brianc
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Tongues
Jun 26, 2012 10:24:07 GMT -5
Post by brianc on Jun 26, 2012 10:24:07 GMT -5
I may offend someone with this topic, and if so, I apologize.
I'd like to give some information on tongues many people are not aware of, especially tongues speakers.
There are two types of tongues at play in the world: the one missionaries speak, and the one non-missionaries speak (often Pentecostals or Charismatics or Assemblies of God.
Here's the difference:
1 - Missionaries will sometimes go into areas where they don't speak the language. Foxx's Book of Martyrs gives many accounts of this. The missionaries end up being led by God to speak to someone who speaks a different language. So they do. Suddenly, the missionary speaks that language fluently till the conversation is over. Every single account of this that I've heard results in the person getting saved. In other words, God uses tongues so that Christians can witness to speaks of other languages. So, that's actually two gifts, actually: the missionary speaks in tongues, and interprets the language being spoken back to him (two separate gifts usually used together).
2 - People in Pentecostal or Charismatic or Assemblies of God churches will start speaking in a babble language no one understands and claim it's the Holy Spirit speaking through them, but they have no proof of this. Sometimes, one will stand up in church and speak some crazy language, then someone else will stand up and interpret.
The first one has an actual function in the body of Christ, which is to help bring people to the Lord. It was used far more often back in Jesus' time, because many people spoke different languages. Nowadays, unless you're on the missions field, you will rarely have to witness to someone who doesn't speak your language, which is why we don't see this used very often anymore. It was used back in the 1500s and 1600s quite a bit by the Anabaptists and some other missionary groups.
Now, the second form of tongues is a whole other matter. When linguists hear recordings of this type of "tongues", they say some of the people are babbling with no structure to their language (those are the ones faking it to be accepted) and the other people they hear on the recordings are speaking an actual language. Often, they say, it tracks back to an African tribal language that only one tribe knows, and they are very remote from society. When they translate what the tongues speakers are saying, they find that they are cursing Jesus or God, usually.
Neil T. Anderson's The Bondage Breaker talks about one or two incidences where tongues speakers come into his office and he asks them if he can test their tongues spirit. They are confident that it is the Holy Spirit speaking through them, so they have no problem with this test. Neil proceeds to command the spirit, in the name of Jesus, to tell its name. In one case the spirit answered in the person's head, "I am lord." Neil commands the spirit to tell if it is the Lord who was born to the virgin Mary, died on the cross, rose on the third day and now sits at the right hand of God. The spirit possesses the person's body at that point and screams, "NO!!! NOT HIM!!!!" Then the person doubles over, crashes to the floor and says, "Get this thing out of me!" I've heard him tell two separate stories of that happening. One was from a friend of his and the other I read in his book. In Demons in the Church, there are many examples of this tongues demon that poses as the Holy Spirit in tongues speakers.
In the Bible, the verses in 1 Corinthians 14 that talk about the person who hears a tongue and interprets...that's not saying that one person will speak in a tongue and someone else will interpret. In fact, the verse says that if a person hears a tongue and they're not given the interpretation, don't speak it to the church. Well, think about this for a second--if a person starts speaking in tongues in the church, how do they know whether someone will stand and interpret it or not? God said if there in no interpretation, don't speak it to the church. So the way the churches do this is incorrect. If you read the chapter closely, you'll noticed that it's saying that if a tongue is spoken to you in your mind and you don't receive an interpretation of the tongue you hear, don't speak it out loud. Why? Because Paul is trying to tell the Corinthians how to filter out the real manifestation of tongues from the fake one. Also in that chapter, we read that Paul tells people it doesn't edify anyone to speak in tongues unless they're speaking to someone who understands the language who is an unbeliever. He also says that if a church full of people are speaking in tongues, an unbeliever will walk in and think they're nuts. He says he wishes they would speak 5 intelligible words in the tongues he speaks in rather than a whole paragraph in the tongues they're speaking in, because he actually understands what he's speaking--they're just babbling. He was reprimanding them for speaking in tongues like the Pagans do, actually.
What one must understand is that the Roman guards would speak in tongues in their guard meetings well before Jesus' was even born. It was a Pagan thing. They would let spirits possess them and speak tongues through them. Because many Pagans were converted to Christianity, they tended to bring their traditions over to Christianity. Tongues was one of them. Christians truly manifesting tongues would do so only to communicate with a person of a different language and 1 Corinthians says it was a sign to the unbeliever. It mentions no other uses for it. Paul spoke in tongues so much, because he was constantly going to places where people spoke different languages and witnessing to them. I imagine no one in history spoke in tongues more than Paul.
Paul gave a remedy for tongues. He told the Corinthian women to wear their bridal head covering (a tradition for the Corinthians). He said they should wear it as a sign of authority for the angels (aka - fallen angels, in this case). In Demons in the Church by Ellis H. Skolfield, you'll find several accounts of people who put on headcoverings and were no longer able to speak in tongues. Also, you'll find accounts of it causing married couples to have spiritual gifts. For instance, one man's wife started wearing hats as her headcoverings. They were on vacation and went to a Pentacostal (or Charismatic) church in the country. The husband began seeing demons at the ceiling and one big one behind the pastor. He pushed his wife's hat down on her head and they got up and left. He wanted to tell the pastor what he'd saw, so they waited till after church. The pastor came out and walked right up to them and said, "Did you come here to make trouble for my church?" The guy said, "I guess not!" And he left. lol
The accounts in that book are great. I highly recommend it. It's out of print, but if you use DealOz.com, you'll find it. That website searches Amazon as well as several other online bookstores to find whatever book you want at the lowest price.
In Demons in the Church, Ellis says he saw a trend in America that started in 1948, I think it was, when women began wearing big hair and stopped wearing headcoverings as a result. Before 1948, it was fairly common to see many women wearing headcoverings, like a scarf or whatever else. That fell out of "style" around 1948. I can't say that's accurate, because that's a tricky trend to follow. However, he makes a great point that in 1948, the Pentecostal movement really began to start and take hold here in the US and worldwide. It has, at times, been the fastest growing denomination, along with the Charismatic denomination.
Here's the point of Satan doing this. Personally, I think it's very clever of him. In Genesis 1:26-28, God gave mankind dominion (sovereignty - free will) over the earth and everything on it. That means God can't interfere unless we ask Him to do so. We ask Him to interfere through prayer. God has never had a problem with this, because there has always been at least one person who would pray what God needed them to pray in history. Noah, for instance, was praying for God's will to be done, and it was done. The flood came and wiped unrighteousness off the planet. God has no problem getting people to pray His will when needed so that He can do things here on earth. When God became a man (Jesus), then God could do even more, because He had the authority on earth a man has. Very clever on His part--always part of the plan.
So, Satan sees prayer as a threat and decides to hijack it. He poses as a "angel of light" (as the Bible says He would) and dupes Christians into believing he's the Holy Spirit praying through them. In fact, he convinces people that they don't know how to pray properly, so they need to let him (the supposed Holy Spirit) pray for them, because he can do it perfectly. So, in comes the tongues spirit who then curses God in a different language that the person does not understand, keeping the entire thing concealed from the person. How convenient is that? And how clever?? I'm impressed!
I believe Christians truly seeking the truth will figure this one out with some good research and trust in God to show them the truth.
I encourage you to research this topic, especially if you speak in tongues. It's very interesting. It would clear things up quite a bit if the Bible would just say "languages" instead of tongues. But because that's what they used to call languages, the translations keep calling it tongues which just messes up everyone's understanding of the passages in which it is used. Oh well...
- Brian
|
|
|
|
Tongues
Jun 26, 2012 13:04:50 GMT -5
Post by dragonlots on Jun 26, 2012 13:04:50 GMT -5
Hi Brian,
You've made some very valid points and I'd like to share my personal story with you.
First off, I speak in tongues. However, because of the way I was 'lead' into it, by a religious cult, I had to question if it was real or not.
Here's what God did.
He reminded me I did this as a child. I remember it too. I scared me to death because I didn't know what it was. I'd never been taught. Big problem since I was raised in conservative churches.
Next, I heard my tongue language on TV - a PBS special actually. I recognized it the moment I heard it. It''s a South African dialect but don't ask me which one. I was so shocked to hear it the name/tribe didn't register.
Also, when I speak in tongues in public, which is rare, I also interpret. It is always prayer or praise to God. If it hadn't been - I would have stopped.
I do pray or even sing to myself in the language. Builds up the inner man, which is one of the functions. Often, it is in a situation when I have no idea what or how to pray but know that prayer needs to be used. Praying in the spirit - so to speak.
However, on the latter I've also learned you can pray one word - like 'Father' - and God knows exactly what it is you need. I've had this happen when I hit an ice patch on the highway and was going to fast. I have no idea how the car righted itself and didn't end up smashed against the concrete barrier.
I also agree the churches are a bit mixed up when it comes to tongues. I saw this evidence first hand during a written test given to discover peoples' spiritual gifts. The mistaken impression is that tongues is the ability to learn a foreign language. It is NOT! I didn't have the heart to correct my pastors on this. Besides, I don't think they'd have believed me.
I have however, heard of instances, for example in Russia, where a pastor was preaching and was told his translator was not telling the people correctly what was being said. He dismissed the man and preached anyway. Oddly enough, the crowd heard it in their own language.
I think it interesting in the of the 'Left Behind' movies, this is seen very clearly during several scenes. Like the prophet who spoke to Buck Williams, yet later, when he watched the film, it was in Hebrew and Buck was very confused because he'd heard the man speak to him in English.
In Acts, when the 'cloven tongues like as a fire' appeared those present heard them speak of the wonderful works of God. They list the languages heard, but here poses a questions, because each man heard it 'in his own tongue/language'. So was that the gift of tongues? Or did God supernaturally cause them to hear it on their own language and not actually what was coming out of the mouth of the twelve.
Yep, I said twelve, because later in Chapter 2 is says Peter with the eleven, it doesn't say any other believer was with them, and the real preaching began. He confirms in Acts 2:17-18 what is going on by quoting the fulfillment of prophesy from Joel.
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. (JKV)
He's not talking about the gift of a prophet. That's completely different.
The gift of prophesy is a message from or for God, just like tongues with interpretation is, only they don't have to speak in tongues first. These messages are to build up the body of Christ and are to be used in an orderly fashion during worship services.
The gift of a prophet is someone who brings a warning to God's people to repent from their ways before a judgement comes down upon them. There are many examples in the Old Testament. Prophets can also 'foresee' future events but if they error - then they were put to death. Too bad we don't do this to physics, the devil's counterfit, when they're wrong or at the very least, they should be discredited but they never are.
It is true the devil copies everything God does. But the outcome and knowing which 'god' it came from is the fruit. When the devil does things, there are consequences. I have pagan friends who practice magic and I've seen this first hand. One instance I know of is a witch who cast a spell so a friend of hers could have a baby. After the child was born it developed a mental disability after being completely normal. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Another friend bought a huge crystal. She woke up being attacked and had scratches on her back. She pulled the stone onto her bed for 'protection'. Later, when I visited, I saw the dark spirits living on it. No. I didn't cast them out. I wasn't instructed to. Instead, I bound them for the time I was there. It would have been useless to throw them out. She would have invited them back.
Sorry, I know that's slightly off subject or is it?
I do agree instruction in tongues needs to be clarified. God gave us some wonderful supernatural gifts and yet we in the West ignore them. Instead of asking to be healed, we run to the doctor. I'm guilty of that too.
Yet, recently, I fell and broke my foot. I saw the break on the X-ray at Urgent care. I had several friends minister healing to me a few weeks later. A red hot poker ran down my ankle and through where it had fractured. When the foot doctor took Xrays two days later - he couldn't find evidence of the break anywhere.
I had a nodule in my thyroid. Yeah, I got the nasty radiation treatment, luckily it was only once, to reduce it. However, one day I'm sitting there and God told me to minister healing on myself. I did. In less than a month it reduced to half its size! Stunned the doctor because I'm guessing it was a slow process. I told her what I did. She stared at me like I was crazy. I healed much faster than she expected or her other patients.
I've had angels grab me out of danger, like preventing me from getting hit by a car. They blocked me. I've seen them with huge swords protect where I lived because of rapists who were breaking into women's apartments and raping them. And other instances I'm not going to share right now.
I'm also going to add that I'm one of the few people who have actually seen Jesus. First time it happened, it freaked me out. I thought I was seeing things. However, my cat, Tabitha, lifted her head, she was lying beside me, looked right at him and put her head back down. So I knew I wasn't imagining it.
Now, if this had been a devil spirit or demon, her reaction would have been different. I had this happen too. I was watching something I shouldn't have been and a little nasty came to visit. I ran round and round the bottom of the cat condo. Tabitha flew off of it and crawled into my lap, shivering, terrified. I comforted her and tossed the unwelcomed spirit out. I stopped watching the shows too. I didn't want anymore 'visitors' from the dark realm.
I could go on and share much more, but I don't want to overload everyone.
In Him,
Dana
|
|
brianc
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Tongues
Jun 26, 2012 15:22:35 GMT -5
Post by brianc on Jun 26, 2012 15:22:35 GMT -5
I have however, heard of instances, for example in Russia, where a pastor was preaching and was told his translator was not telling the people correctly what was being said. He dismissed the man and preached anyway. Oddly enough, the crowd heard it in their own language. I think it interesting in the of the 'Left Behind' movies, this is seen very clearly during several scenes. Like the prophet who spoke to Buck Williams, yet later, when he watched the film, it was in Hebrew and Buck was very confused because he'd heard the man speak to him in English. In Acts, when the 'cloven tongues like as a fire' appeared those present heard them speak of the wonderful works of God. They list the languages heard, but here poses a questions, because each man heard it 'in his own tongue/language'. So was that the gift of tongues? Or did God supernaturally cause them to hear it on their own language and not actually what was coming out of the mouth of the twelve. The Bible calls that the interpretation of tongues, which is a separate gift. If you talk to someone in their language that you don't know, and you understand them when they speak to you in their language, you're both speaking in tongues, and you're interpreting tongues--two separate gifts. These people listening were just interpreting tongues, which is using just one of the gifts.  This is where you and I disagree. We never see any description of prophesying to others in the Bible as happening in tongues. That's completely absent from scripture. We also never see any of the old prophets prophesy to the Hebrews/Israelites in tongues either (one would think if the two were linked, God would have used it as a sign in the Old Testament, and yet He doesn't). Everything God does, He has a purpose for doing it the way He does it, and that is something we can always understand. It's nothing too complicated for us to understand. Tongues is very simple. It's used for talking to people who speak a different language in order to witness to them. And interpretation of tongues is for the same reason, but so that the speaker can understand the foreign language being spoken to them. That has an actual function for the body of Christ. Speaking in tongues to ourselves is self-edifying (which, by the way, in the Bible, is not a good thing according to how Paul is speaking of it). Also, you'll noticed that no spiritual gift ever helps the person using it. It only helps other people. All spiritual gifts are always selfless in nature. Praying in tongues and speaking in church in tongues does not help anyone else, even if it is supposedly translated (because who knows if it's being translated correctly if they don't speak the language?). I openly do not trust something inside of me to magically pray for me when I cannot understand it. Even if I get some supposed interpretation in my mind, I will speak the prayer in English as I hear it in my head (I don't hear things like that in my head, by the way). In the Bible, I see absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. For me to do something like that would be spiritually irresponsible. What on earth could be God's purpose for having me pray in a different language when no one else can hear? That makes no sense. One of my friends stood up in church and "interpreted" someone else's tongues once. Afterward, he said he had no idea what he said, and that it felt like electricity going through his body and he wanted it to happen again. Unfortunately, Satan is very good at making us feel good for a little bit in order to hook us on something. He's all about edifying self. Churches nowadays are all about that too. They draw people in with feel-good prosperity-gospel messages. With Charismatics, I've noticed that it's all about this feeling one gets when they speak in tongues or get slain in the spirit, etc. I attempted speaking in tongues before I knew whether it was good or bad. It never worked for me. Later, I discovered that unless I, or someone in my family's past, has opened the door to demons, they can't come in and do a possessive act like speaking in tongues, which is why I never had any success at it. My wife sees demons (not very often, thankfully). She said she won't set foot in Pentecostal or Charismatic churches anymore, because every time she has in the past, she sees demons all over the people and the ceiling. Freaks her out. I have no problem with healing, of course. That happens all the time. I will say this, though...oddly enough, it would seem demons can heal too. It's not so much healing as it is stepping out of the way to stop what they're already causing. lol In some eastern religions, they have legitimate healers and they can actually heal people. I know people who've done it or have had it done to them and they were healed. But, what I think is happening in those cases is demons are the cause of the illness, and they simple stop causing it. So, it's a great way to draw people into a false religion. I'm not saying your healings were demonic, though, of course. I don't think they were. I'm just sharing what I know about that sort of thing. Satan has some tricky things he can do to fool people, and there's seemingly no consequence. Just because we can't see the consequence doesn't mean it's not there in some form, though. Actually, it's not a good idea to rely on your cat's reaction to demons. Animals have a whole range of reactions to demons. Look up studies on this. An animal may react with fear one time and pleasantly the next time. As for you seeing Jesus (and I'm not saying you didn't see Him), I always keep the verse in mind that says, "Satan comes as an angel of light." Also, I'll share my experience with people who have Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD). People with MPD can see into the spiritual realm. We are forbidden to do so, but they were forced into it, so it's different for them. In that realm, I spent a good 5 years helping multiples find Jesus and get healed by Him there. One thing I had to be very cautious about was testing Jesus. Just because they saw someone who seemed to be Jesus didn't mean it was actually Him. Most of the time, when I would lead them to the Fountain of Life (sometimes it was the Waterfall of Life), they would see a false Jesus. The Bible gives a test. It says in 1 John 4:2-4 that evil spirits cannot say Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Sure enough, the false Jesuses would say, "Jesus Christ HAS come in the flesh." They were trying to trick the person. So I would ask the person to ask Jesus to say "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" again, and the False Jesus would not say it correctly again. So they would splash the Water of Life onto the false Jesus and he would burn away. Then, the real Jesus would appear next, usually, and He would pass the test and the Water of Life would not hurt Him. Also, Joseph Smith said He saw Jesus and the Father at the same time, two separate beings, and that's why he started the Mormon religion. I say all of that to show that just because someone sees Jesus doesn't mean they actually saw Jesus. lol If 1 John 4:2-4 says we should test the spirits, I think we should test the spirits--even tongues spirits whom we are convinced are the Holy Spirit. Anyone who speaks in tongues, I'd encourage to go to someone who really understands dealing with demons (not one of these deliverance ministry persons) and let them test the spirit to see if it's actually of God or not. Never once have Neil T. Anderson, Ellis Skolfield or I tested a tongues spirit and it was from God. Not once. I would figure that by now I would've come across someone who's spirit tested fine if it were out there, but no. Not so far. I don't expect to either, but that's just my guess from scripture. I'd find someone to test your spirit of tongues. I mean, what can it hurt? Heck, call up Neil T. Anderson if you like. He's a nice guy. He'll talk to you and test the spirit over the phone, I bet. Better safe than sorry, right? You know, once, I asked God to give me confirmation on something I was pretty sure He was telling me. Get this... I got three solid confirmations on it after I prayed that prayer for confirmation. And actually, it turned out to be wrong in the end. Satan is exceptionally clever at making things look like God's will when they're not. Another thing I would encourage is this. Record yourself speaking in tongues. You may think you can interpret it, but I encourage you to record yourself speaking in it and send it to a linguist for interpretation. There's only one problem with this... you and the spirit within you know you're recording it, so that could taint the test. I'd say you can probably test other people in your church who speak like that, just as long as they don't know you're recording them speaking in tongues. I'd say try that first. You can do this with your own tongues as well, but I don't think it'll work, because of the concern I just mentioned. Good luck! Thanks for sharing!! - Brian [/quote] |
|
|
|
Tongues
Jun 26, 2012 15:40:55 GMT -5
Post by Kessie on Jun 26, 2012 15:40:55 GMT -5
I just wanted to add, and I wish I could remember the name of the book that had it. But medically, what happens when people work themselves into a frenzy then do the babbling thing.
People can't just do the babbling thing on command. Usually it takes hours of emotional frenzy, repeating the same hymn hundreds of times, resulting in a self-hypnotized state, and whatnot. If this goes on long enough, the body shifts control from, I believe it was the frontal lobe (wherever your reasoning center is located) to the nerve bundle in your stomach. This results in crazy, uncontrollable babbling and a feeling of euphoria.
Once this break is made in the brain, it's easy for it to switch to that nerve bundle. So easy that the person has no choice but to "speak in tongues" whenever they get emotional, be it at a movie, a funeral, or a party. My great aunts all "spoke in tongues" this way, and all of them have died of Alzheimer's.
I know there's also demons that counterfeit the actual gift. And there's an actual gift. But medically, forcing people to speak in tongues by inducing hysteria is very bad for the human body.
|
|
|
|
Tongues
Jun 26, 2012 16:55:46 GMT -5
Post by fluke on Jun 26, 2012 16:55:46 GMT -5
As a licensed minister with the Assemblies of God, I'd like to give my testimony and then list a few books from the Pentecostal side of the aisle.
I didn't grow up in the A/G. I grew up Southern Baptist and was very cessationist. I believed that the gift of tongues as described in the NT had ended with the death of the Apostles. While in college, I began attending the Chi Alpha group at Oklahoma State University. That is a college ministry of the A/G. While there, I first became accepting of tongues and then sought the infilling of the Holy Spirit myself. It took a while, several months actually, before I spoke in tongues for the first time.
On several occasions in Chi Alpha services, I was given an interpretation of a message someone else was giving in tongues. In my senior year there, I was taking Hebrew from Dr. Robert L. Cate as preparation for seminary. One night, one of my friends (who was not in the class) began to speak in tongues. My head whipped around so fast when I heard Hebrew. This was very early in the class, so my vocab was low, however, I did recognize enough to know she was praising God in Heaven and encouraging the rest of us to do the same. There was an interpretation given by someone else.
Some books from Pentecostals which those looking to explore the issue might enjoy.
Stanley Horton:
What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit, Revised edition (2005)
The Holy Spirit a Pentecostal Perspective
Tongues and Prophecy: How to Know When a Gift of Utterance is in Order
Perspectives On Spirit Baptism: Five Views (with Ralph Del Colle, H. Ray Dunning, and Larry Hart)
Gordon Fee (though he disagrees with the A/G on article 7 (subsequence of the baptism to salvation), he is very much Pentecostal:
God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul
Gordon D Fee. "Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence," Pneuma: The Journal of the Society of Pentecostal Studies 7:2 (Fall 1985).
Roger Stronstad:
The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke
Spirit, Scripture and Theology
The Prophethood of All Believers
Rick Walston:
The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit Debate
Wave Nunnally:
His commentary on Acts is very good and addresses this topic in several places. I was one of his research assistants. Not to hit people with a wall of text, but this is from the section on Acts 2:4 (emphasis original).
==========================
and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. *As is so often the case in OT prophecy, inspired speech follows the infilling of the Spirit (cf. Bruce, p. 52; Palma, THSAPP, p. 149; Stronstad, p. 55). Peter establishes the connection between prophecy and the “tongues” spoken here in 2:16-17. Luke himself employed a rather uncommon word, borrowed from the Septuagint, apparently intending to draw another connection between the supernaturally inspired prophetic speech of the OT and the “tongues” of this passage. The word translated “enabled” is used only eight times in the LXX, all but once (Psa. 58 [59]:7) in reference to supernaturally inspired prophetic speech (Deut. 32:2; 1 Chron. 25:1; Ezek. 13:9, 19 [twice]; Mic. 5:12; Zech. 10:2; cf. Horton, p. 59, esp. note 28; Palma, THSAPP, p. 141). In the NT, it is used only in this text, in Acts 2:14 to introduce Peter’s Pentecost sermon, and in Acts 26:25 when Paul is giving testimony before Festus. Moreover, this prophetic witness “in other tongues” is, in part, a fulfillment of the plan of Christ (1:8; cf. Luke 24:49). This is why the activity of inspired witness is understood by Classical Pentecostalism as the primary purpose of the baptism in the Spirit.
The phrase “other tongues” is found in only one other passage in the NT: Paul’s loose quotation of Isaiah 28:11-12 (in 1 Cor. 14:21). This is significant for several reasons. First, the context is the same in both passages: tongues serve as a witness to unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:22). Second, because the phrase is so unusual, it serves as yet another indication of Pauline influence on Luke. Third, the degree of influence is even more striking in Greek, as Luke follows Paul’s word order over that of the LXX version of Isaiah 28:11-21.
At this point, it is again appropriate to discuss issues of pattern and normativity.
Are “tongues” as seen in this passage to be understood as normative for all Christians, in all places, and at all times? Following the methodology which has been established heretofore, the answer must be “No,” “Yes,” and “Sometimes”!
“No,” because nowhere else in the book of Acts are tongues used to communicate directly to others in known foreign languages (cf. 2:8 and Arrington, p. 22). Thus, Luke fails to establish a pattern of tongues being used in this way. Early on in the Pentecostal movement, and again during the Latter Rain movement, there were numerous attempts to establish this as a primary purpose of tongues. These attempts failed, however, due to the lack of sufficient biblical support. In addition, anecdotal support (modern reports) has been scanty, and even if there were a steady stream of modern examples, this would fail to establish this particular use of tongues as normative. This is because *the establishment of normativity is within the domain of the Bible alone (cf. The Statement of Fundamental Truths, no. 1). What about the instances in the modern day when this phenomenon does occur? There is biblical precedent, it does not contradict other scriptures, nor does it violate the character of God. Therefore, in those exceptional instances in which God chooses to communicate to unbelievers, His church can praise Him Who still does wonderful things. Nevertheless, these modern instances must be understood by the church as the exception, not the rule—only Scripture can establish normativity.
“Yes,” because in the Book of Acts, a pattern is discernable in the reports of Luke involving baptisms in the Spirit. *In this pattern a specific sequence of events can be seen: salvation, then baptism in the Holy Spirit, then speaking in tongues. Luke records this sequence in this text, in 8:14-17 (inferred from 8:18, “saw”), in 9:17 (inferred from 1 Cor.14:15, 18), in 10:44-46 (when compared with 11:15, 17), and in 19:2-6. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Luke has reported this sequence of events with such consistency and frequency that it can be said that it had come to be expected in the early church. In other words, *this sequence, including tongues, had come to be understood as normative (cf. Palma, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, p. 59). Further, the student should know that *the key passages passages which have a direct bearing on the Pentecostal doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit are found in Acts 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 19.
A final category of “sometimes” must also be in place for a certain aspect of “speaking in tongues.” We have already established that tongues as foreign languages, as they appear in Acts 2, are not to be considered normative because this was a unique event. Elsewhere, however, tongues can be understood by others through the gift of “interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:10b). When this takes place, both believers and non-believers alike can benefit from what is spoken (vv. 5, 13-16, 19, 22, 26-28). However, there is another legitimate function of tongues in addition to those which are understood by others through interpretation. Tongues can be used outside public ministry, without the benefit of interpretation, and can still be of benefit to the speaker (1 Cor. 14:2 [as juxtaposed to v. 3], 4, 5, 14-19, 28; Jude 20). Therefore, it can be said that “sometimes” tongues are used publicly with interpretation which results in general edification. Tongues are not restricted to this use alone, however, because “sometimes” tongues are used privately. Despite the absence of interpretation, these tongues may still result in the edification of the speaker.
Having dealt with issues of normativity surrounding the phenomenon of tongues, the question of normativity must also be addressed with respect to the other unusual manifestations. Should we expect the sound of wind and flames of fire to rest upon individuals about to be filled with the Holy Spirit? If these phenomena are not manifested, is the experience of the individual less than genuine? To answer these questions, the same methodology must be employed as on previous occasions. *A pattern of usage must be discernable by which Luke informs his readers that a particular practice, experience, or phenomenon can be expected by all believers in all places at all times. It is evident that neither of these two phenomena is repeated in the Book of Acts. It is likewise evident that there are other passages in which Luke describes groups of individuals being baptized in the Holy Spirit and there is no descent of wind or flames of fire. Our methodology would then suggest that *while baptism in the Holy Spirit and “subsequence” are normative, wind and fire are not. Thus, Horton has rightly observed that of all the supernatural phenomena occurring in this passage, the only one repeated in other narratives describing baptism in the Holy Spirit is “tongues” (p. 59).
If these phenomena were to occur today, what should be the response of the church? Because there is biblical precedent, because this would not be a violation of specific scriptures or principles, and because violence would not be done to the character of God as revealed in Scripture, the church could embrace such phenomena with gratefulness as being signs from God. Nevertheless, modern experience could not undo the non-pattern, non-normative status of these already established in Scripture. Further, should these phenomena be experienced again, they could not be appealed to as validation of a specific individual’s ministry, as support for a new doctrine, or as proof of an individual’s or group’s attainment of a higher level of spirituality. Exceptional modern experiences cannot be accorded that level of authority—that is reserved for the Bible alone (cf. Statement of Fundamental Truths, no. 1).
Several issues have been raised concerning the phenomenon of tongues in the Book of Acts which should be considered. For example, some scholars for various reasons have suggested that the “tongues” in Acts 2 are not foreign languages, but rather different dialects of Greek. According to this view, the “tongues” referred to here do not derive from a miracle in which people speak fluently in languages they never learned. Rather, they simply spoke a language they already knew with heightened ability to reflect the different pronunciational variations of different localities. The basis for this interpretation is the appearance of the Greek word dialectos twice in this passage (2:6, 8). This interpretation has become so pervasive that the English word “dialect” is actually used in some translations (for example, Young’s Literal Translation; God’s Word; Darby’s New Translation), and is given as an alternative translation in the footnotes in others (e.g., NASB).
Problems with this interpretation are numerous. First, Luke regularly uses this term in Acts in passages where the context clearly requires that it be understood to refer to entirely different languages (1:19; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14). Second, there are no passages in Luke-Acts in which the meaning “dialects” is clearly the intended meaning. Third, in authoritative lexical works, the nuance “dialect” (referring to subtle variations in pronunciation, etc., within the same language) is clearly secondary (e.g., BAGD, p. 232; New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 3:1080, henceforth referred to as NIDNT; A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930, 3:23-24). Fourth, to arrive at this conclusion, one has to break one of the cardinal rules of hermeneutics: words must be understood within their ancient contexts, not overlaid with meanings which only developed later. Fifth, the list of nationalities in Acts 2: 9-11 contains locations in which Greek was not yet the spoken language (Arabia, which was not conquered by the Romans until after the NT Period), and locations where Greek never became the spoken language (Parthia, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia—the Parthian Empire was the arch rival of the Roman Empire in the NT Period). Even if some of these had been exposed to the Greek language by trade, second-language familiarity is not what is described here. The hearers were hearing the mighty deeds of God “in [their] own language to which [they] were born...” (2:8). Sixth, the “mocking” of the “men of Judea and...Jerusalem” is rendered incomprehensible if what was being spoken was in one language which could be easily understood by everyone. Seventh, if a lingua-franca was employed that all could understand, why did Peter have to give a lengthy sermon to another group in the local vernacular? It must be concluded that they needed to hear in their own language because they hadn’t understood what had been said in “tongues.”
Another issue raised by scholars who oppose interpretation of the data in Acts as establishing the normativity of tongues has suggested that the purpose of each instance of tongues-speaking was to legitimatize a new stage of evangelism. Stagg is an excellent representative of this group:
Proponents of this interpretation of the data would have us believe that the primary purpose of tongues is now obsolete. For them, since there are no further geographical, national, linguistic, or racial barriers left for the gospel to break down, the gift of tongues is no longer necessary. Fatal for this theory is the reality that the accounts in Acts do not follow a logical progression. For example, there is no indication that in the Jewish mind, gentiles were further from relationship to the God of Israel than Samaritans. Indeed, quite the opposite is actually the case. For example, Jewish hatred of Samaritans was so great that they were not allowed to convert to Judaism, while gentiles could convert at any time (cf. Ezra 4:3; Neh. 2:20; Matt. 10:5; John 4:9; Josephus Antiquities 11:340-344; BT Kiddushin 76a; Seder Eliyahu Zuta 1.169; Pirke D’Rabbi Eleazar 38.301; Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav, 1969, UJE 9:337-338; JE 10:672; Bernard J. Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period. New York: Ktav, 1968, p. 134; David Max Eichhorn, Conversion to Judaism: A History and Analysis. New York: Ktav, 1965, p. 35). More damaging is the fact that the “disciples” in Acts 19:1 were Jewish, as evidenced by their familiarity with the baptism of John—a thoroughly Jewish event. If Jews had already been “authenticated” (Stagg’s term) in Acts 2, why would they have to be “reauthenticated” seventeen chapters and years later after it had become evident that even Samaritans and gentiles were potentially new covenant members? (Cf. also the comments at 19:3.)
Further, there are many occasions in the book of Acts in which Luke describes individuals being “refilled” with the Holy Spirit who have already been described as having been filled with the Holy Spirit (e.g., 4:8, 31; 7:55; 13:9, 52, etc.; cf. also Eph. 5:18). The proponents of the “authentication” theory of the purpose of tongues have never attempted to argue that these refillings should be understood as “reauthentications” of the same people. Read in context, these refillings accomplish exactly the same purpose as the original fillings accomplished: Spirit-inspired speech for the purpose of bearing witness. This, by the way, is the primary purpose of infillings of people already in right relationship with God in the Old Testament as well. Additionally, if these subsequent “refillings” are not to be associated with salvation (and no proponent of the “authentication” theory would suggest that they are because that would mean that those refilled had somehow lost their salvation and now had to be resaved/reauthenticated!), neither are the original infillings of these same people necessarily to be associated with salvation. In Luke-Acts, salvation changes status, whereas infilling of the Spirit prepares for service. Jesus himself provides the paradigm for this understanding, since his experience with the Spirit at his baptism (Luke 3:22) did not accomplish right standing with God; rather, it empowered Him to begin his messianic ministry (Luke 4:1, 14; Acts 10:38, etc.).
Moreover, in all stages of the history of the Church, ethnic/religious/linguistic groups have existed which were never reached during that stage. This is the case even today, as there are 6,775 “Unreached People Groups” comprised of 2.51 billion individuals who have never been reached by the Gospel (Alan Johnson, “The Call to Extreme Missions,” Rapport 22.1[Winter 2006]13). If anything, these realities point to exactly the opposite conclusion reached by Bruner, Stagg, and others: if in every age there have been a significant number of Unreached People Groups, the need for a continuation of tongues for the purpose of “authentication” of each new group has always been needed and is still needed today!
Finally, tongues-speaking, prophecy, and other verbal gifts were a regular part of the Pauline churches decades later (e.g., 1 Cor. 12-14; 1 Thes. 5:20-21, etc.), and there is no suggestion anywhere in the relevant texts that they were understood in those locations as being for the purpose of initiation or authentication. Therefore, the “authentication of significant stages of evangelism” theory of the purpose of tongues fails because the evidence as a whole doesn’t fit the theory.
Yet another attempt to limit the scope of the impact of this passage is to define more narrowly the number of individuals involved in the tongues-speaking. Many have attempted to restrict the number of tongues-speakers to the twelve apostles. According to this approach, the tongues-speaking was limited to the twelve. Thus when they passed off the scene, so also did the gift which was limited to them. Acts 2, however suggests a much broader involvement than the twelve. The “they”of verse 4 refers back to the “them” of verse 3. The phrases “each one” (v. 3) and “all” (v. 4) both point to full involvement, as does the tenor of the rest of Luke’s writing as well as the writings of his mentor Paul. No arbitrary hierarchies or levels of privilege existed in the early church. Its dynamic witness and growth are a testament to the appropriateness of full involvement, equality, and ownership of all members. Elsewhere in Acts, tongues are clearly not limited to the apostles. Further, in his letters, Paul refers to other believers who were employing the gift of tongues. Finally, the number of localities represented at Pentecost outnumber the apostles some 16 to 12. It is doubtful that some of the apostles were speaking more than one language at a time, which again suggests that the entire 120 who had banded together in obedience to the command of Christ (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8) were filled as promised, and carried out Christ’s command to “witness.”
To understand the primary purpose of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, this close connection between filling and witness must be examined in greater detail. Jesus had told them that they would receive power to be His witnesses when the Spirit came upon them (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8). In Acts 2:5-40, after the Holy Spirit was poured out, the disciples gave their first Spirit-empowered witness to Christ, and the first harvest of souls took place. Thus Luke establishes from the beginning that the primary purpose of the baptism in the Spirit is not for self-gratification or self-exaltation; it is, rather, the exact opposite of these things: it is for service. Stronstad has observed, “Every initiative in evangelism recorded in Acts is the initiative of the Holy Spirit” (p. 72; cf. also Bruce, p. 53; Michael Green. Evangelism in the Early Church. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1970, p. 149). An individual, a local church, and or a movement truly full of the Holy Spirit is not inwardly focused, but outwardly focused for a dynamic witness to the world. Moreover, the baptism of the Spirit is not for the elite, the deserving, the wealthy, the educated, the one in-the-right-place-at-the-right-time. Rather, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are afar off—for all whom the Lord our God will call to Himself” (Acts 2:39).
In this passage, major theological emphases appear which Luke will continue to develop throughout the rest of the book. Students of the Book of Acts should be able to identify these emphases, both in connection with this passage and in other passages where Luke develops them further. Here we see *the centrality of the Holy Spirit and *His continuation of the ministry of Christ. We see *the momentous events of history, including the Day of Pentecost, being orchestrated by the Holy Spirit. We also see *the Holy Spirit empowering the disciples for service.
==========================
edited to restore the formatting
|
|
brianc
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Tongues
Jun 27, 2012 8:53:33 GMT -5
Post by brianc on Jun 27, 2012 8:53:33 GMT -5
I just wanted to add, and I wish I could remember the name of the book that had it. But medically, what happens when people work themselves into a frenzy then do the babbling thing. People can't just do the babbling thing on command. Usually it takes hours of emotional frenzy, repeating the same hymn hundreds of times, resulting in a self-hypnotized state, and whatnot. If this goes on long enough, the body shifts control from, I believe it was the frontal lobe (wherever your reasoning center is located) to the nerve bundle in your stomach. This results in crazy, uncontrollable babbling and a feeling of euphoria. Once this break is made in the brain, it's easy for it to switch to that nerve bundle. So easy that the person has no choice but to "speak in tongues" whenever they get emotional, be it at a movie, a funeral, or a party. My great aunts all "spoke in tongues" this way, and all of them have died of Alzheimer's. I know there's also demons that counterfeit the actual gift. And there's an actual gift. But medically, forcing people to speak in tongues by inducing hysteria is very bad for the human body. I haven't heard of that before, but it doesn't surprise me. There are people who can speak in the babble language on command. In fact, a friend of mine worked at a church once and he was around a corner from the preacher and one of the preacher's friends. The preacher belted out some babble language right before he went on stage to do the sermon and said, "How does that sound?" His friend said, "Sounds good." For that guy, it was completely an act. And I've known people to fake it. I think a lot of people do. And I also think demons can induce it instantly, especially if a person has conditioned themselves to let the sensation take over. The medical field may be able to identify the physical signs of it, like you mentioned, but they can't see the spiritual causes, which I believe to be demonic in nature. If there's one thing I've learned, first from the Bible, then through direct experience with others, then through the research of a doctor/psychologist, is that sin (and demons) cause physical issues and degrade the body, sometimes severely. Our logic center is not the frontal lobe, but our executive functions are in the frontal lobe. It's where our inhibitions are. We can certainly use our frontal lobe to access our logic center, but when we decide to let go of our inhibitions, our brain probably abandons the logic center and just does whatever it wants. That would be why it accesses the sympathetic nervous center in the gut, going completely to the senses--emotional control, or the lack thereof, actually, in this case. A have had accounts from friends of the actual gift of tongues which is as I described in the initial post, and it differs from the fake or counterfit tongues considerably. We must always ask ourselves if what we're doing is benefiting us or someone else. If it benefits only us, I would highly recommend running from it. God is to be our only help, not us. Our focus is to be on other people, putting ourselves last, trusting God to care for us. (I am not directing this at anyone, of course, just putting it out there) - Brian |
|
brianc
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Tongues
Jun 27, 2012 9:45:50 GMT -5
Post by brianc on Jun 27, 2012 9:45:50 GMT -5
As a licensed minister with the Assemblies of God, I'd like to give my testimony and then list a few books from the Pentecostal side of the aisle. I didn't grow up in the A/G. I grew up Southern Baptist and was very cessationist. I believed that the gift of tongues as described in the NT had ended with the death of the Apostles. While in college, I began attending the Chi Alpha group at Oklahoma State University. That is a college ministry of the A/G. While there, I first became accepting of tongues and then sought the infilling of the Holy Spirit myself. It took a while, several months actually, before I spoke in tongues for the first time. On several occasions in Chi Alpha services, I was given an interpretation of a message someone else was giving in tongues. In my senior year there, I was taking Hebrew from Dr. Robert L. Cate as preparation for seminary. One night, one of my friends (who was not in the class) began to speak in tongues. My head whipped around so fast when I heard Hebrew. This was very early in the class, so my vocab was low, however, I did recognize enough to know she was praising God in Heaven and encouraging the rest of us to do the same. There was an interpretation given by someone else. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and I'm not here to rain on anyone's parade. All I suggest is going to someone who does not speak in tongues and is very familiar with dealing with demons, and have them test your spirit of tongues. People are quite surprised, much of the time, at what they discover. And I also encourage people to study the passages in the New Testament on tongues very carefully to see just what it is saying. Most of it is misunderstood by those who speak in tongues. The book Demons in the Church is an excellent source of information on this subject. The modern use of tongues is sensationalist, at best, drawing in the one who uses it, and typically is for a selfish motive whether they understand that or not. What's interesting in my wife's story is that her father, a Southern Baptist Missionary, was praying one night and suddenly began speaking in tongues. He stopped immediately and never did it again. That was the first sign that her ancestral line had some sort of demonic door opened at some point in the past. When she was 5, she was possessed by a demon for three days and remembers none of it. The demon was cast out and she was fine. The next year, she was saved and God spoke to her in an audible voice in her own language and still does to this day. Luckily, that demonic influence that had been passed from generation to generation was cast out in her childhood and not passed on to our child. She has never spoken in tongues, nor have I, nor has anyone in my family, though some have tried. I've watched people try to speak it when encouraged to do so after meetings. Some could and some couldn't. Depends on the person's family lineage, in my opinion and the opinion of several experts on the subject. Those who cannot speak it immediately probably never had the door opened by their ancestors, so it takes them a while to open it themselves. Never has my wife entered a Pentecostal or Charismatic church and not seen demons, which is why she avoids them like the plague. The demons are all over tongues speakers. So, while I appreciate others sharing their experiences, I don't care to dabble in that sort of thing. I've seen enough proof to stay away from it. I may take a look at some of those. I disagree with his misconception here. He's linking prophecy and tongues, as if they are intertwined, just because it happened this way once (maybe twice). But never are we told in the New Testament that the two go hand-in-hand. It's simple, really: the people there all spoke in different languages, and so for Peter to use the gift of prophecy effectually, he had to be understood by the crowd. The crowd was manifesting the gift of interpretation--at least some must have been, because Peter could not speak in multiple languages at once. Now, when everyone started speaking in tongues, they were speaking in different languages (known languages) and the people heard them in their own languages, and it was a sign to them and they were saved. That's textbook tongues usage, and it's a known language that others understand. Never do we hear a babble language in the Bible spoken of (except when Peter is reprimanding the Corinthians for speaking in the type of tongues they speak in). I would caution readers to discern the difference carefully. If it were translated languages, the passages would make so much more sense to people. Again, none of that says that there is another language being spoken. The commentator is simply speculating that the text implies this when it does no such thing. The rules of hermeneutics would never make such a leap. Other tongues means "other languages", not a babble language. And of course this would be necessary as a sign to others who speak that language if they know you don't speak it normally. Where this links prophecy and tongues, I have no clue. I've never seen the link in scripture. Prophecy may happen while a person speaks in a different languages to someone who speaks that language, sure. But the two don't always go together, and often times don't. When a person is speaking to the church, their words in English suffice just fine to prophesy to the church. There is no need for speaking in some random other language then having someone interpret. It's pointless. Nowhere will you find this in scripture. Whether a verse says tongues or other tongues, it means the same thing: languages that the speaker does not already speak fluently or at all. Making these stretches to the Holy Spirit speaking them through a person in church is completely unscriptural. Scripture shows exactly that--that tongues is for use for other people who don't speak the language. That's its only logical use. In fact, if one simply reads Foxx's Book of Martyrs, one will quickly see the pattern emerge of missionaries using this type of tongues on the missions field. The fact that you don't hear about it in America is no surprise, because we don't hear many missionary stories of this sort nowadays. Why? Because most of the time, missionaries are already educated in speaking the language of the people to whom they are witnessing. It's no surprise that the frequency of use would drop considerably now that missionaries are educated in languages before they head out on the missions field. This is yet another reason the real use of tongues is hardly used anymore. It's hardly needed, especially in America, where most people speak English. Why on earth would we need it here? And yet, still today, sometimes it occurs when someone in the audience speaks a different language (they interpret tongues, actually, in this instance). I'm sorry, but this commentator's logic is severely flawed and quite backward. Again, I disagree with this commentator's flawed logic and implications. He is butchering the laws of hermeneutics. Just because we see a pattern of tongues speaking in those days after baptism does not mean it is the norm. It simply means that due to the large number of people who spoke different languages, the need for tongues was far greater than it is nowadays. Also, the fact that the word "tongues" means "languages" testifies to the fact that these people were speaking known languages, and the people around them understood those language. In other words, there was a purpose for this. Never do you see people babbling an unknown language to the church except the Corinthians whom were reprimanded for it. Again, that's a gross misinterpretation of that passage. Paul is using the gift of prophecy to put down the gift of tongues. He's saying that tongues is often useless, but prophecy is very often useful and that everyone should strive for it. He said he wishes everyone would speak in tongues (different languages), but they should really desire the gift of prophecy. Now, when he says no man understands the tongue in which the Corinthians are speaking in, again, he's putting that down. He's telling them not to do it. This passage can be confusing because tongue and tongues are two different words in the Greek. Tongue is actually the unknown language that no one understands. Tongues is a different word which means known languages. This is a key distinction this commentator neglects to comment upon. Later in 1 Cor 14 (the chapter referenced by the commentator) Paul says this: 18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. In other words, Paul says it's absurd to speak in a "tongue" (aka - the babble language no one understands) in church...and yet you hear it all the time in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches. Paul goes on to say: 22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? So here, we see Paul saying that if the church is full of tongues speakers, and an outsider comes in, he'll think they're all out of their minds. He goes on to say: 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus[c] the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you. So here, we see Paul saying that if people prophesy (not in a tongue or tongues), the unbelievers will be convinced of God and worship Him! In other words, Paul's showing the futility of using tongues UNLESS it is in front of someone who speaks the language being spoken to them. Paul's putting down the use of "a tongue" (the babble language) as useless, especially in church. Corinth was very close to Delphi, the religious capitol of the Pagans. So, speaking in "a tongue" was very common for the people in that area. It was a Pagan thing. The Corinthian church was full of converted Pagans, and some of them were bringing in their old Pagan rituals like speaking in "a tongue" (babble language.) The Roman guards spoke in "a tongue" in their guard meetings. Paul's reprimanding the Corinthians for speaking in this same babble language. A friend of mine was in a satanic cult growing up. He eventually got out of it. One day, he goes to a Pentecostal church and the preacher begins speaking in "a tongue". The guy freaks out. He says to me, "The preacher was speaking the exact language my high priestess used to speak. She was evil. That preacher creeped me out." He explained how everyone around him was doing it too. He got out of there pretty quickly. Again, all spiritual gifts have a selfless purpose...not a selfish purpose. God is our provider of comfort and peace, and He achieves this through simply being with us. When we come into His Presence by acknowledging Him and speaking to Him (prayer without ceasing, as Paul called it). The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence is an excellent book on this subject. Never will you hear tongues spoken of in the book, but that old monk had more contentment, joy and sense than probably anyone you'll ever meet. I know of no one besides Paul who had as much selfless zeal for God than Brother Lawrence. He's an excellent example of what it is to be a Christian. There's too much on which to comment, but I'll simply say what I said before...the commentator doesn't follow the rules of hermeneutics in any way, shape or form. He has a clear lean to his beliefs which influence his interpretation of the scriptures in favor of his type of tongues speaking. That's fine. He's entitled to his opinion. It is for this reason I don't care to read comment in bibles. God is my teacher, not the wisdom of men, which is full of folly. You may believe what you like, but I simply don't buy it, and I think it's scripturally off-base. That's just my opinion, though. I appreciate you sharing your experience, regardless. - Brian |
|
|
|
Tongues
Jun 27, 2012 12:13:55 GMT -5
Post by fluke on Jun 27, 2012 12:13:55 GMT -5
All I suggest is going to someone who does not speak in tongues and is very familiar with dealing with demons, and have them test your spirit of tongues. People are quite surprised, much of the time, at what they discover. No need. Some of the most godly men and women I have ever met have been Pentecostal. Several of them have dealt with demons in others and driven them out. Now, we know from Scripture (Jesus' own words) that Satan cannot drive out demons. Further, before I became Pentecostal, I saw or sensed demons several times (also afterwards). My junior year I lived in a dorm with a good friend next door. He had a study partner that would come over and I almost always knew when he was coming, like several minutes before I would start to feel creeped out. And Jeff had not told me that Joe was coming over. I have never seen demons crawling all over the walls or anything like that in any A/G church I have attended. In fact, in Chi Alpha, there was once a prophesy being given that was not of God. You could tell the difference in the spirits very quickly. As he spoke, my stomach lurched. The pastor told the man to repent. He kept speaking. The pastor repeated "repent!" He continued. The pastor said, "Remove him. He can repent outside." Been there, done that. Been doing it for years, actually. Started studying them before I spoke in tongues, came to the conclusion it was available for today. Sought it, and got it. I have seen this happen as well. However, I do not allow other people's false experiences to steal my joy from a true experience in relationship with the Holy Spirit. Good. It really helps to read on through a passage and not just jump in. Dr. Nunnally goes on to show how Luke and Peter link the two through the words Luke chooses and Peter directly links prophecy and tongues in his sermon. First rule of hermeneutics: Pay attention to the text. "Acts 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." Thus, the foreigners are not just hearing their language, but the disciples are speaking these languages. Again, on the first rule. Acts 2:4 tell us that " All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them." And 6b tells us "because each one heard them speaking in his own language." It's not just Peter speaking to the crowd at first. It's all the disciples (go back to 2:4, which refers to 3 which refers back to chapter 1 showing that it is more than just the Apostles. Some jeer, so Peter stands up to speak because of what is happening here. Peter gives a sermon on what is happening amongst all of them. Agreed. They heard the disciples, all of them, speaking in their own languages. The miracle was not in the ears of the hearer, but the mouth/mind of the speakers. When Peter gave his sermon right after that, there may have been interpretation given to the visitors, but before that, the Bible is clear that the disciples were speaking in other tongues. What leap? You just agreed that there were languages being spoken here, known languages. And Nunnally lays out his train of thought very clearly. He is following the rules of hermeneutics when he traces the word for "enabled" through other uses in the NT, appearances in the LXX, and what those verses speak of. 2:4 says that "they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." Therefore, according to the text, they are speaking in other tongues here. Nunnally then goes into enabled and shows that it refers to prophetic speech in the Old Testament. Hence, the tongues they spoke in were because the Holy Spirit enabled them to prophesy. Peter makes the link himself when he connects the experience of Pentecost to the prophecy of Joel. Further, as Nunnally states, the word used in this passage for "enabled" is used in the LXX of the OT to refer to inspired speech. What is the inspired speech that was enabled? The other tongues. Like my friend Melissa who spoke Hebrew and Sarah who spoke French when they were speaking in tongues. I know others who have had their tongue language identified, often by native speakers. Someone speaking another language is an interpretation of tongues? This confuses me. Actually, according to the rules of hermeneutics, repeated usage in the Bible shows a normative expectation. That is exactly why we know it is normative. Luke shows the pattern, repeatedly. In things that are not normative, he does not. Paul sends out cloths for people only once. Therefore it is not normative. On the other hand, repeated times in Acts (2, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 19), Luke shows us tongues spoken after a baptism in the Spirit. They weren't reprimanded for their use of tongues in general but for their abuse of it. Difference there. Can you point out the different Greek words used for "tongues" and "tongue"? In 1 Cor 14, I see that there are 15 uses of glossa and its declensions or cases. The times when it is plural ( glossais, glossai) are translated "tongues." The times when it is singular ( glosse, glosses, glossan) are translated "tongue." Yet, those are not different words, but merely different cases of the same word. If you are going to try dialektos from Acts 2:8 "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" you might note that Luke has just said that the disciples are speaking in glossa, thus linking glossa and dialektos as synonyms in this instance. The other possibility is that you are trying to say that the word used in 14:21 (where Paul paraphrases the LXX of Isaiah) for "strange tongues" is different than the word used to describe tongues. It is eteroglossois, which comes from glossa (I'm guessing its a participle form) and means "one who speaks a foreign language[/i]. Yet, Paul describes the tongues with the same word, glossa, that he says he speaks in more than you all, glossais (a case of glossa). Paul goes on to say this in 14:27: "If someone speaks in a tongue [ glossa], it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret. 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God. " Note this is the same word Paul uses throughout the chapter. Paul does say that the gift of tongues has a place in the worship service and if there is no interpreter, then the speaker should "speak to himself and to God." Therefore, from the straight words of Paul, tongues in private (to himself and to God) also have a place in the Christian life. He reprimands them for their abuse of glossa while at the same time affirming to them that he speaks in glossa more than any of them. And that glossa has its place in the worship service. This is the same word that Paul uses in 14:26, "What should you do then, brothers and sisters? 11 When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church." Paul says that tongues can indeed be used to edify the church. If it weren't possible for glossa to edify the church, then Paul would not have it in the list of things that can edify the church. The same thing I tell Mormons who talk about their burning in the bosom, I do not allow another's experience with falsity to steal my joy in the truth. I'd also like to know if you are implying that because this happened to your friend that all Pentecostal churches are in the same boat? The reason I ask is that you take Nunnally to task when he follows the rules of hermeneutics by showing how Luke establishes a pattern in Scripture to show that tongues follows Spirit baptism (Acts 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 19). You say "Just because we see a pattern of tongues speaking in those days after baptism does not mean it is the norm." And here, are you drawing a conclusion from one example in the modern world?  Note again that in 1 Cor 14:28, Paul says that the tongues speaker should speak to himself and to God. Not to others. But to himself and to God. And this strengthens the church by strengthening the individual. Notice how Paul has laid out his case. vs. 26 tongues are one of the things that edify the church. vs. 27, 2 or 3 in tongues then interpretation (tongues edify the church). vs. 28, if no interpreter of tongues, be silent and speak to himself and to God (thus tongues edify the individual). And if God does use tongues to edify an individual, why is that selfish? God has given a gift and we are to use it. This edification might result in empowerment for witness or a greater desire to serve. Those certainly aren't selfish. It all depends on why. If a person is seeking the gift of tongues to aggrandize themselves, yes, that is selfish and not of God. However, if they seek it because they want more of God so that He can use them in His service, that is completely selfless. I did read part of that while in seminary. And don't slide the goalpost here: I am not arguing that tongues are required for contentment, joy, or sense. What I am arguing is that true tongues are for today and that not everyone who speaks them is demon filled. Are their counterfeits? Yes. Is all that takes place in every A/G church of God? Sadly, no. But do you stop carrying around bills because some people counterfeit them? Of course not. I will not allow Satan's counterfeits to rob me of what God has given me. You keep stating this, but never give any examples that could be examined. You might list out which rules he is breaking. For example, he is breaking the "analogy of Scripture"? Does he refuse to let "Scripture interpret Scripture." Does he force words to take on their current meaning instead of what it meant then? As can be seen by those who read his material trying to learn and not pick apart, he is very careful with his hermeneutics. For instance, he traces words throughout the canon, drawing from their contexts to shed light on the passages being examined. You can see this for yourself in one of the chapters he wrote for The Confusing World of Benny Hinn. He wrote "Hermeneutics that Harm" for that book (and another chapter which I can't recall the name of at the moment). Dr. Nunnally is no fan of Hinn or any almost any other TBN personality. He said to once that about the only people he cares for on that whole network were D. James Kennedy and Charles Stanley. And I could say the same about you. That you have a clear lean to your beliefs which influences your interpretation of Scripture to be against tongues. We all have our biases and preconceptions that influence what we conclude from our studies. Frank |
|
|
|
Tongues
Jun 28, 2012 2:13:28 GMT -5
Post by dragonlots on Jun 28, 2012 2:13:28 GMT -5
Interesting discussion and clear proof how the Bible can be interrupted many different ways thus the theological problems and various denominations.
Just for the record - I don't go into a frenzy when I speak in tongues. I can do this at any time. I'm not controlled. (The devil controls. God doesn't. Another way to know the difference.)
Do I speak in tongues all the time? No. In fact, most of the time it lies dormant. Can I speak in tongues and interrupt at any time - yes. It is always prayer or praise to or for God. That's why it should be used in worship service. It builds up the body of believers. So does prophesy - which again, is a message to or from God.
Now, do I believe I could speak and someone hear me in their own language. Yes. And vice versa. Do I believe that is the gift of tongues? Unknown. I would have to research that a bit. I know it happens.
Do I believe it is the only use for tongues? NO! I believe that is a misconception and goes back to the theological belief that tongues stopped when the apostles died.
If you look at the Book of Acts there was always some sort of 'sign' of the holy spirit after people are saved. It isn't always spelled out. Too bad we don't teach the same today because if we did - people would be flocking to the church rather than running away.
Most churches, and I'm speaking a generality here, practice legalism not salvation and Grace.
The Catholic church, and I have this on the authority of many local pagans, are actually praying to the old gods and goddesses. Most were renamed and called saints. Some weren't. Mary replaced the 'goddess' which was a popular form of worship. I love the scene in 'The Mist of Avalon' when the ex-priestess figures that out. Too bad the leadership keeps their congregation in such darkness.
The same could be said for the protestant branches. I was brought up Southern Baptist which is all about the dos and don'ts. Do this and you'll go to heaven. Do that and you don't.
I'm not any religion right now. I sit at the feet of many different teachers, Joel Olsten, Joyce Meyer, Sid Rothe, or rather his guests. There are some amazing things going on supernaturally right now. And a local pastor when I live stream the services.
I fellowship with a Christian writing group and hang out with folks here on the Anomaly.
I'm part of a growing group who are pulling away from the traditional church and discovering what the Bible is actually saying - not what theology has tried to tell us it says.
And I do put a great deal of stock in how animals react to the spiritual realm. They're smarter than we think they are.
Big difference between me and the gent who founded the Mormonism. I'm not going around starting my own religion. I've actually talked to other folks about what I can see and one gal looked at me and said, I have a type of innocence which is probably why I can see angels and sometimes JC. It doesn't happen all the time either. Discernment of spirits is one of the 'gifts' we have. Trust me when I say, I know the difference! Long, long story that I'm not going to share.
I do thank you for your concern, but God has already answered the question on whether or not I can speak in tongues. And it does have more than one purpose. It isn't just for speaking to people in another language to bring them to Christ.
However, I too would not attend a church where people were standing around muttering in other languages all the time. I know how it is supposed to work. That ain't it.
Decent and in order. That's what Paul said.
Tongues with the translation or prophesy. And the one who speaks in tongues - translates. It edifies or builds up the body of believers. That's also in the passage that keeps being quoted.
I will admit that I use tongues rarely as a prayer language. I'm usually instructed by the holy spirit when to do so. And I can use the language inside my head. It doesn't have to be verbal. And I repeat - it is under my control - it does not control me. Again, the major difference between being controlled by a devil spirit or a free will choice, which is what God gives us.
Now, my purest form of worship is dance. Another tender box of disagreement between the various denominations. As I laugh and say, the conservatives are going to be shocked when they get to heaven and see all the dancers in front of the throne of God. (I've already seen this since I've danced in the spirit before His throne.)
My proof is in the book '90 minutes in Heaven'. There is a part where the write speaks of moving with no sense of movement. I know exactly what he means. Because when I was dancing I got moved from the distant spot I was at to right in front of God. He picked me up in his hand and I moved with no sense of movement. If you haven't experienced it first hand it's hard to put into words. This was long BEFORE I ever read the book.
I've also gotten a glimpse of hell. I was in Walmart of all places. What I will tell you is that it is cold, dark and filled with a terror I felt all the way to my bones. It was frightening! And this happened to me long before I read '20 minutes in Hell'.
Supernatural happenings occur. As I've said before, I've had tons of experiences with angels, who I actually didn't believe in, and seeing, not to mention dancing with, JC. There is a kind of protection that develops which I can't put into words. The first time it happens I was terrified. I'm often startled, because I wasn't expecting to see an angel right then, but not scared.
The other side of the spiritual kingdom is different. There's a cold and I sense the darkness. This includes the fallen one. I've had run in with him, too. Trust me when I say, I knew who I was dealing with and sent him on his way.
It's called discernment of spirits. And not just demons. My experience is that it also can help ferret out fellow Christians. I've had this happen many times in the workplace.
There's also a well known magician who is sold out to the dark one. No. I won't tell you who it is. I saw it in his eyes via the TV believe it or not.
I suspect my experiences are a bit different than most. However, it has put me a good position to be able to write and share things that many will never get to.
DB
|
|
This Baron of Mora
Full Member
?Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.?
Posts: 113
|
Tongues
Jun 28, 2012 13:04:31 GMT -5
Post by This Baron of Mora on Jun 28, 2012 13:04:31 GMT -5
As I have said before I go to an Assemblies of God Church, but I don't think they are very "traditional" when it comes to affiliation (some times the pastors given "Benedictions" which is of course named after Benedict of the Catholic Church).
Over the years I have never heard anyone mention "speaking in tongues" or the like in sermons or messages. In fact I really had no idea what that was. However one service Jeff Lucas was giving his message and a lady in the back started "babbling off" I actually to very little notice, didn't even really hear it until Jeff Lucas asked her to please quite down. I didn't hear much of it and really just thought she had been going off in some tongue foreign to my ears (after all I was trying to ignore what little I did hear to get the message). However she didn't stop (and he asked repeatedly as I recall) so some of the ushers/security (I don't no which) took her out of the sanctuary. I really just dismissed it thinking it was just someone crazy yelling out in some weird language, however latter I heard people talking about her speaking in tongues and all.
I simple say this to point out that such things should not really be applied to whole denominations, after all Churches of the Assemblies of God are very loosely associated, I more think of our Church as inter-denominational, they don't even mention the Assemblies of God unless it's for a members meeting (most people aren't members). Don't my to much of an odd-ball it is in the top ten largest Assemblies of God congregations in the country.
|
|
brianc
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Tongues
Jun 28, 2012 13:32:00 GMT -5
Post by brianc on Jun 28, 2012 13:32:00 GMT -5
All I suggest is going to someone who does not speak in tongues and is very familiar with dealing with demons, and have them test your spirit of tongues. People are quite surprised, much of the time, at what they discover. No need. Some of the most godly men and women I have ever met have been Pentecostal. Several of them have dealt with demons in others and driven them out. Now, we know from Scripture (Jesus' own words) that Satan cannot drive out demons. Further, before I became Pentecostal, I saw or sensed demons several times (also afterwards). My junior year I lived in a dorm with a good friend next door. He had a study partner that would come over and I almost always knew when he was coming, like several minutes before I would start to feel creeped out. And Jeff had not told me that Joe was coming over. I have never seen demons crawling all over the walls or anything like that in any A/G church I have attended. In fact, in Chi Alpha, there was once a prophesy being given that was not of God. You could tell the difference in the spirits very quickly. As he spoke, my stomach lurched. The pastor told the man to repent. He kept speaking. The pastor repeated "repent!" He continued. The pastor said, "Remove him. He can repent outside." Been there, done that. Been doing it for years, actually. Started studying them before I spoke in tongues, came to the conclusion it was available for today. Sought it, and got it. I have seen this happen as well. However, I do not allow other people's false experiences to steal my joy from a true experience in relationship with the Holy Spirit. Good. It really helps to read on through a passage and not just jump in. Dr. Nunnally goes on to show how Luke and Peter link the two through the words Luke chooses and Peter directly links prophecy and tongues in his sermon. First rule of hermeneutics: Pay attention to the text. "Acts 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." Thus, the foreigners are not just hearing their language, but the disciples are speaking these languages. Again, on the first rule. Acts 2:4 tell us that " All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them." And 6b tells us "because each one heard them speaking in his own language." It's not just Peter speaking to the crowd at first. It's all the disciples (go back to 2:4, which refers to 3 which refers back to chapter 1 showing that it is more than just the Apostles. Some jeer, so Peter stands up to speak because of what is happening here. Peter gives a sermon on what is happening amongst all of them. Agreed. They heard the disciples, all of them, speaking in their own languages. The miracle was not in the ears of the hearer, but the mouth/mind of the speakers. When Peter gave his sermon right after that, there may have been interpretation given to the visitors, but before that, the Bible is clear that the disciples were speaking in other tongues. What leap? You just agreed that there were languages being spoken here, known languages. And Nunnally lays out his train of thought very clearly. He is following the rules of hermeneutics when he traces the word for "enabled" through other uses in the NT, appearances in the LXX, and what those verses speak of. 2:4 says that "they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." Therefore, according to the text, they are speaking in other tongues here. Nunnally then goes into enabled and shows that it refers to prophetic speech in the Old Testament. Hence, the tongues they spoke in were because the Holy Spirit enabled them to prophesy. Peter makes the link himself when he connects the experience of Pentecost to the prophecy of Joel. Further, as Nunnally states, the word used in this passage for "enabled" is used in the LXX of the OT to refer to inspired speech. What is the inspired speech that was enabled? The other tongues. Like my friend Melissa who spoke Hebrew and Sarah who spoke French when they were speaking in tongues. I know others who have had their tongue language identified, often by native speakers. Someone speaking another language is an interpretation of tongues? This confuses me. Actually, according to the rules of hermeneutics, repeated usage in the Bible shows a normative expectation. That is exactly why we know it is normative. Luke shows the pattern, repeatedly. In things that are not normative, he does not. Paul sends out cloths for people only once. Therefore it is not normative. On the other hand, repeated times in Acts (2, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 19), Luke shows us tongues spoken after a baptism in the Spirit. They weren't reprimanded for their use of tongues in general but for their abuse of it. Difference there. Can you point out the different Greek words used for "tongues" and "tongue"? In 1 Cor 14, I see that there are 15 uses of glossa and its declensions or cases. The times when it is plural ( glossais, glossai) are translated "tongues." The times when it is singular ( glosse, glosses, glossan) are translated "tongue." Yet, those are not different words, but merely different cases of the same word. If you are going to try dialektos from Acts 2:8 "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" you might note that Luke has just said that the disciples are speaking in glossa, thus linking glossa and dialektos as synonyms in this instance. The other possibility is that you are trying to say that the word used in 14:21 (where Paul paraphrases the LXX of Isaiah) for "strange tongues" is different than the word used to describe tongues. It is eteroglossois, which comes from glossa (I'm guessing its a participle form) and means "one who speaks a foreign language [/i]. Yet, Paul describes the tongues with the same word, glossa, that he says he speaks in more than you all, glossais (a case of glossa). Paul goes on to say this in 14:27: "If someone speaks in a tongue [ glossa], it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret. 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God. " Note this is the same word Paul uses throughout the chapter. Paul does say that the gift of tongues has a place in the worship service and if there is no interpreter, then the speaker should "speak to himself and to God." Therefore, from the straight words of Paul, tongues in private (to himself and to God) also have a place in the Christian life. He reprimands them for their abuse of glossa while at the same time affirming to them that he speaks in glossa more than any of them. And that glossa has its place in the worship service. This is the same word that Paul uses in 14:26, "What should you do then, brothers and sisters? 11 When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church." Paul says that tongues can indeed be used to edify the church. If it weren't possible for glossa to edify the church, then Paul would not have it in the list of things that can edify the church. The same thing I tell Mormons who talk about their burning in the bosom, I do not allow another's experience with falsity to steal my joy in the truth. I'd also like to know if you are implying that because this happened to your friend that all Pentecostal churches are in the same boat? The reason I ask is that you take Nunnally to task when he follows the rules of hermeneutics by showing how Luke establishes a pattern in Scripture to show that tongues follows Spirit baptism (Acts 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 19). You say "Just because we see a pattern of tongues speaking in those days after baptism does not mean it is the norm." And here, are you drawing a conclusion from one example in the modern world? Note again that in 1 Cor 14:28, Paul says that the tongues speaker should speak to himself and to God. Not to others. But to himself and to God. And this strengthens the church by strengthening the individual. Notice how Paul has laid out his case. vs. 26 tongues are one of the things that edify the church. vs. 27, 2 or 3 in tongues then interpretation (tongues edify the church). vs. 28, if no interpreter of tongues, be silent and speak to himself and to God (thus tongues edify the individual). And if God does use tongues to edify an individual, why is that selfish? God has given a gift and we are to use it. This edification might result in empowerment for witness or a greater desire to serve. Those certainly aren't selfish. It all depends on why. If a person is seeking the gift of tongues to aggrandize themselves, yes, that is selfish and not of God. However, if they seek it because they want more of God so that He can use them in His service, that is completely selfless. I did read part of that while in seminary. And don't slide the goalpost here: I am not arguing that tongues are required for contentment, joy, or sense. What I am arguing is that true tongues are for today and that not everyone who speaks them is demon filled. Are their counterfeits? Yes. Is all that takes place in every A/G church of God? Sadly, no. But do you stop carrying around bills because some people counterfeit them? Of course not. I will not allow Satan's counterfeits to rob me of what God has given me. You keep stating this, but never give any examples that could be examined. You might list out which rules he is breaking. For example, he is breaking the "analogy of Scripture"? Does he refuse to let "Scripture interpret Scripture." Does he force words to take on their current meaning instead of what it meant then? As can be seen by those who read his material trying to learn and not pick apart, he is very careful with his hermeneutics. For instance, he traces words throughout the canon, drawing from their contexts to shed light on the passages being examined. You can see this for yourself in one of the chapters he wrote for The Confusing World of Benny Hinn. He wrote "Hermeneutics that Harm" for that book (and another chapter which I can't recall the name of at the moment). Dr. Nunnally is no fan of Hinn or any almost any other TBN personality. He said to once that about the only people he cares for on that whole network were D. James Kennedy and Charles Stanley. And I could say the same about you. That you have a clear lean to your beliefs which influences your interpretation of Scripture to be against tongues. We all have our biases and preconceptions that influence what we conclude from our studies. Frank[/quote] You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that in the Bible, the only use of "tongues" we see is people speaking in other people's languages in order to communicate to them. It's when one person doesn't speak one language, but they start speaking it supernaturally, and the person to whom they're speaking speaks that language and understands them. Never does the Bible describe people speaking some babble language to someone else, and the other person magically understands what they're saying in their own language. I'm speaking against the babble language, or the language that ends up being some African tribal language that no one understands (except that tribe) and it's usually cursing God. You're actually mixing your words up when it comes to the Greek. There's "glossia" (tongue) and "glossolalia" (tongues). Glossolalia is not the plural of the word glossia. It's possible that some manuscripts are different than others, using a different word instead of glossolalia. Might we be looking at different manuscripts? I've read that the more modern translations of the Bible come from a different, much later translation of the Old Testament which has a very bad influence and slant on it. Wish I could remember the name of that manuscript right now. Anyway, the book that tells the history of translations is called New Age Translations, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe that's the problem. I had no slant toward or against the babble-language tongues when I started researching it. But in time, I began noticing the major biblical problems with it and it's lack of functionality in the Church to help others, and the warnings against it in scripture. I'm defending the use of actual tongues, which is always a known language on the earth being spoken by non-speakers of that language to a speaker of the language, always resulting in their conversion (or sometimes in some sort of revelation, possibly, to that person). I never see prophecy and tongues linked together. That's not to say it doesn't happen sometimes. But the "inspired speaking" is not implying tongues. It's implying Holy-Spirit inspired speech (aka - prophecy). One must make a huge leap to get from that to linking inspired speech to tongues (babble language). I don't wish to complicate the subject. No need to go into tons of details on this. It's pretty simple at its core. Here's what Wikipedia says about Glossolalia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia- Brian |
|
brianc
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Tongues
Jun 28, 2012 13:35:20 GMT -5
Post by brianc on Jun 28, 2012 13:35:20 GMT -5
Interesting discussion and clear proof how the Bible can be interrupted many different ways thus the theological problems and various denominations. Just for the record - I don't go into a frenzy when I speak in tongues. I can do this at any time. I'm not controlled. (The devil controls. God doesn't. Another way to know the difference.) Do I speak in tongues all the time? No. In fact, most of the time it lies dormant. Can I speak in tongues and interrupt at any time - yes. It is always prayer or praise to or for God. That's why it should be used in worship service. It builds up the body of believers. So does prophesy - which again, is a message to or from God. Now, do I believe I could speak and someone hear me in their own language. Yes. And vice versa. Do I believe that is the gift of tongues? Unknown. I would have to research that a bit. I know it happens. Do I believe it is the only use for tongues? NO! I believe that is a misconception and goes back to the theological belief that tongues stopped when the apostles died. If you look at the Book of Acts there was always some sort of 'sign' of the holy spirit after people are saved. It isn't always spelled out. Too bad we don't teach the same today because if we did - people would be flocking to the church rather than running away. Most churches, and I'm speaking a generality here, practice legalism not salvation and Grace. The Catholic church, and I have this on the authority of many local pagans, are actually praying to the old gods and goddesses. Most were renamed and called saints. Some weren't. Mary replaced the 'goddess' which was a popular form of worship. I love the scene in 'The Mist of Avalon' when the ex-priestess figures that out. Too bad the leadership keeps their congregation in such darkness. The same could be said for the protestant branches. I was brought up Southern Baptist which is all about the dos and don'ts. Do this and you'll go to heaven. Do that and you don't. I'm not any religion right now. I sit at the feet of many different teachers, Joel Olsten, Joyce Meyer, Sid Rothe, or rather his guests. There are some amazing things going on supernaturally right now. And a local pastor when I live stream the services. I fellowship with a Christian writing group and hang out with folks here on the Anomaly. I'm part of a growing group who are pulling away from the traditional church and discovering what the Bible is actually saying - not what theology has tried to tell us it says. And I do put a great deal of stock in how animals react to the spiritual realm. They're smarter than we think they are. Big difference between me and the gent who founded the Mormonism. I'm not going around starting my own religion. I've actually talked to other folks about what I can see and one gal looked at me and said, I have a type of innocence which is probably why I can see angels and sometimes JC. It doesn't happen all the time either. Discernment of spirits is one of the 'gifts' we have. Trust me when I say, I know the difference! Long, long story that I'm not going to share. I do thank you for your concern, but God has already answered the question on whether or not I can speak in tongues. And it does have more than one purpose. It isn't just for speaking to people in another language to bring them to Christ. However, I too would not attend a church where people were standing around muttering in other languages all the time. I know how it is supposed to work. That ain't it. Decent and in order. That's what Paul said. Tongues with the translation or prophesy. And the one who speaks in tongues - translates. It edifies or builds up the body of believers. That's also in the passage that keeps being quoted. I will admit that I use tongues rarely as a prayer language. I'm usually instructed by the holy spirit when to do so. And I can use the language inside my head. It doesn't have to be verbal. And I repeat - it is under my control - it does not control me. Again, the major difference between being controlled by a devil spirit or a free will choice, which is what God gives us. Now, my purest form of worship is dance. Another tender box of disagreement between the various denominations. As I laugh and say, the conservatives are going to be shocked when they get to heaven and see all the dancers in front of the throne of God. (I've already seen this since I've danced in the spirit before His throne.) My proof is in the book '90 minutes in Heaven'. There is a part where the write speaks of moving with no sense of movement. I know exactly what he means. Because when I was dancing I got moved from the distant spot I was at to right in front of God. He picked me up in his hand and I moved with no sense of movement. If you haven't experienced it first hand it's hard to put into words. This was long BEFORE I ever read the book. I've also gotten a glimpse of hell. I was in Walmart of all places. What I will tell you is that it is cold, dark and filled with a terror I felt all the way to my bones. It was frightening! And this happened to me long before I read '20 minutes in Hell'. Supernatural happenings occur. As I've said before, I've had tons of experiences with angels, who I actually didn't believe in, and seeing, not to mention dancing with, JC. There is a kind of protection that develops which I can't put into words. The first time it happens I was terrified. I'm often startled, because I wasn't expecting to see an angel right then, but not scared. The other side of the spiritual kingdom is different. There's a cold and I sense the darkness. This includes the fallen one. I've had run in with him, too. Trust me when I say, I knew who I was dealing with and sent him on his way. It's called discernment of spirits. And not just demons. My experience is that it also can help ferret out fellow Christians. I've had this happen many times in the workplace. There's also a well known magician who is sold out to the dark one. No. I won't tell you who it is. I saw it in his eyes via the TV believe it or not. I suspect my experiences are a bit different than most. However, it has put me a good position to be able to write and share things that many will never get to. DB No denomination told me what to believe on tongues. I've never taken anyone's word for it one way or the other. I simply asked God to show me the truth of it, and He did, scripturally. Later, I ran across some more information about it that happened to support what God had already taught me on the subject. I never go with the traditional teachings on stuff. I trust God to teach it to me, then I start my research as He guides me. I don't care for the traditional church or its way of doing things. I like the way the first-century church did things, and so I try to do things that way. It was a far more god-centered church, and they did things quite the opposite of how we do them today. - Brian |
|
brianc
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Tongues
Jun 28, 2012 13:38:34 GMT -5
Post by brianc on Jun 28, 2012 13:38:34 GMT -5
As I have said before I go to an Assemblies of God Church, but I don't think they are very "traditional" when it comes to affiliation (some times the pastors given "Benedictions" which is of course named after Benedict of the Catholic Church). Over the years I have never heard anyone mention "speaking in tongues" or the like in sermons or messages. In fact I really had no idea what that was. However one service Jeff Lucas was giving his message and a lady in the back started "babbling off" I actually to very little notice, didn't even really hear it until Jeff Lucas asked her to please quite down. I didn't hear much of it and really just thought she had been going off in some tongue foreign to my ears (after all I was trying to ignore what little I did hear to get the message). However she didn't stop (and he asked repeatedly as I recall) so some of the ushers/security (I don't no which) took her out of the sanctuary. I really just dismissed it thinking it was just someone crazy yelling out in some weird language, however latter I heard people talking about her speaking in tongues and all. I simple say this to point out that such things should not really be applied to whole denominations, after all Churches of the Assemblies of God are very loosely associated, I more think of our Church as inter-denominational, they don't even mention the Assemblies of God unless it's for a members meeting (most people aren't members). Don't my to much of an odd-ball it is in the top ten largest Assemblies of God congregations in the country. Tongues speaking is hit or miss with Assemblies of God churches. Some speak it, some don't. I went to one that spoke in tongues, but it was rare to hear it. Eventually, I quite going there after finding out the pastor took the congregation's money and made it disappear. lol - Brian |
|
|
|
Tongues
Jun 28, 2012 15:00:25 GMT -5
Post by fluke on Jun 28, 2012 15:00:25 GMT -5
Nor do I defend babbling or cursing God in any language.
Actually, Paul says in 1 Cor 14:26-28, that glossa has a place in the worship service to edify the saints, and can be used in private when no interpreter is present. And you will notice that I have never defended a "babble language" as you call them. I am defending the use in the Bible for modern tongues speech. However, you have a very restrictive sense of it. Much more so than Paul or Luke.
You're right that glossolalia is not the plural of glossa. The two words are related, though. Glossolalia means "to speak a tongue." It's a combination of a verb for "speak" and glossa. It does not mean "tongues" as you are claiming. I'd like to know your source for that.
Possible. Can you list out some verses where your manuscript has glossalalia and where it has glossa (and their cases forms but you don't have to list out cases)? I am really curious about this. Also, what manuscript are you using? Textus Receptus (also called Majority Text), by chance?
[edit]
Just checked several manuscripts tonight on my computer. Checking Bible Works Greek Critical Text, Westcott Hort NT, and a copy of the Majority Text reveals in 1 Cor 14, 15 uses of glossa and forms. There were no occurrences of glossolalia in 1 Cor 14 or even anywhere in the NT in those manuscripts.
[/edit]
The manuscripts that are used in modern translations are typically based on very old manuscripts of the New Testament. But the translators don't stop with one or even two manuscripts. They compare manuscripts, taking into account various scribal practices, to determine the original wording. We don't have any of the originals. However, by examining copies, we can determine what was written. And by comparing them, we can usually eliminate the influence of tainted scribes. That is, we can determine that scribe X had an agenda to push and did so, and thus remove the bad influence. But translation theory and textual criticism would be a whole other thread.
Too bad on two counts. 1) you concluded that its always babble languages being spoken of and 2) you stopped with those warnings against abuse and didn't read on a few verses more where Paul says:
14:26 What should you do then, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church. 14:27 If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret. 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God.
Let's look at 39 while we're here:
14:39 So then, brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid anyone from speaking in tongues glossais*.
*A form of glossa.
Thus, we see that tongues can edify the church when used properly. And they can be used between the speaker and God if no interpreter is present. These would not be babble languages but would be unknown to the speaker. Might be French (Sarah). Might be Hebrew (Melissa).
Actually in Acts, the speaking in tongues typically comes after a conversion and by the newly converted or filled. See chapters 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 19. In Acts 2, they already believed, but now they were filled. In most other instances, I believe it is new converts who speak in tongues. Then there are the instances in 1 Cor 14 where it is obviously not new converts and is used to edify the church or individual.
Luke doesn't just imply that the inspired speech is tongues--he says it outright! "2:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them."
The Holy Spirit "enabled" them (same word that is used in the Greek of the OT to refer to prophetic speech in all but one of its occurrences) to speak in tongues. Peter, in the same chapter, says this is what was spoken of by the prophet Joel when he said that all would prophesy. Thus, the tongues there are inspired by the Holy Spirit and Peter, speaking under the power of the Holy Spirit linked it to prophetic speech.
Yes, it is. Not all tongues are of the devil. Paul says it can be used to edify either the church or the individual (1 Cor 14:26-28). Peter links it to prophecy (Acts 2:16-21). And Luke, by his repeated pattern of showing tongues after a spirit baptism tells us it is normative (Acts 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 19). Simple hermeneutics.
|
|
|
|
Tongues
Jun 29, 2012 16:30:26 GMT -5
Post by Teskas on Jun 29, 2012 16:30:26 GMT -5
As I have said before I go to an Assemblies of God Church, but I don't think they are very "traditional" when it comes to affiliation (some times the pastors given "Benedictions" which is of course named after Benedict of the Catholic Church). A quick visit from the main topic..... Benedictions have little to do with Saint Benedict, a pioneer of the monastic movement in Western Europe in the early Middle Ages. The word is from the Latin and means "blessings." The custom of the Benedictus originates in the use of Bible texts in the daily worship of Christians. You are probably familiar with several of them. The benediction which was the biggest influence on Western Christian prayer is the Canticle of Zechariah given in the Gospel of Luke (1:68-79). You are absolutely right that the custom originated with Catholic divine service, but it is used in Anglican and Lutheran morning prayers, as well as Catholic ones, on a daily basis down to this day. |
|
