Should We Speak in Tongues?
A paper I wrote for class.
Should We Speak in Tongues
Is it valid for today?
Part I
In today’s religious circles there is often discussion of whether or not one must speak in tongues before they can be considered saved. It is this issue that will be examined in the following pages. I believe it is very important for a believer to understand how to answer this question when asked. Ernest Pickering wrote of a note he received from a student concerning this subject. The note read- There are a number of professing Christians in our school. They are almost all charismatic’s. I don’t know what to tell them about what we believe concerning tongues. HELP!
Importance
This is the response of many believers when they are faced with answering this question. We as believers must know where we stand on such topics and know how to defend our position. If a believer does not know how to respond when asked what they believe about speaking in tongues they may lose confidence in their own witness and faith or they may themselves be led astray. As a result one must first understand what speaking in tongues is and what it was used for, second one must understand the positions of both those who do and do not support the practice of tongues, and finally how to defend that stance. This principle can apply to many topics in theology but for now let’s take a look at tongues.
The History of Tongues Then and Now
If we are to understand the modern tongues movement we must first understand the history of tongues in the early church. This is because those who believe in and practice speaking in tongues believe that this gift did not cease in the early church but continued throughout history to this day, though it faded between the early church because of worldliness and resumed in the early 1900's.
The first recorded occurrence of the believer’s speaking in tongues was recorded in Acts 2:1-13 at the time of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles. There are several other occurrences of this throughout the book of Acts. In the New Testament primarily when a person spoke in tongues it was evidence then non Jewish people were born again and accepted by God as seen in Acts 10:44-48 at the conversion of Cornelius. Whenever tongues were used it was required that there be another present to translate what was said, Paul states this in 1 Corinthians 14:27 when he says, “If anyone speaks in a tongue it should be two or at most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret.”(NASB) The apostle Paul also stated in 1 Corinthians 13 that the gift of tongues would cease. Thus today there should be no tongues.
Today tongues are used in many charismatic churches and in some is a requirement for confirmation of salvation. This often done not in an organized fashion as it was in the early church but rather by many people standing and hollering unknown words. Most importantly there is no interpreter of what is said. It is very important that one recognize that if tongues were intended for our day then it would still be done in a manner that was laid out in the New Testament. Now that we have looked at the purpose of tongues lets look at what dispensational and charismatic circles believe about tongues.
Part II
There are two solutions from which we can draw a conclusion. The first is the dispensational solution and the second is the charismatic solution. It is important that we understand both solutions so that we can draw the most informed conclusion and determine what we believe and why.
The Dispensational Solution
In the New Testament the gift of speaking in tongs was intended to be a sign of the coming of the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus had promised in John 7:38-19. This was also a sing to the unbelievers in the nation of Israel 1 Corinthians 14:22, Gromacki states that “the gift of tongues was a sign to unbelieving Jews, a sign that God would judge them for their unbelief. Gromacki also surmises that tongues ceased after Rome destroyed Jerusalem in A.D.70. This is supported by many non charismatic theologians. There has been little evidence to Biblical speaking in tongues since the fall of Jerusalem. There have been many accounts of speaking it tongs since but these to not align with the guidelines Paul laid out in 1 Corinthians. It is interesting to see that even in the Bible there is not extensive mention of speaking in tongues.
Dr George Houghton states that “other than the Corinthian passage, tongues-speaking does not appear to have been a regular, ongoing occurrence.” There are only a handful of occurrences outside of the book of Acts that address the gift of speaking in tongues. It is clear that there was a set of specific purposes and requirements for speaking in tongues which may have been the reason that it was not common place. Some of these were that it was intended to be an evidence to Israel that God was now accepting gentiles; it was an actual language that could be understood but was not necessarily the speaker’s native language and not a language that was previously known to the speaker. It was also necessary that there be a translator.
If there was not a translator one could essentially stand and begin speaking in gibberish and then say that the Holy Spirit had come upon them and had moved them to speak. As already stated Paul gives strict instructions that if one is to speak in tongues then he must have a translator. This was so that the members in the church could know that they were truly speaking because of the moving of the Holy Spirit. This was use for edification and as a sign together. However the purpose of the sign has passed as it is well know that God has accepted the gentiles as well as the judgment has been carried out as a result there is no need for tongues in our day. It is also interesting to note that at the first occurrence of tongues in Acts 2 it is recorded that each man could understand the speaker in his own language showing that they had both the gift of tongues and interpretation. However in 1Corinthians 14 Paul says that an interpreter needed to be present, if these gifts were not ceasing then everyone present would be able to understand what was said without an interpreter. This shows evidence that the gift of tongues as well as the gift of interpretation had begun to cease.
Tongues was also used “as the initiatory token to confirm the establishment of a new order, the church” When the church began there was much opposition and as a result there needed to be some type of evidence that this was of God and he was instituting a new order of worship. This was necessary since Christ had died on the cross and become the ultimate sacrifice there was no need to continue with the old practice of offering up burnt offerings. There was now a route of direct communication with God through prayer and also through tongues 1Corinthians 14:2 says, “For one who speaks in tongues does not speak to men but to God” This was because the information that what transmitted was of a revelatory nature and pertained to that specific dispensation of time. However the time of revelation has ended and thus so has the gift of tongues.
In the dispensational solution we have identified that the gift of speaking in tongues was to be done with an interpreter, in a language not previously know to the speaker, in an organized fashion, it was only given for a time, the time has passed. Now let us look at the charismatic solution.
The Charismatic Solution
The majority of Pentecostals/charismatic’s “strongly hold the doctrinal position that a person baptized with the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues as the initial evidence of that experience”5 The true evidence of the Sprite Baptism is believed to be speaking in tongues because it is the only unique occurrence on the day of Pentecost because wind and fire were both used in old testament passages to identify or call his servants but not baptize them with the Holy Spirit. Speaking in tongues had begun to fade out of existence gradually in the centuries following the NT church. However it reemerged in the 20th century and continued to grow into a worldwide phenomenon. In speaking of tongues Tom Brown says, “Many people who have never spoken in tongues speak as though they're experts in this field, when in reality they teach only from theory.” He goes on to state the only those who have actually spoken in tongues will know more about its validity than those who do not practice speaking in tongues. Thus those who have not experienced tongues should not be saying one way or the other that one should speak in tongues.
Former charismatic Brian Schwertley writes that according to charismatic beliefs speaking in tongues must be interpreted. However some believe that there are different types of tongues those that can be interpreted for the edification of the church and those that are between the speaker and God as one writer puts it, “It does not need to be interpreted since we are not speaking to human beings but to God, Who needs no interpretation.”8 This is supported with 1 Corinthians 14:2.
It is interesting that Brown also admits that he believes the reason that so few Christians speak in tongues is because there is so little logical and scriptural support for speaking in tongues. It is often asked in regard to this what good does it do for you, and the common response is that it gives them “spiritual energy”, and/or edifies them. Many charismatic’s also claim that speaking in tongues is justified by Jesus himself in Mark 15:16-17 “They will speak in new tongues.” and according to Feeney “Jesus said that speaking in tongues is one of the signs that ‘will accompany those who believe.’” Because of this speaking in tongues is something that must be done in order to fulfill the great commission.
Brown describes the language of the tongues as a “heavenly language” and says that “Many people inaccurately define speaking in tongues as "speaking gibberish" or "talking nonsense."” He goes on to say that “speaking in tongues is the most intelligent, perfect language in the universe. It is God's language.” This is reasonable point of view considering that speaking in tongues is a direct result of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Brown also states that he believes that despite Acts 2 saying that each could understand did not mean that they were speaking human languages. He says this-
I don't believe this is true because there was a two-fold miracle taking place on this day: the miracle of speaking and hearing: The first miracle was the speaking in tongues. The second miracle was the enabling of some to understand the tongues.
In other words those who were speaking in tongues were speaking in a “heavenly language” and those who were listening and were believing were able to hear what was said in their own language and understand it. As this was done they were edified and lifted up causing many to be added to the church. Feeney says that, “speaking in tongues is a God-given way for believers to ‘speak to God.’” Charismatics also believe that thesis how we should pray in order to communicate with God. Brown also affirms that there is a special prayer language for those have been baptized by the Holy Spirit and that it is part of speaking in tongues. One writer says this about receiving the gift of tongues, “I believe that any Christian can receive this personal prayer form of tongues, although some do not because of ignorance and misunderstanding.” This means that all one has to do is believe that they can speak with tongues and ask for the gift of speaking in tongues and they will be able to do so. Interestingly Larry Hart does not agree that all believers must speak in tongues he says that, “Speaking in tongues though available to all believers as a means of prayer should never be mandated.” but goes on to say “I personally long for the day when this gift, along with all other wonderful gifts, along with all the other wonderful gifts of God’s gracious Spirit.”14 Understanding this we can see that clearly charismatic’s are quite intent that while not everyone will speak in tongues everyone should endeavor to do so.
As we can now see Charismatic’s have many supporting texts for why they believe in the gift of speaking in tongues, as well as believing that the language of tongues is a heavenly language, that there should be an interpreter present when speaking in tongues in public, however one can also speak in tongues privately between the believer and God.
Now that we have examined both the dispensational solution and the charismatic solution I will explain my view of the gift of speaking in tongues.
Part III
The Correct View
My personal view is the dispensational view. I hold this view because I believe it is scripturally supported and accurate based on the information give to use in God’s word. I explain this more thoroughly I will address some of the different aspects of the charismatic position.
First I will look at the view that the language of tongues is a Heavenly language, this cannot be true because as Schwertley states- “The Greek word glossa, translated tongue, when not referring to the actual bodily organ call the tongue, refers either to an ethnic group or to actual human languages.” It is important that when interpreting a text of scripture that we ensure that we are being as accurate as we possibly can and thus make sure we understand the meaning of the words in the original text.
If we simply look at the English text of the scripture and take it for face value without understanding why the word is translated one way and not another then how can we say with any type of certainty that we are accurately interpreting scripture. “The word glossa is used some thirty times in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and always the meaning is normal human language.” If never in its prior scriptural uses do we translate the word glossa to man something other than normal human language then why should we decide that all of the sudden it mean something different in this case. The answer is we should not there is no logical or reasonable reason that the we should take this out of context any more than we should the word for days meaning literal twenty four hour days when pertaining to creation. Dale Marshfield wrote, “God gave the disciples the ability to speak with the languages of these visitors, even though the disciples had never learned these languages.” Clearly when we examine the text of Acts 2 if we take it as written we can interpret the language of tongues as real human languages not a Supernatural language.
The Second Issue I would like to address is the misuse of the tongues in churches today. While many churches may follow the instructions of Paul for the use of speaking in tongues there are still a great many who do not follow this principal. “In many charismatic churches, people blurt out “tongues” which are never interpreted.”
I have personally talked to a charismatic and he described it as a time when everyone started hollering and yelling in other languages while jumping around. Pickering wrote- “Large Numbers of Pentecostalists hold that there is a difference between the tongues mentioned in Acts and those described in 1 Corinthians.” There is clearly no evidence for this and Pickering goes on to list nine point to use in refuting the view of differing types of tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians.
Robert Lightner states- “It cannot be proved that tongues ever consisted in ecstatic utterances or incomprehensible babblings of gibberish.” Unfortunately ecstatic utterances are exactly what are spoken in most charismatic churches. We cannot try to push the Bible into our mold so that it fits our beliefs. In addition if everyone or several are all standing and speaking in tongues at once then they cannot be interpreted accurately and therefore speaking in tongues should not be practiced. In addition charismatics also believe that if one does not speak in tongues then they do not have the Holy Spirit. However 1 Corinthians 12:13 says we are all baptized in one spirit, 1 Corinthians 12:7 tell us that the manifestation spirit is given to every man (referring to believers). Manny times in the New Testament it is relayed that believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit, or that they are one in the Spirit, yet with the vast number of conversions throughout the New Testament there are only a very few that are mention the new convert speaking in tongues. In light of this how then can we say that one must speak in tongues as an evidence of being baptized with the Holy Spirit/saved. We cannot say this because we would be denying the truth of scripture.
The third issue that we will be that charismatic’s say that they do not force everyone to speak in tongues. In response to this Marshfield writes this- “Most Pentecostal and Charismatic groups say “tongues” are not necessary. Yet anyone who spends even a little time among then will find an incredible amount of pressure to “receive the gift” or to be “baptized in the Holy Spirit”.” When I once worked with a charismatic person I was constantly urged to come to his church and have the pastor pray over me so that I could be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Despite their claim that not everyone has to speak in tongues they still push people to take part in their practices. This shows not necessarily that tongues are wrong but that wrong motives are being employed in-order to sway individuals to their point of view.
The fourth issue I will address is the statement that those who do not speak in tongues do not have the ability to dispute what those who do experience speaking in tongues. I would submit that in-order to address speaking in tongues one does not have to experience speaking in tongues. When dealing with Biblical issues one need only to look to the text of the Bible because as we see in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable to doctrine, if this is true then a believer does not need to experience something supernatural in-order to show that they are saved or in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also said in John 17:17 while praying for is disciples “sanctify them in truth, your word is truth”(NASB) If this is true do we need experience anything more than the that which God has written in his word? Absolutely not, if we know that God’s word is truth and that God’s word is profitable for doctrine then we need not look further than the divinely inspired word of God.
The final issue that I would like to address is the Paul statement in 1 Corinthians 13:8, “...they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease...” Paul’s statement is quite clear that there would be a time when tongues would cease. We know that this would have occurred during the time of the early church as speaking in tongues was a sign to the Jews that they were to be judged and this occurred in A.D.70 when Rome destroyed Jerusalem. It is interesting that in researching Pentecostal and charismatic theology on speaking in tongues there is little mention of this verse. Lightner writes this- “Even though the Bible does not say much regarding the temporary nature of certain gifts what is does say argues more strongly for the cessation of tongues than for the continuance of tongues.” It is clear that there is no Biblical support for tongues to continue but there is evidence for is cessation. Mark Driscoll writes this in regard to 2 Corinthians 13 “In light of the evidence, we believe that 1 Corinthians 13 looks at the future Second Coming of Christ rather than the close of the Biblical canon” This however does not seem accurate as there is nothing in the passage to indicate that this passage is referring to events after the second coming. It would seem more logical to say that these things ceased with the maturing of the early church based on vs. 11 of chapter 13. This brings me to my conclusion that ultimately there can be no evidence or support for tongues in today’s church.
Conclusion
As stated I am brought to the conclusion that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues has ceased and that it has no bearing today. However I do make it clear that when it was used in the early church it was a legitimate spiritual that had be exercised appropriately and within the guidelines set forth by God through the writing of the Apostle Paul. While many churches may practice this today I do not believe that they are doing so appropriately or with the blessing of the Holy Spirit despite claims that they are doing so. As believers we must be ready to address these issues when they arise, and therefore we must study the word of God and search out for ourselves what the word of God says and form a strong defense. Gromacki states, “The Bible must forever be the basis of faith and practice. It must always judge experiences to determine their validity.” Charismatic’s often say that their experience supersedes our arguments however when it come to theology we must not over look the truth that we have before us in the words of scripture. I challenge believers to not take my word on this subject but to study it and search out the scriptures for themselves to see how I came to my conclusion. The Apostle Paul was very clear about his instruction on how tongues were to be used, which had been ignored often, and he has told us very plainly that the gift of tongues along with many if not all others would cease. The gift of speaking in tongues has ceased and we must not try to dispute what the Bible has clearly laid out. Tongues have ceased.
Should We Speak in Tongues
Is it valid for today?
Part I
In today’s religious circles there is often discussion of whether or not one must speak in tongues before they can be considered saved. It is this issue that will be examined in the following pages. I believe it is very important for a believer to understand how to answer this question when asked. Ernest Pickering wrote of a note he received from a student concerning this subject. The note read- There are a number of professing Christians in our school. They are almost all charismatic’s. I don’t know what to tell them about what we believe concerning tongues. HELP!
Importance
This is the response of many believers when they are faced with answering this question. We as believers must know where we stand on such topics and know how to defend our position. If a believer does not know how to respond when asked what they believe about speaking in tongues they may lose confidence in their own witness and faith or they may themselves be led astray. As a result one must first understand what speaking in tongues is and what it was used for, second one must understand the positions of both those who do and do not support the practice of tongues, and finally how to defend that stance. This principle can apply to many topics in theology but for now let’s take a look at tongues.
The History of Tongues Then and Now
If we are to understand the modern tongues movement we must first understand the history of tongues in the early church. This is because those who believe in and practice speaking in tongues believe that this gift did not cease in the early church but continued throughout history to this day, though it faded between the early church because of worldliness and resumed in the early 1900's.
The first recorded occurrence of the believer’s speaking in tongues was recorded in Acts 2:1-13 at the time of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles. There are several other occurrences of this throughout the book of Acts. In the New Testament primarily when a person spoke in tongues it was evidence then non Jewish people were born again and accepted by God as seen in Acts 10:44-48 at the conversion of Cornelius. Whenever tongues were used it was required that there be another present to translate what was said, Paul states this in 1 Corinthians 14:27 when he says, “If anyone speaks in a tongue it should be two or at most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret.”(NASB) The apostle Paul also stated in 1 Corinthians 13 that the gift of tongues would cease. Thus today there should be no tongues.
Today tongues are used in many charismatic churches and in some is a requirement for confirmation of salvation. This often done not in an organized fashion as it was in the early church but rather by many people standing and hollering unknown words. Most importantly there is no interpreter of what is said. It is very important that one recognize that if tongues were intended for our day then it would still be done in a manner that was laid out in the New Testament. Now that we have looked at the purpose of tongues lets look at what dispensational and charismatic circles believe about tongues.
Part II
There are two solutions from which we can draw a conclusion. The first is the dispensational solution and the second is the charismatic solution. It is important that we understand both solutions so that we can draw the most informed conclusion and determine what we believe and why.
The Dispensational Solution
In the New Testament the gift of speaking in tongs was intended to be a sign of the coming of the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus had promised in John 7:38-19. This was also a sing to the unbelievers in the nation of Israel 1 Corinthians 14:22, Gromacki states that “the gift of tongues was a sign to unbelieving Jews, a sign that God would judge them for their unbelief. Gromacki also surmises that tongues ceased after Rome destroyed Jerusalem in A.D.70. This is supported by many non charismatic theologians. There has been little evidence to Biblical speaking in tongues since the fall of Jerusalem. There have been many accounts of speaking it tongs since but these to not align with the guidelines Paul laid out in 1 Corinthians. It is interesting to see that even in the Bible there is not extensive mention of speaking in tongues.
Dr George Houghton states that “other than the Corinthian passage, tongues-speaking does not appear to have been a regular, ongoing occurrence.” There are only a handful of occurrences outside of the book of Acts that address the gift of speaking in tongues. It is clear that there was a set of specific purposes and requirements for speaking in tongues which may have been the reason that it was not common place. Some of these were that it was intended to be an evidence to Israel that God was now accepting gentiles; it was an actual language that could be understood but was not necessarily the speaker’s native language and not a language that was previously known to the speaker. It was also necessary that there be a translator.
If there was not a translator one could essentially stand and begin speaking in gibberish and then say that the Holy Spirit had come upon them and had moved them to speak. As already stated Paul gives strict instructions that if one is to speak in tongues then he must have a translator. This was so that the members in the church could know that they were truly speaking because of the moving of the Holy Spirit. This was use for edification and as a sign together. However the purpose of the sign has passed as it is well know that God has accepted the gentiles as well as the judgment has been carried out as a result there is no need for tongues in our day. It is also interesting to note that at the first occurrence of tongues in Acts 2 it is recorded that each man could understand the speaker in his own language showing that they had both the gift of tongues and interpretation. However in 1Corinthians 14 Paul says that an interpreter needed to be present, if these gifts were not ceasing then everyone present would be able to understand what was said without an interpreter. This shows evidence that the gift of tongues as well as the gift of interpretation had begun to cease.
Tongues was also used “as the initiatory token to confirm the establishment of a new order, the church” When the church began there was much opposition and as a result there needed to be some type of evidence that this was of God and he was instituting a new order of worship. This was necessary since Christ had died on the cross and become the ultimate sacrifice there was no need to continue with the old practice of offering up burnt offerings. There was now a route of direct communication with God through prayer and also through tongues 1Corinthians 14:2 says, “For one who speaks in tongues does not speak to men but to God” This was because the information that what transmitted was of a revelatory nature and pertained to that specific dispensation of time. However the time of revelation has ended and thus so has the gift of tongues.
In the dispensational solution we have identified that the gift of speaking in tongues was to be done with an interpreter, in a language not previously know to the speaker, in an organized fashion, it was only given for a time, the time has passed. Now let us look at the charismatic solution.
The Charismatic Solution
The majority of Pentecostals/charismatic’s “strongly hold the doctrinal position that a person baptized with the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues as the initial evidence of that experience”5 The true evidence of the Sprite Baptism is believed to be speaking in tongues because it is the only unique occurrence on the day of Pentecost because wind and fire were both used in old testament passages to identify or call his servants but not baptize them with the Holy Spirit. Speaking in tongues had begun to fade out of existence gradually in the centuries following the NT church. However it reemerged in the 20th century and continued to grow into a worldwide phenomenon. In speaking of tongues Tom Brown says, “Many people who have never spoken in tongues speak as though they're experts in this field, when in reality they teach only from theory.” He goes on to state the only those who have actually spoken in tongues will know more about its validity than those who do not practice speaking in tongues. Thus those who have not experienced tongues should not be saying one way or the other that one should speak in tongues.
Former charismatic Brian Schwertley writes that according to charismatic beliefs speaking in tongues must be interpreted. However some believe that there are different types of tongues those that can be interpreted for the edification of the church and those that are between the speaker and God as one writer puts it, “It does not need to be interpreted since we are not speaking to human beings but to God, Who needs no interpretation.”8 This is supported with 1 Corinthians 14:2.
It is interesting that Brown also admits that he believes the reason that so few Christians speak in tongues is because there is so little logical and scriptural support for speaking in tongues. It is often asked in regard to this what good does it do for you, and the common response is that it gives them “spiritual energy”, and/or edifies them. Many charismatic’s also claim that speaking in tongues is justified by Jesus himself in Mark 15:16-17 “They will speak in new tongues.” and according to Feeney “Jesus said that speaking in tongues is one of the signs that ‘will accompany those who believe.’” Because of this speaking in tongues is something that must be done in order to fulfill the great commission.
Brown describes the language of the tongues as a “heavenly language” and says that “Many people inaccurately define speaking in tongues as "speaking gibberish" or "talking nonsense."” He goes on to say that “speaking in tongues is the most intelligent, perfect language in the universe. It is God's language.” This is reasonable point of view considering that speaking in tongues is a direct result of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Brown also states that he believes that despite Acts 2 saying that each could understand did not mean that they were speaking human languages. He says this-
I don't believe this is true because there was a two-fold miracle taking place on this day: the miracle of speaking and hearing: The first miracle was the speaking in tongues. The second miracle was the enabling of some to understand the tongues.
In other words those who were speaking in tongues were speaking in a “heavenly language” and those who were listening and were believing were able to hear what was said in their own language and understand it. As this was done they were edified and lifted up causing many to be added to the church. Feeney says that, “speaking in tongues is a God-given way for believers to ‘speak to God.’” Charismatics also believe that thesis how we should pray in order to communicate with God. Brown also affirms that there is a special prayer language for those have been baptized by the Holy Spirit and that it is part of speaking in tongues. One writer says this about receiving the gift of tongues, “I believe that any Christian can receive this personal prayer form of tongues, although some do not because of ignorance and misunderstanding.” This means that all one has to do is believe that they can speak with tongues and ask for the gift of speaking in tongues and they will be able to do so. Interestingly Larry Hart does not agree that all believers must speak in tongues he says that, “Speaking in tongues though available to all believers as a means of prayer should never be mandated.” but goes on to say “I personally long for the day when this gift, along with all other wonderful gifts, along with all the other wonderful gifts of God’s gracious Spirit.”14 Understanding this we can see that clearly charismatic’s are quite intent that while not everyone will speak in tongues everyone should endeavor to do so.
As we can now see Charismatic’s have many supporting texts for why they believe in the gift of speaking in tongues, as well as believing that the language of tongues is a heavenly language, that there should be an interpreter present when speaking in tongues in public, however one can also speak in tongues privately between the believer and God.
Now that we have examined both the dispensational solution and the charismatic solution I will explain my view of the gift of speaking in tongues.
Part III
The Correct View
My personal view is the dispensational view. I hold this view because I believe it is scripturally supported and accurate based on the information give to use in God’s word. I explain this more thoroughly I will address some of the different aspects of the charismatic position.
First I will look at the view that the language of tongues is a Heavenly language, this cannot be true because as Schwertley states- “The Greek word glossa, translated tongue, when not referring to the actual bodily organ call the tongue, refers either to an ethnic group or to actual human languages.” It is important that when interpreting a text of scripture that we ensure that we are being as accurate as we possibly can and thus make sure we understand the meaning of the words in the original text.
If we simply look at the English text of the scripture and take it for face value without understanding why the word is translated one way and not another then how can we say with any type of certainty that we are accurately interpreting scripture. “The word glossa is used some thirty times in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and always the meaning is normal human language.” If never in its prior scriptural uses do we translate the word glossa to man something other than normal human language then why should we decide that all of the sudden it mean something different in this case. The answer is we should not there is no logical or reasonable reason that the we should take this out of context any more than we should the word for days meaning literal twenty four hour days when pertaining to creation. Dale Marshfield wrote, “God gave the disciples the ability to speak with the languages of these visitors, even though the disciples had never learned these languages.” Clearly when we examine the text of Acts 2 if we take it as written we can interpret the language of tongues as real human languages not a Supernatural language.
The Second Issue I would like to address is the misuse of the tongues in churches today. While many churches may follow the instructions of Paul for the use of speaking in tongues there are still a great many who do not follow this principal. “In many charismatic churches, people blurt out “tongues” which are never interpreted.”
I have personally talked to a charismatic and he described it as a time when everyone started hollering and yelling in other languages while jumping around. Pickering wrote- “Large Numbers of Pentecostalists hold that there is a difference between the tongues mentioned in Acts and those described in 1 Corinthians.” There is clearly no evidence for this and Pickering goes on to list nine point to use in refuting the view of differing types of tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians.
Robert Lightner states- “It cannot be proved that tongues ever consisted in ecstatic utterances or incomprehensible babblings of gibberish.” Unfortunately ecstatic utterances are exactly what are spoken in most charismatic churches. We cannot try to push the Bible into our mold so that it fits our beliefs. In addition if everyone or several are all standing and speaking in tongues at once then they cannot be interpreted accurately and therefore speaking in tongues should not be practiced. In addition charismatics also believe that if one does not speak in tongues then they do not have the Holy Spirit. However 1 Corinthians 12:13 says we are all baptized in one spirit, 1 Corinthians 12:7 tell us that the manifestation spirit is given to every man (referring to believers). Manny times in the New Testament it is relayed that believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit, or that they are one in the Spirit, yet with the vast number of conversions throughout the New Testament there are only a very few that are mention the new convert speaking in tongues. In light of this how then can we say that one must speak in tongues as an evidence of being baptized with the Holy Spirit/saved. We cannot say this because we would be denying the truth of scripture.
The third issue that we will be that charismatic’s say that they do not force everyone to speak in tongues. In response to this Marshfield writes this- “Most Pentecostal and Charismatic groups say “tongues” are not necessary. Yet anyone who spends even a little time among then will find an incredible amount of pressure to “receive the gift” or to be “baptized in the Holy Spirit”.” When I once worked with a charismatic person I was constantly urged to come to his church and have the pastor pray over me so that I could be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Despite their claim that not everyone has to speak in tongues they still push people to take part in their practices. This shows not necessarily that tongues are wrong but that wrong motives are being employed in-order to sway individuals to their point of view.
The fourth issue I will address is the statement that those who do not speak in tongues do not have the ability to dispute what those who do experience speaking in tongues. I would submit that in-order to address speaking in tongues one does not have to experience speaking in tongues. When dealing with Biblical issues one need only to look to the text of the Bible because as we see in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable to doctrine, if this is true then a believer does not need to experience something supernatural in-order to show that they are saved or in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also said in John 17:17 while praying for is disciples “sanctify them in truth, your word is truth”(NASB) If this is true do we need experience anything more than the that which God has written in his word? Absolutely not, if we know that God’s word is truth and that God’s word is profitable for doctrine then we need not look further than the divinely inspired word of God.
The final issue that I would like to address is the Paul statement in 1 Corinthians 13:8, “...they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease...” Paul’s statement is quite clear that there would be a time when tongues would cease. We know that this would have occurred during the time of the early church as speaking in tongues was a sign to the Jews that they were to be judged and this occurred in A.D.70 when Rome destroyed Jerusalem. It is interesting that in researching Pentecostal and charismatic theology on speaking in tongues there is little mention of this verse. Lightner writes this- “Even though the Bible does not say much regarding the temporary nature of certain gifts what is does say argues more strongly for the cessation of tongues than for the continuance of tongues.” It is clear that there is no Biblical support for tongues to continue but there is evidence for is cessation. Mark Driscoll writes this in regard to 2 Corinthians 13 “In light of the evidence, we believe that 1 Corinthians 13 looks at the future Second Coming of Christ rather than the close of the Biblical canon” This however does not seem accurate as there is nothing in the passage to indicate that this passage is referring to events after the second coming. It would seem more logical to say that these things ceased with the maturing of the early church based on vs. 11 of chapter 13. This brings me to my conclusion that ultimately there can be no evidence or support for tongues in today’s church.
Conclusion
As stated I am brought to the conclusion that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues has ceased and that it has no bearing today. However I do make it clear that when it was used in the early church it was a legitimate spiritual that had be exercised appropriately and within the guidelines set forth by God through the writing of the Apostle Paul. While many churches may practice this today I do not believe that they are doing so appropriately or with the blessing of the Holy Spirit despite claims that they are doing so. As believers we must be ready to address these issues when they arise, and therefore we must study the word of God and search out for ourselves what the word of God says and form a strong defense. Gromacki states, “The Bible must forever be the basis of faith and practice. It must always judge experiences to determine their validity.” Charismatic’s often say that their experience supersedes our arguments however when it come to theology we must not over look the truth that we have before us in the words of scripture. I challenge believers to not take my word on this subject but to study it and search out the scriptures for themselves to see how I came to my conclusion. The Apostle Paul was very clear about his instruction on how tongues were to be used, which had been ignored often, and he has told us very plainly that the gift of tongues along with many if not all others would cease. The gift of speaking in tongues has ceased and we must not try to dispute what the Bible has clearly laid out. Tongues have ceased.
Comments
Post a Comment