why i stopped talking in tongues

[PeteSinCA]

Lastly, concerning the Holy Spirit gift of languages - because of the false does not negate the that the real exist.

Precisely. A Satanic counterfeit is only effective if the real thing exists (hence my 3-dollar bill comment of several days ago). "Abuse" and "misuse" have meaning only when there is a proper usage. And a purely Satanic display cannot fool those who know such things cannot be of God; Paul precluded this possibility, with regard to speaking in tongues, in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

[RickD]

I see the supposed Scriptural explanations that tongues are supposedly a spiritual gift still given by God today. But what I'm not seeing are any answers to my biggest questions: Why, if GOD STILL gives the gift of tongues, and as He has abundantly sprinkled the other Scripturally listed gifts throughout Christians in ALL true, Jesus-believing churches across the world - then why are tongues totally missing from Christians in the vast majority of Jesus-following/honoring churches? This is a HUGE redflag for me. And this absence of or practice of tongues is significantly correlated along denominational lines. WHY and WHY? Pete, etc - no one is answering this key question! This just doesn't make any sense to me. Add in the large number of those churches that DO manifest tongues - chaotically and bizarrely - well, it makes me ever more wary. IF tongues are a spiritual gift, then no church or denomination simply chooses to have or pursue them. And so I'd just like some answers to these questions.

Thanks.

Primarily for the reason's listed in 1 Co 13:1,2,3

People make dumb idols out of the things of God all the time.

A person can even, make the bible into an idol as well.

The gifts are still there and people are the same as when Paul wrote of the gifts. In that, you will find an answer that does not present a logical contradiction to Hebrews 13:8
-
-
-

I'd like to hear answers to philip's questions.
Hebrews 13:8 no more backs up tongues being for today, than it does believers following the law today. We don't follow the law today. That doesn't mean Christ has changed. If tongues aren't for today, that also doesn't mean Christ changed.

[PeteSinCA]

There is something very bizarre going on in relations to the modern practice of tongues. Incoherent babbling when everyone can already communicate in the same language seems rather pointless. God can understand us perfectly, and so I can't see us needing use some unknown (to us) prayer language. I really wonder its source - WHO or what is causing this?

ptc, "I don't understand it and think it's weird," of itself, is not a good basis for concluding that speaking in tongues cannot be of God. As a good number of passages in Acts and 1 Corinthians state - clearly - speaking in tongues is a gift given by the Holy Spirit. God does not explain why he would use such a gift, only that He does.

It may or may not have been noticed, but in the 3 (or more) threads that have looked at this topic, I've carefully avoided stating or implying that I believe all purported speaking in tongues is a manifestation of the genuine gift of the Holy Spirit. That would be because I do not believe it: scripture contradicts the idea; it ignores Satan's purposes and available means; it ignores human nature. I have not seen/heard what you have, ptc, not having been there, so I will neither contradict nor agree with your assessments. It should be recognized that your apparent not recognizing that there is today a valid gift of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, is, necessarily, the context of your assessments, ptc.

But the biggest reason I highly question that modern-day tongues are of the Lord is because, in my 56 years, I have been in many, many churches (of various denominations) - spirit-filled, evangelical, God-honoring/Jesus-seeking churches - in which I never saw ANYONE speaking in tongues. ... And so WHY, if they are a modern-day spiritual gift, would God have only gifted tongues to only a small minority of churches - as opposed to the vast number that do not exhibit such supposed gifts? And yet, I've experienced and seen ALL of the OTHER Sciptural gifts distributed and manifested in all the churches I've attended - but not tongues. How could that be? ... So, to me, this supposed gift will remain a HUGE red flag until proven otherwise. That said, tongues were clearly a gift in the early church - yet not manifested as we see they are today.

An interesting argument (Edit: not based on Scripture), but it's the argument the 16th Century Catholic Church would have made in opposition to Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and others. It's the argument hierarchical churches (Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran) would have made against congregational governance. It's an argument the Catholic Church, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc., would have made in favor of infant baptism. That God does not use the gift of speaking in tongues among those who would reject it or would be freaked out by it is irrelevant to the question of whether the gift of speaking in tongues is valid today. OTOH, for God not to use speaking in tongues among those who would reject or be freaked out by it is rather wise and practical.

[PeteSinCA]

The few churches I have been to that practiced tongues didn't have a clue what they were doing. They treated tongues as a sideshow. As you mention early in the video, tongues alone are proof of nothing. Especially unknown tongues. When a church is in total confusion because so many are speaking and nobody is interpreting, then it is not of God. For that type of tongue (prophetic), only one or two speak, and someone must interpret. Most mentions of tongues in the New Testament though, are something else entirely. In Acts, the disciples spoke in other tongues, but they were tongues that were understood by the foreign Jews at the temple, so each heard the gospel in their own language.

Missed your post earlier this AM, p34l. To some degree you echo Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 14. Paul sums it up with these words:

1 Corinthians 14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. ... 40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

All the things (and more) listed in verse 26 can and should be done in a church "service", but with the purpose of edification and in an orderly manner. Paul defined, for speaking in tongues, what "orderly" would mean (and he didn't say, "Just don't!"). As I asked elsewhere, rhetorically, where, today, are there churches whose "services" are anything like what Paul described in verse 26?

The incident in Acts 2, to which you alluded, in which bystanders understood what was spoken in tongues,is actually unique, not the norm in Scripture That would be the reason Paul instructed, in 1 Corinthians 14, that speaking in tongues should only happen in a gathering of believers when it is interpreted; if the hearers directly understand the message in tongues, Paul's instruction that there be an interpretation is pointless.

If someone questions you, tell them that tongues, like most gifts can be faked or can come from demonic sources as well as from God. The fruits of the spirit cannot be faked for any length of time.

That first sentence should be an advice to caution, not an argument that speaking in tongues cannot be genuine (not that you were making such a point). As to fruit, concur. As Jesus said, "By their fruit you will know them."

[Philip]

OK, so if we follow B.W.'s reasoning that tongues are not common - practiced by only a tiny minority of vast Christian Church - and that this is merely due to How God chose to parse them out - well, that presents a dilemma for the vast majority of Christians who do not speak in tongues or are very wary of them.

How would one without this gift, whom has never spoken in tongues, when encountering one speaking them - how would that Christian know that the tongues are authentic and God-given? Or if there is an interpreter - same problem - how do we KNOW that the tongues or their interpretations are of the Lord?

Also, unless needed to break a communications barrier between people of different languages, as for a immediately needed witnessing tool, what are their purposes, if one can't understand them or can't be certain of either their origins, meanings and purpose. Unless giving a prophetic interpretation so specific that it can be totally validated as being from God, I can't see their purpose. Also, as tongues are mysterious and supernatural - the ability of the devil to give a counterfeit understandably causes great wariness, mistrust of what has been uttered and, especially, their source. God can understand us when speaking in our native languages - so who are the tongues for? Do most people speaking them even know what they've uttered - without having to trust an interpreter?

And so the many problems, their great misunderstandings, enormous potential for deception, lack of ability for most Christians to understand them - I see them as more divisive and potentially dangerous than useful for those with faith in Jesus (for unbelievers as well) - at least as they are described and manifested TODAY.

I see these snake-handling pastors on TV (maybe not a good representation for authenticity) begin babbling (supposedly in tongues) as they pray over a rattlesnake bite victim. And my spiritual radar goes off at full alert. Of course, these are people putting God to wrongful, foolish tests per the tacked on verses at the end of Mark. Again, maybe not a fair representation of tongue speakers.

Bottom line: I can't trust what I can't know, verify or understand - ESPECIALLY, when all I can see and hear appears to be coming (ONLY) from other human beings. Add in the redflags and the way they are often manifested - well, you can see my concerns. I see and hear them and I am disturbed in my spirit. IF they are from the Lord, TODAY, I want to verify and embrace this. But I just can't!

[PeteSinCA]

It's when they say you need to do it because that is the only proof you have the Holy Spirit, that is when I object.

Concur entirely:

* Speaking in tongues is not an evidence of salvation (see Acts 8 and 19 for two obvious instances contradicting this idea/doctrine);

* Speaking in tongues is not the sign that one has been filled with the Spirit; the Holy Spirit gives gifts as He wills;

* Speaking in tongues is not a proof of spiritual maturity; it is but one of many tools given by God to build up and serve believers.

[RickD]

I don't know if this has even been brought up, but are we talking about "tongues" in the same sense as the tongues in Acts? Tongues as the native language of the one listening to the gospel?
Because when I think of modern "tongues", I think of Pentecostal gibberish. Has there been any evidence of tongues as in Acts, still happening today?

[PeteSinCA]

exactly - but the problem is now it seems to me that tongues are appearing in every church and I have to wonder that the devil will also attack the church more strongly in the end times too. his attack will be a false doctrine, lax biblical hermeneutics and pride of spiritual achievement or envy of others apparent ability and infilling - among many other attacks.

Won't take exception to the literal words/meaning of this as written, but do hope you are keeping in mind what Jesus said about specks and beams (advice I willingly apply to myself, I would add).

[PeteSinCA]

right on the nail! tongues is a badge of salvation to some.

There are some Pentecostals and charismatics out there (pun intended) who believe and teach that, but they are far from the majority and, arguably, not mainstream. As my previous post should have made clear, I do not believe this: I never have; I never have heard it taught in some 25 years in charismatic churches; I have seen/heard charismatic writers, teachers and pastors teach against the idea.

I believe we learn the will of the Spirit in the Word of God.

Yes and no. Yes, as to general things pertaining to righteousness, salvation and the Christian life. No, for example, as to whether P should be a small group leader or K should be a missionary; or, maybe a little more to the point, whether P's spiritual gift is teaching or G's spiritual gift is giving. I doubt you'd disagree, I'm merely taking your statement to a more detailed level.

the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and would never go against it. when I read 1 Corinthians 12 - 14 I see a case against tongues.

Assuming there is no typo in, "when I read 1 Corinthians 12 - 14 I see a case against tongues," I seriously do not understand how you can say that. How does verse 5 of chapter 14, "I wish you all spoke in tongues" not demolish any such "case against tongues"? How does verse 18, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you," not shatter any such "case against tongues"? How does verse 39, "do not forbid anyone from speaking in tongues" not utterly contradict any such "case against tongues"? I know, you warned against, "tiny out of context proof texts," and I just quoted brief sentences and phrases. Well and good! Include as many more verses as context as you desire for each of my quotes in this paragraph. Include the whole chapter if you like, as it does not contradict or render meaningless the clear meaning of those verses. Almost the entirety of 1 Corinthians 14 speaks of the proper use of the gift of speaking in tongues, so it is absurd to claim it makes a case against speaking in tongues!

I do believe that those that do speak in tongues are not losing the salvation though they may well be stunting their sanctification.

I'm glad you're not one of those (hopefully quite rare) Fundamentalists who would regard me as unsaved and demon-possessed (I respect Fundamentalists for many substantial reasons, so my usage of the word is in no way pejorative). But how you can claim some one's proper usage of a gift given by the Holy Spirit and placed in the church by God, "may well be stunting their sanctification," is incomprehensible to me.

[PeteSinCA]

I would think that if you could quit speaking in tongues like some here have acknowledged (while still a faithful follower of Christ) - that is, if you could turn it on or off like a water coming out of a faucet - then how could it possibly be a manifestation of God's Spirit within?

Paul "answered" this argument (which is not based on Scripture) in 1 Corinthians 14:

14:27 If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret. 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak and the others should evaluate what is said. 14:30 And if someone sitting down receives a revelation, the person who is speaking should conclude. 14:31 For you can all prophesy one after another, so all can learn and be encouraged. 14:32 Indeed, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, 14:33 for God is not characterized by disorder but by peace.

The 2 or 3 speakers in tongues limitation in verse 27 clearly means that the believers so gifted still have control over speaking out or not. The instruction in verse 28 similarly means the one with the gift of speaking in tongues can control whether they speak out or not. Verses 29-31 speak of the same kind of control with regard to the gift of prophecy. And lest the implications of those verse be missed, in verse 32 Paul states clearly that believers with the gifts of prophecy or tongues are not in a robotic trance, but still have the ability to choose to speak or not.

And if you don't know what you are actually saying while speaking in them - how do you know their source? How do you know if someone supposedly interpreting is actually truly doing so?

That's a good question in a discussion of proper usage, but not is not a good argument that there cannot be proper usage. Paul much precluded that argument with: "I wish you all spoke in tongues;" "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you;" "do not forbid anyone from speaking in tongues."

[Philip]

14:27 If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three,one after the other, and someone must interpret. 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak and the others should evaluate what is said. 14:30 And if someone sitting down receives a revelation, the person who is speaking should conclude. 14:31 For you can all prophesy one after another, so all can learn and be encouraged. 14:32 Indeed, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, 14:33 for God is not characterized by disorder but by peace.

This is still very unclear as to it's proper meaning and context (then vs. today}. First, clearly, unless an interpreter, one speaking in tongues does not know what he is saying. So all of this chaotic, simultaneous speaking in tongues in churches today cannot be of God because "God is not characterized by disorder." So, I hear someone speak in tongue and I don't know what was said. Again, I don't know the source. I don't truly know if an interpreter truly is one, nor do I know for sure whether whatever purported revelations or truths are from God or are merely from the person (or from SOME entity) speaking in a tongue. And as our native language is English (or whatever it happens to be), what does it profit us to hear something that we do not understand, not knowing the source, and not certain of any supposed translator - not really sure of the authenticity of EITHER? Why wouldn't God give messages in a language that everyone can understand, unless there is more than one language being spoken and there is no one who knows BOTH of them.

Philip wrote: And if you don't know what you are actually saying while speaking in them - how do you know their source? How do you know if someone supposedly interpreting is actually truly doing so?

Pete wrote: That's a good question in a discussion of proper usage, but not is not a good argument that there cannot be proper usage.

But they are highly important and critical questions: So a person speaking in tongues doesn't even know what he's saying - but Pete is intoning that the SPEAKER is in control. So you are supposedly channeling God's Spirit and His messages but the speaker is the gatekeeper for when to let these communications of God out? And how do you KNOW this is from God? How do you KNOW an interpreter has HIS gift? This is an awful lot of trust in something you don't truly seem to understand - be it the source or what was said, and so you must have great faith in the interpreter/his interpretation. The Scriptural references in no way prove that tongues are still a gift today. That is debatable - especially since they are so sparsely used across the vast majority of millions of Christians and churches - in which most do not have or use this gift. This and the fact that a highly clever adversary roams the earth with a huge bag of counterfeit toys. And this has to be one easiest things to fool people with.

Paul much precluded that argument with: "I wish you all spoke in tongues;" "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you;" "do not forbid anyone from speaking in tongues."

Yes, he said that for his audience OF THE TIME. But the obvious question is, do his words in this matter still apply? That is totally unclear. And here's the thing - if Paul, in his statement ("I wish you all spoke in tongues") was revealing GOD'S own desire about this gift, and IF it is still for today - then why has God given such a tiny minority of Christians the gift - IF Paul's desire is the same as God's and if it is for today?

And there is clearly a difference between how, at Pentecost, people heard and understood others, of other languages, in their native tongues. But this is not what tongues are today - not what I'm hearing/seeing in various churches. Unless shown otherwise by God, I'll continue to avoid what I do not trust, do not know the source of, and that I remain highly wary of. And I love my brothers who disagree, but this isn't an rather meaningless issue like "sprinkling vs. dunking." Because if Christians are wrong about the source and the messages behind tongues ...

[PeteSinCA]

it is precisely these questions that make me doubt tongues. also that you can be taught to talk in tongues, buy books and dvds and even attend courses in tongues - because this gift from God needs man's help - right?

In 25 years among charismatics and charismatic churches I have never (literally, no fudging or hyperbole) seen such a book, tape, CD, DVD, or "teaching" session (nor any form of ad for one). So please avoid painting with such a wide broom! I have heard that such things exist/happen, and I trust the sources. Those sources were pastors of charismatic churches, and they were deriding such "teaching". Please, in the future, be honest enough to direct your criticism of this practice to those who actually do it or approve of it. I am very unappreciative of being the target of straw man arguments.

[PeteSinCA]

Also, if true, why would God have almost exclusively distributed such gifts along denominational lines?

I responded earlier today to much of the content of this post. This comment by you has the cart before the horse. God did not distribute the gift of tongues (and other gifts) along denominational lines, i.e. only to Pentecostals. The actual historical sequence of events was that God distributed the gifts in several revivals beginning a little over a century ago, those believers were driven from their denominations, and Pentecostal denominations were formed.

Endorsing modern tongues (at least as we have been seeing over the past 50 years) ...

Here's a bit of history I hope you'll find informative and helpful.

And it doesn't mean that God's purposes for tongues didn't change after the first century or that His purposes for them might very well come again - even differently, somehow.

In 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 Paul told us when the gift of speaking in tongues (and other gifts) would cease, at Jesus' second coming.

[RickD]

Pete wrote:
In 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 Paul told us when the gift of speaking in tongues (and other gifts) would cease, at Jesus' second coming.

Could you show me where in these verses, that it says the gift of speaking in tongues would cease at Jesus' second coming? I just see that it says they will cease. I don't see where it says when.

[Philip]

Rick, I believe he is referring to 1 Corinthians 13:10.

But read this: http://www.aconqueringfaith.net/2007/08 ... ought.html