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

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine



Message

rcjames -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 9:33:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iakovos

Tongues amongst Pentecostals and Charismatics is, for the most part, group hypnosis. These are not people who, like the Methodists, prayed all night frequently and immersed themselves in pursuit of God. These are not Moravians selling themselves into slavery to evangelize the slaves. The 'unwashed masses' to which you referred are indeed unwashed, and, for the most part, unregenerated.



That seems like a lot of generalization. As for me and mine; we do pray all night, some times for days on end, and our only goal is to serve God as instructed in Scripture.

I do not speak for all folks who are pro-tongues, and I am sure that there is some (possibly a lot) "group hypnosis" or hysteria, but to cast the net that you have cast seems to be a bit over the edge. To claim that those outside of the confines of "the box" of mother church are unsaved is beyond the pale.

I have great respect for those of all sects, RCC, CC, OC, Reformed, Protestant, or others who truly seek the revelations of God in Scripture, so that they may walk in them. It might surprise you to find out that some of those who are seeking and walking in those revelations are Pentecostals and Charismatics.

It was most kind of you to answer for Unworthyseraphim, but he seems to be most capable of bloviating on his own.

Thanks
RC



iakovos -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 10:58:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: iakovos

Tongues amongst Pentecostals and Charismatics is, for the most part, group hypnosis. These are not people who, like the Methodists, prayed all night frequently and immersed themselves in pursuit of God. These are not Moravians selling themselves into slavery to evangelize the slaves. The 'unwashed masses' to which you referred are indeed unwashed, and, for the most part, unregenerated.



That seems like a lot of generalization. As for me and mine; we do pray all night, some times for days on end, and our only goal is to serve God as instructed in Scripture.

I do not speak for all folks who are pro-tongues, and I am sure that there is some (possibly a lot) "group hypnosis" or hysteria, but to cast the net that you have cast seems to be a bit over the edge. To claim that those outside of the confines of "the box" of mother church are unsaved is beyond the pale.

I've made no such statement- in fact, the Methodists, who I commended as exemplars, as well as the Moravians, both are outside the 'mother church' which you glibly refer to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames
I have great respect for those of all sects, RCC, CC, OC, Reformed, Protestant, or others who truly seek the revelations of God in Scripture, so that they may walk in them. It might surprise you to find out that some of those who are seeking and walking in those revelations are Pentecostals and Charismatics.

It might surprise you to know that I don't deny that. It might shock you to know that I came to know Christ in a Charismatic church, and that I still have many friends in said churches. Let's try not to make this sectarian- charismatics have tongue-fakers and crowd followers; the Orthodox have those who are sacramentalized but not invigorated and transformed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames
It was most kind of you to answer for Unworthyseraphim, but he seems to be most capable of bloviating on his own.

Thanks
RC

I answered for myself, thank you. I will again answer for myself:Perhaps you can refrain from referring to UWS as a blowhard in your future responses to me.
Thanks again.
James



Ps103 -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 11:23:31 AM)

Watch it, boys.



rcjames -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 12:18:10 PM)

Lakavos,

If my post was offensive, then I do apologize. I possibly misread your post.

I was under the impression that when I referenced Believers that believe that the Holy Spirit works in all of us; then you stated that those folks for the most part are unregenerated (not saved). So I am presuming that is not what you saying.

I would also most humbly ask you to look up the meaning of "bloviating". It was not a slam or diss of UWS at all; merely an observation of his lengthy posts. There is a world of difference between "bloviating" and "blow hard" which is the term you used. Bloviators know what they are talking about, and UWS surely does. Blow hards do not.

I evidently pushed some buttons that you are sensitive about, and it was not my intent to do so.

Thanks
RC



unworthyseraphim -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 12:57:17 PM)

Dear Iakavos,

I think he read your reference to many of them being unregenerated was saying if "outside the box" they not saved.

As for me being a bloviator I do have a way of turning two lines worth of point into ten paragraphs of extemporaneous explication.

Like you I too came from the Charismatic movement, wherein I spent 21 years, and can still "speak in tongues" if I want, which I don't and have not wanted for 10 years. The retention of that capacity underscores my general conviction that my "gift" is probably just a psychosomatic trick called psychomotor disassociation; I can even color it...shift its vocalization to resemble several natural languages (chinese, german, russian, and a variety of things I can't name.) But a Russian accent with nonsense syllables is still just nonsense syllables for all that. And all that "nonsense" can even be "prayed" above/through...that is to say while it occupies my mouth prayer can occupy my mind, and it can reflect as I will whatever emotional color I wish to give it. But since my voice is occupied there was no place to hang stonly anchored semantic meanings, and so the inner prayer consisted of an "orientation" (who/what I was praying for), a need sense (protection, provision, conversion, deliverance, etc), in addition to whatever emotive state seemed best to serve or punctuate the other senses....more often it was a sense intent "focus" like I was trying to scour the subject with an inner invisible eye searching for invisible attackers and dangers. The key though...for me was that the "sensation" of it was a directed focused non verbal inner intent for someone or something. The "tongues" themselves served the dual purpose of giving my "body" something ti do to occupy itself with while the inner man got down to business.

It was that interior experience that helped me recognize certain things about the practice of the Jesus prayer and hesychasm when I finaly bumped into it in Orthodoxy. I could see that the intent and usage we put upon tongues as a prayer language was much like the Orthodox practice of the Jesus prayer. It also pointed to nepsis and the imageless pre/post/non verbal prayer of theoria, even if it could not accomplish those things...at least not in me. In further study of the lives of hesychysts it very soon became apparent that what they had in the living practice of the Jesus prayer, in addition to their general teaching and practice concerning prayer actually accomplished its end in the transfiguration of the individual in Christ, so long as that way was followed.

This led me to the conclusion that "tongues" teaching was correct in its desire to devleop a life of unceasing interior prayer in the Spirit, indeed that we need such prayerful communion in the Spirit for we too often do not have the wisdom to pray aright for ourselves and others...especialy others we don't know but who really do need our prayers. The trouble was that tounges as tounges never really acomplished this, even after many years; at best it provided room for the development for focused attention during prayer unfastened to words and our own preconceptions about what might be best to pray for when we in fact might not know at all. Fortunately, that is sufficient to recognize the genuine article given proper exposue. And in the Hesychasts, that genuine article shone like a brilliant star or firey gem. It was not what I had originally expected to find, but its autenticity was staggaring in its purity and its power. Here was the more excellent way, shining bright.



jbbaab44 -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 1:21:25 PM)

what i don't understand about many things is why do people need a prayer language to be on the deepest level with God? Why does God need an audible voice from our vocal cords to understand our "feelings/spirit"(sometimes misinterpreted as the "Holy Spirit") If we just make a bellow(not tongues) of agony because of inner hurt, can't God respond back to us with just as much of edification and exortation as if i spoke in his personal language? When Paul said we should understand one another's prayers, how does that disclude our own? I struggle overall with tongues, i think because of the credit it receives because of its personal edification results. if there are greater gifts why aren't we edified even better by those. To compare it to the OT, what veil has the prayer language torn down? I don't know. i have a lot of questions. but i am leaning toward the philosophy that God is just restoring what he had broken up at the tower of babel, so the church could build its staircase to heaven so others can follow.



rcjames -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 1:24:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim

Dear Iakavos,

I think he read your reference to many of them being unregenerated was saying if "outside the box" they not saved.

As for me being a bloviator I do have a way of turning two lines worth of point into ten paragraphs of extemporaneous explication.

Like you I too came from the Charismatic movement, wherein I spent 21 years, and can still "speak in tongues" if I want, which I don't and have not wanted for 10 years. The retention of that capacity underscores my general conviction that my "gift" is probably just a psychosomatic trick called psychomotor disassociation; I can even color it...shift its vocalization to resemble several natural languages (chinese, german, russian, and a variety of things I can't name.) But a Russian accent with nonsense syllables is still just nonsense syllables for all that. And all that "nonsense" can even be "prayed" above/through...that is to say while it occupies my mouth prayer can occupy my mind, and it can reflect as I will whatever emotional color I wish to give it. But since my voice is occupied there was no place to hang stonly anchored semantic meanings, and so the inner prayer consisted of an "orientation" (who/what I was praying for), a need sense (protection, provision, conversion, deliverance, etc), in addition to whatever emotive state seemed best to serve or punctuate the other senses....more often it was a sense intent "focus" like I was trying to scour the subject with an inner invisible eye searching for invisible attackers and dangers. The key though...for me was that the "sensation" of it was a directed focused non verbal inner intent for someone or something. The "tongues" themselves served the dual purpose of giving my "body" something ti do to occupy itself with while the inner man got down to business.

It was that interior experience that helped me recognize certain things about the practice of the Jesus prayer and hesychasm when I finaly bumped into it in Orthodoxy. I could see that the intent and usage we put upon tongues as a prayer language was much like the Orthodox practice of the Jesus prayer. It also pointed to nepsis and the imageless pre/post/non verbal prayer of theoria, even if it could not accomplish those things...at least not in me. In further study of the lives of hesychysts it very soon became apparent that what they had in the living practice of the Jesus prayer, in addition to their general teaching and practice concerning prayer actually accomplished its end in the transfiguration of the individual in Christ, so long as that way was followed.

This led me to the conclusion that "tongues" teaching was correct in its desire to devleop a life of unceasing interior prayer in the Spirit, indeed that we need such prayerful communion in the Spirit for we too often do not have the wisdom to pray aright for ourselves and others...especialy others we don't know but who really do need our prayers. The trouble was that tounges as tounges never really acomplished this, even after many years; at best it provided room for the development for focused attention during prayer unfastened to words and our own preconceptions about what might be best to pray for when we in fact might not know at all. Fortunately, that is sufficient to recognize the genuine article given proper exposue. And in the Hesychasts, that genuine article shone like a brilliant star or firey gem. It was not what I had originally expected to find, but its autenticity was staggaring in its purity and its power. Here was the more excellent way, shining bright.


Now that's what I call bloviating. [:D]

Thanks
RC



iakovos -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 2:46:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

Lakavos,

If my post was offensive, then I do apologize. I possibly misread your post.

I was under the impression that when I referenced Believers that believe that the Holy Spirit works in all of us; then you stated that those folks for the most part are unregenerated (not saved). So I am presuming that is not what you saying.

I would also most humbly ask you to look up the meaning of "bloviating". It was not a slam or diss of UWS at all; merely an observation of his lengthy posts. There is a world of difference between "bloviating" and "blow hard" which is the term you used. Bloviators know what they are talking about, and UWS surely does. Blow hards do not.

I evidently pushed some buttons that you are sensitive about, and it was not my intent to do so.

Thanks
RC

It is I who needs to apologize, for clearly I read more into your statement than you intended. I do indeed know what bloviate means.

I certainly am not being triumphalistic in my treatment of this subject- it is clear that many who have the gift of the athlete do not train as an athlete, and thus they are never developed as an athlete.

We should learn from those who have run their race well. We will see no one on the podium in Italy this month who has not been coached and trained into and through exhaution over many, many years.

James



unworthyseraphim -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 4:05:06 PM)

Dear Jbbab44,

We don't need a "prayer language" as such to reach the deepest (is there such a place) levels in God. What we do need is both to understand, practice, and be transformed by (and into) prayer as our ancient fathers and mothers in the faith knew prayer. It goes far beyond and far deeper than most of us will ever know or experience in this world. But it is knowable in this world for those who like Iakovos said will train as a spiritual athelete and be coached in that struggle by those who have gone before them in that same contest and who best know how to run the race.

Tounges then, from this perspective at heart is the desire to run the race well and know God in His depths entangled with psychosomatic phenomenona and hindered by lack of familiarilty with and instruction in the paradosis as it relates to living the mystery of life in Christ at its fullest as it was and has been transmited from apostolic times to the present.



caur -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 4:20:24 PM)

Theology Forums - the practical emplacement of forcing one or more participants in a conversation to seek knowledge from an exhaustive treatise of meanings for written verbalizations on an average of at least 3 sectionalized articulations being presented in a block of transversed information in any particular completed thought, indicated by punctuational placement, of any given collection of said completions, indicated by indentation or line-insertion, at any instanced circulation of the incremented position of the sun, moon, and/or stars as rendered by a related device for noting said increments.



jbbaab44 -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 4:21:48 PM)

very flattering words. is paradosis even a word?
point taken. but is the gift of tongues and a prayer language different. do all have a prayer language. do all have the gift of tongues?



unworthyseraphim -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 4:55:32 PM)

Hmmm. Interesting Caur...care to elaborate.



unworthyseraphim -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 5:12:36 PM)

Dear Jbbaa44,

Yes, paradosis is a word. It is a Greek word which means that which has been passed down. It is the word translated as "tradition" in these verses:

2Th 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2Th 3:6 - Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Co 11:2 - Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

There is a paradosis of the Life of the Spirit in the Church, one generation passing its wisdom and experience on to the next, out of which has grown a great repository of Spiritual wisdom over the centuries. But the greatest repositories in every age are those who live in it and pass it down to their disciples.



Abbie26 -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/17/2006 11:35:53 PM)

The biggest problem that I have with the gift of tongues is the division that the church has made between "Gift of Tongues" and "Prayer Language". I don't see any evidence in the New Testament that the apostles ever laid hands on someone who began speaking in a tongue that was uninterpretable. In fact, we see in Corinthians that Paul explicitly talks about interpretation being NECESSARY. Without this, the "Gift of Tongues" would be worthless. Furthermore, I see this gift as being used for a specific PURPOSE. When used, the gift enabled the early church to share the gospel with those that they wouldn't have otherwise been able to communicate with. When was the last time we heard someone with documented evidence of using their Gift of Tongues as an evangelical tool? I believe that it's original and biblical purpose was to be a sign to the unbeliever. Yet, we see today that some have taken the scriptures and decided that it would be nice if everyone prayed in a foreign tongue. There is no intent that this tongue would be used for evangelism. And, there is no effort made to teach that this gift is anything other than a "spiritual language between God and man". But, where is the support for this in the scripture? The one instance that comes to mind is when Paul talks about praying in Tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I am saying.

Some take this out of context, I believe, and jump to the conclusion that God must want us to pray in the Gift of Tongues (or a prayer language). But, this is not what Paul is saying at all. Look at the verses just before it.

1 Corinthians 14:7 Even musical instruments like the flute or the harp, though they are lifeless, are examples of the need for speaking in plain language. For no one will recognize the melody unless the notes are played clearly. 8 And if the bugler doesn't sound a clear call, how will the soldiers know they are being called to battle? 9 And it's the same for you. If you talk to people in a language they don't understand, how will they know what you mean? You might as well be talking to an empty room. 10 There are so many different languages in the world, and all are excellent for those who understand them, 11 but to me they mean nothing. I will not understand people who speak those languages, and they will not understand me. 12 Since you are so eager to have spiritual gifts, ask God for those that will be of real help to the whole church.

He explains that he is talking about the need for an interpretation.
When the gift was used as an encouragement within the assembly, and not as an evangelism sign, interpretation is a must. Or else. the tongue is only heard by God and not uplifting to anyone else.

Where in the Word of God do we find anything that states there are two different types of Tongues?
How can we approve the prayer language being prayed out loud in the assembly without an interpretation?



jbbaab44 -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/20/2006 2:22:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Abbie26

When was the last time we heard someone with documented evidence of using their Gift of Tongues as an evangelical tool? I believe that it's original and biblical purpose was to be a sign to the unbeliever. Yet, we see today that some have taken the scriptures and decided that it would be nice if everyone prayed in a foreign tongue. There is no intent that this tongue would be used for evangelism. And, there is no effort made to teach that this gift is anything other than a "spiritual language between God and man". But, where is the support for this in the scripture?


Good point. So many use their personal experience as support for tongues, But all that is proven is that their gift was not used for its primary purpose-evangelism.

One thing that i have noticed about I Cor 14 is that Paul is talking about the church collectively. he is not in any way addressing individuals. so why is that chapter used to support individuals when Paul is not even addressing personal prayer lives. The whole book is about the body. It is talking about serving others, but yet the church today has twisted this gift to fulfilling its own self for personal private edification. it is suppose to be collective edification. THATS THE POINT. Get away from the focus of self edification. I want to be so busy edifying others that i don't need to be in pursuit to edify myself. America is so lost in modern psychology on self esteem and feel better about yourself, when christ gave us the perfect example and lowered his self esteem to our pathetic little course of life. I ask that others quit using personal experience as support and start using scripture as support. Even the devils confess that there is a God, and even the unsaved can receive experiences Mt. 7:22.



rapturefish -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/24/2006 7:47:11 AM)

I would not put personal experience so low on the scale. If a person took one of the promises of God and walked in it and found it to be true it would confirm the truth in that person's life, truth that was already true in scripture. Therefore experience does have a place in the scheme of a valid argument.

So if people speak of their own experiences with tongues then there is no problem with that. The only question is whether that experience is a confirmed truth already in scripture, one that points to that experience being a valid one and one of God.

This is where it is important that one look at scripture with an openness to let scripture speak for itself with its own words, and to put one's interpretive blinkers aside - the blinkers that have been formed by one's own christian and/or denominational upbringing.

A few assertions need to be examined here, e.g.:
- That the primary purpose of tongues was evangelism.
- That self-edification is not advocated in scripture but a twist of scripture

The first has its apparent basis in Acts. But if one considers that Acts had a theological intent to show the early church in light of Acts 1:8, the spread of the gospel from Jeruslam, Samaria and to the ends of the earth, then we realise that the mention of tongues at Pentecost showed but one aspect of the gift, not the primary or only purpose for the gift. Because Luke was concerned with the spread of the gospel and of the Holy Spirit's role in the early church, we should see the happenings at Pentecost as just one aspect of tongues.

Paul in 1 Corinthians wrote to a church with concerns in 12-14 on edifying the church in a loving way. Thus the theological intent of this letter shows a different aspect of tongues - not a secondary function , just another aspect. In addition, the particular concern Paul had was of edification in the public church setting. Therefore the mention of tongues here primarily relates to that particular aspect. As it happens, Paul also mentions aspects of a private use of tongues, one he uses himself, and does not forbid. By mentioning that tongues edifies oneself, Paul never denounced it if we look carefully at the text. He says that the man is edified well enough, but no-one else understands. The implication here is that fine, you are edifying yourself but the problem is no-one else is getting anything out of it. Interestingly, this implies that Paul has no problem with self-edification, but his concern is that no-one else is benefitting from the use of tongues - not that people are edifying themselves.

1 Cor 12-14 focuses on collective edification - but does not in the process forbid or even condemn private edification. Paul used it more often that the church did, and he did not forbid it. Therefore it was useful to his ministry. Because the focus was on church edification the guidelines given relate to public use of tongues, not private - and therefore the restrictions given do not apply to private edification. In 1 Cor 14 it says that a person should speak just between themselves and God if no interpretation is given for the tongue. This clearly implies speaking in tongues to themselves. This shows that private edification without interpretation (not even the speaker knows what he/she is saying when they speak between themselves and God) is not wrong, but the use of tongues in public without interpretation is unloving.

Another assertion implied is that self-edification is somehow selflish. Scripture shows that it is in fact empowering to the believer for the sake of witness to others. Going back to Pentecost, it is interesting to note that the disciples were not telling the gospel in tongues; the disciples were however singing the praises of God. It was therefore a dialogue between God and the speaker, and those who understood the language were amazed. But it was the bold preaching by Peter that cut people to the heart and led to a major conversion of 3000 people. It was the same Holy Spirit that enabled the disciples to speak in tongues that also enabled Peter to speak boldly. Prior to this moment the disciples were not known for their bold preaching by any means; it is likely therefore that the tongues were somehow effective in the role of the Holy Spirit enabling Peter to speak boldly. Experience has shown this to be true of those who practice the gift of tongues today - through speaking in tongues people have found their spirit stirred and a sense of fullness that enables a boldness in their daily walk and witness. Going back to scripture we see that this experience has a basis in scripture.

There is one point that I do agree with - that a gift of tongues is not ultimately for one's own benefit, but to equip and enable the speaker to edify the church and to witness boldly in accordance with the christian disciple's life. People are edified themselves when using tongues, and that enables and empowers them to love and work with God's power more effectively to others. A person cannot be salt and light to others if there is not the Spirit of God made full in them first. One cannot love unless they have been loved first; one cannot have the overflow of the Spirit in the lives of others if they themselves are empty.

It is the fruit of the gift of tongues that shows what is behind it. Yes, there have been known cases of false tongues, but that in no way means real tongues do not exist; it only proves that Satan is indeed a fallen angel with limited power that is a shadow and counterfeit of God's. God created the angels, including Satan; that Satan fell but had some power would mean that his power ultimately originally came from God and so mimics His, though far more weakly and with a completely different fruit resultant from it. Someone with false tongues will not be able to declare Jesus as Lord as said in 1 Cor 12, and the fruit of that gift will only be fear, worry, etc. - anything that is opposed to the fruit of the Spirit.

Tongues are not everything. But they are useful in private edification, and they are useful under certain conditions in the public setting. They can be useful in witness, but also in edification, and it is not forbidden but one of the gifts of God. And scripture shows it is for today and until we see God face to face and fully know, as we are fully known. That day has not come yet, so tongues is for today. But it is the being baptised with the Holy Spirit that was key for the early church, and it is key for the church today if it is to rise up and be as successful. That is something I would point to more than tongues for every christian can be baptised in the Holy Spirit as Jesus was, as the early church was, and have an impact that will be greater than what Jesus did. Tongues or no, we need the Holy Spirit, we need that power and presence in our ministry and lives.



rapturefish -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/24/2006 8:15:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbbaab44

what i don't understand about many things is why do people need a prayer language to be on the deepest level with God? Why does God need an audible voice from our vocal cords to understand our "feelings/spirit"(sometimes misinterpreted as the "Holy Spirit") If we just make a bellow(not tongues) of agony because of inner hurt, can't God respond back to us with just as much of edification and exortation as if i spoke in his personal language? When Paul said we should understand one another's prayers, how does that disclude our own? I struggle overall with tongues, i think because of the credit it receives because of its personal edification results. if there are greater gifts why aren't we edified even better by those. To compare it to the OT, what veil has the prayer language torn down? I don't know. i have a lot of questions. but i am leaning toward the philosophy that God is just restoring what he had broken up at the tower of babel, so the church could build its staircase to heaven so others can follow.


The first question is one we can only speculate on. It doesn't appear to make sense - but for those who do operate in the gift of tongues they do find that their spirit is 'fuller' and they are empowered. Nothing in scripture says why it happens, but scripture does say that it does happen, and experience confirms that truth, which is already in scripture.

There is debate over whether every christian can speak in tongues; scripture appears to say no if we look at 1 Corinthians. But scripture does say that Jesus baptises with the Holy Spirit. It is this being baptised by the Holy Spirit that is available for every christian. Whether that means tongues comes with it or not, the important thing is that Jesus received it when he was baptised, and the early church received it in at least several instances in Acts. This fulfills what John the Baptist prophesied when he said that he baptised with water but that Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit, as Luke mentions in Acts 1 and shows with the rest of the book.

I think of Naaman, who was told to bathe in a dirty river. It made no sense to him why any other river would not do better because they were fresher and cleaner, and he had leprosy. Surely a clean river would make a person clean? But despite the lack of logic this command had he obeyed and was nonetheless healed. I can only say that to human logic it makes no sense that a person would be edified with a prayer language in a way that mere crying out would not. All I can say is that it does, and scripture backs it up.

There is a sense in which Pentecost signified a reversal of the confusion of languages at Babel. Babel led to confusion because people tried to set themselves up as rivals to God; the confusion led to division. Pentecost came to the children of God and the tongues were a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, which united the early church.

Another thing on the side. I have read of accounts both of tongues that were pointed out as a known language, and accounts of tongues that were not. Both 'types' of tongues are in scripture, and it is refreshing to hear and read stories today that confirm the reality of both. In one case a missionary named Garlock was about to be eaten when he was captured by a tribe of cannibals. Given a last chance to make his defense, he opened his mouth and spoke something - evidently it worked because the cannibals understood, bowed their heads and freed him. This witnessed to them and I think they became believers (it's been a while since I've read this). In another story Jack Hayford managed to get into conversation with a fellow airplane passenger and Jack asked for permission to speak something to him. The words that came out were recognised by the passenger as an ancient dialect of the kiowan language, which he recognised as saying something about 'the light from up above'. Through this Hayford witnessed to him and gave him some christian literature. In other stories people pray for others in tongues and people have been healed.



sunshinesoprano -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/24/2006 11:02:10 AM)

This is a subject I've been studying recently and I would like to see some just basic discussion about it and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit without all the spiritual blathering I've seen in here.

Between the 25 cent words and "boviating" it's really difficult to figure out what is being said. While it may be appropriate for a disseration, it's a little difficult for casusal reading here, IMHO.

I guess I just want some honest, HUMBLE opinions on the validity and need for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, why it is an additional aspect of the Christian life, why tongues is so highly focused on when it's the least of the gifts, and why we need them.

And stop ARGUING!!! For cryin' out loud, we're talking about the Holy Spirit here, not football!!!![:@]



jbbaab44 -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/24/2006 3:47:39 PM)

ditto



imallforgod -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/24/2006 8:02:02 PM)

This has been a MILD discussion compared to some I've seen.... believe me!



rcjames -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/24/2006 10:12:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: imallforgod

This has been a MILD discussion compared to some I've seen.... believe me!


I'll second that! I usually stay off the "tongue" threads for they do tend to devolve into something most unproductive. When that happens, I just pray for them; in tongues of course.[:D]

Thanks
RC



mushhead -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/25/2006 1:41:56 PM)

rapturefish, I agree with almost everything you said in your last two posts. I say almost because I'm not clear on your position on a couple of the issues you addressed.

One thing I think people need to remember is that the Bible doesn't talk about a "prayer language." It does talk about the exercising of the gift of tongues in a private prayer session without an interpreter. But I don't see any distinction between that language and the language used in public; it makes a distinction about the settings in which it is exercised.

Another point is that not everyone that is baptized in the Spirit speaks in tongues, though some do. I would also guess that is not their only gift. I also don't see where the Bible says that a prayer in tongues is any deeper than a prayer that is not. Paul writes in 1Cor. 14 that if he prays in tongues his spirit prays...that does not mean someone who is not praying in tongue cannot pray in the Spirit. It only may mean that his mind is aware of what is going where as Paul said his did not. Also in Romans 8:26-27 we are told that the Spirit intercedes for us with groanings that words cannot express because He searches our hearts and knows the mind of of God. My wife experienced this first hand when we received news that our youngest son had been killed.

Ditto, rapturefish, that what we need to be, everyone of us, is filled and under the influence of the Holy Spirit. I know people who do not speak in tongues who have an incredible passion and gifting for evangelism. I know people who do not speak in tongues who don't seem to care about others souls. I know people who speak in tongues who have an incredible passion and gifting for evangelism, I know people who speak in tongues who like the non-tongue speaker you couldn't tell their lives from a pagans. It's all about surrender to God and truly loving Him.



rapturefish -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/26/2006 2:06:52 AM)

G'day Mushhead [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead

rapturefish, I agree with almost everything you said in your last two posts. I say almost because I'm not clear on your position on a couple of the issues you addressed.

One thing I think people need to remember is that the Bible doesn't talk about a "prayer language." It does talk about the exercising of the gift of tongues in a private prayer session without an interpreter. But I don't see any distinction between that language and the language used in public; it makes a distinction about the settings in which it is exercised.


Yes, the bible doesn't specifically (as far as I know) refer to a 'prayer language'. However, like the term 'trinity', the principle is there, even if the actual term isn't. Jack Hayford prefers to call it 'spiritual language', referring to the singing or talking in the Spirit that Paul mentions. The word translated 'tongue' I believe can also be translated as 'language' - the two terms seem interchangeable enough.

The thing is, we can't be 100% sure that there are either two types of tongues or merely two applications of the same tongue, or both. What I can say is that from anecdotal evidence there appears to be both supernatural tongues that are in fact languages found in the world such as hebrew or chinese, etc. and also tongues that appear to have no known origin. The important thing though is not the known or unknown nature of the tongue in human terms but on how it is to be used in a loving and edifying way, both in the church and in private. On the public issue there is careful guidance from Paul; in the private domain there does not appear to be any of the same issues that arose in the Corinthian church since it is just between the speaker and God.

I believe some people easily make the mistake of reading 1 Corinthians and conclude that tongues are simply not valid without interpretation. If one reads carefully they will find that 1 Corinthians specifically refers to an application of tongues in the assembly - it also happens to reveal some aspects of the application of tongues in general or private in doing so. Whether tongues are publicly used or not, one who speaks in tongues does experience an edifying effect to their own self. This is fine, as Paul says, but the other persons in the assembly will not benefit - hence the need for interpretation in that context. Without the public context however, there is no need for interpretation when the person speaking is edified in their spirit.

quote:

Another point is that not everyone that is baptized in the Spirit speaks in tongues, though some do. I would also guess that is not their only gift. I also don't see where the Bible says that a prayer in tongues is any deeper than a prayer that is not. Paul writes in 1Cor. 14 that if he prays in tongues his spirit prays...that does not mean someone who is not praying in tongue cannot pray in the Spirit. It only may mean that his mind is aware of what is going where as Paul said his did not. Also in Romans 8:26-27 we are told that the Spirit intercedes for us with groanings that words cannot express because He searches our hearts and knows the mind of of God. My wife experienced this first hand when we received news that our youngest son had been killed.


There is some debate on whether everyone who is baptised in the Spirit speaks in tongues or not. Some very much believe that everyone who is baptised in the Spirit does speak in tongues - such as the original Pentecostals and others such as Jackie Pullinger - and in Pullinger's case I can see a compelling case. She teaches this to the drug addicts and people she witnesses to in Hong Kong, and without exception it's the people who are baptised in the Spirit and keep using their prayer language that manage to stay of drugs long-term and permanently. The ones who do not invariably do not stay off drugs. A similar scenario occurred in David Wilkinson's ministry and Nicky Cruz's.

However, some Third Wave or charismatic churches tend to teach that not everyone does speak in tongues who is baptised in the Spirit. And, interestingly enough, their belief also reflects the church generally. Not everyone speaks in tongues in charismatic or Third Wave-type churches; in fact it's quite possible that tongues-speaker may be in the minority in some of these churches.

As for Romans 8:26-27, I've read of a story or two where a person may have prayed in groans and something supernatural did happen, such as healing. And of course there are stories of people who pray without tongues and things happen as well.

The picture seems to be rather complex. I think what I can conclude from here is that one's paradigm of belief does have a bearing on the reality they experience, or vice versa, and I can't say that any of the above possibilities are wrong or right, or even the only possible answer. I do know that in my personal journey from conservative Baptist/Presbyterian denominations to Pentecostal/charismatic ones I have seen much dryness spiritually in my life prior to being baptised in the Spirit and receiving tongues, and much more abundance and fullness spiritually since spirit baptism and tongues. However, pre-Spirit-filled christianity did have moments (though rare) of the miraculous and answers to prayer.

I believe that the person who is a christian has an abundance of blessings in store as promised in scripture. Whether one believes in tongues or not, that should not be a divisive issue; it only becomes one if one begins to fear or distrust the other's side's validity. If someone has tongues and it helps them, then God be praised for the usefulness of that gift in that person's life. If a person does not have tongues and lives a christian godly life then God be praised too. I think there should be an acceptance and tlerance between the two, and no-one should begin to get into arguments of tongues being wrong or heretical, because scripture does present a case for it, and it is one of those issues where people should agree to disagree, and move on to focus on the more important issue of christian unity for the sake of the gospel.

That being said, I believe certain things about this issue - I tend to believe that is quite likely that people who are Spirit baptised do speak in tongues, and that tongues is useful and effective in a way that natural prayer is not because it works not through the language of the mind but involves the Spirit communicating with God that doesn't involve natural speech. I have found this through time praying in both ways, though since Spirit-baptism I have also found that natural prayer has become bolder, more passionate and alive.

While I will tell others about my views I will not have a problem if I end up having to work with a christian someone who does not believe these things, none at all. I only ask that they accept it when I do use tongues in private, and I try to be respectful in how I use tongues when they are around so as not to cause problems. I choose to say what I am convinced scripture says and how it has been confirmed in my life, but I leave it up to each individual as to whether they agree with it. And whether they do or not, I'm not concerned but I do want to remain fellow brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of what they think.

quote:

Ditto, rapturefish, that what we need to be, everyone of us, is filled and under the influence of the Holy Spirit. I know people who do not speak in tongues who have an incredible passion and gifting for evangelism. I know people who do not speak in tongues who don't seem to care about others souls. I know people who speak in tongues who have an incredible passion and gifting for evangelism, I know people who speak in tongues who like the non-tongue speaker you couldn't tell their lives from a pagans. It's all about surrender to God and truly loving Him.


Absolutely. Right on the head.[:D]



rapturefish -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/26/2006 2:44:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sunshinesoprano

This is a subject I've been studying recently and I would like to see some just basic discussion about it and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit without all the spiritual blathering I've seen in here.

Between the 25 cent words and "boviating" it's really difficult to figure out what is being said. While it may be appropriate for a disseration, it's a little difficult for casusal reading here, IMHO.

I guess I just want some honest, HUMBLE opinions on the validity and need for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, why it is an additional aspect of the Christian life, why tongues is so highly focused on when it's the least of the gifts, and why we need them.

And stop ARGUING!!! For cryin' out loud, we're talking about the Holy Spirit here, not football!!!![:@]


Some books supporting the position of tongues for today, and which I've found useful in my own study prior to and after receiving tongues are as follows:

They Speak in Other Tongues by John & Elizabeth Sherrill
Surprised by the Power of the Holy Spirit by Jack Deere
The Beginner's Guide to Receiving the Holy Spirit by Ruthanne Garlock and Quin Sherrer
Nine O'Clock in the Morning by Dennis Bennett
Chasing the Dragon by Jackie Pullinger
The Beauty of Spiritual Language by Jack Hayford
The Glorious Disturbance by Ernest B Gentile
The Beginner's Guide to Spiritual Gifts by Sam Storms

As for the importance of tongues, if it is the least of the gifts then, as David duPlessis said, shouldn't we begin with the least first? I don't believe that tongues is the least of the gifts per se; 1 Corinthians implies that it is the least of the gifts in the church setting. Because tongues suddenly becomes the most useful of gifts when interpreted I believe that the place on tongues as the least only applies when uninterpreted in the church setting.

Tongues as a private prayer gift however is highly useful, I've found. As a language of prayer and of praise it is refreshing to go through a session of praying in tongues and ending up being 'full' as it were with the Spirit. I do not experience this with natural prayer, though I find natural prayer is effective and bold in a way that it wasn't prior to receiving the baptism of the Spirit and tongues.

Because there is debate on whether everyone can receive tongues, it follows that if not everyone does then it seems unfair to those who do not. I do think that everyone potentially can; I definitely believe that everyone can be baptised in the Spirit the way Jesus was and the disciples were. Because of that I hope everyone receives it. I generally lean towards the possibility that everyone can receive it and that those who do will speak in tongues. But then there is always someone who claims they have received the baptism without tongues - I don't agree, but only they really know, and at best my conviction is my conviction, not incontrovertible fact - scripture leaves the issue open in my view. So I bless them and wish them well. I share what I believe but don't try to tell them they're wrong.

I find the Holy Spirit, being a person, does seem to work differently from individual to individual. With jackie Pullinger he worked one way, and what she teaches is true for everyone who receives it. And what charismatics believe and Third-Wavers and more modern Pentecostals believe is less emphatic, and that is true for them. I believe it is true for them because their paradigm makes it true, as it is for Jackie.

Personally I've found it almost like another conversion because what I learnt as a conservative christian suddenly had a new sense of dimension and reality after receiving the baptism and tongues. I can't go back to life without the Spirit-baptism; it is like experiencing three dimensions and not wanting to go back to a flat linear world. It is like reading about wild animals and faraway places from legends and myths - and one day suddenly we're in the world ourselves and experiencing it.

It is my conviction that being baptised in the Spirit is the firing up of the flame that is in every believer. Without the Spirit one cannot be powerful or effective in witness; the baptism of the Spirit is key to moving in the Spirit. Without it there is still effectiveness, but only in the sense that a single flame is effective compared to a flame activate by gas or fuel. Tongues or no, it is the blessing of the believer to receive it if they so ask for it, as per Luke 11.

In the end, what matters is that a person is surrendered to the Lord and works with His might. To be a disciple who begins and finishes the race, remaining committed, faithful, growing evermore like Jesus. I believe effectiveness in this and in witness is far greater when one is baptised with the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was, the disciples were and it made the early church the phenomenon it was.

blessings,



mushhead -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/26/2006 9:31:03 AM)

quote:

That being said, I believe certain things about this issue - I tend to believe that is quite likely that people who are Spirit baptised do speak in tongues, and that tongues is useful and effective in a way that natural prayer is not because it works not through the language of the mind but involves the Spirit communicating with God that doesn't involve natural speech. I have found this through time praying in both ways, though since Spirit-baptism I have also found that natural prayer has become bolder, more passionate and alive.


Now see, your creating a problem for some people because your too reasonable. There must be some value to praying in the Spirit or it would be senseless to impart a gift that creates the ability.
I don't speak in tongues personally, and no one in our church does, but we have incredible power in our prayers. In fact we spend time every time we get together marvelling at how God has been answering prayer. There is a 11 year old girl who's mother called me because she was staying up into the wee hours of the night praying for an infant who was going to die from a heart defect. The mother was becoming concerned for her daughters well being. I got the call late one night. I went over and spoke with the young girl. She told me God told her to pray. I told her then she should pray. Her mother didn't know what to think. I told her mom to have faith. The baby recovered. This is just one in a regular series of answered prayers. I'm not even sure it is the most amazing. I don't think that scripture or experience supports the notion that prayers are more powerful or personal if spoken by someone who is praying in tongues.

However, rapturefish, I agree we shouldn't divide. You are reasonable. I think the division come over those who are not. They make those of us who don't speak in tongues out to be unsaved or not part of the true church. Those abuses reflect the reason Paul taught the subject to the Corinthians and why so many of non-tongue speaking christians get leary around those who do. Of course their are abusers on this side of the isle as well. I'm sure you've experienced that.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI