Speaking in Tongues

[jlay]

Is "authentic tongues" the example in Acts 2? If Acts 2 is "authentic tongues" where the hearers understand the speaker, why is there a gift of interpretation of tongues? Is the example in 1 Cor. not authentic? Paul spoke in tongues that were not fruitful to his mind before the canon was closed. Is that not as authentic as Acts 2?

It's a good question. Why do you apply your charasmatic view of 'interpretation?' The simplest reading is that people will have a gift to understand other languages.
The word 'tongue' in the original greek meant lanquage. You are reading your ideas of tongues into the text, along with your idea of interpret. Where as the Greek word can simply be translated, 'understand.'
The context of 1 cor is a rebuke for how things were transpiring in Corinth. I don't think this should be discarded when handling the text.

If this 'style' of tongues is on going, then why not the Acts 2 type? Why is it Ok that one has ceased and not the other? In these assemblies are the other gifts at work such as miracles and healing. No one seems to have a problem displaying their 'tongues' but genuine healing where cripples walk and blind see? So I guess our over developed senses suppressthe miracles and healing, but tongues is alive and well.??

[1harpazo]

Is "authentic tongues" the example in Acts 2? If Acts 2 is "authentic tongues" where the hearers understand the speaker, why is there a gift of interpretation of tongues? Is the example in 1 Cor. not authentic? Paul spoke in tongues that were not fruitful to his mind before the canon was closed. Is that not as authentic as Acts 2?

It's a good question. Why do you apply your charasmatic view of 'interpretation?' The simplest reading is that people will have a gift to understand other languages.
The word 'tongue' in the original greek meant lanquage. You are reading your ideas of tongues into the text, along with your idea of interpret. Where as the Greek word can simply be translated, 'understand.'
The context of 1 cor is a rebuke for how things were transpiring in Corinth. I don't think this should be discarded when handling the text.

If this 'style' of tongues is on going, then why not the Acts 2 type? Why is it Ok that one has ceased and not the other? In these assemblies are the other gifts at work such as miracles and healing. No one seems to have a problem displaying their 'tongues' but genuine healing where cripples walk and blind see? So I guess our over developed senses suppressthe miracles and healing, but tongues is alive and well.??

What's the point of understanding a language without interpreting it? I don't get it. The Greek word used in 1 Cor. 12:10 is Strong's 2058 hermeeneía (her-may-ni'-ah); from the same as NT:2059; translation: KJV - interpretation. And Strong's 2059 hermeneuo (her-mayn-yoo'-o); from a presumed derivative of NT:2060 (as the god of language); to translate: KJV - interpret. Hermeneutics defined in Webster's is 1. plural but sing or plural in constr : the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible) 2. : a method or principle of interpretation. So I guess my charismatic view of interpretation is based on the Greek words. I didn't see any reference to "understanding" in those words and definition. What's your view based on? What's my idea of tongues and interpretation?

I didn't discard Paul's rebuking the Corinthians regarding tongues. Since this is a discussion on tongues, I referred to chapter 14.

You place a great deal of emphasis on eye witness testimony to prove or disprove the gifts of tongues especially the Acts 2 kind (sign tongues). You have problems accepting tongues unless you see evidence of of a person speaking a language with which that person is not familiar with to people who understand it. You failed to answer my questions about the "authentic tongues" that you referred to.

My world experience is very limited so I have no personal testimony about Acts 2 tongues. You use the apparent lack of miracles and healings today to bolster your argument that the gifts have ceased. To be honest, I had to take a day to think about this. I think that most miracles and healings happen outside the church building and that people rationalize the event. This is what I mean: A person gets sick, prays for healing and goes to the doctor who prescribes medicine and the person get well. Who gets the glory? The doctor. Who's to say that God was not involved in the healing. Remember in Jesus' time, there was not the sophisticated medicine that we have today. Maybe if they had our doctors then, they would have credited their doctors like we do today. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to diminish what Jesus did.

What about miracles today? How about the recent tornadoes? They skip one house to demolish the one next to it. Maybe the owner of the skipped house prayed and asked God to save his house. When a hurricane changes course, maybe someone prayed and asked God to spare a city.

Here's my personal testimony about one healing and one miracle that God blessed me with. I had a fast growing mole sprout up on my scalp. The person who cut my hair noticed it. I went to my doctor who set up an appointment for me to have it surgically removed. In the interim, my wife and two children anointed me with oil, laid hands on me and prayed that God would heal me. Sometime after their prayer the mole dried up and fell off. On the day of surgery, I went to the hospital and told the nurse that the mole was gone which she verified and the surgery was canceled. God healed me.

In August 2009, a small tornado blew through our town. Our house was in it's path. My wife and I were stuck in the house so she covered up in the bathtub. As the quarter-sized hail pummeled the house and the wind increased, all I could say was, "God save us!" He did. We suffered no damage. Our car was out in the hail and suffered no dents or broken glass (many others did). Our next-door neighbor had roof damage and a broken skylight. A mature pine tree in the neighbor's yard behind us was uprooted. God saved us!

We might see more miracles and healings if we recognize and acknowledge God's hand in it more. Who knows?

[jlay]

Harp,

What about miracles today? How about the recent tornadoes? They skip one house to demolish the one next to it. Maybe the owner of the skipped house prayed and asked God to save his house. When a hurricane changes course, maybe someone prayed and asked God to spare a city.

This is a fundemental misunderstanding of what defines a miracle. You are talking about an act of providence. I certainly believe in providence. If you have any evidence that natural laws were interupted, then you are welcome to call this a miracle, but I doubt you do.
And just to clarify, I do believe that miracles occur today. So, let me explain. The difference is that in apostolic times miracles were tied to the person. We are talking about PERSONAL giftings here. So, let's make sure our examples are consistent. People came to Peter and to Paul and were healed. They were healed because those people were bestowed with healing. Do you know of anyone like this today? Plenty of frauds for sure.
That doesn't mean miracles don't happen. But miracles as described, regarding personal gifting seems to have ceased. So yes, the lack of people with healing and miracles is of note. In fact, sense I serve in the local mission field, and personally know foriegn missioraries, I'd imagine I'd have heard of such giftings of healing and miracles. But all I hear about are the Todd Bentleys of the world.

On the other hand, there seem to be numerous people who utitilize what they call tongues. For some reason we have plenty of people engaging in this 'gift' and yet none who are bestowed with genuine healing. Again, let me clarify. That doesn't mean people are never healed. A person may be healed, but not because some person bestowed with the gift of healing, healed them. If they are healed, it is because God directly healed. Just as no person was involved in sparing you from the tornado.

Now, in the text of 1 Cor we know that of the giftings are prophecy, miracles, healings and tongues. (1 Cor. 12:4-11) You said, as the text mentions, not everyone has the gift of tongues, so you are interpreting that these gifts are personal, and stay with the person. So, we have a plethora of people gifted in tongues, yet I just watched a person die an agonizing death who was a member of the largest pentecostal fellowship in our area.

Here's my personal testimony about one healing and one miracle that God blessed me with. I had a fast growing mole sprout up on my scalp. The person who cut my hair noticed it. I went to my doctor who set up an appointment for me to have it surgically removed. In the interim, my wife and two children anointed me with oil, laid hands on me and prayed that God would heal me. Sometime after their prayer the mole dried up and fell off. On the day of surgery, I went to the hospital and told the nurse that the mole was gone which she verified and the surgery was canceled. God healed me.

Amen. This however complies with James 5:14, and not with your wife being bestowed with the gift of healing as mentioned in 1 Cor. Otherwise send her here to my town as I know many who have more severe problems than a mole.

[narnia4]

I don't necessarily have a fixed view of miracles and providence that I'd be unwilling to change (well some details are pretty set in my mind, but there's other things that I'd be willing to amend my viewpoints on). Here's some thoughts now though-

I think miracles occur in specific circumstances to suit specific needs, often accompanied by prayer. I do think there's something to the idea that in Western culture we don't expect to see grand miracles of healing, in fact I think we expect not to see them. And so, surprise surprise, we don't witness those miracles. And as many are fond of saying, God also isn't some sort of puppet, I don't believe he performs miracles just to show off and make biased skeptics (who would just as soon explain away a miracle as a hallucination anyway) believe. Rather its for the benefits of those who have faith so that they can see the power of God.

God also works in many ways, it doesn't have to be a bright light or wounds being healed, providence can be seen through the body of Christ. Imo this is part of the reason why missionaries more commonly report very amazing happenings that really look to be supernatural intervention in third world countries with poor, but faith-filled people. In the Western world, with our basic needs met or Christians living close by with the ability to meet them, God can reveal himself to us in different ways. This isn't to say that God couldn't work miracles in Western countries as well, but this is just a little bit of speculation on why you hear missionaries reporting miracles far more than your "average Christian".

Should probably also be some clarification of terms, I'm sure that any Christian would believe in "divine intervention" in some sense.

[jlay]

Narnia,

I want to make it clear that I don't deny miracles, which seems to be the take.

I can personally attest to providence. I serve in the local mission field, and I agree, you are generally going to see providence when you are leaning on God and not your own abilities. That's just kind of a given. I've seen God's hand of provision in amazing ways. However, the issue I mentioned is a specific person being endowed with the healing gift. The difference in providence and miracles is pretty clear. For example, a couple of years ago our ministry was financially strapped. The economy was in the tank and giving was suffering. Then at the hour of our greatest need, someone passes away, and left their paid for home to us in their will. The sale of the home brought in $98k. Now, personally, I see this as God's hand of providence and testify as such. But, I also see that everything that happened is naturally explainable.