Is questioning the practice speaking in tongues blasphemy?

[ALAYMAN]

I met for a bite to eat recently with a man who had visited our church last week.  He claimed that he wanted to talk about our doctrine, to find out what we believe.  I know that just because a church sign say Baptist that it doesn't necessarily tell everything about what they believe, but there's more than a reasonable chance that you wont find them speaking in tongues (barring Ron Phillips ).  Anyhoo, in our discussion, one thing led to another, and it became pretty clear (though he tried to hide it fairly hard) that he was a charismatic (former pastor of 4 different churches).  After a bit of discussion, he said that rebuking the practice of tongues was tantamount to blaspheming the Holy Spirit.  So, is that a common belief among Pentecostals/charismatics (that to question their tongues talking is blasphemy)?

 

[TimbauxRioux]

Two things...they say it is blasphemy and some, like the UPC folks believe evidence of the baptism is speaking in tongues...some trinitarian charismatics also believe it (acts 2:38, etc)

 

[Dunkard]

I met for a bite to eat recently with a man who had visited our church last week.  He claimed that he wanted to talk about our doctrine, to find out what we believe.  I know that just because a church sign say Baptist that it doesn't necessarily tell everything about what they believe, but there's more than a reasonable chance that you wont find them speaking in tongues (barring Ron Phillips ).  Anyhoo, in our discussion, one thing led to another, and it became pretty clear (though he tried to hide it fairly hard) that he was a charismatic (former pastor of 4 different churches).  After a bit of discussion, he said that rebuking the practice of tongues was tantamount to blaspheming the Holy Spirit.  So, is that a common belief among Pentecostals/charismatics (that to question their tongues talking is blasphemy)?

Some do, probably a fair amount. As to it being common or not, there'd probably have to be some sort of survey. Or we could always check Google.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Are there any tongues speakers here on the FFF?

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Are there any tongues speakers here on the FFF?

Yes, but I do not belong to a charismatic congregation or anything akin to that.  I only do it during private prayer. 

My brother (an Episcopalian), and my sister (Baptist) also speak in tongues and feel the same way I do about it.

I have attended one or two charismatic services in my time, and quite frankly, I find them uncomfortable.

Is it blasphemy to question that gift? I believe that's a ridiculous notion.     

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Are there any tongues speakers here on the FFF?

Yes, but I do not belong to a charismatic congregation or anything akin to that. I only do it during private prayer. 

My brother (an Episcopalian), and my sister (Baptist) also speak in tongues and feel the same way I do about it.

I have attended one or two charismatic services in my time, and quite frankly, I find them uncomfortable.

Is it blasphemy to question that gift? I believe that's a ridiculous notion.   

1 Corinthians 14:22  Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Someone want to interpret that?

 

[subllibrm]

When Peter spoke at Pentecost he spoke recognized languages that he himself did not know. I have no idea what the tongues spoken today are for but they do not seem to have any connection to what Peter did that day.

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Someone want to interpret that?

Since you want to pluck verses out of a chapter instead of looking at the context of the entire chapter, let me pluck this one out for you.  Same chapter, different verse:

2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

 

[subllibrm]

Since you want to pluck verses out of a chapter instead of looking at the context of the entire chapter, let me pluck this one out for you.  Same chapter, different verse:

2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Does the man speaking know what he is speaking? Not trying to start anything, I am honestly curious.

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Does the man speaking know what he is speaking? Not trying to start anything, I am honestly curious.

I'm bowing out of this.  ALAYMAN asked a question, and I answered.  No offense, but I know where these speaking in tongues "discussions" lead:


Nowhere

 

[subllibrm]

Does the man speaking know what he is speaking? Not trying to start anything, I am honestly curious.

I'm bowing out of this.  ALAYMAN asked a question, and I answered.  No offense, but I know where these speaking in tongues "discussions" lead:


Nowhere

The reason I asked was because we are studying through this very issue at the elder board level (actually the bigger issue of cessation).

I don't want the opinion of someone who "knows" why it is done, what it means and that it is wrong. I want to understand it from the point of view of someone who knows from personal experience. I am sorry if I offended you. I honestly have no other agenda than to learn.

Bill

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I liked it when Robert Tilton spoke in tongues.  I distinctly remember he kept saying something about a Honda.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I liked it when Robert Tilton spoke in tongues.  I distinctly remember he kept saying something about a Honda.

I forgot all about him.

"Weve seen midgets grow"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm-Rf-f5zw4

 

[rsc2a]

When Peter spoke at Pentecost he spoke recognized languages that he himself did not know. I have no idea what the tongues spoken today are for but they do not seem to have any connection to what Peter did that day.

I've heard accounts of this still happening.

 

[rsc2a]

Someone want to interpret that?

Since you want to pluck verses out of a chapter instead of looking at the context of the entire chapter, let me pluck this one out for you.  Same chapter, different verse:

2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Because they don't line up with his own views, those verses don't count.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

When Peter spoke at Pentecost he spoke recognized languages that he himself did not know. I have no idea what the tongues spoken today are for but they do not seem to have any connection to what Peter did that day.

I've heard accounts of this still happening.

A lot of people (especially on the Internetz) speak in English, a language which they obviously don't know. 

Did I loose anyone with that remark?  Their, they're, there, it's not so bad.  The point is mute.

 

[ALAYMAN]

...Is it blasphemy to question that gift? I believe that's a ridiculous notion.   

First let me say that I appreciate your willingness to participate on a topic that is very sensitive and that you are in the minority. 

Would you (or have you heard other charismatic folk) say that those who deny that tongues should be spoken are blaspheming the Spirit?  Put another way, if I said that the phenomenon of tongues as practiced today was nothing more than jibberish, would that be considered blasphemy of the Spirit by any charismatics you know?

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Someone want to interpret that?

Since you want to pluck verses out of a chapter instead of looking at the context of the entire chapter, let me pluck this one out for you.  Same chapter, different verse:

2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Because they don't line up with his own views, those verses don't count.

Those verses are not contradictory to my views, they rather reinforce my view.

First of all, the modern phenomena of charismatic/pentecostal tongues  is not in the scriptures. Anywhere. Including here. Tongues is a synonym for languages, the gift of tongues is the supernatural ability to speak in an earthly language previously unknown to the speaker, but known to the listener. Acts 2 is evidence of this. Genesis 10:5 is the law of first mention verse, setting forth the view that tongues is synonymous with languages. Acts 2 is the law of first mention regarding the gift of tongues, specifically saying that earthly men understood in their own native tongue/language.

1 Corinthians 14 deals with the abuse of the gift of tongues, as much of 1 Corinthians deals with problems in the church.

Consider Abbottt on the the topic.
No man understandeth him. It would appear, from the statements in this chapter, that those upon whom were conferred the miraculous power of speaking in languages not their own, were accustomed to pervert the trust by making a parade of it, where no useful end could result, as a means of self-glorification.

Gill and Poole draw from Lightfoot who believed that the language in question was Hebrew, a few knew it, most didn't. That could be true, but it would be the use of a gift. Abbott's take is a much more scriptural one.

Chapter 14 goes on and on extolling the virtue of edifying others rather than some sense of self edification(See verses 5, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20,2223,24,25,26,27,28 and 39). If self edification is prescribed, this is the only place it occurs in scripture, in the balance of scripture we are told to edify one another.

 

[Izdaari]

As most of you know, I'm former Assemblies of God. I didn't leave over charismatic issues. I thought my former church (my particular pastor and congregation at least) handled those scripturally and correctly. I left because I had grown too "liberal" for the denomination in terms of culture and politics, and some other unrelated bits of theology.

So now I'm Episcopalutheran and still charismatic, but in a post-charismatic way. Which means, I still believe in the Gifts, that they still manifest today in ordinary believers BUT that they are widely abused in charismatic circles for self-aggrandizement and charlatanry. Rather than put up with that, which I do see as blasphemous, I'd prefer to focus on other things... and so now I'm happy in a church family that is not formally cessationist, but pretty much leaves it alone.

 

[rsc2a]

Someone want to interpret that?

Since you want to pluck verses out of a chapter instead of looking at the context of the entire chapter, let me pluck this one out for you.  Same chapter, different verse:

2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Because they don't line up with his own views, those verses don't count.

Those verses are not contradictory to my views, they rather reinforce my view.

First of all, the modern phenomena of charismatic/pentecostal tongues  is not in the scriptures. Anywhere. Including here. Tongues is a synonym for languages, the gift of tongues is the supernatural ability to speak in an earthly language previously unknown to the speaker, but known to the listener.

Oh, I know...

You believe in a "literal" hermeneutic whereby one must look at the "plain meaning"...

...except for all those passages where you don't really believe it like.....oh here.

1 Corinthians 14 deals with the abuse of the gift of tongues, as much of 1 Corinthians deals with problems in the church.
...

Chapter 14 goes on and on extolling the virtue of edifying others rather than some sense of self edification(See verses 5, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20,2223,24,25,26,27,28 and 39). If self edification is prescribed, this is the only place it occurs in scripture, in the balance of scripture we are told to edify one another.

But, for the sake of discussion, we'll pretend like you didn't just change saddles and act like the horse was different:

Verses 26 and 27 that you called out above say that everyone should have an opportunity to bring a hymn or a revelation and that two or three should speak. Since Paul is addressing abuses (per your own words), are you allowing abuse in your own assembly by restricting members from speaking or do you have an open pulpit during your service?