RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine



Message

rcjames -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 5:33:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: figmentPez

...But is praying in the Holy Spirit the same thing as speaking in tongues? Can one pray in the Spirit without praying in tongues? Personally, I think that prayer in the Spirit must be possible without praying in tongues, because

Ephesians 6:18
With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,

If we are to make all our prayers and petitions in the Spirit, then why would Christ have instructed us on how to pray using human language? Why would be the Lord's prayer be so thoughtful, if our petitions to God are supposed to be made in tongues we don't understand?


If we look at this in light of:

(Rom 8:26) Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

(Rom 8:27) And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

The Spirti know what we should pray, the Spirit knows the will of God, the Spirit prays within the will of God and that prayer will be answered;

(1Jo 5:14) And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:

(1Jo 5:15) And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Why in the world would it be so important for me (other than pride or arrogance) to pray something else other that what the Sp;irit of God in all His wisdom would pray for me?

Thanks
RC



figmentPez -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 5:38:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: figmentPez

...But is praying in the Holy Spirit the same thing as speaking in tongues? Can one pray in the Spirit without praying in tongues? Personally, I think that prayer in the Spirit must be possible without praying in tongues, because

Ephesians 6:18
With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,

If we are to make all our prayers and petitions in the Spirit, then why would Christ have instructed us on how to pray using human language? Why would be the Lord's prayer be so thoughtful, if our petitions to God are supposed to be made in tongues we don't understand?


If we look at this in light of:

(Rom 8:26) Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

(Rom 8:27) And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

The Spirti know what we should pray, the Spirit knows the will of God, the Spirit prays within the will of God and that prayer will be answered;

(1Jo 5:14) And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:

(1Jo 5:15) And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Why in the world would it be so important for me (other than pride or arrogance) to pray something else other that what the Sp;irit of God in all His wisdom would pray for me?

Thanks
RC


First, I see nothing to say that we must speak in tongues for the Holy Spirit to intercede for us. I know that long before I even heard of the conept of tongues as a prayer language, I would let the Spirit speak what I could not, by being silent and letting the Spirit speak in a way that words cannot.

Second, we have the mind of Christ, and his instructions on how to pray. Why should we disregard what Christ taught us about prayer, just to conform to your idea of what speaking in tongues is for, and what your concept of praying in the spirit is? I find it absurd to think that Jesus taught his disciples a prideful, arrogant and ineffective way to pray. When we know what God would have us pray, we can pray, with words and make petition to God. When we don't know what to pray, the Holy Spirit can intercede for us, even if it is speaking for us while we are silent.



rcjames -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 6:04:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: figmentPez

First, I see nothing to say that we must speak in tongues for the Holy Spirit to intercede for us. I know that long before I even heard of the conept of tongues as a prayer language, I would let the Spirit speak what I could not, by being silent and letting the Spirit speak in a way that words cannot.

Second, we have the mind of Christ, and his instructions on how to pray. Why should we disregard what Christ taught us about prayer, ...


So if I understand you correctly; you feel that we should either repeat the Lord's prayer or pray silently. And you disregard the instructions of First Corinthians 14.and the myriad of other passages about praying in tongues or known language. That’s fine and I won't challenge you on what you consider to be correct. It is just a great example of what I call buffet Christianity, you know take what you want and ignore the rest.

Thanks
RC



figmentPez -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 6:08:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: figmentPez

First, I see nothing to say that we must speak in tongues for the Holy Spirit to intercede for us. I know that long before I even heard of the conept of tongues as a prayer language, I would let the Spirit speak what I could not, by being silent and letting the Spirit speak in a way that words cannot.

Second, we have the mind of Christ, and his instructions on how to pray. Why should we disregard what Christ taught us about prayer, ...


So if I understand you correctly; you feel that we should either repeat the Lord's prayer or pray silently. And you disregard the instructions of First Corinthians 14.and the myriad of other passages about praying in tongues or known language. That’s fine and I won't challenge you on what you consider to be correct. It is just a great example of what I call buffet Christianity, you know take what you want and ignore the rest.

Thanks
RC


No, you don't understand me correctly. I find nothing wrong with praying in tongues, I find something wrong with only praying in tongues or insisting that praying in tongues is the only way to pray in the Spirit.



BenQuebec -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 6:51:18 PM)

If I read your posts correctly, figmentPez, your interpretation of the Spirit making intercession for us with words that cannot be uttered is different than RC's.

Most charismatics and Pentecostals interpret that to mean the Spirit uses our mouths to make intercession with words that cannot be uttered using our intelligence. Your interpretation seems to be that the Spirit makes intercession for us - not by using our mouths, but more likely in the Spirit realm which we cannot perceive, using words which cannot be uttered - even with our mouths.

Is that more of your interpretation of that passage? Or is it something else?



figmentPez -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 6:56:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenQuebec

If I read your posts correctly, figmentPez, your interpretation of the Spirit making intercession for us with words that cannot be uttered is different than RC's.

Most charismatics and Pentecostals interpret that to mean the Spirit uses our mouths to make intercession with words that cannot be uttered using our intelligence. Your interpretation seems to be that the Spirit makes intercession for us - not by using our mouths, but more likely in the Spirit realm which we cannot perceive, using words which cannot be uttered - even with our mouths.

Is that more of your interpretation of that passage? Or is it something else?


Yes, that would be more in line with my understanding of the passage.



oo7 -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 8:20:51 PM)

I am with FigmentPez on this one as well. My prayers would never be able to match what the Holy Spirit can do for me on his own, He doesn't need my help for anything, especially since He knows my heart better than even I do.

Rick



Warvstar -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 11:10:44 PM)

This is a little off topic, however I really would like to post it here.

I spent allot of time recently thinking about this, among a few other Pentecostal teachings. I have been attending Pentecostal Church since birth, however this last week I had to challenge my beliefs.

We had a Guest Pastor who was all about Tounges, Slain in the Spirit and Holy Laughter, I thought everything was great at first. I go up to the Alter to recieve healing and all was great I felt happy, then he announced that he wanted to have a service every day that week, I thought was very cool.

The next day I go and he was telling us all to raise our hands and speak in tounges, and making jokes about people refusing to be slain, at the same time having a very serious face, everyone was laughing. I was not comfortable with that, because I have never in my life heard of a Biblical account for needing to speak in tounges, why would I do something a man on the Alter tells me to do, if I have never read it in the Bible. So I was praying the whole time and asking God to reveal to me the truth, and if I should be speaking in tounges.

So that really challenged me and I decided I would do some research on the Pentecostal movement.

Here are my thoughts on the service later that week.

The pastor seemed to be performing, the whole thing appeard to be an act.
I did not like the feeling of losing control.
I did not like the idea of "Jumping in the water without testing it", God tells us to test everything that comes in the name of Christ.

So I did some research on the internet and found this webpage. I would like to discuss this on another thread maybe.
http://www.soundbiblicaldoctrine.com/sbd1_00004d.htm



bobservations -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 11:36:21 PM)

RC, thanks for answering my questions. Your answered all the questions in the affirmative. I have always dismissed the use of tongues because I assumed that we could achieve the same results by just talking to Him. We should see some extraordinary happenings in the groups that use this gift. This is all very interesting.

I have a very special friend that uses the gift. I would consider him a powerful Christian who is on fire for the Lord.

Now I am wondering why it is limited to certain groups. Is it because we have to petition the Lord before the manifestation will come to us?



lecoop -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 11:40:48 PM)

Let's just let scripture define a prayer "in the spirit." Paul tells us exactly what this is. the problem is, some don't like Paul's answer.

First what is a prayer "in the spirit?" It is allowing the spirit man to pray using the mouth but not the mind. Paul puts it this way:

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

For those that have never spoke in tongues, this will be hard to understand, for tongues is allowing the spirit man to pray. When we connect our mouth to our spirit, then the words do not go throught the mind. This is why Paul said, "my understanding is unfruitful." Therefore, we can say that a prayer in the spirit is not a prayer with the mind, and the speaker will not know what he is praying. Usually this will be a prayer in tongues, but occasionally, God will cause a prayer to come up that will be in the learned language. However, the speaker will still not know what he is praying until after he has said it, because the mind is still being bypassed. Therefore:

1. A prayer with understanding, using the mind, cannot be a prayer in the spirit.
2. A prayer in the spirit cannot be a prayer with understanding, using the mind.

These two types of prayer are mutually exclusive. Because people that do not speak in tongues usually do not understand this concept, they usually do not understand Paul's next verse:

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Notice that Paul did not say "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding at the same time." He could not say this, because these two types of prayer are mutually exclusive: either you use your mind, and pray in your learned language, or you use your spirit man, and your mind is bypassed. Therefore, what Paul is saying here is that he will pray both ways, but not both ways at the same time, which would be impossible. He will spend some time praying in the spirit, in tongues, and without understanding, and he will spend some time praying in his learned language, with his understanding. As further proof that this is what Paul is saying, look at how he started this discussion:

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.

Paul starts out his teaching with the fact that a prayer in tongues is a prayer in the spirit, and "no man understands." This would include the prayer or speaker in tongues. What is he praying? He is praying mysteries. Why mysteries? Because "no man understands."

What about praying at all times in the spirit? Does Paul mean praying 24 hours every day in the spirit? Surely not! Let's read this in several translations:

Weymouth New Testament
6:18 Pray with unceasing prayer and entreaty on every fitting occasion in the Spirit, and be always on the alert to seize opportunities for doing so, with unwearied persistence and entreaty on behalf of all God's people,

This translation makes it seem like we should pray 24 hours a day, and in the spirit.

American Standard Version
6:18 with all prayer and supplication praying at all seasons in the Spirit, and watching thereunto in all perseverance and supplication for all the saints,

This translation seems better, that we will pray with all [types] of prayer and at all seasons will pray in the Spirit. Is this necessarily saying that the "all prayers" must be "in the spirit?" I don't think so. I believe what Paul's intention is that on each occasion of prayer, you should spend some time praying in the spirit, right along with your other types of prayer.

Lets look at the Greek here, and come up with our own translation: First notice that "always" had been translated from three Greek words:


always [1722] en
[2540] kairos
[3956] pas

[1722]: AV - in 1902, by 163, with 140, among 117, at 113, on 62,
through 39, misc 264; 2800

[2540] 1) due measure 2) a measure of time, a larger or smaller portion of time, hence:
a) a fixed and definite time, the time when things are brought to crisis, the decisive epoch waited for
b) opportune or seasonable time
c) the right time
d) a limited period of time

[3956] 1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

Therefore, this verse could be rendered:

proseuchomai.............Praying
en............................ in, by, with
kairos....................... with due measure or for a fixed measure of time
pas...........................each or every or any or all
dia............................with
pas...........................each or every or any or all
proseuche..................prayer
kai............................and
deesis.......................supplication
en............................ in, by, with
pneuma.................... the Spirit
kai........................... and
agrupneo..................watching

eis........................... thereunto
touto........................
autos.......................

en............................in, by, with
pas..........................each or every or any or all
proskarteresis............perseverance
kai ..........................and
deesis......................supplication
peri.........................for
pas.........................each or every or any or all
hagios.....................saints;

My translation
Praying with a proper amount of time, with each prayer and suplication, in the spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication, for each or all saints.

I believe what Paul was saying here, is that for each opportunity for prayer, one should spend some time praying in the spirit. That won't be all your prayer time, for you will spend some time praying with the understanding for the things you know you should pray for, such as praying first for those in authority such as our President. This goes right along with what Paul said in first Corinthians: I will pray with the spirit; and I will pray with the understanding also. Praying for a "proper amount of time" fits with what I have been taught over the years, that you continue to pray for something until you get a "note of victory" in your spirit. Then you know that you have prayed long enough. Many times, I have found that I cannot reach this "note of victory" without praying in tongues for a while.

Coop



cjwpastor -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 8:08:55 AM)

quote:

i don't believe the standard is tongues...our standard is Christ and Him alone. i have not stated that tongues is the standard so i don't understand that part of your question, but if someone states tongues is the standard then they are definitely wrong


Then we are in agreement? What I am saying is that tongues is not and should not be made the "standard" by which we assume someone is baptised with the Holy Spirit or not.



cjwpastor -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 8:21:21 AM)

The passage in Romans says that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with words that cannot be uttered.

2 points that should make this very clear. First, it is the Holy Spirit doing the interceding, not us - that takes us and our praying out of the equation right from the start. Second, it is with words that cannot even be uttered. Paul did not say with words that are not understandable, but words that cannot even be spoken. Again, this takes "tongues" or any other form of prayer out of the equation.
Those who say this means it is tongues take away the power of God and the beautiful promise we have from Him to know that in all things, even when we are unaware, we have the great Paraclete (Advocate) on our side interceding on our behalf.

Second point:

Lecoop, Paul is saying the exact opposite of what you are implying. He says he will pray in the spirit AND with his understanding. They are not separated - this is a distinction made only in the last 100 years with the advent of the Pentecostal movement and is not only foreign to non-tongue speakers, as you claim, but foreign to church history prior to 1903.

Furthermore, to insist that praying in the spirit is always praying in tongues, as you have said in your last post, then you must reconcile the passage in Ephesians where Paul commands us to ALWAYS pray in the Spirit. Notice, he does not say "some of the time" or "part of the time" or "when you feel like it" but ALWAYS. Couple that with Paul's exhortation to pray with understanding, and what do you have? If we go by your definition of what praying in the spirit means, then you set Paul up with a glaring contradiction.

Chad



BenQuebec -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 9:14:21 AM)

CJW and Lecoop,

I understand your conclusions on 1Cor 14:15 to be quite different.

1Cor 14:15 (NKJV) - What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding...[/size=1]

Lecoop's interpretation: I will pray with the spirit, and then, separately, apart from the spirit, in addition to the spirit, I will also pray with the understanding. The spirit and the understanding can be independant and exclusive of each other. Sometimes I will pray with the spirit, and sometimes with the understanding.

CJW's interpretation: I will pray with spirit AND I will also pray with the understanding - the spirit and understanding both functioning together, not allowing them to be independant or exclusive of each other. I will never only pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with both the spirit and the understanding.

Have I understood you both correctly?

If so, might I suggest the following interpretaions of verse 14: For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful."

Lecoop: This means that tongues = praying in the spirit. Paul is explaining that this is not a prayer to be understood, but one that bypasses carnal understanding.

CJW: Keep reading on to verse 15 (see above). Paul is explaining why he doesn't only pray with the spirit, but also with his understanding. He expounds further in verse 16.

My goal here is to understand where you both are coming from, as well as know that you both understand each other. I hope I've interpreted your comments correctly. I've heard Lecoop's interpretation quite often, but am not as familiar with CJW's interpretation, which I find to be quite reasonable.



rcjames -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 9:52:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bobservations

RC, thanks for answering my questions. Your answered all the questions in the affirmative. I have always dismissed the use of tongues because I assumed that we could achieve the same results by just talking to Him. We should see some extraordinary happenings in the groups that use this gift. This is all very interesting.

I have a very special friend that uses the gift. I would consider him a powerful Christian who is on fire for the Lord.

Now I am wondering why it is limited to certain groups. Is it because we have to petition the Lord before the manifestation will come to us?


bobservations,

It is my opinion that any Christian can be baptized in the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. The reason that it appears to be limited to certain groups is that many groups spend much time teaching against and condemning tongues, many of them with great zeal. On the occasion where someone in such a group starts to pray in tongues or operate in some of the other gifts; they are quickly isolated within the group or they are ask to leave. They would naturally migrate to where they would not be condemned for something they truly feel is from God.

As I have stated, I never preach on (for or against) praying in tongues, but well over half the folks in my congregation do pray in tongues (with the rare prophecy in tongues with interpretation. When we have someone drop by who has been under anti-tongue teaching and they notice someone praying in tongues; I usually get ask about it (and rightly so). My answer is to show them the following;

(1Co 14:39) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

(1Co 14:40) Let all things be done decently and in order.

To a person that seems to be sufficient; some of them at a later date will pray in tongues; some of them won't.

I just deeply and sincerely feel that if Church leadership would just let the Spirit operate in their services (and board meeting), instead of spending so much time and effort denying and condemning something the Scriptures tells us in good; then, well, things would just work a lot better for them.

Thanks
RC



cjwpastor -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 11:07:45 AM)

Ben,

What you gave was a very fair assessment of my understanding of these passages and I appreciate your care in doing so. You ask a very good question about verse 15, which I want to address here.

First, let me say if I have not said already that I am not oppossed to praying in tongues and do not believe that it is "of the devil" or not in practice today. My intent is not to belittle the use of tongues but to put it in proper perspective as best we can with the Scriptural evidence and the use of our own (God given) reason.

Second, I do not believe that there will ever be, on this side of Heaven, a definitive answer to the questions raised. And again, I will state that I believe God had good reason for this debate to be an ongoing on. Uthguy, in an earlier post, seemed to think there was a problem with not having every issue resolved as "right and wrong," a position that I don't hold. If tongues were the standard by which the Bible explicity taught was the sign of the fullness of the Holy Spirit, then I can only imagine the elitism that would follow much to the detriment of the other, very much needed, spritual gifts (like prophecy).

Now, onto verse 15. Unfortunately, we do not have the letter that we believe Chloe wrote to Paul outlining the abuses of the Corinthian church. We know Paul is writing to address these problems and calls the church "carnel" in nature. They seemed to be dealing with a lot of the issues that the heathen and pagan population of this very busy port city deals with and the lines between being a Christian and a worshipper of mystery religions was blurred.

If this is the case, then a strong case could be made to say that Paul is actually denouncing praying in tongues - AT LEAST in a church setting, which is what this letter is about. Just prior, in verses 6-12, Paul is arguing against speaking in tongues in the assembly because it is nothing more than a nuisance to those that can't understand and that everything we do in church should be for the edification of its members. Perhaps, the perception of the carnal Corinthian christians was that praying in tongues was more "spiritual" and more lofty than non-tongues prayer (a perception that seems to be alive and well today, btw). What if this were one of Chloe's concerns addressed in her letter to Paul? If this is a plausible scenario, then it is also plausible that Paul is saying in verse 15, to paraphrase: "Praying in any form (tongues or not) is prayer that is heard by God and "in the spirit" as long as your heart is right. But, if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying (as always) but I miss the benefit of understanding and the benefit of building up others. So what do I do? I'll pray with my spirit (always) and with my understanding. I'll sing with my spirit (always) and with my understanding. In otherwords, church, everyone who prays is doing so in the spirit and no one is more highly elevated than the other based on how they pray. You folks praying in tongues though in order to show off, are missing out on the understanding that all the others are getting."

That's a long paraphrase [;)]

I am fully aware that I could be way off base here. We don't have Chloe's letter and that puts us all at a disadvantage. This should humble us all though as we seek to find understanding here and should make us weary of anyone declaring absolute truth on this matter.

Hope that helps some and I am looking forward to further discussion.

Chad



BenQuebec -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 11:19:29 AM)

CJW,

Thanks for the clarification and paraphrase. That really helps me understand where you're coming from. I don't deny the validity of your reasoning, as it does make sense, and I believe it to be a valid interpretation as well.

As Uth alluded to earlier, there is perhaps only one 100% true interpretation of this passage, but since it's not 100% clearly revealed in the Bible as we know it (on this topic anyway), we have to understand that there may be more than one valid interpretation. Perhaps lecoop's interpretation is correct, and perhaps your interpretation is correct. Perhaps neither one is correct, or perhaps it's a bit of both.

In the meantime, understanding why you interpret this passage a certain way, and understanding why another brother interprets it differently will hopefully allow us all to understand and respect one another a bit better, while avoiding unnecessary disputes and division.



cjwpastor -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 11:20:28 AM)

Coop-

Another thought on Eph. 6:18....

Paul says "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints."

If we grant your premise that "praying in the Spirit" = praying in tongues, then I foresee a problem. Let's assume you are right and that we are to spend a "proper amount of time" praying in tongues. If that is so, then we are disobeying Paul by not doing it on "all occassions." In addition, if praying in tongues is the most effective and best way to pray in which we know everything we utter will be answered, why would we do this only "part of the time?" It would seem a complete waste of time to pray any other way, wouldn't it? Lastly, Paul says that while we are praying "in the Spirit" we should present our requests and petitions and that we should be alert and pray for the saints. How is this done while praying in the spirit if that means praying in tongues and is devoid of understanding?

Blessings
Chad



cjwpastor -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 11:25:57 AM)

Ben,
My pleasure. As I get older, there is a part of me that is happy to accept the mystery of the Gospel. There certainly is absolute truth, but I think we need to be careful where we apply that criterion. "Thou shall not murder," for example, is an absolute truth that is true for all cultures, ages and people. Whether it is proper to baptize by immersion or sprinkling, however, is not so absolute and I would be hesitant to condemn someone to hell because they do contrary to what I do (as some have unfortunately done in our history).

Tongues is one such topic that is intriguing to discuss but not worth division.

God bless you,
Chad



BenQuebec -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 11:34:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjwpastor

There certainly is absolute truth, but I think we need to be careful where we apply that criterion. "Thou shall not murder," for example, is an absolute truth that is true for all cultures, ages and people. Whether it is proper to baptize by immersion or sprinkling, however, is not so absolute and I would be hesitant to condemn someone to hell because they do contrary to what I do (as some have unfortunately done in our history).

Tongues is one such topic that is intriguing to discuss but not worth division.


I agree 100%. I also have to add that I'm enjoying the current atmosphere of discussion. It's a breath of fresh air, proving that a civil discussion of a controversial topic can exist, provided that its participants remain civil.

I honestly believe that the majority of personal attacks seen on most threads stem from people who refuse to consider or try to understand the logic of a brother with an opposing viewpoint (on such topics in which the Bible does not provide one absolute answer). It's much easier to dismiss an opposing viewpoint as illogical, and its adherents as unenlightened. Trying to understand the logic of an opposing view takes patience and refraining from personal attacks takes self-control.

May we all continue displaying such godly traits in this thread and others, as led by the Spirit of God within us.



uthguy4lyf -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 1:33:34 PM)

i agree we should refrain from personal attacks in all situations not just just internet threads. i too have enjoyed the discussion regarding the subject matter at hand. i would agree with cjw in regards to his papraphrase found earlier within the thread. i would disagree with him in regards to baptism not being an absolute truth (immersion, sprinkling) that again is another topic to discuss another day.



morning_star -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 7:34:20 AM)

Here are my questions: (my intent here is not to attack other's beliefs, but for others to prayerfully and without prejudice examine God's word for the truth):

Is the modern tongue movement even Biblical?

Is it even for today?

If it is for today, Why did it start up again? Why was it missing from the church for almost to millennia?

Why did it start up in a small town in Kansas?

What about the passages of Mark 16:9-20? These verses do not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts that are available. Does this mean that these verses were most likely added by some scribe?

What about verse 1 Cor 13:8 where it says the gift of tongues will be stilled?

What about verses 1 Cor 14:6-13 where it says in the church that tongues without interpretation is forbidden?

What about verses 1 Cor 14:14-17 where is says praying in tongue is condemned because the mind is unfruitful?

What about verses 1 Cor 14:26-28 where it limits the number to speak tongues in the church and that there must be interpretation?

What about verse 1 Cor 14:5 where it says prophesy is better than tongues? So why the emphasis on tongues if it the least important of the gifts?

Charismatics claim that tongues are universally available to all. But what about 1 Cor 12 which says that everyone will receive different gifts? Also, why did Paul ask in 1 Cor 12:30 "Do all speak in tongues?"

Charismatics claim that there is a second blessing, or a second Spirit baptism. But 1 Cor 12:13 says we were all baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ. Eph 5:18 commands us, "be filled with the spirit." So, it is understood that a second filling of the Holy Spirit is a Scriptural, but where is the command for a second Spirit baptism?

Charismatics claim tongues is a valid prayer language. If we look at the context of the 1 Corinthians 14, these passages refer to the misuse of tongues. 1 Cor 14:15 goes on to say, "I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind," stressing one's need to be aware of what one is saying in prayer as well as being led by the Holy Spirit. And if we also look at Eph 6:18 it says, "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints." So if this prayer language is understood as praying in the Spirit, and it is understood by no one, not even the speaker, then how can that person have understanding of what they are even praying for? So if this prayer language = praying in the Spirit, then do these two passages (1 Cor 14:15 and Eph 6:18) imply that praying in a known language is worthless? So how can we then interpret from Scripture that praying in tongues is the only way to pray in the Spirit?

We can see in 1 Cor 14:1-40 that tongues were misused in the church at Corinth, as Paul rebuked the Corinthians for this apparent misuse of the gift of tongues. Paul also gives instructions on the proper use of the gift of tongues. So how is it then that the modern tongue movement, in most cases, disregards these instructions of orderly worship? Is the modern tongues movement a repeat of what happened at Corinth?

Charismatics teach that anyone who uses this prayer language that they are doing this for their own benefit, yet the Bible says spiritual gifts were given to edify others. So in order for the gift of tongues to edify the church, then interpretation must be present whenever tongues were spoken in the church, as we can understand this by the commandment in 1 Cor 14:5. We can also find that Paul says in 1 Cor 10:24 that, "Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others." So if this "prayer language" or speaking in tongues is suppose to be valid for today, then why does it to occur without interpretation in the church setting?

In 1 Cor 13, Paul speaks of the 'tongues of angels', but he uses in such a way that it is a grand overstatement which he sets up, then rips down by saying that such extravagance is utterly worthless without love. Where else in Scripture are we told about an angelic language or even that men are able to speak in an angelic tongue? Likewise, where in Scripture does is say that angels spoke to man in some foreign babble? So how can we say that this "prayer language" is "tongues of angles"?

How do we explain the many non-charismatic churches that lack this second blessing of the Holy Spirit?

Why is the Holy Spirit only working thru charismatic churches?

How do we explain why someone with an utterly deep and infectious love for the Lord, the lack of this second Spirit baptism or the lack of the ability to speak or pray in tongues?

Where are we commanded to seek a second Spirit baptism?

Where are we instructed on how to speak or pray in tongues?

Where are we instructed to have tarry meetings?

How do we explain Christians "coaching" other believers on how to speak or pray in tongues?
Where are we instructed to “practice’ tongues?

In this current day of religious confusion, we certainly can find "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Timothy 4:3-4). So even according to God's word, many traditional religious beliefs aren't even based on sound biblical truth. Is the charismatic movement an example of this passage?

So how do we find the truth? Are we to base Scripture on experiences or base experiences on Scripture? Are we to make assumptions about Scripture or are we to “prove all things” as God's word instructs us? Is there only one interpretation for each passage of Scripture, or is there more than one interpretation for each passage of Scripture? Is there one interpretation of Scripture with many applications?

So how do we interpret the bible? Are we to interpret it literally? Are we to interpret it figuratively? Are we to interpret it as a historical document? Are we to make assumptions about what it says? If the Bible is inerrant, infallible, internally absolutely consistent, and unchangeable - then why so many apparent and divisive contradictions of how it is to be interpreted?

The Bereans should be our example here! We need to receive the teachings with all readiness and without prejudice, but then we must search the Scriptures daily to find out if these teachings are true or false (Acts 17:11).



BenQuebec -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 8:38:03 AM)

Wow, Morning_Star!

You said quite a lot there. Very well thought-out. I can tell you've studied this subject - likely more than I have. However, I would like to suggest a few answers to your first group of questions, and perhaps Coop and RC can handle the rest.

quote:

Is the modern tongue movement even Biblical?
Is it even for today?
If it is for today, Why did it start up again? Why was it missing from the church for almost to millennia?
Why did it start up in a small town in Kansas?

I'd like to answer all of these questions together, because it presupposes that tongues disappeared from the church and then reappeared in the late 19th century. However, there is documentation out there that suggests otherwise. Many historical church reformers and evangelists (Wesley, Whitefield, Luther, etc.) wrote of their experiences with glossolalia (aka tongues). This suggests to me that tongues were not at all invisible between the time of the apostles and the late 19th century. However, they were not emphasized during that time. You can find writings by different people during that time - if you're interested, I'll try to find some, as it's been a while since I last read up on this.

This information changes the direction of how your questions are to be answered, since tongues were not necessarily absent from the church at all, nor did they reappear in Kansas. A movement which emphasized tongues appeared in Kansas, but that doesn't mean that tongues themselves "reappeared" there per sé.

Also, if tongues never ceased, but existed this whole time (albeit with less emphasis), the logicial conclusion is that they are for today, since they never really stopped. Therefore, the "modern tongues movement" - to me - is not so much whether or not people speak in tongues. The modern movement revolves around an emphasis on tongues. This is perhaps because people feel it was "under-emphasized" for nearly two millenia.

quote:

What about the passages of Mark 16:9-20? These verses do not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts that are available. Does this mean that these verses were most likely added by some scribe?

Personally, I wouldn't say "most likely", but I would say "possibly". I would add, too, that the Bible says we should let all things be established by the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses. To me, this means that if a Biblical truth is really important, it should be repeated at least once or twice elsewhere in the Bible. Thus - in my opinion - since some of the content in this passage is not repeated elsewhere, I'm not going to base my theology on it. However, the concept of tongues as listed in this passage seems to be validated by the book of Acts. My question then is this: are today's Christians supposed to follow that example? Why or why not?

quote:

What about verse 1 Cor 13:8 where it says the gift of tongues will be stilled?

If you read on to verses 9 and 10, it explains that "when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." I believe this means that when perfection comes (and we're not there yet), then tongues will pass away, along with our current partial understanding.

I may come back later when I get the time. If I do, I'll try to explain more of the logic I see behind charismatic interpretations of these questions.

God bless!



uthguy4lyf -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 1:02:37 PM)

ben, could you furnish the documentation that you referenced in your statement regarding the reformers and their experience in tongues. i also would appreciate your elaborating on your understanding of "when perfection comes." are you saying that perfect means complete or are you saying perfection is referrring to when Christ returns?

morningstar, well said and i completely agree. good use of scripture, but i too will ask for your reference in regards to the kansas reappearance of tongues. i believe it probably reappeared through an evangelist/sect that was seeking recognition, am i correct? i am aware of some early evangelist in our country who were a "bit off the deep end" when it came to preaching and interpreting the bible.



BenQuebec -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 1:45:31 PM)

Uthguy,

It will take a while for me to properly research this, but I did find one link that was quite helpful, which provided the following info re: tongues as it relates to early church history:

quote:

* Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) wrote about spiritual gifts but did not mention tongues. He never mentions anyone speaking in tongues.

* Montanus (AD 126-180) did speak in tongues, but was regarded as demon-possessed by Christians of his day (refer to the section "History of Tongues," Think on These Things, Vol. 5, Issue 3).

* Irenaeus (AD 140-203) said he had heard that some spoke in tongues. He had, however, been influenced by the Montanists and did not speak in tongues nor apparently witness it.

* Tertulian (AD 150-222) was converted to Montanism for a period of time. He wrote about one lady who spoke in tongues and was a Montanist. This was the last witness to tongues-speaking by any of the Church Fathers.

Click HERE to read more.

Quite honestly, I'm finding lots of contradicting info. Some say Luther spoke in tongues, for example, while others refute this. Thus, unless I can find documentation, we'll have to write Luther out of the equation. I'll likely get back to you tomorrow re: what I can find on the others.



morning_star -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 3:16:48 PM)

BenQuebec...

I appreciate the link - it answered many of my questions!

quote:

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace that brings power in the life of the believer.

The evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.

The logical conclusion of these statements is that a person who has not been baptized by the Holy Spirit is a "second class" Christian and is not experiencing the power of God in their life. If the charismatics are correct, an important ingredient is missing from the spiritual life of most Christians. If they are wrong they have elevated a questionable at best, or at worst, a fraudulent practice to the centerpiece of Christian living. It would seem vital that believers would want an answer to this puzzle, but such is often not the case. Instead one finds an ambivalence in most circles — If speaking in tongues works for you then fine, if not, no big deal. But we are not talking about the latest fad in sneakers here, we are discussing an important element of truth. If the baptism of the Holy Spirit is truly a subsequent experience, with the evidence of speaking in tongues, then all Christians should seek this baptism. If it is not, then this theology should be exposed and denounced. One can’t have it both ways.

quote:

The epistles clearly teach that the purpose of Spirit baptism is to bring us into the body of Christ — Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:26,27; Ephesians 4:5 (one baptism); Colossians 2:12; I Corinthians 12:13 (12:14-26 point out that not all speak in tongues).

So how do charismatics deal with the apostolic teaching that Spirit baptism occurs at the moment of conversion, brings us into the body of Christ, and is not accompanied with tongues? They deal with it by teaching that there are actually two Spirit baptisms in the New Testament. This view holds that the first baptism, called the baptism of repentance, happens to all believers and brings them into the body of Christ. The second baptism is the baptism with the Holy Spirit or endowment with power, which is signified by tongues. The first is baptism by the Holy Spirit, the second is with the Holy Spirit. The charismatic position is that when Paul referred to tongues in I Corinthians 12-14, he was speaking to believers who had received the first baptism (by the Spirit) and were thus part of the body of Christ. As part of the body of Christ some had received the gift of speaking in tongues — but not all. Obviously then, not every believer will receive the gift of speaking in tongues. On the other hand when a Christian has received the second baptism ("with" the Holy Spirit) the evidence will be speaking in tongues as a SIGN of that experience. Therefore, according to this view, some Christians have the gift of tongues, but all Christian who have received the second baptism will evidence this fact with at least an initial experience of speaking in tongues. It is easy to see that the clear teaching of the epistles is being overturned by a poor understanding of the book of Acts. Even Acts refutes this "two-baptism" view when in 11:17 Luke declares the tongues "experiences" of chapters 2 and 10, which were signs, as gifts. Tongues, in the early church, were "sign-gifts." What they were signs of will be discussed below.

In addition, opposition to this position is found in Ephesians 4:5 which says that there is only one baptism. The distinction between "by" and "with" cannot be sustained. The same Greek preposition "en" is used both in I Corinthians 12:13 and in Acts 1:5. In I Corinthians 12:7-13 we are told that God has already given the gifts as He wills. He tells us that we do not all have the same gifts (read 12:4, 7-11, 14-18 and 28-31). In all of the New Testament only I Corinthians 12:13 explains the purpose of the baptism of the Spirit, which is to bring us into the body (church) of Christ. To claim that its purpose is to give us power from God, and is evidenced by speaking in tongues, is without biblical

quote:

Jesus predicted signs only in association with the apostolic ministry. Mark considered the signs as past (AD 68). Hebrews 2:3-4 was written around the same time and also considered the signs as past.

quote:

All signs may be considered as spiritual gifts, but not all spiritual gifts were signs. The gifts of miracles, healings and tongues were sign gifts. All the sign gifts were temporary (compare Acts 11:17 with Mark 16). As with the miracles of Jesus, they served to authenticate the position and authority of the apostles.

quote:

I Corinthians 13:8-10 "Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part, and we prophecy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away."

This passage was written around AD 55, and clearly states that tongues shall cease. The question is when? The answer to that question is often seen as hinging on the meaning of the word "perfect" in the text.

quote:

It is significant that the gift of tongues is rarely alluded to, hinted at, or found in the Apostolic Fathers. The Fathers wrote to defend Christianity, to correct Christians, to explain doctrines, etc. after the death of the apostles. Yet they did not mention tongues in a favorable light, and for the most part totally ignored them.

quote:

Church history does not prove any doctrinal issues. However, in this case church history verifies what we would expect from a study of the New Testament: That tongues, having fulfilled their purpose, ceased to exist by AD 70, and were not found in the history of the church.


Here is the complete list of church history examples that were listed on the site that BenQuebec provided:

  • Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) wrote about spiritual gifts but did not mention tongues. He never mentions anyone speaking in tongues.
  • Montanus (AD 126-180) did speak in tongues, but was regarded as demon-possessed by Christians of his day.
  • Irenaeus (AD 140-203) said he had heard that some spoke in tongues. He had, however, been influenced by the Montanists and did not speak in tongues nor apparently witness it.
  • Tertulian (AD 150-222) was converted to Montanism for a period of time. He wrote about one lady who spoke in tongues and was a Montanist. This was the last witness to tongues-speaking by any of the Church Fathers. (Monantism was labled as heresy, the prophets of Montanism did not speak as messengers of God, but rather described themselves as possessed by God, and spoke in his person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete", Montanists held the belief that the Trinity consisted of only a single person)
  • Origen (AD 185-253) said that in his day no one spoke in tongues.
  • Chrysostom (AD 347-407) made no mention of tongues being spoken in his day.
  • Augustine (AD 354-430) no tongues spoken during his life.
So which one actually supports the modern tongue movement?

uthguy4lyf...

The outbreak of tongue speaking occured on New Years day at Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, in 1901 when followers of Charles Fox Parnham tarried or waited for the Holy Spirit to be poured out. It was Parham who formulated the basic Pentecostal "initial evidence" doctrine after a student in his, Agnes Ozman, experienced speaking in tongues at a "tarry meeting."

quote:

In 1906, as a Pentecostal pioneer and teacher, Charles Fox Parham was invited by William J. Seymour to his Los Angeles Apostolic Faith Mission on Azusa Street. He soon denounced the revival as a "darky camp meeting," saying, "God is sick at His stomach!" and "What good can come from a self-appointed Negro prophet." Although it was his teachings which brought Pentecostalism to the forefront, and although it was he who had allowed Seymour to listen outside his classroom in Texas, he further stated that the services were full of spiritualists and fakes and that he was sickened by the zealous displays there.

In 1910, Parham became a full member of the Ku Klux Klan. He was also a member of the Freemasons. Because many in the Pentecostal movement are so against the Freemasons, some have said that he left the organization when he started his "Full Gospel" healing ministry, although there is evidence that he was still a member in good standing in 1928.

During the short time (approximately two days) Parham was affiliated with Seymour's Apostolic Faith Mission, he was then arrested for sexual indiscretions with young boys. Although the charges were dropped, Seymour promptly dismissed him from his Apostolic Faith Mission. It is said that no one would testify against Parham.

Parham then founded the Assembly of God church in Los Angeles. The Charles F. Parham Center for Pentecostal-Charismatic Studies is a research facility on the campus of South Texas Bible Institute in Houston, Texas. The center considers Parham the father of Pentecostalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fox_Parham



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI