless, keep studying and growing "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching" (Heb. 10:25 KJV). CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Do I take this to mean that American's "Charismatic Churches"' are a perversion of the real thing or the European "Charismatic Churches?"No, I'm saying that Dr Kendall, who has been a pastor both in America and Europe, and whom I consider a trustworthy and godly teacher, has observed that the charismatic churches in America are more on the "looney fringe" than in Europe.
Many of the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches in their worship service include the following:
1. APPLAUSE/CLAPPING IN THE WORSHIP SERVICES
2. HAND-WAIVING/THE RAISING OF HANDS
3. DRUMMING OR USE OF DRUMS IN THE WORSHIP SERVICE
4. DANCING IN THE WORSHIP SERVICEOne may make an argument if these things are biblically endorsed and proper for worship, but to what extent? Would it be of any relevance to mention to note that while mainline churches are shrinking, Evangelical and charismatic churches continue to grow?
Except for dancing the worship service, I've experienced all of the above in charismatic, evangelical and mainline churches in Europe (and in Asia).
Is it possible that in America, conservative evangelical associate these expressions of worship so much with the charismatic movement that they have banned them from their churches purely for that reason?
Geographically speaking, while membership in places such as Australia, Canada, and Europe is shrinking, it is growing in countries such as the Philippines, Brazil, and Mexico. Could it be that the location, education or the practices that shows this growth of charismatic churches? Have we forgotten that "... Our new sectarianism is a sectarianism of worship style. The new sectarian creeds are the dogmas of music."
I think the reason is very simple. The health and wealth gospel, as frequently preached by charismatic churches in these places, appeals to people who live on so little.
Possibly, for the American "Charismatic Churches" could it be the lack of maturing? 'German sociologist Max Weber made an observation about the 'routinization of charisma'. Over time, charismatic churches become more mainline in their structure and operation. "If the trend (here) is similar to the US, there will be a time that young people will outgrow the need for entertainment. They may look for something more serious than rah-rah on Sunday or drop out altogether."
Max Weber died in 1920, so whatever he wrote about is long past.
If churches grow their young people into fans who only love their entertainment, I'm not surprised that these young people get distracted by the world and drop out over time.
I don't think that's a pure charismatic issue though.
Lastly, could it be that the American "Charismatic Churches" are still maturing to help explain what you have seen on the Youtube? Could you blame some churchgoers after they have observed that the mainline churches have boxed up the Spirit's activity in the Scripture and tradition and never let it enter the living church of today? CM
No, I don't blame the churchgoers at all. I'd blame both mainline pastors who quench the Spirit, and charismatic pastors who abuse the Spirit, be it in America, Europe, or elsewhere. Scripture judges them both.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
As a young Christian I gravitated towards the guitar church scene. It was more about music and feeling welcome. So the first church I settled into was an AOG Pentecostal church. They were a large assembly that promoted and made possible many of the Christian Modern artists of the 1970s.But I noticed a difference in my experience from theirs. I believed I already had what they were telling me to get. That is, I had the Baptism of the Holy Spirit without tongues for a year or so before settling in with them. So when I began speaking in tongues, it was unlike the examples in Acts that happened spontaneously. But, I continued for some time learning their doctrine while cherishing their friendship.
After another similar independent Pentecostal church experience, I began to question the entire movement. I believed these knew Christ personally, but their mimicking the early church was not spontaneous or genuine...
Dave,
You seem to be a "cruisematic". That is one who prowl charismatic churches, going from church to church, trying them out for size, often not sticking around long enough at any one place to serve or grow. "Cruisematics" tend to be spectators, who want to 'do' church but on their own terms. This seems to explain much of your positions expressed here in CD.Regardless, keep studying and growing "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching" (Heb. 10:25 KJV). CM
Things might not always be as they seem......
-
@Jan said:
@Dave_L said:
I think Charismatics get it wrong also when interpreting the events that took place on Pentecost. Did each speak a different human language to be understood naturally by most of the audience? According to their native tongue? (The common view).Or did they speak only one heavenly tongue, heard by all at the same time, interpreted by members of the audience who also received the gift of interpretation in the outpouring?
If the gift were valid, wouldn't the evangelicals have it too? Without coaching? And without conjuring it up? The fact that pentecostals need to make it happen proves it is phoney and they got it wrong...
Post edited by Dave_L on -
If the gift were valid, wouldn't the evangelicals have it too? Without coaching? And without conjuring it up? The fact that pentecostals need to make it happen proves it is phoney and they got it wrong...
I'm not so sure that "the evangelicals" don't have the gift of tongues.
Dr. Kendall has is (free evangelical). I think it's in the following sermon, but since I've listened to so many of them I'm not 100% certain:
David Platt believes in the gift of tongues (Baptist):
Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones believed in the gift of tongues (Reformed):
Francis Chan believes in the gift of tongues (non denominational evangelical) - best teaching on tongues I've recently come across:
John Piper believes in the gift of tongues (Baptist):
-
This is fine, but if the gift were genuine, it wouldn't need mention. It would just happen as in Acts. But it is always conjured up and mimicked. with no proof to date that uniform interpretation of the same speaker exists.
-
In 1972, anthropologist Felicitas Goodman engaged in a long-term study of glossolalia among English and Spanish-speaking Pentecostal communities in the U.S. and Mexico. She views glossolalia as an induced trance that manifested as a “dissociative hyper-arousal state,” with similar features across time and cultures. Other researchers have described instances of glossolalia among Inuit populations in the Arctic, in rituals of the Saami of Finland, and during certain possession states achieved in Haitian voodoo—although the extent to which it occurs outside of religious contexts remains unclear.
More here: http://www.dana.org/News/Speaking_in_Tongues__Glossalalia_and_Stress_Reduction/
-
@Dave_L said:
This is fine, but if the gift were genuine, it wouldn't need mention. It would just happen as in Acts.Again, I wouldn't say that it doesn't "just happen". Of course if people are caught up in mimicry and tongues coaching, there's no more room for the Spirit to let it happen.
But it is always conjured up and mimicked. with no proof to date that uniform interpretation of the same speaker exists.
I've witnessed multiple occasions of tongues with interpretation, all of which occurred in churches that follow the instructions given in 1 Corinthians.
Can there be proof for any gift, be it a charismatic gift or a commonly accepted gift such as teaching or pastoring? How would you prove that a pastor has the gift of pastoring? I don't think it's possible.
-
@Jan said:
@Dave_L said:
This is fine, but if the gift were genuine, it wouldn't need mention. It would just happen as in Acts.Again, I wouldn't say that it doesn't "just happen". Of course if people are caught up in mimicry and tongues coaching, there's no more room for the Spirit to let it happen.
But it is always conjured up and mimicked. with no proof to date that uniform interpretation of the same speaker exists.
I've witnessed multiple occasions of tongues with interpretation, all of which occurred in churches that follow the instructions given in 1 Corinthians.
Can there be proof for any gift, be it a charismatic gift or a commonly accepted gift such as teaching or pastoring? How would you prove that a pastor has the gift of pastoring? I don't think it's possible.
It always "just happened" in Acts. You have not seen this, so you must develop a scheme to make it happen. People act like the early church and think that makes them one of them. But they are no more genuine than the masses that think if you do the things christians naturally do, you will become one of them.
Acting = hypocrisy, and acting like you have the gift of tongues is pure hypocrisy.
-
Acting = hypocrisy, and acting like you have the gift of tongues is pure hypocrisy.
Fully agreed to that. But also, if one receives the gift of tongues, and refuses to let it "just happen", that would be quenching of the Spirit.
The Bible is very clear that only some had/have the gift of tongues, not everybody.
This makes me question the long-term studies you quoted as well. Did the researchers pick churches in which only some (those who have the actual gift) speak in tongues, or churches in which (almost) everyone speaks in tongues?
It also seems to me that biblically speaking in tongues was/is nothing that is done at will. That makes me question the studies even further. How do you study something that can't be exercised at will?
-
@Jan said:
Acting = hypocrisy, and acting like you have the gift of tongues is pure hypocrisy.
Fully agreed to that. But also, if one receives the gift of tongues, and refuses to let it "just happen", that would be quenching of the Spirit.
The Bible is very clear that only some had/have the gift of tongues, not everybody.
This makes me question the long-term studies you quoted as well. Did the researchers pick churches in which only some (those who have the actual gift) speak in tongues, or churches in which (almost) everyone speaks in tongues?
It also seems to me that biblically speaking in tongues was/is nothing that is done at will. That makes me question the studies even further. How do you study something that can't be exercised at will?
Not realistic. They didn't know what to expect on the day of Pentecost. No coaching, no preconceived ideas, no hint about the details. = today's tongues are phony.
-
Jan/Dave,
Consider these biblical truths. Some feel the practice of speaking in tongues is seen in Mark 16:17 and realized in the Book of Acts, several times and always as the gift of a foreign language. The foundational passage is Acts 2. At Pentecost, the phenomenon of speaking in tongues occurred for the first time. It clearly refers to the gift of speaking a foreign language without having studied it and communicating clearly and effectively the gospel. It appears the original use of speaking in tongues was the gift of proclaiming in a foreign language the good news of Jesus Christ.
Paul uses the same expression in 1 Corinthians 12-14 when he discusses spiritual gifts in the church. These gifts are given to all believers, i.e., each individual believer has received at least one spiritual gift.
However, the Holy Spirit decides in distributing these gifts, and not a single gift is mentioned as being given to all believers alike. Some see the gift of speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians as a language not spoken by humans which benefits primarily the one who practices it. Others view tongues as an abuse of the gift of speaking a foreign language.
Using the same term for different phenomena in the New Testament, in Acts 19:6, Also the termheteroglossoi (1 Cor. 14:21) defines the word “tongue” pointing in the direction of a real foreign language. Much of what's practiced in "Pentecostal churches and the charismatic movement don't correspond to the biblical gift.”
We should study the One (God) who gave the gifts over the one gift (tongues) itself. CM
