Sermon Tone Analysis

Introduction

[This is the second part of “Edification is the Key.”

I only got through half the sermon from the week before, the part defining love and prophecy.

I left this second half for the following week.

These two were originally one message – little unrealistic of me.]

Introduction

Would you like to know the church’s most sinful blunder for the last 2,000 years?

According to the group, Pentecostal Christian Evangelism, the early church’s rejection of tongues being the only evidence of Spirit Baptism “IS WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF CONTRADICTION, THE MOST MONUMENTAL, THE MOST AWESOME, AND THE MOST SINFUL BLUNDER IN ALL OF THE ALMOST TWO MILLENIA OF CHURCH HISTORY!!”[1] John Schoenheit adds to this.

Schoenheit.

speaking in tongues is the only absolute proof a Christian has that he is born again and guaranteed a parking place in Paradise . . .

Speaking in tongues is the only valid external, tangible evidence in the senses realm that the internal, intangible gift of holy spirit was shed abroad in one’s heart at the moment of his new birth.[2]

I will admit, on behalf of us all, if this is the case – if these men are accurate – we have not only taken part in the church’s most sinful blunder, but we as well have no “valid, external, tangible evidence” that we are born again.

At least that assumes you have not participated in tongues.

Likely some of us have while most of us have probably not.

So we go to to consider the gift of tongues.

In so doing let’s not forget our primary purpose in this chapter.

Purpose Statement.

As a church we want to build one another up, and this edification is completely dependent on clarity in communication.

To accomplish this, I desire to offer some observations concerning tongues from the context of .

It is not my intent to take a lengthy period of time to determine whether or not the gift of tongues is for today.

So then, with that said, let me offer at least a few cursory thoughts as to the ongoing nature of tongues.

In summation, I don’t believe Scripture offers enough evidence to say definitively that any specific spiritual gift has ceased, but I think Scripture does offer enough evidence to support that the miraculous gifts are no longer the normal experience for believers today.

Arguments for cessation of tongues.

Let me offer just a few (probably oversimplified) arguments that would lead to the conclusion that speaking in tongues is not for today.

(1) There is no record of someone (within the people of God) speaking in tongues prior to Pentecost.

The Holy Spirit can be dramatically at work and not use the gift of tongues.

The vast majority of history would attest to this reality.

God could have withdrawn this aspect of the Spirit’s work and the Holy Spirit still be very effective and active.

(2) Tongues is not prominent throughout church history.

I say prominent because there is enough evidence to support that there have been small pockets spread throughout centuries of church history that supported the ongoing gift of tongues.

But, these groups have always been small and typically on the fringe of Christianity.

As well, the spiritual renewals that have come to the church through the past 2,000 years were led by men who did not speak in tongues, and their lack of speaking in tongues in no way seemed to hinder God’s mighty work through their lives.

In contrast, primarily the groups who did espouse tongues often veered off into some strange extreme or heresy.

(3) The gift of apostleship (and likely prophet) have been withdrawn from the church, and yet the work of the Spirit is in no way hindered.

The gift of tongues could be similar.

(4) However you interpret , you must conclude that at some point the gift of tongues will be done away with.

“Love never ends.

As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away” ( ESV).

If that If that day has not yet come, it will, and at that point the power of the Spirit is in no way hindered.

Four areas of misunderstanding

(1) Speaking in tongues is not, as is sometimes claimed today, a prominent spiritual gift.

It is the least of all spiritual gifts and is the least effective in propagating the gospel.

(2) Tongues is not a required sign of salvation.

By its very nature, it was only given to a few believers, not all of them.[3]

(3) Speaking in tongues is not proof of spirituality.

“The church that seems to have exercised it the most was the least spiritual.”[4]

(4) Speaking in tongues is not evidence of the baptism of the Spirit.

In God’s redemptive story, he did allow for the Baptism of the Spirit to be accomplished at stages (throughout Acts) and was accompanied by tongues, but that was only for that moment in history and was not intended to be set as a pattern for following believers.

Tongues in

Tongues refers to human languages.

I desire to offer some direction in a debate that is very challenging and multifaceted.

There is much debate as to whether or not the word for tongues refers to a human language or whether it can as well refer to something other than just human languages.

Friberg defines glossa literally as tongue, the organ of speech and taste, or figuratively as “a means of verbal communication, language.”

They go on to acknowledge that the word may as well refer to a religious technical term for “tongues-speaking” which may involve unintelligible ecstatic utterance or heavenly language.[5]

This definition does not help the debate.

So then, let me point out a couple things to direct us.

The first is a newspaper article from May 31, 1901.

In this paper, Charles Parham, who is considered to be one of the primary leaders in early Pentecostalism, writes about an event in which the gift of tongues will be conferred on many believers.

He tells the reader that it will be the greatest event since Pentecost.

His [Rev.

Charles T Parham] plan is to send among the heathen persons who have been blessed with the "gift of tongues" – a gift which, he says, no others have ever had conferred upon them since apostolic times.

His missionaries, as he points out, will have the great advantages of having the languages of the various peoples among whom they work miraculously conferred upon them, and will not be put to the trouble of learning them in the laborious way by which they are acquired by other prospective missionaries.

[Parham went on to say] “ . . .

There is no doubt that at this time they will have conferred on them the 'gift of tongues,' If they are worthy and seek it in faith, believing.

They will thus be made able to talk to the people, whom they choose to work among in their own language, which will, of course, be an inestimable advantage.

"The students of Bethel College do not need to study in the old way to learn the languages.

They have them conferred upon them miraculously.

Different ones have already been enabled to converse with Spaniards, Italians, Bohemians, Hungarians, Germans, and French in their own language.

I have no doubt that knowledge of Chinese, Japanese, the various dialects of the people of India and even the languages of the savages of Africa will be received during our meeting in the same way.

I expect this gathering to be the greatest since the days of Pentecost.”[6]

We are going to look at in just a moment, but I wanted to acknowledge that even early Pentecostals believed that the gift of tongues involved actual human languages – not just gibberish.

What followed was that these missionaries went out, endued with the gift of tongues, but soon came to realize that no one understood what they were saying.

As a result, Parham had to recraft his understanding of tongues.

Now turn to for an example of the gift of tongues.

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. . . . 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.

6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language.

7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?

8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?

9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.

( ESV).

Let us draw a few observations.

(1) Those in the upper room were the ones that spoke in tongues, not all the ones that were saved that day.

(2) The tongues that were spoken were all known languages – not to the one speaking, but to someone else present.

(3) Tongues proclaimed the mighty works of God but were not inherently evangelistic.

The Gospel was proclaimed by Peter in a common language, not through means of tongues.

The benefit of tongues is primarily personal and not for others.

This is in contrast to prophecy which builds up others.

“The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself but the one who prophecies builds up the church” ().

This is not to say that tongues is self-centered but just that the value of tongues is limited to one’s own person, which leads us to the next reality concerning tongues.

Tongues is not nearly as important as the gift of teaching and prophecy.

Paul exalted the gifts that communicated truth rather than a sign gift.

Tongues did not communicate any content, and this is why it doesn’t build up others.

This conclusion is the intent of the question in verse 6 and the following illustrations up to verse 12.

[Question] 6 Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?

[I’m not going to benefit you unless I communicate something of content that you can understand.]

[Illustration 1] 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played?

8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?

[Conclusion] 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said?