January 16, 2010 FB
Let me say right up front that this is in no way intended to be unloving, but on the contrary; it is meant to be a loving admonition to see the truth of God’s word and to obey Him.
Here are just seven biblical reasons, among many, why the modern form of Christian “praying in tongues” is not only unbiblical, but it is also sin. The form of tongues that will be addressed is not the original manifestation found in Acts 2 of speaking in actual earthly foreign languages, but rather the practice of speaking, praying, or singing in an unknown and unintelligible love language, either publicly or privately, which is found and promoted among charismatic churches. The main passage used will be 1st Corinthians 12-14, which is confused by Christian charismatics to support their view on tongues, but when we see it in its original historical context the passage actually teaches the exact opposite of what they believe. And it will be shown that the error that the Corinthian church made is the same exact error that the modern charismatic movement is making.
Here is a brief description of what charismatics say happens when they speak/pray/sing in tongues: Before speaking in tongues, one must get into the spirit by turning their mind over to the Holy Spirit. This involves a sort of trance-like state. Then one begins to utter sounds without meaning, and the Holy Spirit will then control and guide the sounds so that they become an outpouring of love and praise to the Father.
One other note: Science has actually proven that the speech centers of the brain are not functioning when one is speaking/praying/singing in tongues; which means that it is either complete nonsensical gibberish or some other source is controlling it. For this study to be meaningful to you it will be helpful if you have your Bible open to 1 Corinthians so you can see if what is being said is true, and to allow God to speak to you through His word. Onto the study.
Our modern version of praying/speaking/singing in unintelligible words is unbiblical because…
1 ...There is no record of anyone “praying in tongues” in the Bible. Check every single prayer and song in the entire Bible. None of them were ever done in any way other than in an intelligible language that the person praying or singing knew and used. There is not one biblical example of a prayer or song in unknown, unintelligible tongues for us to follow. Furthermore, there is not even one biblical mention of a person ever praying or singing in unknown/unintelligible tongues to God when they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Not Moses, not David, not Daniel, not Paul, not Peter, and not even Jesus (and He was Deity). If anyone would have had the “gift” of praying in tongues it should have been Jesus, but there is no record of Him ever praying in an unintelligible prayer language to the Father. Therefore, since we cannot come up with a single example of how it would have been done or even find one mention of someone praying in tongues in the Bible, the modern "gift" of praying in tongues does not have any actual biblical support via description.
2 ...It is confusion and disorder. In a group setting, speaking in tongues becomes a practice of disorderly confusion, and in the church at Corinth worship was extremely disordered. The apostle Paul describes the worship service of the Corinthians by saying that everyone was trying to use their spiritual manifestation at the same time (1 Cor. 14:23, 26). Some were babbling in tongues, some were trying to preach, some were trying to sing a solo. And when an unbeliever would enter their assembly he would equate the confusion and disorder of the Corinthians to the God that they were worshipping (14:23). In other words, the Corinthian confusion showed that God Himself was a God of confusion. And the Bible says that “God is not a God of confusion” (14:33). Furthermore, James 3:16 says that where confusion and disorder is, “every evil thing” is accompanied by it. By practicing worship like this, we actually open a door for demons to enter into the service. And guess what; some of the Corinthians were actually cursing Jesus in a foreign language because demons had taken control of their voices (12:3). By the way, it has been testified that at many modern charismatic tongue speaking sessions Jesus is actually being cursed in a foreign language. This does not imply that all of these meetings are demonic, but it simply shows that it does happen occasionally where demons do enter these meetings, especially where there is disorderly confusion.
3 ...It is evidence of spiritual immaturity. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13:11, is speaking of tongues and he says “When I was a child I spoke as a child.” The Greek word he uses for child is nepios, which is better translated “baby” or “infant.” Paul is saying that the Corinthian perversion of tongues is nothing but baby gibberish. Paul then goes on to command the Corinthians to “stop being childish in your thinking. In respect to evil be like infants, but in your thinking be mature” (1 Cor. 14:20). If believers are to grow up in faith, they must do as Paul: “When I became a man I put away childish things” (13:11; cf. Heb. 5:11-14). Furthermore, in Romans 12:2 Paul says that the way we are transformed into adults is through the “renewing of [our minds].” Believers are to get spiritual revival only through pouring our minds into God’s word (Psalm 119:50, 93), not through turning our minds off and over to the Holy Spirit, or by using our external senses, or by working ourselves up into an emotional orgasm.
4 ...It was originally a pagan practice that still exists. Historically, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (ca. 427-347 B.C.), in his Dialogues (Phaedrus, Ion, and Timaeus), described extensively the pagan practice of speaking to their gods in unintelligible ecstatic mystery languages. He described it by saying that one would get into the spirit by turning control of their mind over to the pagan god. This involved getting into a trance-like state. Then one began to utter sounds without meaning, and the spirit of the god would then control the sounds so that they became an outpouring of ecstatic worship to the god. Sound familiar? We also know from history that when someone who lived in the first century A.D. would visit the priests and priestesses in pagan temples, they would worship one of the pagan gods by speaking in the tongue of that god. They would go out of themselves and the pagan god would control their vocal uttering. They would then proceed to do sexual perversions with the priests and priestesses to further their worship. The church of Corinth came out of this pagan background (1 Cor. 12:2), and Paul wrote to correct some of the pagan practices that they carried over into their Christian worship (10:21). So when Paul says that when “one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God,” (14:2) in the original Greek Paul says he speaks to a god, not the true God. Paul is not prescribing a Christian gift. He is describing the pagan mystery practice that the Corinthians had brought into their worship of the true God. This is why Paul makes a distinction between tongues (plural), and a tongue (singular) throughout 1 Corinthians 12-14. There are many different kinds of languages (tongues; the true spiritual manifestation) but only one kind of gibberish (a tongue; the false pagan practice). Coincidentally, satanic cults today call their modern practice “the tongues of angels,” or the “Enochian language”; and these ancient pagan cults began to reemerge in the 1950s (i.e. Wicca, Celtic cults, etc.) just before the charismatic movement began.
5 ...It does not edify the Church. Spiritual manifestations (12:4-7) are given only to edify other members of the church (1 Cor. 14:12, 26; cf. Eph. 4:29; 1 Pet. 4:10), not oneself. Paul directly, and sarcastically, says that those who speak in “a tongue” cannot possibly edify anyone but themselves (1 Cor. 14:4). If true spiritual manifestations were given to edify the church and speaking in “a tongue” (gibberish) does not edify the church, then speaking in “a tongue” is not a spiritual manifestation. There are two other big reasons why speaking in “a tongue” should not be done in the church: A) It causes others to stumble. Since the practice is originally pagan, it would cause others from that background to stumble, and causing others to stumble is sin (8:11-13; cf. Matt. 18:6-7). B) It is unloving and selfish. Paul says that true love does not seek its own edification (1 Cor. 13:5; cf. 10:23-24). When we encourage each other to pray in tongues for their own edification we are actually telling them to use a “spiritual gift” for themselves. And this is the exact opposite of what the manifestations were meant to be used for; they are for edifying others. Therefore, one who attempts to edify himself through private praying in a tongue is actually showing that he does not have true love for the brethren, but rather is motivated by vain self-interest.
6 ...It was not meant for every believer. Firstly, it is the Holy Spirit who gives manifestations as He wills (1 Cor. 12:11), not as we will. So asking God for the “gift” of praying tongues will not work because He decides who gets which manifestations, not us. Secondly, not every believer was given the manifestation of speaking in tongues. Paul says that some believers were given tongues, some were given prophecy, some were given discernment, etc (12:7-11), for the common good of the church. Therefore not every believer could have the manifestation of tongues (12:29-30). And finally, the church would not be a body if every believer had the manifestation of tongues. Paul says that the church is like a human body with distinct parts (12:12), and that if all had the manifestation of tongues then the body could never be taken care of properly (12:19, 25). Furthermore, a believer is commanded not to seek a manifestation they have not been given because the one that they do have is necessary (12:15-18, 22) and specifically designed personally for them by God Himself (12:7, 18; cf. Rom. 12:3-6). Therefore, one who has been given the gift of teaching, or service, etc. must not seek a different or second gift, but must seek to use and perfect the one he has been given.
7 ...It is direct disobedience to Christ. Jesus Himself addressed the pagan practice of praying in tongues. In Matthew 6:7 Jesus says “And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.” In the original Greek Jesus is saying not to repeat meaningless, unintelligible gibberish (Gk. battalogeo) when we pray. Please note that Jesus does not say that we are not to pray exactly what the pagans pray, rather he is saying that we are not to do anything that is even similar to what they do in prayer. In other words, He doesn’t say not to pray the same things the pagans pray, but not to pray the way they do. Also, in the context Jesus is speaking of private prayer. So He is saying that not even in our private prayers are we to utter words/sounds that we cannot understand. Therefore, speaking words/sounds that one cannot understand, just like the pagans do to their gods, is direct disobedience to the Lord Himself.
Jesus does tell us the greatest way that we are to show Him that we love Him, and it’s not by praying in an unintelligible love language to Him. Jesus says "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). So if He commanded us not to pray in tongues, then we must obey Him. Otherwise we do not truly love Christ.
Nehemiah Ryan © 2010
ORIGINAL NOTE COMMENTS
Some comments that were responded to were deleted.
I do want to offer up a comment and a supposed objection (one I have heard in the past).
1) In relation to #2 Mr. Klaassen mentioned his relative was a missionary in Africa. She later spoke in a Charismatic church and someone spoke in tongues. It was the language she worked with. Someone interpreted it as praise, but she understood how blasphemous it was.
2) (Objection, I speak as a fool)... Now Nehemiah. We know that Satan can easily deceive us by making things which seem like God's working. I think this is what you are doing. You said that Plato in "his Dialogues, described extensively the pagan practice of speaking to their gods in unintelligible ecstatic mystery languages. He described it by saying that one would get into the spirit by turning control of their mind over to the pagan god. This involved getting into a trance-like state. Then one began to utter sounds without meaning, and the spirit of the god would then control the sounds so that they became an outpouring of ecstatic worship to the god. Sound familiar? Incidentally, satanic cults today call their modern practice 'the tongues of angels,' or the 'Enochian language'."
Are you accusing Peter of blasphemy? Does not Acts 10:9-10 tell us how Peter went to the roof to pray and fell into a trance? The Greek word is Ekstasis, where we get ecstacy. The word clearly has the idea of being out of ones mind, thus we translate it 'trance'. That which Plato described is merely a mockery of the real.
Nehemiah Ryan
I don't understand what u are objecting to. You are using an ad hominim argument that is faulty, therefore there is really nothing to object to.
Peter's experience was not of speaking in an unknown prayer language (like the pagans did/do), but of a vision which he was not in control of because God was revealing something new to him about the Church. It was something forced upon Peter, not something Peter tried to do. Peter could also raise the dead and write Scripture (but he was an apostle). Does that mean that every believer has these abilities? How many dead bodies did you bring back to life this week Aaron?
The era was that of a transition to the new dispensation so things happened back then that don't happen today.
Also, i never meant to imply that all trances are satanic, nor did i ever say that all trances are blasphemous. if you read me carefully, i try to be objective about everything. See the last sentence under point 2.
You might also want to see how the term "Ekstasis" is used in other contexts (Mk. 5:14; 16:8; Lk. 5:26; Acts 3:10; 11:5; 22:17). It does not always mean a trance. The term merely means a displacement of mind. In other contexts it's used to say that what a crowd saw "blew their mind" (ie. Lk. 5:18-26). Ekstasis does not always mean a trance. Also, u might want to do a search on the word "Existemi" and see how the root word is used (ie. Matt. 12:23; Luke 2:47; etc). Context is what?...
Aaron Walton
It was not an actual objection of mine (that is why I put "I speak as a fool"), but I have heard it before, and I wanted to see how you would answer such objection.
Nehemiah Ryan
I didn't think it was one of your objections. I answered it as if i were answering someone directly. Sorry if i seemed harsh. Also, thanks for getting me to do a little more research so i could strengthen the apologetic.
Aaron Walton
Oh no, that was good. I guess I forgot how much my post was as an actually objection, and you replied accordingly. I really liked the "Context is what?" :')
Miriam Grace Dickerson
ok just one question. why does Paul say he thanks God he speaks in tongues more than they all?
Nehemiah Ryan
The apostle Paul did have the true gift of speaking in foreign languages, and he definitely needed it with all the different Gentiles he was witnessing to on his journeys. So when he says the he used it more than them, that is exactly what he's saying. He used the true gift of speaking in foreign languages more often than those in the Corinthian church who also had the true gift of speaking in foreign languages.
In 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 Paul makes a distinction between the true gift of speaking in languages and the false gift of babbling in nonsensical gibberish. The easiest way to see the difference is to go through the section and every time Paul says "a tongue" replace it with "gibberish", and every time he says "tongues" replace it with "foreign languages." If you do that you will better see what he's talking about. And be aware that Paul frequently uses sarcasm and hyperbole in his writings, especially in these chapters.
--Missing comments--
Nehemiah Ryan
Timothy did you even read this article? Please address all of the points in the article. Once all of my points are sufficiently refuted then you may present your argument. I will gladly refute all of your points because they are very easy to refute, but i won't right now. Please do not wantonly ignore the arguments against what you call "speaking in tongues." If you are wrong then you need to know it and accept it, and if i am then i do too. Just be open to changing your mind, as i am.
Miriam Grace Dickerson
why does he need to refute the points in your note? he just brought up verses in the bible. which should be the bases of what we believe.why should there be a need to look other places for info, other than the bible? do we believe it is Gods immutable word, complete in its self? it needs nothing added or anything taken away. we should be able to settle any argument about biblical issues using only Gods word. if some parts were translated wrong, how do i know other parts aren't? does it have principles about every issue of life, regardless of what time period we live in or not?
Nehemiah Ryan
Miriam, let me try to answer your questions, and please note that i do not want to hinder anyone's spiritual growth, and it is not my desire to be proved right. I only want the truth of God's word to be known, believed, and obeyed (by myself first).
1) why does he need to refute the points in your note?
My points need to be refuted because if they are not then i am still right in believing they are true. I must be shown that what i believe is wrong, not by bringing up different points, but by refuting the ones that are presented. Until they are sufficiently refuted i am still right to believe that what we now call "tongues" is not the true spiritual gift and it is not for today.
2) why should there be a need to look other places for info, other than the bible?
There is no need to look anywhere else than the Bible, unless it helps clarify what the Bible is talking about so we can be true to what it is saying and not put our own interpretations on the Bible. Also, the most helpful thing I can do is to ask God Himself to teach me what is true, and then begin to study so God can open up the correct belief to me. If i am not willing to change my beliefs about minor issues like this then i am proud and unwilling to be taught, even by God.
3) do we believe it is Gods immutable word, complete in its self?
God's Word is unchanging and complete, but our understanding of and obedience to it is not. That's why studying historical background, original languages, geography, etc. helps our understanding of what God is trying to say.
4) if some parts were translated wrong, how do i know other parts aren't?
A good Bible will always note where there are other valid translations of various words/phrases. And looking at commentaries by expert Greek and Hebrew scholars will help clear up some gray areas. Also, studying the original languages for oneself will always be of benefit.
5) does it have principles about every issue of life, regardless of what time period we live in or not?
Yes the Bible does have principles about every issue of life regardless of time periods, but not practices. Here's a question to ask yourself: "Have I brought my unblemished lamb to my priest make atonement for my sins?" That question is time-period based. We are no longer in the time period for bringing animals for sacrifice. Principles are not the same thing as practices. The modern practice of tongues is not given to us as a command in the Bible, and even the true gift of speaking foreign languages was not given to every believer (1 Cor. 12:7-11, 27-29).
There is a difference between when the Bible describes something and when it prescribes something for us to do. I have been working on finding answers to Timothy's points because i respect him and his points and i want to see if he is right so that i don't believe error. But so far i have not been able to make his points stick to the Bible. I will respond to all of them in a few days after i have thought them through and researched them a little more.
No comments:
Post a Comment