If Corinth had the same "tongues" as Charismatics, and their tongues are fake,then...

[rakovsky]

If Corinth had the same "tongues" as Charismatics, and their tongues are not blessed, supernatural gifts, or at least do not prove the truth of their claims, then what does that say about the Corinthians' tongues in the Bible? This is a potentially loaded question, and so it really needs to be broken down into parts.

First, were the Corinthians speaking national languages, or were they speaking incomprehensible phonetics that nations do not use as normal speech?

Those who equate Corinthians' glossolalia with the charismatics' note that 1 Cor 14 says: "he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him". If "tongues" were meant for outreach to foreign nations and were real languages, then normally one would expect that those who speak in the tongues to speak to foreign men, not just to God.

Paul also expects that uninformed believers who watch the Corinthians speaking simultaneously would think them to be having psychological confusion:
"Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind (or literally "maniacs")?" (1 Cor 14:23) This is the same kind of reaction that mainstream Christians often have when watching Charismatics.

Charismatics pray and sincerely ask for the gift of tongues like it says the first generation of Christians had. They point to Luke 11:11-13, saying that if children ask for a stone, the father does not give a fish. They ask how come they could get something deviant that they instead feel inspiring in themselves, when they sincerely asked God in prayer for the tongue gifts.


Second, is what Paul said that uninformed believers would think about Corinthians, namely that they were having mental phenomena, correct when it comes to Charismatics? Many mainstream nonCharismatics think this.

One Christian who is a former Pentecostal and works as a clinical hypnotist discusses the similarities between stage hypnotism and the charismatic movement in his essay:

"...The real power of hypnosis comes from the trust the hypnotist can instill in his subjects. They have to willingly grant him the ability to take over their critical thinking and direct their bodies. Some people are very trusting, or even looking for an excuse to abdicate their responsibilities and are able to be hypnotized within seconds, while others take more time to counter their fears."

http://psuedocults.blogspot.com/2008...arasmatic.html

One scientific study of Charismatic believers found Charismatics in surveys rated Christians who they listened to as being more charismatic when they were told by the survey testers that the Christian was a healer:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphen....qjBXU9bk.dpuf

Fr. Seraphim Rose used psychology to help explain modern glossolalia in his book Charismatic Revival As a Sign of the Times:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphen...-religion.html

Third, if you consider Charismatics' glossolalia and other unique phenomena to be supernatural, rather than mental confusion or otherwise natural phenomena, do you consider their glossolalia to be signs of their truth?

One of the difficulties in seeing glossolalia, speaking in incomprehensible phonetics, as strong proof of theological truth is that other religions practice it as well. Some Greek pagan oracles practiced it in ancient times.

Fr. Nicoczin writes about glossolalia in nonChristian pagan society in the region of Corinth:

Corinth was greatly influenced by Greek paganism which included demonstrations, frenzies and orgies, all intricately interwoven into their religious practices. In post Homeric times, the cult of the Dionysiac orgies made their entrance into the Greek world. According to this, music, the whirling dance, intoxication and utterances had the power to make men divine; to produce a condition in which the normal state was left behind and the inspired person perceived what was external to himself and the senses.

In other words, the soul was supposed to leave the body, hence the word ecstasy (ek stasis). They believed that while the being was absent from the body, the soul was united with the deity. At such times, the ecstatic person had no consciousness of his own.

The Corinthians of Paul's time were living under the influence of Dionysiac religious customs. It was natural that they would find certain similarities more familiar and appealing. Thus the Corinthians began to put more stress on certain gifts like glossolalia.

The university article below studies the comparison and similarities between Charismatic glossolalia and Hindu glossolalia, called "kriya":

http://www.academia.edu/9583833/SPEA...NDU_CONNECTION

Fourth, this leads to the question: If it's true that the Corinthians' glossolalia was the same phenomenon as modern Charismatics', and if Charismatics' glossolalia is mental confusion or self-induced hypnosis or does not otherwise serve as reliable evidence for the truth of their theology, does this lead to further conclusions about the Corinthians' own "tongues"?

[Littlejoe]

1 Corinthians 14:18 -

Scripture Verse: 1 Cor. 14:18

¹⁸ I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

© Copyright Original Source

[NorrinRadd]

There is no evidence in Scripture that the Corinthian glossa were "fake," so I reject the premise of the poll.

[Catholicity]

I totally agree with NorrinRad. Your premise is completely false. The evidence that we as Christians believe is that the tongues spoken of on the day of pentecost were of the Holy Spirit. End of story. Now we can argue about whether or not tongues today are theological or false but your premise is wrong to begin with.

[rakovsky]

The evidence that we as Christians believe is that the tongues spoken of on the day of pentecost were of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for writing back!
Do you think that the tongues spoken at Pentecost that foriegners understood were the same kind of tongues that Paul was talking about at Corinth?

[NorrinRadd]

Thanks for writing back!
Do you think that the tongues spoken at Pentecost that foriegners understood were the same kind of tongues that Paul was talking about at Corinth?

I think over a dozen languages were spoken at Pentecost, many of which were understood by the pilgrims in town for the festival. I think the language-gift at Pentecost was the same as that in Acts 10 and Acts 19.

And I see little or no reason to suppose it differed from the gift discussed in 1 Cor. 12-14.

[Catholicity]

Thanks for writing back!
Do you think that the tongues spoken at Pentecost that foriegners understood were the same kind of tongues that Paul was talking about at Corinth?

What does St. Paul tell us about the Tongues Spoken in Corinth? Have you read all of the passages.? St. Paul Very specifically mentions that Tongues is a manifestation of a gift of the Holy Spirit:

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues......

In 1 Corinthians 14 St. Paul is very specific about how to use the gift of tongues though. But there is nothing that leads one to believe that it is distinguishable from the gifts of the day of Pentecost. What sets the book of 1 Corinthians apart is the back ground. The Corinthians were out of control in their worship. St. Paul was writing to them about how to be orderly.

[rakovsky]

And I see little or no reason to suppose it differed from the gift discussed in 1 Cor. 12-14.

One common reason given is that many people understood the tongues in Acts 2, whereas "no one understands" the tongues Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 13-14. Many mainstream theologians and Christians today divide them into two different categories.

[rakovsky]

What does St. Paul tell us about the Tongues Spoken in Corinth?

That no one understands them, and, as you said, they are a manifestation of the spirit.

Have you read all of the passages.?

Yes.

[NorrinRadd]

One common reason given is that many people understood the tongues in Acts 2, whereas "no one understands" the tongues Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 13-14. Many mainstream theologians and Christians today divide them into two different categories.

I know they do. IMO, they do so with some degree of presupposition that for whatever reason does not consider Acts 10 and 19.

[Jedidiah]

There is no evidence in Scripture that the Corinthian glossa were "fake," so I reject the premise of the poll.

There is one option that does nopt assume that tongues were fake. Speaking in tongues by anyone is no guarantee of theological accuracy.

[NorrinRadd]

There is one option that does nopt assume that tongues were fake. Speaking in tongues by anyone is no guarantee of theological accuracy.

The phrasing of the poll links that conclusion to the premise that the Corinthians' glossa were false, so I can't accept it. Speaking in unknown "tongues," whether real or not, has little or nothing to do with theological acumen of the speaker -- in Scripture, or elsewhere. If the poll were phrased differently, I could choose the option you suggest.

[rakovsky]

I know they do. IMO, they do so with some degree of presupposition that for whatever reason does not consider Acts 10 and 19.

It seems to me that they take into consideration Acts 10 and 19. I argued once to one of them that in these two chapters the passages were about speaking in foreign languages to teach foreigners the gospel, and he pointed out to me that in these passages it nowhere says that actual foreign languages were spoken.

Some of them also make the argument also that in Acts 2 the foreigners heard their own languages, but that it doesn't specify that the apostles were actually speaking the foreign languages, concluding thereby that the apostles didn't speak foreign tongues there, only that the tongues were understood.

[rakovsky]

The phrasing of the poll links that conclusion to the premise that the Corinthians' glossa were false, so I can't accept it. Speaking in unknown "tongues," whether real or not, has little or nothing to do with theological acumen of the speaker -- in Scripture, or elsewhere. If the poll were phrased differently, I could choose the option you suggest.

The poll only asks you to select as many statements as you agree with.
So if you agree that "Charismatics' glossolalia is not a sign that they have theological truth", then you would choose that option, #3. The poll itself does not require you to draw further conclusions beyond what you select.

[NorrinRadd]

It seems to me that they take into consideration Acts 10 and 19. I argued once to one of them that in these two chapters the passages were about speaking in foreign languages to teach foreigners the gospel, and he pointed out to me that in these passages it nowhere says that actual foreign languages were spoken.

Some of them also make the argument also that in Acts 2 the foreigners heard their own languages, but that it doesn't specify that the apostles were actually speaking the foreign languages, concluding thereby that the apostles didn't speak foreign tongues there, only that the tongues were understood.

It's pretty much impossible to not make any assumptions in the course of reaching conclusions.

I agree with your conversation partner that neither Acts 10 nor 19 show any indications that the "tongues" were for preaching the Gospel in other languages. Acts 2, considered superficially and apart from 10 and 19, could possibly be taken that way. Acts 10, especially considered in light of Peter's recounting in Acts 11, is clearly intended to be seen as similar to Acts 2, so that should affect how we read Acts 2 itself. Reading Acts 2 more closely, we see that the tongues-speakers were together in their meeting place, not actively addressing the festival-goers. The crowd heard the noise (of the wind-like sound, and/or the loud tongues-speaking) and was drawn to the disciples. Some heard words they understood, others did not and responded with mockery. The content of the words was "the mighty deeds of God," not explicitly any sort of Gospel message, and IMO more like the "exalting God" of Acts 10 than like evangelism. AFTER the crowd gathered, Peter alone stood up to address them, using part of Joel 2 in a way similar to the way Jesus used Isa. 61 in Luke 4, and then gave an evangelistic message; there was no indication he was speaking in "tongues," and there was probably no need for him to do so, since all of the festival-goers were from places in the Roman Empire, and most people in the Roman Empire had at least a functional knowledge of Greek, in addition to their own "native" languages.

As for what the people "heard" in Acts 2 -- Conclusions depend somewhat on how we parse words. The text does not say anything like, "We see their lips forming words, but the words we are actually hearing are different, and are our own native languages," and of course we would not expect anything so pedantically detailed. But that is what we'd have to have to be certain some kind of "gift of interpreting tongues" was in play. We don't know that it was, and we don't know that it was not. We can be fairly sure that if it was, it was some unusual, "passive" version, that operated inside the heads of the hearers without the intermediary action of some external interpreter as in the 1 Cor. 12-14 situation.