RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread

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

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine

Message

lecoop -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/22/2006 4:19:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uthguy4lyf lecoop, where is your proof that luther spoke in tongues? no one else has shown this proof that you claim?? quote lecoop: [quote]I have read it, and also studied it thoroughly in church history class. Some find it difficult to believe that God would allow tongues to die out, or nearly so, for hundreds of years, and then bring them back. However, it was not only tongues that died out - but nearly the whole truth of scriptures and the doctrines of salvation. Thank God, He brought them back through Martin Luthor, and others. I did not say that Martin Luther (I mispelled his name) spoke in tongues. I said, "thank God, He brought them back..." the "them" refers back to the "doctrines of salvation." The Catholic church had, for the most part, lost the true doctrines of salvation. why wouldn't you keep your "heavenly language" after all it's how God talks to you, so you say What does the scripture say? 1 Cor. 13 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. When the time comes for tongues to cease, it will also be the time for prophecies to cease, and [human] knowledge to vanish away. This time has not come! The knowledge base of humanity is multiplying exponentially. However, the time will come when we shall know, even as we are known. That will be after the rapture of the church. At that point in time, there will be no need of human knowledge, for we will have supernatural knowledge. At that time, we will be seeing Jesus face to face, so there will no longer be any need for tongues. quote lecoop: "When we get to heaven, we will be speaking to God face to face, and the need for tongues will cease. That day is not here, but will some day come." you said it's how we talk to God, but then you said, "And definitely, all people in a local body will not be gifted with the gift of tongues." which is it??? Can't you see the difference between speaking to God (prayer & vertical) and speaking to a local body of believers (not prayer and horizontal)? I thought everyone could see this difference. If you go back and read Acts chapter one and two, you will see that all 120 people that were gathered in the upper room received the baptism with the HS, and they all spoke in tongues - including Mary, the mother of Jesus! This one verse alone should be proof that this gift is for all. However, the list of gifts Paul gives are gifts for ministry to others, not a gift to pray to God. Prayer is vertical while these gifts are horizontal; person to person. Not everyone will receive all of these horizontal gifts. Surely not everyone in a local body will be operating the gift of miracles, or the gift of healings. Can you see the difference? And everyone will not be operating the gift of tongues, where God calls on someone to stand up and deliver a prophecy in tongues to the local body, and then calls on someone to interpret. However, all present at this local body might pray in tongues at home. Paul is talking about two different manifestations of tongues, for two different purposes. 1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. quote lecoop: You are disagreeing with Paul here. Did you not understand: "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.?" The first purpose of tongues is as a prayer language, created by the HS, and placed in our human spirit, to be spoken out as tongues. This is always a perfect prayer, as it comes straight from God. no, you have disagreed with paul with saying it wasn't for spreading the gospel. read acts 2 when the different speaking people from several nations understood what was being said in their own tongue. This miracle in Acts 2 was a one time thing. These 120 people were speaking in tongues, and their understanding was unfruitful. They were not preaching. They were speaking to God. Again, you fail to believe Paul when he said: 1 Cor 14: 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. God made an exception to this verse in Acts 2, and allowed those present to hear in their own language. What did they hear? They heard them speak, "the wonderful works of God." This is another way of saying that they were praising and magnifying God, which is exactly what people do when they receive this baptism with the Holy Spirit. I have watched many receive, and almost without exception, they speak in tongues, and they magnify God in their learned language. What we see in Acts two is the third manifestation of tongues. The first is the prayer language where we can speak to God in His language. The second manifestation of tongues is where someone gives a prophecy in tongues to a local body of believers, and the third manifestation of tongues is where God allows people to hear in their own language. quote lecoop: You will have to take this up with God. However, God put it in the bible, and means for us to believe it. God does not deal in "spooky things." That is only your twist, since you do not speak in tongues. once again this inference that since you don't speak the "heavenly language" you aren't able to understand what the "more deeper crowd" can understand. your indoctrination is amazing. i rarely have seen so much startling arrogance from one person regarding an erroneus teaching. it's notable that you however are fully convinced of what you beleive. Yes, I firmly believe it. And I would guess that you would stand just as firmly on scripture concerning say, salvation. For example, if someone tried to put a spin on John 3:16, and spiritualize it, you would stand adamately opposed to them. Why? Because you believe this verse will all your mind, soul and spirit. And on your part, it would not be arrogance. It would be standing firm on what you know is truth. Btw, it is always those that do not speak in tongues, that come up with the idea of second class Christians. I just say some have received, and some have yet to receive. One thing is for sure, if you cannot speak in tongues, you cannot fulfill 1 Cor 14:2, 4, 15, etc. This is not an erroneous teaching. That is just your spin. You can read these verses just as well as I can. I am just trying to save people the embarressment of trying to answer Jesus, when He asks them, "Why didn't you recieve my mighty baptism with the Holy Spirit?" this doesn't make one right though, sincerity can be placed in false teachings as well. so to tell someone if they will beleive it will happen is to misguide people. i have a background in the world of penecostal living (21 yrs worth). i tell you the truth this is a false teaching with misguided people fighting an argument they don't understand. some are very good people, but have been pushed into "Just try to open your mouth and speak, without thoughts going through your mind! " quoted from lecoop In other words, you are saying that you failed to receive the baptism with the HS? Or did you just not believe these verses, and therefore did not even seek? Did you never read, "For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened?" If you failed to receive, it is only because you have given up. quote: I have read it, and also studied it thoroughly in church history class. Some find it difficult to believe that God would allow tongues to die out, or nearly so, for hundreds of years, and then bring them back. However, it was not only tongues that died out - but nearly the whole truth of scriptures and the doctrines of salvation. Thank God, He brought them back through Martin Luthor, and others. ...

lecoop -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/22/2006 4:25:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amsent Lecoop, I'll ask you the same question that I have asked other tongue talkers and still haven't received an answer. If the gift of tongues that was in operation on the day of Pentecost is still in operation today, WHY is it that if a foreign minister comes to speak to an assembly that He can't speak the language of, How come he must have an interpreter and vice versa. If an American minister goes to a foreign country and God just gave me a prime example in Benny Hinn, He could not speak the language of the countries He visited but yet speaks in tongues. He had to have an interpreter. Those on the day of Pentecost heard the tongue and understood without an interpreter. This thing of a prayer tongue has gone way off base because it didn't start out that way. But some minister has turned it into something it's not. So how do you answer that? Amsent For Truth Once again, your question shows that you do not understand the primary purpose of tongues, which is as a prayer language. You are saying that Paul "turned it into something it's not." For it was Paul that said tongues were speaking to God, and no man understands." What you failed to understand is that this story in Acts 2 was a supernatural "hearing" that God allowed for that one time. While these 120 were speaking in tongues, they did not have a clue what they were saying. They were not preaching, but were praying, according to Paul. However, sometimes, God allows this same miracle today, where people hear in their own language. Coop

psende -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/22/2006 4:54:19 PM)
Morningstar, This is for you. Believe me, it was a labor of love. quote: Is the modern tongue movement even Biblical? It seems to fit the criteria – even to the point of being abused by some; as in Corinth. quote: Is it even for today? It is for the Church, a tool, given by God. quote: If it is for today, Why did it start up again? Why was it missing from the church for almost to millennia? You got me. I would guess that tongues, along with prophecy fell out of favor due to abuse. Of course, as Ben Quebec pointed out, the case may actually be that they didn’t fully die out. I don’t think we”ll ever know, for sure. quote: Why did it start up in a small town in Kansas? Why not? I understand that God has begun other works in small towns, why not one in Kansas? 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? I’ll leave that to the scholars. I believe the NIV and others have those verses as well as the story of the woman caught in adultery set aside for just that reason (there may be others I’im not aware of.). There a few other passages that conservative scholars wonder about. Nevertheless, sermons are still being preached on both with good effect. quote: What about verse 1 Cor 13:8 where it says the gift of tongues will be stilled? Well, I guess that becomes a matter of interpretation, doesn’t it? BenQuebec has addressed this question rather nicely in post #82. quote: What about verses 1 Cor 14:6-13 where it says in the church that tongues without interpretation is forbidden? Paul is speaking of the uselessness of giving a public message in tongues, with no interpretation, in the general assembly. He likens it to a foreigner bringing a message in his native language; useless in all ways. quote: What about verses 1 Cor 14:14-17 where is says praying in tongue is condemned because the mind is unfruitful? Again, this is speaking of public prayer. We have all been in a prayer meeting. When someone prays, they are in essence, praying for the group. As they pray, when someone is reminded or in agreement with the prayer, an “amen” or “yes Lord” is sounded. However, if that person is praying in tongues, how could we agree? Paul is not “condemning” praying in tongues, (v39) but is directing in proper use. quote: 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? Same answer as I Cor 14:6-13. quote: 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? The “greater” gift, IMO, is the one that is useful for the moment. Again, here, Paul is speaking proper order in the assembly. A word understood is of use. A word not understood is valueless unless, by some means – such as interpretation – it becomes understood. It is simply that if one feels he must address the assembly, it should be done for the good of the assembly. quote: 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?" In I Cor 12:7, Paul speaks of “manifestations of the Spirit for the common good.” He is addressing the proper use of gifts in the as ministering tools for the Body of Christ. Not all will be used of God in the same way. Thus, when it comes to ministering to the Body, not all will speak in tongues, not all will teach, not all will advise. We are to recognize this and understand that, since we each have our place and purpose, no one better than the next person. The universality of tongues suggests itself in Acts 2:4, where they all, “began to speak in other tongues . . .;” in Acts 8, where Simon the sorcerer sought the power evidenced by the Peter and John; in Acts 10, at Cornelius’ home; and in Acts 19:6, John’s followers. It could also be deduced that a very large number of the Corinthians used tongues, albeit sometimes inappropriately. This gift that, in Acts, came to believers as they were “filled with the Holy Spirit,” has a different purpose than that gift which addresses the assembly, though it is of the same essence. This is sometimes referred to as the “prayer language,” and its use is for personal prayer; a tool given by the Spirit to edify and build-up the individual Christian. (On a personal note, I look inward and, seeing a bit of how I’m made (believe me; I’m nothing special) tend to think, “It must be for everyone!” quote: 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? Compare I Cor 12:13 with Luke 3:16. The Spirit baptizes us into the Body of Christ (I Cor 12:13) while it is Jesus who baptizes with the “Holy Spirit and fire,” (Luke 3:16). Each of these members of the Godhead is doing a different work in the believer. quote: 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? Looking at the context of I Cor 14, I Cor 14:15 implies that prayers in tongues and prayers with the mind are both valid forms of prayer in the appropriate setting. Prayers with the mind are always valid; prayers with the sprit have their place. In our private prayer, the Spirit directs our hearts in prayer whether in the Spirit or the mind. There are stories that I’m sure most here have heard, about someone waking in the night with some person on their heart and then praying until the burden was lifted; later discovering that the person God had placed on their heart had been in dire circumstances at the time they were praying. Such happenings occur with both types of prayer. The Holy Spirit is directing both. I can, however, have a prayer list (a good thing, by the way) and quickly, with my understanding, run through the list rote style. I’m not sure a prayer such as that is of much use, although I’m not sure that it isn’t. As far as Eph 6:18-19, the is ample room there to include the use and viability of both forms of prayer. quote: 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? There is no doubt that abuses have occurred, but what I think you are getting at is the common scenario, during a time of praise and worship, in which folks – seemingly everyone – will pray and sing “in the spirit.” During this time, there is no message being presented to the assembly. Everyone is offering praise and prayer in unison and all that is being spoken or sung, whether with the mind or spirit, is directed only to God who has very little trouble hearing and deciphering all of it. If a person has a message to present to the Body, whether by way of tongues and interpretation or prophecy, there will be a time to do so. Most meetings I have been to carry this out in a very orderly fashion, but I don’t doubt, that to an outsider, especially one from a very traditional and conservative background, this kind of service may appear disorderly. quote: 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 the Church setting, during an aforementioned time of praise and worship, folks are speaking to God, and Him alone (14:2). Though this is often done out loud and in unison, there is no message directed to the Body, and is in no way an interruption of anything else happening at the time. Each person is, in his own and personal way, offering praises to the One to whom praise is due. quote: 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"? I don’t know anyone who claims to be speaking “angel language,” (though I’ve heard tongues referred to as a “heavenly language”) but I Cor 13 1 certainly opens up the possibility that the unknown language spoken by someone could be angelic just as v3 opens the possibility that someone could sell all their possessions to feed the poor. After all, God who gave language to man, also gave language to angels. I don’t know if they are all that different and I’m sure it makes no difference what language is being spoken. quote: How do we explain the many non-charismatic churches that lack this second blessing of the Holy Spirit? If you don’t believe it is necessary or appropriate, why would you have it? quote: Why is the Holy Spirit only working thru charismatic churches? I understand there are some who believe this. I personally know of no one who does, however. This mind-set is pretty common no matter what denomination you are speaking of, isn’t it? God moves through the whole Body of Christ to accomplish His purposes. quote: 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? One thing about this “Spirit baptism” is that is in no way signifies having “arrived.” It opens a new dimension (probably a misleading term, but I can’t think of a more accurate term at the moment) in Christ. In my experience, it was much akin to experience of being “born again” and like that experience of salvation, the only criteria was to ask and receive. quote: Where are we commanded to seek a second Spirit baptism? No “command.” Luke 11:13, Acts 19:1-9. quote: Where are we instructed on how to speak or pray in tongues? We aren’t. It is the Holy Spirit’s doing. We have to avail ourselves to Him, however. He usually doesn’t just drop it on us, although occasionally, I’ve heard, He does. quote: Where are we instructed to have tarry meetings? We aren’t. This practice is taken from the example of the Upper Room Bunch, who “tarried” in Jerusalem until the day of Pentecost, “continually devoting themselves to prayer.” Not a bad example. quote: How do we explain Christians "coaching" other believers on how to speak or pray in tongues? Where are we instructed to “practice’ tongues? We aren’t. Although I have no problem with explaining the concept of “offering your voice to God and letting Him take over,” I think that coaching the sounding of words is misleading and should not be done. The Holy Spirit is able to give utterance. Our part is to allow Him to do so. quote: 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? While there are certainly elements of charismaticism that fall into the “itching ears” catagory, the majority of charismatic congregations preach a message of holy living and evangelism. Keep in mind that there are charismatic believers in nearly every denomination. The only addition to the regular denominational beliefs would be the Spirit Baptism and elements associated with it. quote: So how do we find the truth? Really, the Holy Spirit is the only one who can lead us into truth. Sometimes He just “shows” us, but other times, He leads us through struggles – oftentimes of our own making – in order to prepare us for His work. He leads us with His Word; “Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. Forever, O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven. . . . it is my meditation all the day.”(Ps 119:105,89,97). He will also lead in other ways, mush as He led Paul to Macedonia. God is not limited, but He will not go against His word – our compass. quote: Are we to base Scripture on experiences or base experiences on Scripture? I think a combination of both. Experience can give us insight on what scripture is speaking of. Consider the “Peace that passes understanding.” Until you’ve experienced it, you don’t really understand it. However, in order to have that kind of peace, we must be willing to throw off our anxiety as we thankfully present our prayers and supplications to the God of peace (Phi 4:6-7). On the other hand, it would be wrong to say that you could find that “peace” through exercise because exercise had made you “peaceful.” quote: 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? Perhaps the only assumption we should make is that though flower and grass fade, “the word of God abides forever.” Though I’m sure we all assume things we shouldn’t, every Christian should strive be an unashamed workman who “rightly divides the word of truth” God is not so small that He can’t apply His Word in unlikely situations. An acquaintance was telling me about an incident that happened while he was personally building his rather unorthodox house. One day, this extremely frustrated, first-time builder was in his morning devotions. As he read Ps 127:1 (“Unless the Lord builds a house, they labor in vain who build it”) the Holy Spirit showed him that he was to include God in every aspect of his building plans. As he dis so, things smoothed out and frustrations left. The finished product became a meeting place for a “house church” for many years. Note, though, that scripture was not bent or twisted in any way. God used this verse to get the man’s attention and shape his heart. quote: So how do we interpret the bible? Are we to interpret it literally? Yes, where possible. quote: Are we to interpret it figuratively? Yes, where a literal translation can make no sense. quote: Are we to interpret it as a historical document? Yes, where it addresses history. quote: Are we to make assumptions about what it says? We are to assume God exists and that is God’s Word. quote: 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? Flesh. Everyone comes with a unique point of view as well as baggage, known and unknown, that shapes our view of scripture. Then, of course is the fact that everyone wants to be “right.” Paul addresses this attitude in Romans 14, and though he is speaking of food and drink and holy days, I think it fits well here. Verse 5: “Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind;” Verse 7: “For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; Verse 10 “. . .why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God,” and finally, verse 12: “So then, each one of us shall give account of himself to God. God love and acceptance runs wide and deep. So should ours. I think it is also likely that God uses this diversity of opinion to build and strengthen His Body even while the enemy is attempting to destroy. quote: 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). Absolutely. I tell you gang. This post has taken a while. Not only am I a slow thinker, I’m an even slower typist.

amsent -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/22/2006 5:03:12 PM)
Lecoop, Paul's statement was only to show that only God would have understood what was said because he was the author of it. It doesn't say anything about it being a prayer language. Thats someones leap of imagination.. When He said when you give thanks, how will they understand unless you speak with words that they understand. He was saying that if you spoke in tongues that those around you would not know what you were doing and as such you could even be giving worship to idols or worse. It seems that those who follow the doctrine of tongues have gotten things mixed up for the second chapter of Acts says nothing about prayer. That is spoken of in Corinthians but even there, as I said, it is never explicit and someone has taken poetic leave with it to say that it was prayer which fits the doctrine. You are not the first person that I have come across that has mixed the two together to try and validate something that they cannot. The tongues in Corinth were carnal. Paul had much trouble with them about tongues and other things that were not fruitful to the Spirit. Otherwise if they were praying to God why would Paul interceed. Do you not think that He would have been aware of this if it were truly prayer. Amsent For Truth

figmentPez -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/22/2006 5:05:17 PM)
quote: Notice closely what accompianied these tongues: it says that they magnified God. I challenge the readers to attend a charismatic service where tongues are spoken (if you can even find one.) Especially a small prayer meeting where everyone will be spending some time praying in tongues. Or a meeting where people are receiving the baptism with the HS, as it this verse above, and people begin to speak in tongues for the first time. Listen and notice if God is magnified. In my experience, the more people speak in tongues, the more they will magnify God. The wilder the service, the more praise and glory is given to God. I've been to more than one service, at more than one congregation, where tongues were spoken. The one that claimed to be giving people a "baptism of the HS" as a second work of grace was the one where God was not magnified by the service! It was the most disoranized disorderly worship I have ever witnessed! No one was in charge, and groups of people broke into "tongues" whenever they felt like it. Hearing people jibber loudly in such a way was the worst noise I have ever heard, period. It made me realize why Paul exhorted the Corinthians to have order in worship, and to not allow the whole church to speak in tongues at the same time. It was a sick and twisted perversion of what a gathering of the church should be. There was no order and decency to be found, and those who tried to persuade me to speak in tongues as well were rude and unprepared to defend their beliefs. Thankfully, I have since had better experiences with those who speak in tongues, but never with a group that believes one has to speak in tongues to have the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and never with a group that believes the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a seperate event from salvation.

BenQuebec -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/23/2006 9:39:56 AM)
Nice work, psende. Thanks for taking the time to answer each one of those questions in a thoughtful, coherent and respectful manner. Many people claim to be led by the spirit, and to me the proof is the manifestation of the fruit of the spirit. Applying this to the forums, this means posting with temperance, patience and kindness. Thanks for demonstrating this in your post. Lecoop, I believe you've done a great job explaining your position biblically. However, while sharing your experiences is good, please realize that such evidence will be seen as inadmissible by those who disagree with you, since it's not "in the Bible", per sé, and (just being honest here) anyone can come up with anecdotes to support their position on anything. Even hundreds or thousands of such anecdotes will not convince somebody who's looking for biblical proof of something. Personally, though, I think you've done a decent job of supporting your position with both Scripture and experience. It's just that many people have seen your interpretation these verses applied incorrectly or in an exaggerated manner, and have drawn the conclusion that it's "false teaching", as others have said. Perhaps you see "their" interpretation as "false teaching" and "they" see yours as such, but is it even possible to draw such a bold conclusion here, that the opposing position here is "false"? Sure, their interpretation may disagree with what you have experienced, and what you've experienced reinforces and is reinforced by your interpretation. And you may think that agreeing that the other side's interpretation is even possible would invalidate your experience. However, your experience is your experience. Theirs is theirs. You may never have experienced what they've experienced - does that necessarily mean that their interpretation is false? Perhaps God has validated your interpretation for you, but couldn't God also validate their interpretation for them? You sought tongues, and God has given them to you. They didn't, but God has given them other gifts. Also, if "they" show animosity toward you, please don't return animosity for animosity, which is the work of the flesh, and you will thus have invalidated your position, having proved them correct in their opinion, as they will judge you by your fruit, beit carnal (animosity, division: see Gal. 5:19-20) or godly (patience, temperance, kindness: see Gal. 5:22-23). Thus, showing godly character in your responses will better validate your position, while showing carnal character in your responses will only serve to invalidate your position in the eyes of those who disagree. Thus, if anyone shows animosity toward you, simply recognize it for the work of the flesh that it is, a fruit by which you may judge the character of the one who threw it at you. Personally, I'd suggesting not ignoring it, but by patiently responding with the fruit of the Spirit, in order to better validate your character, as your response will also be judged by its fruit. FigmentPez, I've also seen tongues being used in a disorderly fashion, and it saddens me each time I see it. Thanks for your honesty. I've enjoyed reading your posts too. [:)] In Him, BenQuebec [Edited for grammar]

lecoop -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/23/2006 10:51:17 AM)
psende You did a most excellent job with the long list of questions! Coop

lecoop -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/23/2006 12:29:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenQuebec Nice work, psende. Thanks for taking the time to answer each one of those questions in a thoughtful, coherent and respectful manner. Many people claim to be led by the spirit, and to me the proof is the manifestation of the fruit of the spirit. Applying this to the forums, this means posting with temperance, patience and kindness. Thanks for demonstrating this in your post. Lecoop, I believe you've done a great job explaining your position biblically. However, while sharing your experiences is good, please realize that such evidence will be seen as inadmissible by those who disagree with you, since it's not "in the Bible", per sé, and (just being honest here) anyone can come up with anecdotes to support their position on anything. Even hundreds or thousands of such anecdotes will not convince somebody who's looking for biblical proof of something. Personally, though, I think you've done a decent job of supporting your position with both Scripture and experience. It's just that many people have seen your interpretation these verses applied incorrectly or in an exaggerated manner, and have drawn the conclusion that it's "false teaching", as others have said. Perhaps you see "their" interpretation as "false teaching" and "they" see yours as such, but is it even possible to draw such a bold conclusion here, that the opposing position here is "false"? Sure, their interpretation may disagree with what you have experienced, and what you've experienced reinforces and is reinforced by your interpretation. And you may think that agreeing that the other side's interpretatin is even possible would invalidate your experience. However, your experience is your experience. Theirs is theirs. You may never have experienced what they've experienced - does that necessarily mean that their interpretation is false? Perhaps God has validated your interpretation for you, but couldn't God also validate their interpretation for them? You sought tongues, and God has given them to you. They didn't, but God has given them other gifts. Also, if "they" show animosity toward you, please don't return animosity for animosity, which is the work of the flesh, and you will thus have invalidated your position, having proved them correct in their opinion, as they will judge you by your fruit, beit carnal (animosity, division: see Gal. 5:19-20) or godly (patience, temperance, kindness: see Gal. 5:22-23). Thus, showing godly character in your responses will better validate your position, while showing carnal character in your responses will only serve to invalidate your position in the eyes of those who disagree. Thus, if anyone shows animosity toward you, simply recognize it for the work of the flesh that it is, a fruit by which you may judge the character of the one who threw it at you. Personally, I'd suggesting not ignoring it, but by patiently responding with the fruit of the Spirit, in order to better validate your character, as your response will also be judged by its fruit. FigmentPez, I've also seen tongues being used in a disorderly fashion, and it saddens me each time I see it. Thanks for your honestly. I've enjoyed reading your posts too. [:)] In Him, BenQuebec I guess I tend to see things as either black or white, while other may see a lot of gray. Either there is a second work of grace, or there isn't. Someone cannot be "sort of" pregnant. Either they are pregnant or they are not. There is no middle ground here! So either there is a second work of grace, or there is not - there can be no gray area. Therefore, if there is not a second work of grace, then many churches are teaching false doctrine - indeed a doctrine of devils - and many people are decieved. On the other hand, if there is a second work of grace, then we all should receive it. Again, there can be no gray area in the middle: if it is from God, let's receive it. Which is it? Acts 8 and Acts 19 both show born again people receiving the baptism with the Holy Spirit - at some point subsequent to or after they were born again. This is not something that some people dreamed up. It is there in black and white for all to read, if they can read without preconceived glasses. how can we know this for sure? Both of these texts show people being born again, and they being baptized in water (just as most churches to day practice) and then, after all that, receiving the baptism with the HS. Therefore, these two verses should take away all doubt and confusion that the "baptism with the HS" is just another way of saying that these people were just being baptized into the body of Christ. No, this cannot be the truth, for in both of these scriptures, the baptism with the HS happened days after these people have been baptized into the body of Christ. Therefore, there can be no other honest conclusion than that this is showing us a second work of the HS, called the "baptism with the HS." However, some people have their "preconceived glasses" on so tightly, that they try to come up with some other escape, so they label these scriptures as "transitional." This is nothing more than a cop-out. These verses are just as much "God breathed" as any other part of our bible, and can be used for doctrine. Why would anyone believe that a work performed by God would be transitional - like it took the Holy Spirit a few months or years to "get it right." Nothing could be farther from the truth. God had this all planned out before the earth was created. The moment that he rose from the dead, salvation was made available to anyone that could believe. And as soon as the day of Pentecost had arrived, this second work of the HS was made available to all who will (or can) believe. Validate? God cannot validate false doctrine. Any doctrine that must ignore certain scriptures, even thought they are historic, as in the book of Acts, cannot be true. What about personal experience? I will agree that many people have got off on doctrines of devils, because of a personnal experience. Many times people hear a "voice" and are so sure it was God, that they ignore scripture that disagrees. When people are born again, how can they know they are born again? It is, after all, an "experience." 1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. We know that we are born again, because we have the witness of the HS inside. Once someone has this settled, there are not enough demons in hell to convince someone that they are not born again. In fact, people die for this witness, because they are that sure. For those that have received the baptism with the HS, they also have this witness. I surely would never go back to where I was before I received it, and I have met no one else that would either. Therefore, a personal experience, when it is has scriptural backing, is a ligitimate way to know it is of God. However, a personal witness is just that: personal, and one can only testify of it. Others can only read the scriptural proof. Does a personal experience have to be found in the bible to be of God? No. This puts God in a box, so to speak. God is not limited to what He has done in the past. However, His word is so complete that for the most part, what He does today has been done before. However, take a look at Paul's life. God called him to go to the Gentiles. He knew it, and did not run from it. Up until that time, from the time of Abraham, God worked with the Jews, with a few exceptions. What scripture, then, did Paul have? He had to rely on this "inward witness." This inward witness was so strong for Paul that he could call what he preached, "My gospel." We can all thank God for the experience God gave to Peter, when he went to Cornelius' house. If it had not been for that experience, the Jerusalem conference could have gone the other way, and today we would all be lost, or we would be Jews. Since we mentioned Peter, what about his experience? Was there scripture he could point to, showing that it was OK for him to go to Cornelius's house? No, all scripture was contrary! That is why God had to move so supernaturally to bring this to pass. Therefore, God is not limited to what he can do in any of our lives. Many people missed the last "wave" of revival that swept over our country. I say "missed" as in, most did not even consider it a move of the HS. I am referring to the "Toronto blessing" move of the Spirit. I am specifically referring to the laughter in the HS. We had much of this in our meetings here in Tulsa, and it was not related at all to Toronto, or Rodney Howard-Browne. It came from the Holy Spirit. Since we are speaking of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, and all that comes with it, I think this is on line. Many people have dismissed this movement immediately as not of God. I would say that for the most part, it was seen only in Penticostal or Charismatic groups. (Please correct me if I am wrong) Can we find scriptural backing for laughter? Yes. Psalm 126 Psalm 126 1 When the LORD turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream. 2 Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing: then said they among the heathen, The LORD hath done great things for them. There is no doubt that heaven will be filled with laughter and singing. It is the nature of God. Personally, I have been in few services that I have enjoyed more that when the HS came with laughter. However, I received this laughter in the HS a year before I saw it in a church service. I received laughter in the HS while I was praying in the HS, in tongues. For those that are old enough, and paid attention, God has done some wonderful things in my lifetime. It seems that He comes in "waves." (Some have called this laughter in the Spirit the "third wave.") Around the turn of the century, God moved in Azuza, and brought back the baptism with the HS. This revival or "wave" went from about 1901 to perhaps 1910 or so, when most of the excitement died down. The next wave was the great healing revival in the fifties. I went from about 1948 to some time in the 50's. I have heard old preachers say that it was easier then to get someone healed than it is today to get someone born again. In the 60's, God moved outside of the boundaries of the Pentecostal churches, and brought the baptism with the HS to all denominations. It was called the "charismatic renewal." We could have called it a revival, for that is what it did. Then God came in another wave, and it was called "the Jesus movement." Then came another wave, and it was called the "Word -faith" movement. Then came the laughter in the spirit wave. I have noticed that these "waves" of the HS have been coming closer and closer together! The laugher in the spirit has almost passed. It is very close to the time for the next wave of the Holy Spirit, which I believe will be the last wave. Why is any of this important, and how does it relate? Because for the most part, the last few waves of the HS, have bypassed the mainline denominations. Some acknowledged it, but few entered in. Why? Because all of these last waves of the HS have been related to the baptism with the HS. In fact, the "cutting edge" of what the Holy Spirit is doing in the world today is for the most part happening in churches or people groups that believe in and practice this baptism with the HS. I know, you all will be screaming about now. Look at Reinhard Bonke. I suspect that this one man has seen more people born again in the last 10 years, than whole denominations. And he is Pentecostal. I have heard many people say that TL Osborn preached face to face (no TV) to more people than anyone else that has ever lived. Oh, he was Pentecostal. I could go on and on, but you get the picture. If we could go to the "other hand" now, many people that I have discussed this baptism with the HS here and on other forums, will not even recognize these last few waves of the HS, as a move of God! Many have called what I have written about, a "false revival." Well, that will be between them and God. However, I am convinced that when they get to heaven, they will be shocked to find that what they thought was the devil turned out to be the Holy Spirit. So is this baptism with the HS important? I say it is extremely important. Coop

amsent -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/23/2006 1:10:11 PM)
Lecoop, you ask what scripture did Paul have. The answer is the same scripture that Jesus open the understanding of to the 12 disciples. Paul's meeting upon the road to Damascus was not just a meeting of the spirit but Jesus turned on the light of understanding. This is why Paul had an edge on the other disciples because He knew the scripture but didn't have any spiritual insight until His meeting with His destiny. See even the best of intent can be wrong as it was with Paul before His conversion. God used that zeal to plant the church. Amsent for Truth

BenQuebec -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/23/2006 1:12:06 PM)
Lecoop, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I suppose I see things a little differently, and I'd like to explain. Many Pentecostals read a lot into the book of Acts, using the historical facts therein as a model for today's church. I have nothing against that outlook, but I would like to point out that not every occurrence in the book of Acts in which people were saved was accompanied by speaking in tongues and prophecy. At least, if so, it wasn't recorded. Acts 2:38-42 (NKJV) states the following: Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And the continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Please note that there is no mention of any of the three thousand souls speaking in tongues or prophesying, yet Peter had promised them that upon repentance and baptism they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, they were given the power to "continue steadfastly" in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, etc. Acts 4:31 (NJKV) says the following: And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness." Again, no mention of tongues or prophecy. However, they did speak the word of God with boldness. I won't quote the other scriptures, as you all know how to navigate them, but Acts 8:15-19 makes mention of the Holy Spirit being given with no overt mention of tongues or prophecy, although some surmise that because Simon seemed to see visible proof of the Holy Spirit being given, that visible signs were tongues and prophecy. However, one can only speculate, as the Bible does not mention this overtly. Acts 10:44-47 does mention tongues in association with being filled with the Holy Spirit. However, other scriptures don't make this connection. Acts 11:15-16 mentions being filled with the Spirit, but makes no mention of tongues. In this passage, Peter remembers the word of the Lord after the Spirit falls upon him. Thus the Holy Spirit can also be associated with remembering the word of the Lord. Acts 19:1-5 does mention a group of people who had faith and repentance, yet not the Holy Spirit. Once the Holy Spirit was given to them, they did speak in tongues and prophesy. Thus, of the six passages in Acts I mentioned, only 2 make a distinct connection between the reception of the Holy Spirit and tongues/prophecy. There are a few different reasonable conclusions one can draw from this, including the following: 1) The Holy Spirit, when given, is always (or should be) accompanied by tongues and prophecy. There are two historical records in the Bible of this, and the connection wasn't made in the other passages, and it was understood (a given), and it wasn't necessary to mention it every time. 2) The Holy Spirit, when given, is sometimes accompanied by tongues and prophecy. Two records in the Bible mention the connection, but four others don't. Other possible signs (per the scriptures given) include: speaking the word of God with boldness, continuing steadfastly in doctrine and fellowship, and remembering the word of the Lord. 3) The Holy Spirit, when given, was always (or sometimes) accompanied by tongues and prophecy at that time in church history, as the church had not been firmly established yet. Those scriptures pertain to that time and place in history, just like women being silent in the church and wearing veils. I believe that one can reasonable draw any of the three conclusions above, or perhaps draw yet another conclusion. I don't believe the Bible gives us sufficient evidence to concretly prove that one of them is true and the others aren't. Your conclusion is obviously number 1 of the 3 listed, while I tend to lean more towards conclusion #2, and yet others here would draw conclusion #3, or a variant thereof.

morning_star -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/23/2006 4:37:34 PM)
Good arguments made here quote: ORIGINAL: BenQuebec Lecoop, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I suppose I see things a little differently, and I'd like to explain. Many Pentecostals read a lot into the book of Acts, using the historical facts therein as a model for today's church. I have nothing against that outlook, but I would like to point out that not every occurrence in the book of Acts in which people were saved was accompanied by speaking in tongues and prophecy. At least, if so, it wasn't recorded. Acts 2:38-42 (NKJV) states the following: Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And the continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Please note that there is no mention of any of the three thousand souls speaking in tongues or prophesying, yet Peter had promised them that upon repentance and baptism they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, they were given the power to "continue steadfastly" in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, etc. Acts 4:31 (NJKV) says the following: And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness." Again, no mention of tongues or prophecy. However, they did speak the word of God with boldness. I won't quote the other scriptures, as you all know how to navigate them, but Acts 8:15-19 makes mention of the Holy Spirit being given with no overt mention of tongues or prophecy, although some surmise that because Simon seemed to see visible proof of the Holy Spirit being given, that visible signs were tongues and prophecy. However, one can only speculate, as the Bible does not mention this overtly. Acts 10:44-47 does mention tongues in association with being filled with the Holy Spirit. However, other scriptures don't make this connection. Acts 11:15-16 mentions being filled with the Spirit, but makes no mention of tongues. In this passage, Peter remembers the word of the Lord after the Spirit falls upon him. Thus the Holy Spirit can also be associated with remembering the word of the Lord. Acts 19:1-5 does mention a group of people who had faith and repentance, yet not the Holy Spirit. Once the Holy Spirit was given to them, they did speak in tongues and prophesy. Thus, of the six passages in Acts I mentioned, only 2 make a distinct connection between the reception of the Holy Spirit and tongues/prophecy. There are a few different reasonable conclusions one can draw from this, including the following: 1) The Holy Spirit, when given, is always (or should be) accompanied by tongues and prophecy. There are two historical records in the Bible of this, and the connection wasn't made in the other passages, and it was understood (a given), and it wasn't necessary to mention it every time. 2) The Holy Spirit, when given, is sometimes accompanied by tongues and prophecy. Two records in the Bible mention the connection, but four others don't. Other possible signs (per the scriptures given) include: speaking the word of God with boldness, continuing steadfastly in doctrine and fellowship, and remembering the word of the Lord. 3) The Holy Spirit, when given, was always (or sometimes) accompanied by tongues and prophecy at that time in church history, as the church had not been firmly established yet. Those scriptures pertain to that time and place in history, just like women being silent in the church and wearing veils. I believe that one can reasonable draw any of the three conclusions above, or perhaps draw yet another conclusion. I don't believe the Bible gives us sufficient evidence to concretly prove that one of them is true and the others aren't. Your conclusion is obviously number 1 of the 3 listed, while I tend to lean more towards conclusion #2, and yet others here would draw conclusion #3, or a variant thereof.

morning_star -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/23/2006 5:03:25 PM)
Where does it mention that all believers will receive a “prayer language” in Scripture? Where does Scripture even mention a “prayer language”? quote: 1 Corinthians 14:6-17 Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church. For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. Lets look at this passage above. This passage clearly explains the importance of interpretation of tongues when spoken in a congregational setting. Paul asks a question of importance concerning tongues at the beginning of this passage – that it must benefit the others. He then compares them to objects that make sounds, and the importance of the listeners being able to recognize the sound that is being made. Paul then uses the example of the sound of the trumpet that is used as a warning signal to get ready for battle. If the hearer didn’t recognize this sound then this obviously became a life or death situation. Paul then goes on to say that it was important to speak intelligible words – words that could be understood by the hearer. He then says that there are many languages in the world that have meaning, and if others heard this foreign language and were not knowledgeable of it’s meaning, then it was meaningless to the hearer. He then goes on to back up the importance of seeking spiritual gifts that build up the church since obviously tongues without interpretation did no such thing as he follows this up with is statement in verse 13. For the importance of others understanding the meaning of what is being spoken, the tongue speaker should be able to interpret what they are saying. He then goes on to say that a prayer in a tongue is unfruitful to the speaker because he doesn’t understand what he is even praying. And so to allow the speaker to have an understanding of the prayer in tongues, Paul is instructing to pray with both the mind and the spirit at the same time, to sing with both the mind and the spirit at the same time. Thus this would allow the tongue speaker to be able to give interpretation their own prayers in tongue, or to even make the prayer in a known language. Why else would he follow this statement up with the question “If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?”? Leading us to the conclusion that all prayers in tongues in the church setting must have interpretation, or that the prayers must be in a known language. When looking at 1 Corinthians 14 we can also see many times where Paul is stating that interpretation of tongues is required in the congregational setting. 1 Cor 14:5, 1 Cor 14:13, 1 Cor 14:27 and 1 Cor 14:28. quote: 1 Cor 13:27-28 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. It seems that the users of this “prayer language” completely ignore this passage. Here Paul is instructing that no more than three people can speak in tongues in the church setting, and that there must be interpretation. Otherwise there should be no tongue speaking in the church. People here want to make the claim that the “prayer language” is not the gift of tongues, so my questions are: How can this “prayer language” be compared to what happened in the book of Acts? The incidents in Acts, the tongue speakers were speaking in an unlearned foreign language, and they were “declaring the wonders of God” – not praying. How can you say the “prayer language” is not the gift of tongues? If we look at 1 Cor 14 what is being addressed here? The abuse of the gift of tongues! So to pull a single verse from the middle of Paul’s instructions on the proper use of the gift of tongues, and then to use that verse to make a claim that it is a “prayer language” and it’s use doesn’t have to comply with Paul’s instructions is just outlandish. I would like everyone to know that I will be taking a break from this forum. I have been shown that this discussion has been unfruitful and divisive. Unfruitful in the sense that it has caused others to make personal attacks - which can be seen in the other tongue threads - creating division within the body of Christ. These personal attacks have shown us the maturity level of the attacker and that they also lack the fruit and/or gift of love. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul taught us the importance of love. Jesus has also commanded us to “Love one another” quote: John 13:34-35 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." My desire is to keep the commandment to “Love one another” then to seek some controversial gift. The time that I have invested here could have been used more productively. I think there are more important aspects of being a Christian that wanting to be able to speak or pray in tongues. We should not be idolators of any spiritual gift, as some here have shown that they are. Also, we should not base Scripture on experiences. The only way to validate any experience is on the written Word of God. I also would rather seek the use of the more important spiritual gifts, and cultivate being more Christ-like (Galatians 5:22- 23), none of which requires the use of some ecstatic babble. quote: Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. <edited for clarification>

BenQuebec -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/24/2006 12:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morning_star I would like everyone to know that I will be taking a break from this forum. I have been shown that this discussion has been unfruitful and divisive. The time that I have invested here could have been used more productively. I think there are more important aspects of being a Christian that wanting to be able to speak or pray in tongues. We should not be isolators of any spiritual gift, as some here have shown that they are. Thanks for your contributions to the thread, Morning_Star. Sorry to hear you feel that your efforts have been unfruitful. I've personally enjoyed them, and hope to see you in the other forums. God bless!

rcjames -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/24/2006 1:36:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morning_star I would like everyone to know that I will be taking a break from this forum. I have been shown that this discussion has been unfruitful and divisive. Aw, come on morning_star, don't pick up your toys and go home. You bring a good balance to what I consider a most positive and unifying discussion. (unifying in the sense that Believers can differ on non-redemptive points and still discuss them). Personaly I feel that this discussion, at least up to this point, has not been divisive at all. Now I doubt that any anit-tongue or pro-tongue proponents have repented of their positions, but there has been a lot of really good points made. Seriously, lack of conversions to one's point of view; does not an unfruitful discussion make. Your point of view as well as all the other poster's points of view has had over 1200 hits. Thanks RC

uthguy4lyf -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/24/2006 1:55:54 PM)
i would have to admit that i too feel as though the discussion hasn't helped myself. i withdraw myself from this thread.

imallforgod -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/24/2006 2:21:47 PM)
Just a reminder that the point isn't necessarily to change one's mind but to be able to provide an accounting for what we believe, a skill we definately need in the world if we're to win anyone to Christ. I have some thoughts I'll share soon (time element needed to type it out consciously as others have).... but don't pick up and leave because no one hasn't changed their minds....

BenQuebec -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (1/24/2006 3:41:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imallforgod Just a reminder that the point isn't necessarily to change one's mind but to be able to provide an accounting for what we believe, a skill we definately need in the world if we're to win anyone to Christ. Good thoughts, Imallforgod. :-) I guess I'll conclude that Uthguy and Morningstar are both comfortable with their knowledge of why they believe what they do, and thus feel no need to continue the discussion. Personally, I've enjoyed the exchange of ideas presented, getting to the heart of why different groups believe differently, and which Scriptures folks use to support their positions. I've gone through moments in my own life where I was confident in the firm beliefs I held on this issue (among others), but I do like to reexamine my beliefs from time to time, in order not to forget why I believe what I do. I also like to try to understand why others believe differently on this issue (and others). I'm looking forward to reading your comments. [:)]

unworthyseraphim -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/8/2006 5:44:44 PM)
A reply to the recently closed thread: You are going to get a lot of contradictory answers on this topic...lots of yeses and noes to the various points you've raised here. And each will have their own take on scripture as to why. So at the outset I'm letting you know this is the perspective and experince of those in my faith and I share it as one who used to do the tongues thing for 21 years before I set it aside) 1. Diverse and unknown tounges are different works in the Greek, but not radically different. One is heteros glossai the other glossilalia. Some "see" a difference between them both in usage and in nature others do not. Some say heteros glossai are real earthly languages miraculously spoken by the Apostles and those gathered with them on the day of Pentecost in Acts, but glossilalia could either be a know languages or "languages of angels" and/or a "prayer language" given so an individual can pray or sing "In the Spirit", bypassing the limitations and interferance of the reasoning mind to pray purely after God's heart. Just going from the textual record there is little to suggest that these are phenomenologially differing things. And since we are fresh out of "way-back" machines no one can jump back in time to take audio samples of both to conduct a battary of linquistic tests so as to compare the two. What we have today is a phenomenological behavior for which a seemingly plusable NT explanation has been attached. That this is an action of the Holy Spirit cannot be certified beyond an individual's conviction that it is so... If something like this had persisted from apostolic times to the present then the modern phenomenology could be compared with the older tradition (an apostle or elder present at the day of pentecost affirming that the gift present in their disciple(s) was the same as what they had recieved, and that one giving such assurance about the next and so forth age to age to the present time). But such a phenomenology did not persist and does not exist any longer. Functionally, among those who speak tongues the only real difference is occasional, some using it to make a public utterance, but most simply using it as a private prayer language. Both are treated as essentailly the same thing just in different circumstances. Most of the Biblically literate who speak in tongues make no special distinction between the terms. One can say "forest" another can say "woods" but both mean that contiguosity of trees over yonder. Its probably the same with Heteros Glossai and Glossilalia. 2. Is it for today: That question really depends upon whether or not the "tongues" spoken today are actually a gift of the Holy Spirit or just a psychological phenomena mistaken for a spiritual one...or worse an out and out demonic counterfeit, or some mixture of the two. Those who believe in tongues certainly ascribe it to the Holy Spirit but there is little beyond "just taking their word for it" by way of proof. It also depends on how one's communion understands the activity of the Holy Spirit in relation to His gifts. There are few who would deny the Holy Spirit is sovereign in how He deploys His gifts, that He may give them as He will to support the ministry of the Church as He sees fit in any given time and place. And there are few if any who would deny he might well give any of them to anyone in any age. The question is must He in every age make them all equally available and accessible maybe adding some maybe withdrawing some. That at some point there will be an attenuation of these gifts is not unreasonable since St. Paul in the Love chapter spoke of how tongues will cease and prophecies will fail, and knowledge vanish away when that which is perfect has come. Cessationists argue that the "that which is perfect" must mean the Holy Scripture and the closing of all subsequent revelation and the abrogation of the need for atttesting wonders. NonCessations point to the fact that the grammar of St. Paul's gifts passage and iits nternal reference does not point to the Bible but rather references the love portion that follows and the "that which is perfect" grammatically and logically references "love" which St. Paul said would remain...which love he characterized not as another gift or as a virtue, but rather as a way...a higher more potent and comprehensive level of spiritual life...which in some manner subsumes and completes the "gifts" which were given in part. The next level of the question is whether this "way" of love is an acutal spiritual path that may be followed and realized now or if it is a reference to the age to come when all is set right and "made perfect". In any case by the lights of this argument the gifts...presumably including tongues remain until this perfection ...whatever it is comes and is made manifest. In examining these questions it is also good to examine the history of miraculous phenomenology within the Church from the Apostolic age to the present. If we do we notice not long after the closing of the Apostolic age, tongues seems to have disappeared...yet all the other "gifts' remain prophecy, knowledge, wisdom, miracles, healing, etc. though they are not as common among the rank and file Christians as they seem to have been in the time of the Apostles. Still they persisted. Tongues...or a tongues phenomena similar to that known today, however, while it seemed to disappear from the Church made occasional resergences among heretic groups like the Montanists...and they were heretics, just examine their other beliefs besides about spiritual gifts. Charismatics and Pentecostals who want to include such groups among their spiritual forebearers do themselves no favors. They were and remain heretics. So it does look very much like the speaking in unknown lanuages did effectively if not actually disappear from teh life of the Church relatively soon after the close of the Apostolic age. But it is from this time we also begin to note the existance of a body of teaching and experience of what the Greeks called noetic and theoric prayer, which among other things is characterized, among other things, as being in a state of lifelong unbroken prayer. Now it is worth noting that this very thing is the spiritual aim of those who "pray in tongues"...they wish to come to a place of ceaseless prayer in the spirit...though of course they equate praying in tongues with praying in the spirit. But the life of noetic prayer one begins to notice in the spiritual literature of the era makes use of a short condensed interalized prayer, usually drawn from a passage of scripture, that in time becomes self-acting...it enters the heart and continues there in unbroken utterance for the rest of their lives. This is interesting for this noetic prayer is the foundational spiritual grounding of those within the Church in whom the phenomenological gifts of the Spirit persist. One may only read the accounts of the Desert Fathers (2-4th centuries) to get a glimpse of the pure life of the Spirit they led and wonders that attended to their earthly pilgrimage. It has been strongly suggested then by those who are the modern spiritual heirs of these fathers and mothers of the desert, who continue as their direct lineage of spiritual descendants from age to age...master to disciple, who also know something of this depth of life in the Spirit, that "what is called tongues" in the NT really references this life of unbroken spiritual prayer and the great grace that may proceed out of it. They say the particular phenomenology of tounges to rapidly diseminate the good news passed out of general need and so was generally withdrawn, but the need of the Church for Christian with radically deep interior spiritual lives was absolutle necessary as the "charismatic" lifeblood of the Church, so while the exterior phenomenology departed, the interior remained. Now if their contention conserning their belief and experience is true, then modern tongues as a whole cannot be considered a restoration of a lost "gift", and is rather either a psychological or demonic phenomenal with some Christian overlay. This of couse does not preclude the mercy drops of the Holy Spirit who may in fact permit an occasional use of this gift where there is need in some extremis. It seems to have more in common with those things that happened among various groups of ancient heretic than with the common Spiritual life and legacy of the Church. That said...in regard to the appreciation of the need among Christians for a life of unbroken prayer according to the Spirit and not according to the will of man...that place of life in the Spirit...earmarked by some with tongues as "praying in the Spirit" does infact exist as continuation of a spiritual walk passed down master to disciple in the Church from Apostolic times, and it is quite profound and has produced multitudes of hidden and not so hidden saints of awe inspiring holiness, spiritual gifting, and spiritual vigor.

sunshinesoprano -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/9/2006 10:39:52 AM)
unworthy: can you put that in some simple terms for us?

unworthyseraphim -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/9/2006 12:59:37 PM)
How's this for simplicity: Consider that the gifts of the Spirit never disappeared from the Church, but they became less well known among those who did not live disciplined lives of constrant struggle in prayer and repentance and maturity in Christ. Historically tongues had a connection to the spiritual life of individuals in the Church in relation to the promulgation of the Gospel among those of different languages. When the language barrier was not the impediment it initially was the external phenomenology of tongues as miraculously learned or spoken unknown languages faded away but its interior dynamic with regard to deep spiritual prayer remained and persisted within the mystical and asectical life of the Church. Modern tongues have developed as an emergent phenomena outside the paradosis of this mystical life within the Church and in phenomenology generally speaking, if not exclusively speaking, seem to have more in common with the "tongues" that were noted among various genuinely heretical groups across the centuries. So with some small room for the occasional exception modern tongues should be regarded at best as a psychological phenomena within a Christian context and not a miraculous spiritual gifting.

rcjames -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/9/2006 1:05:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim Modern tongues have developed as an emergent phenomena outside the paradosis of this mystical life within the Church I presume that you are saying outside the mystical life of the gurus of the OC sect of Christianity. Thanks RC

unworthyseraphim -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/9/2006 1:32:01 PM)
To my knowledge this life in large degree is also known and shared among the Syrians and Copts, I don't know about the Armenians. It think it is also practiced in various odd corners of those in communion with Rome, but its place is not nearly as prominant and forceful as it is those communions initially listed. Also the term is not gurus: In Russian it is Staretz (Startzi pl.) and in Greek Geron (Geronta pl.). The English translation is "Elder" Eldership being a particular expression reserved for the highest levels of spiritual fatherhood/motherhood. If we were in OT times we would probably be calling these sorts prophets and thier disciples sons of the prophets, since they are the mystical continuity of the same life in the Spirit perfected in Christ. Unfortunately such individuals are much rarer in our time than in ages past....but that I suppose is how it must as we lurch on toward the time when the Lord may well ask "will there by faith upon the earth". Still there are some very fine ones of the second tier...but that's a digression for another thread. That said...the spiritual life they teach, the mystical life they know and nourish does not just rest with them, but with many of the pious faithful throughout the world...those who have come to or very near to the place of unceasing prayer.

rcjames -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/9/2006 7:27:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim To my knowledge this life in large degree is also known and shared among the Syrians and Copts, I don't know about the Armenians. It think it is also practiced in various odd corners of those in communion with Rome, but its place is not nearly as prominant and forceful as it is those communions initially listed. Also the term is not gurus: In Russian it is Staretz (Startzi pl.) and in Greek Geron (Geronta pl.). The English translation is "Elder" Eldership being a particular expression reserved for the highest levels of spiritual fatherhood/motherhood. If we were in OT times we would probably be calling these sorts prophets and thier disciples sons of the prophets, since they are the mystical continuity of the same life in the Spirit perfected in Christ. Unfortunately such individuals are much rarer in our time than in ages past....but that I suppose is how it must as we lurch on toward the time when the Lord may well ask "will there by faith upon the earth". Still there are some very fine ones of the second tier...but that's a digression for another thread. That said...the spiritual life they teach, the mystical life they know and nourish does not just rest with them, but with many of the pious faithful throughout the world...those who have come to or very near to the place of unceasing prayer. I guess you are saying that the great unwashed masses of us just plain ole Believers just don't or can't get it. I happen to believe that the Holy Spirit works in all of us who believe, but of course that is just my opinion. Thanks RC

unworthyseraphim -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 12:06:30 AM)
Nope..takes discipline and guidance, and a life long immersion into profoundest humilty and holiness. It also requires the nourishment of the sacramental life of the Church. However even those who are unable to peruse that radical kind of life may still have their spiritual life greatly stablized, rooted, and enriched by attending to the Jesus prayer with due guidance, simple diligence in their walk, and regular prayerful participation in the mystical life of the Church. Its no secret...everyone is invited...but it must be as it has been given and has been passed down... that is the guarantee that the spiritual life one grows into is the authentic life in Spirit committed to the Apostles and passed on to their disciples, and not a powerful seduction into delusion and destruction...which beyond a certain point is a very real and sadly well documented danger. But my word is nothing...all this can be verified by spending but a little time who those who still walk in this path. Now I'm not saying the Holy Spirit has no interaction with those who believe in God and try to serve Him, but the perfected spiritual life comes with vigilence and instruction in a purposed persuit of those deep riches....Make it up, lone ranger, figure it out as you go doesn't cut it. That is a well known recipe for spiritual shipwreck. The ancient landmark has not moved and to get to where one wants to go one must orient upon it...new trailblazing just not gonna work. The proof of the pudding though is not in its press but in its tasting. The lifes of those sanctified in this way are readily available to read and profit from, and many have disciples who still live. But you wont find them on TBN.

iakovos -> RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread (2/10/2006 8:21:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rcjames quote: ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim To my knowledge this life in large degree is also known and shared among the Syrians and Copts, I don't know about the Armenians. It think it is also practiced in various odd corners of those in communion with Rome, but its place is not nearly as prominant and forceful as it is those communions initially listed. Also the term is not gurus: In Russian it is Staretz (Startzi pl.) and in Greek Geron (Geronta pl.). The English translation is "Elder" Eldership being a particular expression reserved for the highest levels of spiritual fatherhood/motherhood. If we were in OT times we would probably be calling these sorts prophets and thier disciples sons of the prophets, since they are the mystical continuity of the same life in the Spirit perfected in Christ. Unfortunately such individuals are much rarer in our time than in ages past....but that I suppose is how it must as we lurch on toward the time when the Lord may well ask "will there by faith upon the earth". Still there are some very fine ones of the second tier...but that's a digression for another thread. That said...the spiritual life they teach, the mystical life they know and nourish does not just rest with them, but with many of the pious faithful throughout the world...those who have come to or very near to the place of unceasing prayer. I guess you are saying that the great unwashed masses of us just plain ole Believers just don't or can't get it. I happen to believe that the Holy Spirit works in all of us who believe, but of course that is just my opinion. Thanks RC Such provocative replies hardly engender a continuation of what you have termed "a most positive and unifying discussion." While watching the Olympics this month, imagine to yourself just how many of those kids up on podiums got there on natural talent and without coaching. Then call to mind that God has given everyone bodies in which to move about, but few buffet their bodies in the manner required to obtain excellence in their race (You do recall Paul's analogy, I presume). 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. Many are called, few chosen. Wide is the gate that leads to destruction, narrow is the way that leads to life- and few find it. With those words, Jesus let us know that everybody doesn't get a gold star just for "having the Spirit."

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI