(1) "Tongues" in Scripture is the word often used as a translation for "languages" (Greek glossai and dialektos are both words for "language"). So when the apostles, who were Galileans and normally spoke Aramaic, began to proclaim "the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11), the Holy Spirit listed the variety of languages in verses 9-11, and as you can see there are about 16 different languages which were spoken supernaturally on the day of Pentencost.
What word the author used tells us nothing. What other word would he possibly use?
The manifestation described in Acts 2 does not operate in the same way as described in the doctrine of tongues, written by Paul decades later. Acts 2 was a fulfillment of Joel 2:28 which describes the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of tongues in 1 Cor is based on a different prophecy - Isaiah 28:11 - a prophecy concerning "foreign lips and strange tongues". The tongues spoken in Acts were not spoken with "foreign lips" but by Jews.
Consider the striking differences between the two:
Acts: Understood by men. No need of an interpreter
1Cor: Not understood by men. Interpreter needed
Acts: Spoken by Jews. Refers to Joel
1Cor: Spoken by Gentiles. Refers to Isaiah
Acts: Public manifest. No concern for what people think
1Cor: Church gathering. Concern for what people think
Acts: No rules for how this gift operates
1Cor: Provides rules for how the gift should be used
The
only way to arrive at the conclusion that the tongues in 1 Cor were foriegn languages is by turning an historical account into doctrine and then make that doctrine
override clear doctrine written by Paul years later, at a time when the church was no longer a relatively unorganized group of people standing in the open streets.
(2) The gift of speaking foreign lanuages supernaturally was not given to absolutely every believer as an evidence of "the baptism of the Holy Spirit" (modern Pentecostal teaching) but was given as a gift to those who were chosen to receive this gift ("Do all speak with tongues?" Rhetorically asked by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:30. The obvious answer is "No").
Agreed.
(3) Tongues was "the least" of the spiritual gifts -- First [in importance and order of listing] apostles, then prophets, then teachers, then miracle workers, then healers, helpers, rulers, and finally "diversities of tongues", followed by interpreters (1 Cor. 12:28-31). Love [agape] was and is God's greatest gift, since it is God Himself (for God is love) [1 Cor. 13:13].
Agreed.
(4) Paul would rather have spoken 5 intelligible words of prophecy than 10,000 unintelligible words in a foreign language [even though supernaturally given] (1 Cor. 14:19).
It is often argued by tongue-opposers that the word "unknown" does not appear in the original text. Just as the word "unknown" does not appear there, neither does "foreign language", so why add something that is not there? At least "unknown" does not contradict scripture. "Foreign language" does:
"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed,
no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit."
This verse also proves that tongues could
not have been used to preach the gospel as some seem to believe.
(5) Tongues [languages, not babbling in glossolalia] as a gift would CEASE, as would prophecies and supernatural knowledge (1 Cor. 13:8-9). When could they cease? When that which was in part [partially written down revelations which ultimately became the New Testament] became "perfect' [or complete] at the end of the apostolic age. The apostle John wrote the last book of the New Testament and sealed up supernatural revelations at the end of this book (Rev.22:18-19). When the New Testament was completed around 90 A.D. Paul's prophecy regarding tongues, prophecies, and supernatural knoweldge became a reality.
That is an extra-biblical theory. There is nothing in the scripture that indicates any "completion" or "perfection" of scripture. In fact, the scriptures have never been imperfect. The only perfection that scripture indicates as something occuring in the future is the perfection of the saints.
Since God encourages us to establish truth on the basis of two or three testimonies then you would expect that anything of importance to be
scripturally verifiable. Cessationist theories are not. They don't pass the test.
(6) The earliest church leaders after the apostles [Apostolic Fathers] confirmed this by making a clear and deliberate distinction between their writings [which resemble Scripture to a remarkable degree] and the writings of the apostles. The apostles themselves acknowledged each other's writings as "Scripture" [Divine revelation] (see 2 Pet. 3:15-17). [Also, none of them mentions tongue-speaking in the post-apostolic chruches].
A complete Bible precludes further Divine revelations, while the end of the apostolic age precludes tongues.
The bible does not preclude any such thing. Prophecies external to scripture existed both then and now. Check it out. Even the book of revelations, which you use to prove that all gifts of prophecy and revelation would cease (which by the way is not what that verse says), teaches us that this is not so. The book of Revelations
proves that prophecy is still in effect
after the book was written. Check that out too.
Also, if Revelations 22:18-19 means that God has stopped speaking then what do you make of Proverbs 30:5-6?
Today's tongues bear no resemblance to those of Scripture,
Wrong.
Note carefully that today's "glossolalia" [babbling in a human "pre-language akin to a baby's] is admitted to be different from "glossai" -- speaking a foreign language fluently and supernaturally without having learned it.
That's because they
are different. The tongues Paul speaks about in 1 Cor are not "speaking a foreign language fluently". Scripture show us this very clearly.
Linguistic research into modern tongue-speaking has established this beyond the shadow of a doubt.
So "linguistic research" is what helps you to interpret scripture?
Evaluating truth based on human research is almost as deceptive as basing it on "post-apostolic churches".
Why is it that the same people who dogmatically proclaim that scripture is complete are the first to lean on extra-biblical arguments to prove their points?
True spirituality is not evidenced by "tongue-speaking" but by the fruits of the Spirit (Gal.5:22-23). Tongues are not among the gifts listed in Eph. 4:11 or Rom. 12:4-8 or 1 Pet. 4:10-11, since they were not designed for the edification of the saints but were meant to be a "sign' to unbelieving Jews (1 Cor. 14:20-22).
The word "Jews" does not appear in the text. It is missing for a very good reason. Jews are not the only unbelievers on this planet, and Corinth is a very
strange place to have a sign to the Jews, don't you think?
No spiritual gift was given for self-edification (1 Cor. 14:4-5) which Paul rebukes soundly, but for the edification of the whole Body of Christ. Yet tongue-speakers talk about edifying themselves, as though God really approves of this.
Paul does not "rebuke" self-edification. Why would he rebuke something that scripture
encourages:
"But you, dear friends,
build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit."
What he
did do was correct a misuse of the gift because the Corinthians were not being
mutually edified. Does this problem exist today? No. Today we have a totally different scenario. I have never attended a service and gone home unedified. I'll leave it to you to guess why.
Author