Gift Of Tongues

[Left the Bldg]

I am looking for advice and explanations on these verses from a Baptist perspective.  Please no articles or sermons.  I would like dialogue and discussion.  These are the verses charismatics use as explanation for speaking in tongues today.  

 

1 Corinthians 13

 

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity,  I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.  What language does angels speak?  

 

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.  When was it done away?

 

1 Corinthians 14

 

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.  Why speak in an unknown tongue to God?  Why not speak in your own language?

 

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; How does this edify oneself if they don't know what they are saying? 

 

6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?  Why come speaking in tongues rather than a known language?

 

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.  Why pray in an unknown tongue?  What does it mean his spirit is praying?

 

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, if tongues are a sign to unbelievers, why pray in tongues other than in church with interpretation?  Why does v2 say that he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men but yet this verse says it is a sign for unbelievers? but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

 

Thanks in advance for any replies.

[TheSword]

Oh my, you've put a lot of stuff out there that all can be expounded upon in great detail. Research into Charismatic theology, particularly spiritual gifts like tongues, has been a topic of interest for me because I worked with a guy who constantly tried to sell me on it. My head just exploded with all the things that are important to say on all of those references...I'll do my best to keep it brief and clear at the same tme...

 

First, what you must understand about speaking in tongues is that it is speaking in a language previously unknown to the speaker for the purpose of communicating the Gospel and glorifying God. An examination of Acts 2 should make this quite clear. This is especially important, and effective, because Charismatics have an unhealthy focus on Acts in general and use it to justify many of their doctrines. Second, an analysis of 1 Cor 12-14 will show that not everyone is meant to speak in tongues AND their usage has ceased (more on that later).

 

1 Cor 13:1 - The point of this verse is Paul saying that even if he spoke with different languages (whether of men or angels) it is useless if no one understand it. The context is critical to understand here. 1 Cor 12 is all about the diversity of spiritual gifts (i.e. that not everyone is given the same gifts and no one is given all gifts). The entirety of 1 Cor 13 revolves around the fact that all of these gifts are useless and ineffective if the person does not have Christian love (charity in the KJV translated from agape = selfless love...basically). This verse does not necessarily say that there is an angelic language, merely that even if Paul spoke in it that it would be fruitless. Charismatics always miss the negative connotation for tongues here. In truth, angels either speak all languages or only Hebrew and Greek or Aramaic because the people they speak to in the Bible always understand them without a translator.

 

1 Cor 13:10 - A full discussion on cessation is far too long for this post, but I can expound on it later or send you a paper/lesson on it if you desire. Basically, the "perfect" is the completed revelation/Word of God/Scripture. Thus, tongues and other sign gifts ceased when the completed canon of Scripture was either written (around 90 AD) or when it became available (varies depending on location).

 

1 Cor 14:2 - This is another verse in which tongues is in a negative connotation. 1 Cor 14 is all about the proper use of spiritual gifts so that they edify the church (not the individual) and are not disruptive. Paul is saying that when you get up and talk in a language that no one present understands then you're not talking to people and God is the only one that understands you.

 

1 Cor 14:4 - This is a rebuke for people trying to publicly speak in a language no one understands for the purpose of appearing spiritual. If I got up to the pulpit and started giving a lesson, sermon, or testimony in Greek, the only one I'm building up is myself. We should have learned in 1 Cor 13 that spiritual gifts are given for the express purpose of building the church and not ourselves.

 

1 Cor 14:6 - Negative connotation again. This verse re-emphasizes the purpose of tongues was for communicating spiritual truths through revelation, prophecy, or knowledge.

 

1 Cor 14:14 - Charismatics somehow twist this one to mean we should pray in "tongues" and often combine it with Acts 2:4 and Matt 6:6. However, this is a misapplication. Paul is still addressing the use of spiritual gifts in a corporate setting (such as a church service). The use of tongues here pictures a person praying for the group in a language only he understands. Everyone else is therefore not praying with understanding because they have no idea what they're lending their spirit to. Paul is saying that praying in a language you don't know is unfruitful.

 

1 Cor 14:22 - A lot of meat here, but the crux is that tongues are a sign gift given to authenticate a message, typically a new one to the hearer. Go back through Acts and you'll see every time tongues were used it was in the deliverance of the Gospel to a new group (Jews, then Samaritans, then Gentiles). Like the other sign gifts (e.g. miracles, healing, etc), it was to show the people that this new revelation was truly from God because they did not have the completed Word yet. This goes back to the earlier point on cessation. Since there is no new message of revelation to be given, there is no longer a need for a miraculous sign gift to authenticate it.

 

I know that's a lot of info and it really only scratches the surface. What you have to understand about the Charismatic interpretation of tongues is that there is nothing Biblical about it. Even if their interpretation of what it means to speak in tongues were correct (which it absolutely is not) their practice of it doesn't come close to the Biblical model laid out in 1 Cor 12-14. If you have questions or would like some resources or information, please let me know.

[Left the Bldg]

1 Cor 13:10 - A full discussion on cessation is far too long for this post, but I can expound on it later or send you a paper/lesson on it if you desire. Basically, the "perfect" is the completed revelation/Word of God/Scripture. Thus, tongues and other sign gifts ceased when the completed canon of Scripture was either written (around 90 AD) or when it became available (varies depending on location).  1 Cor 13:12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.  This verse is used by charismatics that when we see God face to face, then the gifts will cease.  How do you explain "but when that which is perfect is come" is the Word? 

 

 

 

[Steve Schwenke]

Laura, I am going to allow The Sword to answer your question as he has already started.  But allow me to throw a few things out there.  I know you asked specific questions on specific verses, but if you allow me to give you some foundational information, it helps sort out these specifics.  Here are some things the charismatics don't like to talk about.

 

1.  Why the infatuation with ONE GIFT?  Mark 16 lists several, but they are hung up on just ONE.  WHY? 

Answer: because of Acts 2.

 

2.  Was the "speaking in tongues" that occurred in Acts 2 the Charismatic gibberish?

Answer: NO - the text is clear that the disciples were speaking in languages that could be understood by those present.  They were "UNKNOWN" to the speakers, meaning, the disciples had never taken any language classes to learn those respective languages yet the Holy Spirit empowered them to speak them miraculously.  Again, this is completely contrary to the Charismatic idea of "speaking in tongues."

 

3.  How many specific examples of somebody "speaking in tongues" does the Bible give us? 

Answer: THREE.  Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19

 

4.  How many people can we say for certain actually spoke with tongues in the Book of Acts?

Answer: Acts 2 - 12

Acts 19:7 - 12

Acts 10:44-48 - unknown, but certainly not a large number....

 

So again, we must return to the first question, which is, why do they make such a big deal about this?????

 

I Cor. 13:8-10:  I differ with most IB's on this point.  I believe the "that which is perfect" is Jesus Christ.  Everything we experience within our walk with the Lord is limited in scope, and our preaching, our gifts, and our knowledge will not be complete until we meet Jesus Christ face to face.  However, verse 8 clearly says that tongues will cease, and there is nothing in the text that demands the existence of "speaking in tongues" until we meet Jesus Christ.  They must distort the text to make it say that.

Regarding spiritual gifts, if we include all of the list in Mark 16, then we find that the sign gifts given to the Apostles were disappearing in their own lifetime.  Compare Acts 19:11-12 with II Timothy 4:20.  In Acts 19, Paul was healing people left and right, even sending out handkerchiefs; but at the end of his own life, he left one of his friends behind sick, indicating that he no longer had the gift of healing.  Those sign gifts of Mark 16 died out even before the Apostolic Era ended.  Here is why:

 

I Cor. 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, but the Gentiles seek after wisdom.

 

In the OT, God always gave the Jews a sign so that they would believe His prophets.  But once the Jews rejected the Messiah, and the Gospel went to the Gentiles, those sign gifts began to decline.  This is clear in the Book of Acts.

 

In I Corinthians, Paul is rebuking the Carnal Corinthians for many things, many times over.  So for the Charismatics to go to I Corinthians to prove that "speaking in tongues" is for today only demonstrates their spiritual carnality.  They are doing the very same things the Corinthians did, which is, boasting about their gifts, and using their gifts to puff themselves up, instead of using their gifts for the edification of the church. 

 

The point of I Cor. 14 is that the church gathers together for the purpose of edifying one another, but that nobody is edified when there is a multitude of folks gibber-gabbering away in an "unknown" tongue.  Paul makes it clear that this "unknown tongue" is a "language" that nobody else recognizes, knows, and is therefore an unintelligible mess.  And who exactly is edified by that?  NOBODY.  So Paul tells them to KNOCK IT OFF, and grow up a little bit. 

He lays down some very strict rules about "speaking in tongues" that NO CHARISMATIC FOLLOWS:

I Cor. 14:26-34

1.  There can only be a maximum of 3 people speaking tongues at any given meeting

2.  They must speak in turn (i.e. not all at once)

3.  There must be an interpreter present so that EVERYONE can be edified

4.  If there is nobody to interpret, then those who want to "speak in tongues" are to be quiet

5.  The spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets - this means that if they do not conduct themselves in a manner similar to the prophets of old, then they are disqualified.  The key qualification is FAITHFULNESS TO THE REVEALED WORD OF GOD.

6.  NO WOMEN ARE TO SPEAK IN TONGUES.

 

If they can't abide by those rules, then all of their other questions are simply "smoke and mirrors" to try to distract you from the truth of God's words.

 

in Christ,

[TheSword]

 

 

 

Here's a short exegesis (interpretation) of the passages in question:

 

A. Prophecies shall fail and knowledge shall vanish.

     Katargĕō (rendered useless, abolished) vs ĕkpiptō (drop away, be driven out). In the passive voice and indicative mood – something else will make it unnecessary.

 

B. Tongues shall cease.

     Pauō – desist, come to an end.  In the middle voice and indicative mood – the action is done to itself, thus tongues will cease in and of themselves. We have to be a little careful not to read too much into the middle voice, but context suggests there is nothing in particular acting upon "tongues"

 

C. Knowledge and Prophecy abolished by that which is perfect (the Bible).

     There are typically three argument regarding what the "perfect" is. Christ (as mentioned by Bro. Steve), maturity of the church, or the completed New Testament. It is by no means crystal clear, but I believe the evidence leans toward the completion of the canon    

 

     Perfect – tĕlĕiŏs – complete; in the accusative singular neuter. 

     When used as an noun means “men” or “maturity”. (compare 1 Cor 14:20; Heb 5:14) 

     When used as a adjective it means “complete”

 

     In this case, "perfect" is functioning as an adjective, modifying "that". Using it as a noun is muddled when put in context -- "when that which is men/maturity is come". However, using it as an adjective, which is how both the Greek and English grammar uses it, it is rather clear -- "when that which is complete is come". Certainly there is some wiggle room to interpret it as Jesus, and I won't be dogmatic and say that my interpretation is absolutely correct; but, when considering Paul's propensity for referenceing Jesus by name and title and as a real person it becomes unlikely that he would be cryptic at such a critical point in his argument. Additionally, the adjectival use of "perfect/complete" points to an object that is complete and not a person.

 

Now, regarding the v. 13 you're asking about is a metaphor talking about looking into a dirty window and only being able to see part of what is on the other side. When the window is cleaned you will be able to look through it and know clearly what is there. There is no reference here to a person or event, merely two different states of the lens. The point about partial knowledge and full knowledge, in my assessment, references the knowledge about God. Those in the Corinthian church had no Scripture other than these letters to access the truths and knowledge about God. They had to rely on things such as prophecy, and miracles, and tongues. However, after the NT canon was complete, they had everything God intended to reveal to them.

 

Btw, aside from our different interpretations on what the "perfect" is, I wholly agree with Bro. Steve's post above.

[Left the Bldg]

Laura, I am going to allow The Sword to answer your question as he has already started.  But allow me to throw a few things out there.  I know you asked specific questions on specific verses, but if you allow me to give you some foundational information, it helps sort out these specifics.  Here are some things the charismatics don't like to talk about.

 

1.  Why the infatuation with ONE GIFT?  Mark 16 lists several, but they are hung up on just ONE.  WHY? 

Answer: because of Acts 2.

 

2.  Was the "speaking in tongues" that occurred in Acts 2 the Charismatic gibberish?

Answer: NO - the text is clear that the disciples were speaking in languages that could be understood by those present.  They were "UNKNOWN" to the speakers, meaning, the disciples had never taken any language classes to learn those respective languages yet the Holy Spirit empowered them to speak them miraculously.  Again, this is completely contrary to the Charismatic idea of "speaking in tongues."

 

3.  How many specific examples of somebody "speaking in tongues" does the Bible give us? 

Answer: THREE.  Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19

 

4.  How many people can we say for certain actually spoke with tongues in the Book of Acts?

Answer: Acts 2 - 12

Acts 19:7 - 12

Acts 10:44-48 - unknown, but certainly not a large number....

 

So again, we must return to the first question, which is, why do they make such a big deal about this?????

 

I Cor. 13:8-10:  I differ with most IB's on this point.  I believe the "that which is perfect" is Jesus Christ.  Everything we experience within our walk with the Lord is limited in scope, and our preaching, our gifts, and our knowledge will not be complete until we meet Jesus Christ face to face.  However, verse 8 clearly says that tongues will cease, and there is nothing in the text that demands the existence of "speaking in tongues" until we meet Jesus Christ.  They must distort the text to make it say that.

Regarding spiritual gifts, if we include all of the list in Mark 16, then we find that the sign gifts given to the Apostles were disappearing in their own lifetime.  Compare Acts 19:11-12 with II Timothy 4:20.  In Acts 19, Paul was healing people left and right, even sending out handkerchiefs; but at the end of his own life, he left one of his friends behind sick, indicating that he no longer had the gift of healing.  Those sign gifts of Mark 16 died out even before the Apostolic Era ended.  Here is why:

 

I Cor. 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, but the Gentiles seek after wisdom.

 

In the OT, God always gave the Jews a sign so that they would believe His prophets.  But once the Jews rejected the Messiah, and the Gospel went to the Gentiles, those sign gifts began to decline.  This is clear in the Book of Acts.

 

In I Corinthians, Paul is rebuking the Carnal Corinthians for many things, many times over.  So for the Charismatics to go to I Corinthians to prove that "speaking in tongues" is for today only demonstrates their spiritual carnality.  They are doing the very same things the Corinthians did, which is, boasting about their gifts, and using their gifts to puff themselves up, instead of using their gifts for the edification of the church. 

 

The point of I Cor. 14 is that the church gathers together for the purpose of edifying one another, but that nobody is edified when there is a multitude of folks gibber-gabbering away in an "unknown" tongue.  Paul makes it clear that this "unknown tongue" is a "language" that nobody else recognizes, knows, and is therefore an unintelligible mess.  And who exactly is edified by that?  NOBODY.  So Paul tells them to KNOCK IT OFF, and grow up a little bit. 

He lays down some very strict rules about "speaking in tongues" that NO CHARISMATIC FOLLOWS:

I Cor. 14:26-34

1.  There can only be a maximum of 3 people speaking tongues at any given meeting

2.  They must speak in turn (i.e. not all at once)

3.  There must be an interpreter present so that EVERYONE can be edified

4.  If there is nobody to interpret, then those who want to "speak in tongues" are to be quiet

5.  The spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets - this means that if they do not conduct themselves in a manner similar to the prophets of old, then they are disqualified.  The key qualification is FAITHFULNESS TO THE REVEALED WORD OF GOD.

6.  NO WOMEN ARE TO SPEAK IN TONGUES.

 

If they can't abide by those rules, then all of their other questions are simply "smoke and mirrors" to try to distract you from the truth of God's words.

 

in Christ,

I agree with all of the above and understand the logic but still need to communicate it with the certain verses they cling to with their doctrine.  I especially agree with you on the interpretation of 1 Cor 13:10  But when that which is perfect is come (Jesus - not the completion of the Bible because of v. 12 that mentions face to face), then that which is in part shall be done away.  This is where I get confused and don't know how to explain because it sounds like when Jesus comes, that's when the gifts cease when we see him face to face.

 

However, I have been in AOG church services where it seemed it was done in an orderly manner.  Allow me to explain.  During the praise and worship time, everyone would be praying or praising.  One person would begin to speak in "tongues" very loudly then everyone would quiet down, let the person speak and waited for interpretation and then someone interpreted.

 

On the other hand, I have been in prayer meetings where everyone was speaking in tongues at the same time...one girl was so intense, she was stomping her feet...but there was never any interpretation.  It was very chaotic and disturbing to me.  I have brought friends with me to AOG back in the day to visit and they were very uncomfortable.

 

They also use the scripture referencing that we don't know what to pray for so the Spirit groans for us (paraphrasing)...can't find verse right now.  That's why they're so stuck on it.

[Left the Bldg]

Now, regarding the v. 13 you're asking about is a metaphor talking about looking into a dirty window and only being able to see part of what is on the other side. When the window is cleaned you will be able to look through it and know clearly what is there. There is no reference here to a person or event, merely two different states of the lens. What is the "face to face" reference?  The point about partial knowledge and full knowledge, in my assessment, references the knowledge about God. Those in the Corinthian church had no Scripture other than these letters to access the truths and knowledge about God. They had to rely on things such as prophecy, and miracles, and tongues. However, after the NT canon was complete, they had everything God intended to reveal to them. Ok...this is a good explanation to point out why we don't need tongues or interpretation anymore.  Thanks.

 

Btw, aside from our different interpretations on what the "perfect" is, I wholly agree with Bro. Steve's post above. Me too.

[Ukulelemike]

I am looking for advice and explanations on these verses from a Baptist perspective.  Please no articles or sermons.  I would like dialogue and discussion.  These are the verses charismatics use as explanation for speaking in tongues today.  

 

1 Corinthians 13

 

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity,  I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.  What language does angels speak?  

As far as the Bible says, they speak the language of whoever they are speaking with. Abraham spoke Chaldean, Moses, Egyptian and probably a type of Hebrew, Jesus, Aramaic and Greek, Nebuchadnezzar, Babylonian, but whenever angels spoke with any of these, or others, there was no problem understanding one another. What do they speak in Heaven? I suspect they may not need to speak ANY language among themselves, but when they spoke to John, I assume it was in Aramaic or Hebrew-whatever John spoke. I believe it is also a warning against believe everything said, even if by an angel-Satan was an angel, abd spoke, then, with the tounge of an angel, but there was neither truth nor love in his words.

 

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.  When was it done away?

That which is perfect, or, if you will, complete, is the full word of God, the completed canon of scripture. After that point there is no more need for prophecies, for tongues or for specila knowledge of secret things-revelations if you will, because all needed would be revealed.

 

1 Corinthians 14

 

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.  Why speak in an unknown tongue to God?  Why not speak in your own language? Unknown to the listeners, not necessarily unknown to the speaker. Remember, at the time of this writing, and in Corinth especially, there were people from many areas and languages. If your listeners can't understand you, you waste your time. get an interpreter, or speak to the Lord who CAN understand you. I went to Romania once and heard an excellent speaker, who spoke in English, but he used an interpreter to pass the info on to the locals-it was an unknown tongue to them.  

 

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; How does this edify oneself if they don't know what they are saying? As a preacher, I get edified when I preach. Again, unknown not to them, but to the other listeners. We make an assumption we are talking about a miraculous tongue here.

 

6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?  Why come speaking in tongues rather than a known language? Paul spoke many languages. Some may have used it to seem, well, holier, or who could understand another langue pretty well, but not speak it well enough to teach others.

 

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.  Why pray in an unknown tongue?  What does it mean his spirit is praying? Some of this, like this verse, juxtaposes the Christian church with the pagan temple of Diana, very strong in Corinth, and this type of babbling tongue was very popular there-Paul is working to keep it from occurring in the true churches by rejecting some things as wrong and unscriptural. Just becasue one is 'overcome' by some spirit and begins to babble, doesn't mean it is a true holy Spirit from God.

 

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, if tongues are a sign to unbelievers, why pray in tongues other than in church with interpretation?  Why does v2 say that he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men but yet this verse says it is a sign for unbelievers? but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. Tongues were a sign to the Jews, period. It was the fulfillment of a prophecy to israel, that some would speak to them with other lips and tongues, but they would still reject. That's why the first instance of real miraculous tongues was to the Jews, and there were always Jews present, even Christian Jews, when we see true tongues occur. Their purpose was not for use in service, but for the lost Jews.

 

Thanks in advance for any replies.

[Steve Schwenke]

Laura, I don't know how to answer your question without writing out a complete teaching on the passage.  I'll try to summarize and make it brief, hopefully you can follow the line of thought. 

 

Verse 8 - Charity never faileth - no matter where we are in the grand scheme of things (OT, NT, Church Age, Israel, etc.), a love for God never fails a person

Prophecies...shall fail:  In the strict sense of the OT prophet, who would foretell the future by direct, special revelation from the Lord, THAT function has ceased.  We no longer prophecy like they did in the OT because they did not have a complete Bible, and we do.  We can only "prophesy" based upon what we know from the Bible.  In the OT, God told them what to say, and they were supposed to say it, whether or not they understood it.  So that has ceased.  Paul puts it in future tense "shall fail" because there were still prophets at that point in time.  He is saying that this function in God's program is going to cease, and we understand that in context of the completed Bible. 

 

Tongues...shall cease: Inasmuch as this a sign to the Jews that God used in the transitional period between God's message to Israel and God's message to "all the world" we can understand that the very nature of that transition, and hence those accompanying signs would eventually come to an end.  We are not "transitioning" into the Church Age anymore - WE ARE HERE.  So that accompanying sign would cease once we are firmly established in this "new era".  Paul again puts it future tense, because at the time he was writing, those signs were still there.  IN fact, Paul claims to have the ability to "speak in tongues" at that point in time (14:18), but he seems to understand that it was a temporary thing that would come to an end.

 

Knowledge...shall vanish away:  This is in harmony with what Solomon taught in Ecclesiastes.  Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel, and the longer history goes, the dumber man gets.  We forget all that our forefathers learned.  Case in point: American History - the average American knows little to nothing about the foundations of our country or our Founding Fathers.  They know ABSOLUTELY nothing about the Baptist influence on the foundations of America. 

Case in Point #2: Christians have forgotten their foundations, and are sliding headlong into apostacy.  Baptists have forgotten their roots, and are abandoning their Biblical roots faster than you can say "The Bible Belt."

 

Verse 9:  Our knowledge is incomplete, and we can only "prophesy" according to what we know.  (Again, the office of "prophet" in the OT is gone.)

Verse 10: When Jesus Christ comes, all of the incompleteness in our Christian experience will be filled in.  We will no longer need to walk in our incomplete knowledge with incomplete prophecies, and we won't need any more signs.  We will see Him, and we will have all things in their entirety.

 

Verse 11:  Illustration to drive home the point of vs. 8-10.  We are children of God right now, and as any child, we are dependent upon our Father to "fill in the holes" for us.  But one day, we will be "a man", which means that when Christ returns and we are with Him, we can put away that childishness and have complete knowledge and ability.

 

Verse 12:  NOW we see through a glass darkly - that is, today, in our present body and in our present experience, our knowledge, gifts, understanding, prophecies, etc. are incomplete.  We don't have a complete picture and we cannot clearly see what lies ahead.  We have a pretty good idea of what is coming, but a brief perusal of this forum (for example) will demonstrate how "dark" that picture is.  We as KJV Bible Believing Baptists are not in full agreement on many points of doctrine because we have incomplete knowledge.  The glass of the future is "dark."

 

"But then face to face" - When we see Jesus Christ, all of that "darkness" will vanish.  Jesus is the Light.

 

So then, hopefully that answers your question.  There is no promise given anywhere in the NT that those signs would be eternal, or that we would have those gifts until we see Jesus.  In fact, in my view, it goes contrary to the very passage they are using as a "proof text" (which is typical.)  The point is that everything we experience in our Christian life is sadly lacking, and no matter what that experience is, it leaves holes in our understanding of the Bible and of our Heavenly Father.  Those holes will not be filled in until we see Jesus face to face.

 

Does that help?

 

In Christ

[Steve Schwenke]

FWIW, I would not even attempt to try to persuade them on this passage.  I have found that the only way to put any holes in their theory is to back up and carefully teach through Acts on this issue, and then give a thorough teaching on I Cor. 14.

 

As far as that "heavenly prayer language" they talk about, the verse is Romans 8:26.  But we know this is not what "speaking in tongues" is because the verse specifically states "with groanings that CANNOT BE UTTERED."  If they can't be uttered, then that means that no matter how much effort we put into it, we cannot possibly even come close to speaking to the Father in the words that need to be said, and the HOLY SPIRIT makes that groaning and utterance for us.  We cannot always express the burdens upon our hearts in words, but the Holy Spirit CAN, and He DOES.   Again, their "proof text" says exactly OPPOSITE of what they try to make it say.

 

In Christ,

[Left the Bldg]

Yes...every explanation above truly helped.  I thank everyone from the bottom of my heart that took the time and patience so that I can articulate to those who still hold on to unscriptural doctrines.  A lot of my friends and family are still in AOG.  I also needed better understanding to 'shake off' all the false information I received in AOG. 

[DaveW]

Context - tongues, knowledge, undetstanding? Implies transfer of knowledge.

so it would be most in context to see it as knowledge being perfect.

secondly, the thought of face to face is really to do with clarity of vision, not personal meeting.
This also fits with understanding.

The general context of the passage indicates knowledge and understanding, therefore the finalisation of knowledge and understanding - the Bible - most easily fits with the context.

unless of course one does not believe that the Bible is perfect - then it doesn't fit at all........
convenient if you want to add stuff or take stuff away.

[John81]

I've heard several IFB pastors say the verse regarding when that which is perfect is come is referring to Christ, not the Bible.

 

There was also a Baptist missionary in China (if anyone knows his name, please post it because I can't find it or remember it) who served either in the 1800s or early 1900s which spent several years in China and couldn't learn the language. He was contemplating leaving China when something major happened where he was and when he went out to try and calm the people in English, because he still couldn't speak Chinese at all, the crowd all heard him in Chinese.

 

There are also reports from Baptist as well as many other Christian missionaries who talk about various miracles and such they have been a part of and witnessed.

 

Are we no longer gifted with faith, teaching, healing and such? Even John R. Rice spoke of his experience with some of these.

 

(Before anyone takes a wild leap here, NO, I'm not endorsing the crazy goings on in some churches and ministries which feature people flopping on the floor while spewing gibberish, or the phony and falsely called "faith healers")

[Left the Bldg]

Context - tongues, knowledge, undetstanding? Implies transfer of knowledge.

so it would be most in context to see it as knowledge being perfect.

secondly, the thought of face to face is really to do with clarity of vision, not personal meeting.
This also fits with understanding.  Just a question, if we have clarity of vision because we have knowledge and understanding due to the completion of the Bible, why do different denominations disagree on Biblical issues, even amongst Baptists?

The general context of the passage indicates knowledge and understanding, therefore the finalisation of knowledge and understanding - the Bible - most easily fits with the context.

unless of course one does not believe that the Bible is perfect - then it doesn't fit at all........
convenient if you want to add stuff or take stuff away.

[No Nicolaitans]

Plus, there's also the problem with the fact that the Bible is clear that the gift of tongues wasn't given to every member of the body.

 

1 Corinthians 12:4-11

4   Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5   And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6   And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7   But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8   For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9   To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10    To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11   But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

 

 

1 Corinthians 12:28-31

28   And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29   Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

30   Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

31   But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

 

However, the Pentecostals/Charismatics seem to believe that ALL can and should speak in tongues...a direct contradiction to God's word.  Some even take it to the point that speaking in tongues is proof of salvation; thereby, implying that if you're truly saved, you will speak in tongues...which would mean that God would violate his holy word in giving that one particular gift to every member.