Assembly of God and Tongues

[Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors]

That was a good read indeed! We are undoubtedly on the same page where we view tongues as being an inarticulate communication from the Holy Spirit through an individual to the Father. Furthermore, we would also be in agreement that tongues has nothing to do with known human languages.

About the only qualification that I would add in, is with his comment that tongues can be used to evangelise the lost. Even though prophecy can have a positive effect on an unbeliever within a meeting, prophecy would be unlikely to have any real application outside of the congregational meeting or a home group etc - but what a great read it was!

Glad you enjoyed it .
I learned about the add in of" unknown "
Very interesting indeed .
Original text Rocks !!

 

[Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors]

It was to indicate that the disciples of John the Baptist, along with the Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans, had all received the Spirit and were all to be included in the new church.



1 Cor 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit."

The tongues spoken in the church at Corinth were untranslated foreign languages that no one in the congregation understood. If someone was speaking say Persian in a predominantly Greek church then undoubtedly no one would understand. What was spoken was a mystery to them. Only God, who knows all languages, would understand what was spoken.



Here Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for speaking in untranslated tongues. Tongues, along with all spiritual gifts, are for the benefit of others (1 Peter 4:10). But nobody understood what was spoken so nobody was edified apart from the speaker himself. Whereas prophecy everyone could understand and be edified.

So you are saying that for instance I walked into a Spanish speaking (Church)
FILLED with believers and decided to just start rattling off in English .. to what ..to preach ? So everyone was. Just rattling off preaching in different languages..saying whatever .. by the Spirit ?

By the Spirit ?
What ?
I respectfully disagree .
Interpretation of tongues is a supernatural gift of the spirit .
Anyone can interpret a different language.

And why up to three ?
So let me get this straight .
Up to 3 folks get the chance ( by the Spirit ) to figure out what I'm saying in a different language.

Picture that in a church meeting

 

[swordsman1]

Furthermore, we would also be in agreement that tongues has nothing to do with known human languages.

How wrong.

The tongues of the NT is ONLY foreign human languages. The only description of the gift is Acts 2:4-11 and it is clearly the miraculous ability to speak in a foreign human language that had never been previously learnt. Nowhere in scripture is it re-described as a heavenly/angelic language or anything else. As this is the only description it becomes the determinative. One of the first rules if bible interpretation is that more obscure passages (1 Corinthians 12-14) are interpreted in the light of clearer ones (Acts 2). Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Luke to write such a detailed description of the gift if this was to be exception rather than the rule?

When tongues is spoken of in 1 Corinthians it is exactly the same phenomenon as Acts 2. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians uses exactly the same terminology for tongues as Luke does in Acts (glossa and lalio). Another rule of bible interpretation is that identical expressions have identical meanings. The Greek word for tongue (glossa) means language in this context, just as it does in English. Eg "He spoke in a foreign tongue". If you look at the footnotes for the word tongue in the NIV every occurrence says 'or other language' to indicate the true meaning of the word. If you now go through 1 Cor 12-14 and replace 'tongue' with 'other language' is will make perfect sense. Try it.

If the tongues of 1 Corinthians was a different phenomenon to the tongues of Acts then Luke would have made it clear. Paul and Luke were close companions for many years and Luke was fully aware of Paul's experiences when he wrote Acts. Luke would never have used the same terminology if he knew the Corinthian tongues was something different from the tongues of Pentecost. (Acts was written after 1 Corinthians.).

There is plenty of evidence in 1 Corinthians that tongues is foreign languages. The word is often in the plural indicating that a number of different languages were spoken in the Corinthian church. If it was the language of heaven then surely it would be in the singular. Or was there a Tower of Babel event in heaven with multiple languages spoken there?

And in 1 Cor 14:21-22 Paul clearly links tongues to Isaiah's prophecy to the Israelites when foreign languages heard in their midst was a sign of judgement against them.

And 1800 years of church history affirms that tongues were foreign languages. The church fathers, immediately after the apostolic age, affirmed it (Augustine, Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrus, etc). The Reformers affirmed it (read Calvin's commentary of 1 Cor 12:10). The great theologians of the 18th & 19th centuries affirmed it (Matthew Henry, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathon Edwards, BB Warfield, etc). Even the founder of Pentecostalism, Charles Fox Parham, affirmed it 100 years ago when he originally thought the phenomenon of glossolalia they experienced was foreign human languages as at Pentecost. It was only when they realised it wasn't that they invented this new doctrine about tongues being an extra-terrestrial language to accommodate their experience.

Objectors will say well didn't Paul speak in the tongues of angels in 1 Cor 13:1-3? No, he didn't. That is a common misinterpretation of that verse as I explained earlier in this thread in my post here http://www.christianforums.com/threads/assembly-of-god-and-tongues.7955793/page-3#post-69869449 (at the end of the post).

So if the tongues practised today by charismatics and pentecostals is not the tongues of the New Testament then what is it? Well studies by academic researchers have shown that it is simply a natural psychological phenomenon where the human tongue goes into 'autopilot'. William Samarin, professor of linguistics at Toronto University, in his research into the phenomenon concludes: “It has already been established that no special power needs to take over a person’s vocal organs. All of us are equipped with everything we need to produce glossolalia…Glossolalia is not a supernatural phenomenon…It is similar to many other kinds of speech humans produce in more or less normal circumstances in more or less normal psychological states. In fact, anybody can produce glossolalia if he is uninhibited and if he discovers what the ‘trick’ is.”

 

[Job8]

Assembly of God believes that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Are they right?

No they are not. Of course, they will insist that they are. End of story.

 

[Jezmeyah]

Assembly of God believes that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Are they right?

I have AoG background so I can confirm that they have their doctrine from the scriptures.. The baptism into Christ, Gal.3:27, is referring to being born again,.. while the baptism with the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:4, refers to the speaking in tongues. Indeed when they, in Acts 10:43-48, were speaking in tongues, Peter knew that they were eligible to be baptized in water as a confirmation that they'd been baptized into Christ. Peter had said, "They received the same as we." Referring to the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4). It would be said that one who has that experience can know when another has received the same experience.

 

[Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors]

How wrong.

The tongues of the NT is ONLY foreign human languages. The only description of the gift is Acts 2:4-11 and it is clearly the miraculous ability to speak in a foreign human language that had never been previously learnt. Nowhere in scripture is it re-described as a heavenly/angelic language or anything else. As this is the only description it becomes the determinative. One of the first rules if bible interpretation is that more obscure passages (1 Corinthians 12-14) are interpreted in the light of clearer ones (Acts 2). Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Luke to write such a detailed description of the gift if this was to be exception rather than the rule?

When tongues is spoken of in 1 Corinthians it is exactly the same phenomenon as Acts 2. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians uses exactly the same terminology for tongues as Luke does in Acts (glossa and lalio). Another rule of bible interpretation is that identical expressions have identical meanings. The Greek word for tongue (glossa) means language in this context, just as it does in English. Eg "He spoke in a foreign tongue". If you look at the footnotes for the word tongue in the NIV every occurrence says 'or other language' to indicate the true meaning of the word. If you now go through 1 Cor 12-14 and replace 'tongue' with 'other language' is will make perfect sense. Try it.

If the tongues of 1 Corinthians was a different phenomenon to the tongues of Acts then Luke would have made it clear. Paul and Luke were close companions for many years and Luke was fully aware of Paul's experiences when he wrote Acts. Luke would never have used the same terminology if he knew the Corinthian tongues was something different from the tongues of Pentecost. (Acts was written after 1 Corinthians.).

There is plenty of evidence in 1 Corinthians that tongues is foreign languages. The word is often in the plural indicating that a number of different languages were spoken in the Corinthian church. If it was the language of heaven then surely it would be in the singular. Or was there a Tower of Babel event in heaven with multiple languages spoken there?

And in 1 Cor 14:21-22 Paul clearly links tongues to Isaiah's prophecy to the Israelites when foreign languages heard in their midst was a sign of judgement against them.

And 1800 years of church history affirms that tongues were foreign languages. The church fathers, immediately after the apostolic age, affirmed it (Augustine, Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrus, etc). The Reformers affirmed it (read Calvin's commentary of 1 Cor 12:10). The great theologians of the 18th & 19th centuries affirmed it (Matthew Henry, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathon Edwards, BB Warfield, etc). Even the founder of Pentecostalism, Charles Fox Parham, affirmed it 100 years ago when he originally thought the phenomenon of glossolalia they experienced was foreign human languages as at Pentecost. It was only when they realised it wasn't that they invented this new doctrine about tongues being an extra-terrestrial language to accommodate their experience.

Objectors will say well didn't Paul speak in the tongues of angels in 1 Cor 13:1-3? No, he didn't. That is a common misinterpretation of that verse as I explained earlier in this thread in my post here http://www.christianforums.com/threads/assembly-of-god-and-tongues.7955793/page-3#post-69869449 (at the end of the post).

So if the tongues practised today by charismatics and pentecostals is not the tongues of the New Testament then what is it? Well studies by academic researchers have shown that it is simply a natural psychological phenomenon where the human tongue goes into 'autopilot'. William Samarin, professor of linguistics at Toronto University, in his research into the phenomenon concludes: “It has already been established that no special power needs to take over a person’s vocal organs. All of us are equipped with everything we need to produce glossolalia…Glossolalia is not a supernatural phenomenon…It is similar to many other kinds of speech humans produce in more or less normal circumstances in more or less normal psychological states. In fact, anybody can produce glossolalia if he is uninhibited and if he discovers what the ‘trick’ is.”

) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue.—Better, For he that speaketh in a tongue. The word “unknown” is not in the original, but it has been inserted in connection with the word tongue “all through this chapter, so as to make the various passages seem to be consistent with the theory that the gift of tongues was a gift of languages. This is not the place to enter into the question of what particular external manifestation of this gift was evidenced on the Day of Pentecost. (See Acts 2:1-13.) Still, believing that the gift of tongues here spoken of is identical with the gift of tongues which was first bestowed at Pentecost, I would say that thephenomena described as occurring then must be explained by the fuller and more elaborate account of the nature of the gift which is given to us here. Against the theory that the gift was one of a capacity to speak various languages we havethree considerations. (1) The worddialectos,which is repeatedly used to express languages (Acts 1:19; Acts 2:6;Acts 2:8;Acts 21:40; Acts 22:2; Acts 26:14), is never used by St. Paul or by theauthor of the Acts in reference to the utterances of those who possessed thegift of tongues, but the other word,glossa, which is, literally, the physical organ of speech—as if the utterances were simply sounds that proceeded from it. (2) There is no trace whatever of this knowledge of languages having been ever used for the purpose of preaching to those who spoke foreign languages.

 

[Biblicist]

I have AoG background so I can confirm that they have their doctrine from the scriptures.. The baptism into Christ, Gal.3:27, is referring to being born again,.. while the baptism with the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:4, refers to the speaking in tongues. Indeed when they, in Acts 10:43-48, were speaking in tongues, Peter knew that they were eligible to be baptized in water as a confirmation that they'd been baptized into Christ. Peter had said, "They received the same as we." Referring to the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4). It would be said that one who has that experience can know when another has received the same experience.

As much as I now disagree with the classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence, where the the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is to be received sometime after our intial conversion, I still have a lot of sympathy for those who hold to this position. For most of us who were empowered to speak in tongues sometime after our initital conversion experience,where we were able to give praise to the Father as we prayed in the Spirit (tongues) for the first time, for most this can be a very dramatic experience, where we are left with no doubt that the presence of the Holy Spirit is active and powerful within and amongst us.

With reference to Gal 3:27, it seems that most AoG scholars (classic-Pentecostals) now acknowledge that Paul's writings do not provide any suggestion or hint of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit being seperate from our initial conversion experience, where they now increasingly base their support from within Acts. This is why the classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence is deemed to be based on Lukan and not Pauline theology, though I would state that even here the classic-Pentecostal has misread Luke's material.

 

[JoeP222w]

Assembly of God believes that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Are they right?

No.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that speaking in tongues is evidence of the Holy Spirit or that speaking in tongues is a requirement, or demonstration, of salvation. If it was, then that would be a "works", thus nullifying the gospel of Grace.

 

[Biblicist]

No.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that speaking in tongues is evidence of the Holy Spirit or that speaking in tongues is a requirement, or demonstration, of salvation.

I have to ask you if this is a serious post as tongues was the unequivocal evidence that someone had received the Holy Spirit, at least with the book of Acts.

Now you can certainly argue if you wish that the Holy Spirit stopped working in this way within several centuries of the death of the last Apostle, but it is definitely a desperate ploy to try and say something that goes against the evidence that we see in Acts – this is a case of overplaying your hand.

If it was, then that would be a "works", thus nullifying the gospel of Grace.

As most cessationists say that we receive the Holy Spirit upon our confession of faith (a work in itself) and that we should be able to evidence someone’s Salvation by their fruit, then this is again another ‘work’. From my perspective, the only way that a ‘non-works based’ evidence could be displayed is by allowing the Spirit of Grace to outwork himself through the Believer.

 

[Biblicist]

For those who are interested with how the various translations handle the Greek word 'phone', where many modern translations unfortunately employ our English word 'language', then the following chart that I developed a few months back might be of interest. It is based on 1 Cor 14:7-11 where phone and aphonon are used five times.

 

[Deadworm]

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1)"

Swordsman's bias against acknowledging the possibility of nonhuman languages as the referent here betrays his desire to trivialize the need for him to seek this gift (so
12:31; 14:1) and his ignorance of modern commentaries. For example, Hans Conzelman's commentary points out the Jewish background of the comment, including the Testament of Job48-50, where "Job's daughters speak in the dialect of various kinds of angels (p. 221)." So Conzelman adds, "Paul is presumably thinking realistically of the language of angels." that said, Pentecostals are sometimes inspired to speak in unknown human tongues with an incredibly edifying impact.
Here are just 3 examples.

(1) When I was 19, I joined YWAM (Youth with a Mission), a Christian organization devoted to witnessing in the streets and door to door all over the world. It founder, Loren Cunningham, was driving our bus from Winnipeg to Toronto, when he told me this story. He was visiting an Amazon tribe, hoping to find a way to share his faith beyond the usual tracts. No interpreter was yet available. So he just spoke in tongues, and the natives were shocked to hear him witness to Jesus in their language. Just then a woman with cataracts approached him. Loren realized that she wanted him to pray for her. So he laid hands on her and her cataracts vanished! This miracle opened minds to the Gospel in a unique way. Loren's testimony illustrates the frequently close connection between speaking in tongues and divine healing.

(2) In his early 20s, Dennis Balcome was attending an independent Pentecostal church in Almonte outside Los Angeles, when the wife of the main preacher began delivering a mesage in tongues. A congregational member gave the interpretation aloud: the gist of it was that Dennis was going to be used in a great missionary work in Communist China. An American Jew who spoke Hebrew and just happened to be be present in the meeting confirmed that the message had been given in fluent Hebrew and that the interpretation (translation) was totally accurate.

But Dennis got derailed from his calling for a while. He was drafted and spent a year in Vietnam in 1969. During a week of R & R in Hong Kong, he attended a local Pentecostal church and someone prophesied that God was calling him to stay there after his military service. So he studied Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese there and then pioneered a Chinese church. He told his people to think of him as an egg--white on the outside and yellow on the inside!

Soon Dennis got permission to teach English in Communist China and used that privilege to bring in a hundred thousand Bibles there. Then in the 1980s, several Christian house church leaders wanted him to teach them about Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues. After a year of resistance, the Holy Spirit fell on many and they spoke in tongues. Dennis became the first white missionary in many decades to travel to inland China. It was dangeous work: sometimes he was moved in a coffin on a cart with wheels. Once the police interrupted his meeting, but he hid in the coffin, and the cops never opened it. Other times he wore a face mask, a fur hat, and a thick, padded cotten coat. Other times still, he wore women's clothes.

There were regular dramatic healings, including many blind who received their sight. When Dennis laid his hands on people, they sometimes were so intoxicated with the Spirit that they couldn't sleep for days! Once filled with the Spirit, these new Christians couldn't stop themselves from boldly witnessing to others. Within a decade of his ministry there, one half to two thirds of the 80 million strong house church movement became Pentecostal or Charismatic!!! How crucial to Chinese church history was Dennis Balcombe's calling in a message in Hebrew tongues back in the late 1960s! Source: David Aikman, "Jesus in Beijing," pp. 271-275

(3) A young female missionary in a remote village in Uganda became gravely ill, so ill that her parents in Saskatchewan, Canada, received a telegram that she was too sick to be moved the many miles of jungle trails to the nearest doctor and would likely die shortly. This need was brought before a prayer meeting at the parents' Pentecostal church in Saskatchewan. There was a message in tongues. A visiting African student stood up and proclaimed that the message was in Swahili, his native language. The message said that God had given the young woman a healing touch and she would soon be reunited with her parents. There was great rejoicing when this prophecy came true.

 

[swordsman1]

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1)"

Swordsman's bias against acknowledging the possibility of nonhuman languages as the referent here betrays his desire to trivialize the need for him to seek this gift (so
12:31; 14:1) and his ignorance of modern commentaries. For example, Hans Conzelman's commentary points out the Jewish background of the comment, including the Testament of Job48-50, where "Job's daughters speak in the dialect of various kinds of angels (p. 221)." So Conzelman adds, "Paul is presumably thinking realistically of the language of angels." that said, Pentecostals are sometimes inspired to speak in unknown human tongues with an incredibly edifying impact.
Here are just 3 examples.

(1) When I was 19, I joined YWAM (Youth with a Mission), a Christian organization devoted to witnessing in the streets and door to door all over the world. It founder, Loren Cunningham, was driving our bus from Winnipeg to Toronto, when he told me this story. He was visiting an Amazon tribe, hoping to find a way to share his faith beyond the usual tracts. No interpreter was yet available. So he just spoke in tongues, and the natives were shocked to hear him witness to Jesus in their language. Just then a woman with cataracts approached him. Loren realized that she wanted him to pray for her. So he laid hands on her and her cataracts vanished! This miracle opened minds to the Gospel in a unique way. Loren's testimony illustrates the frequently close connection between speaking in tongues and divine healing.

(2) In his early 20s, Dennis Balcome was attending an independent Pentecostal church in Almonte outside Los Angeles, when the wife of the main preacher began delivering a mesage in tongues. A congregational member gave the interpretation aloud: the gist of it was that Dennis was going to be used in a great missionary work in Communist China. An American Jew who spoke Hebrew and just happened to be be present in the meeting confirmed that the message had been given in fluent Hebrew and that the interpretation (translation) was totally accurate.

But Dennis got derailed from his calling for a while. He was drafted and spent a year in Vietnam in 1969. During a week of R & R in Hong Kong, he attended a local Pentecostal church and someone prophesied that God was calling him to stay there after his military service. So he studied Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese there and then pioneered a Chinese church. He told his people to think of him as an egg--white on the outside and yellow on the inside!

Soon Dennis got permission to teach English in Communist China and used that privilege to bring in a hundred thousand Bibles there. Then in the 1980s, several Christian house church leaders wanted him to teach them about Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues. After a year of resistance, the Holy Spirit fell on many and they spoke in tongues. Dennis became the first white missionary in many decades to travel to inland China. It was dangeous work: sometimes he was moved in a coffin on a cart with wheels. Once the police interrupted his meeting, but he hid in the coffin, and the cops never opened it. Other times he wore a face mask, a fur hat, and a thick, padded cotten coat. Other times still, he wore women's clothes.

There were regular dramatic healings, including many blind who received their sight. When Dennis laid his hands on people, they sometimes were so intoxicated with the Spirit that they couldn't sleep for days! Once filled with the Spirit, these new Christians couldn't stop themselves from boldly witnessing to others. Within a decade of his ministry there, one half to two thirds of the 80 million strong house church movement became Pentecostal or Charismatic!!! How crucial to Chinese church history was Dennis Balcombe's calling in a message in Hebrew tongues back in the late 1960s! Source: David Aikman, "Jesus in Beijing," pp. 271-275

(3) A young female missionary in a remote village in Uganda became gravely ill, so ill that her parents in Saskatchewan, Canada, received a telegram that she was too sick to be moved the many miles of jungle trails to the nearest doctor and would likely die shortly. This need was brought before a prayer meeting at the parents' Pentecostal church in Saskatchewan. There was a message in tongues. A visiting African student stood up and proclaimed that the message was in Swahili, his native language. The message said that God had given the young woman a healing touch and she would soon be reunited with her parents. There was great rejoicing when this prophecy came true.

We obtain our theology from the 66 books of the Bible and the correct exegesis thereof. Not from uninspired non-canonical apocryphal writings, nor from other people's 'stories' and experiences.

 

[Starcrystal]

I have AoG background so I can confirm that they have their doctrine from the scriptures.. The baptism into Christ, Gal.3:27, is referring to being born again,.. while the baptism with the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:4, refers to the speaking in tongues. Indeed when they, in Acts 10:43-48, were speaking in tongues, Peter knew that they were eligible to be baptized in water as a confirmation that they'd been baptized into Christ. Peter had said, "They received the same as we." Referring to the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4). It would be said that one who has that experience can know when another has received the same experience.

I have AoG background as well, and 18 months Berean Bible college courses in the 80s.
However ths scriptures do not ever say "THE evidence of speaking in tongues" It can be one evidence, but any gift of the Spirit can be."
Paul also makes it clear not all speak in tongues.

Consider Acts 4:31 as well:

"And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness."

Acts 19:6 states they both spake with tongues AND prophesied.
"And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

1 Corinthians 14:1
Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

Then the entire chapter goes on about tongues and prophecy..with instructions on how to properly exercise the gift of tongues, which I have seen many Christians and entire churches go way of track...especially this:

verses 27 - 28
"If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

Yet I have seen people blurt out tongues with no interpretation, or a bunch of people start speaking tongues with no interpretation, not just 2 or 3.

 

[All4Christ]

Then the entire chapter goes on about tongues and prophecy..with instructions on how to properly exercise the gift of tongues, which I have seen many Christians and entire churches go way of track...especially this:

verses 27 - 28
"If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

Yet I have seen people blurt out tongues with no interpretation, or a bunch of people start speaking tongues with no interpretation, not just 2 or 3.

At my old AoG church, that was the norm. In my first AoG church, typically there was a series of tons of people speaking in tongues one by one (occasionally with an interpreter, though there often were long periods of time with no interpretation, and then we just moved on). My second AoG church didn't do the iterative speaking in tongues, but rather had everyone speak in tongues at once, rarely with interpretation. That was the standard practice there. Plus - I know from people confiding in me (and myself) that some people felt pressured into "speaking in tongues" when they didn't have the gift themselves.

 

[Deadworm]

We obtain our theology from the 66 books of the Bible and the correct exegesis thereof. Not from uninspired non-canonical apocryphal writings, nor from other people's 'stories' and experiences.

OK, we've established that you don't test your pontifications with modern critical NT commentaries. So you arbitrarily dismiss the implicit parallelism of "tongues of men and of angels" and the ancient Jewish parallel that implies that Job's daughters spoke in angelic tongues; and you do so, despite the fact that Acts 2 provides the only clear NT example of tongues spoken in a human language!

Thus, you demonstrate a lack of awareness of how modern biblical scholarship is done. It is not a question of whether the Testament of Job is divinely inspired; it is a question of what biblical terminology means in ancient near eastern culture. To determine the meaning and range of concepts, we need to consult other Jewish literature from that era.

Similarly, To my comment about Paul's distinction between his opinion and divine authorization, (1 Corinthians 7:6) you again try to make Paul say what you want him to say rather than what he obviously does say. Swordsman: "Really? He wanted everyone to be single and nobody to get married?" I'm afraid so. Read the text:
"This I say by way of concession, not of command: I wish that ALL were as I myself am...To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried , as I am (7:6, 8)."

 

[Jezmeyah]

As much as I now disagree with the classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence, where the the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is to be received sometime after our intial conversion, I still have a lot of sympathy for those who hold to this position. For most of us who were empowered to speak in tongues sometime after our initital conversion experience,where we were able to give praise to the Father as we prayed in the Spirit (tongues) for the first time, for most this can be a very dramatic experience, where we are left with no doubt that the presence of the Holy Spirit is active and powerful within and amongst us.

With reference to Gal 3:27, it seems that most AoG scholars (classic-Pentecostals) now acknowledge that Paul's writings do not provide any suggestion or hint of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit being seperate from our initial conversion experience, where they now increasingly base their support from within Acts. This is why the classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence is deemed to be based on Lukan and not Pauline theology, though I would state that even here the classic-Pentecostal has misread Luke's material.

You may be right on that, I really couldn't confirm or deny it.

I came from a mainline church doctrinal background, and found myself eligible for the AoG theology after I'd received the speaking in tongues. That, is a certain kind of subsequence.

 

[swordsman1]

So you arbitrarily dismiss the implicit parallelism of "tongues of men and of angels" and the ancient Jewish parallel that implies that Job's daughters spoke in angelic tongues; and you do so, despite the fact that Acts 2 provides the only clear NT example of tongues spoken in a human language!

Yes it is absolutely wrong to allow uninspired ancient Jewish folklore to influence our theology. We may study other ancient literature for lexical purposes to obtain a better handle of the word usage of the time, but never to let the writings themselves influence our theology which must come from scripture alone. Even if the Testament of Job was divinely inspired and canonical, Job's wife tying multicolored cords around her breasts to enable her to speak in the language of angels would have no relevance to the gift of tongues which is purely a New Testament phenomenon.

Swordsman: "Really? He wanted everyone to be single and nobody to get married?" I'm afraid so. Read the text:
"This I say by way of concession, not of command: I wish that ALL were as I myself am...To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried , as I am (7:6, 8)."

You seriously believe Paul realistically wanted all Christians to remain unmarried and never have children? Paul was speaking rhetorically, not realistically. It was an unachievable idealistic wish. That is patently obvious from the subsequent verse "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry". So clearly he didn't expect ALL Christians to remain single. In the same way, when he says "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues" he wasn't seriously expecting that to be the case. Not least because it would contradict his own teaching elsewhere where he clearly points out that not everyone has the same gift but we all have differing gifts (1 Cor 12:29-30, Rom 12:4-6, 1 Cor 12:17-20, 1 Cor 12:8-10).

 

[Jezmeyah]

I appologize for the length due to my answers

I have AoG background as well, and 18 months Berean Bible college courses in the 80s.
However ths scriptures do not ever say "THE evidence of speaking in tongues" It can be one evidence, but any gift of the Spirit can be."
Paul also makes it clear not all speak in tongues.

Surely you must know that before any believer can operate in any of the other gifts of the Spirit, they must have the evidence of speaking in tongues.

And, surely you understand from your AoG background that the apostle Paul was in that above text referring to the ministry gifts of publically speaking forth tongues that is a separate operation from every Christian believer to whom God has given without partiality, to speak in tongues.

The very example of all speaking in tongues is in evidence within the believers at Corinth.. clearly they all practiced it, yet he told them without apology, and without pride, Thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all.

Consider Acts 4:31 as well:

"And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness."

The context indicates that it is useful for any believer who might be timid about sharing their faith with anyone, especially in the face of perceived or real opposition.

Acts 19:6 states they both spake with tongues AND prophesied.
"And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

Are you giving this as an example of what you think should accompany every incidence of speaking in tongues? That would have to be an assumption on your part.

Have you not consulted every verse that speaks on the topic? On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:4, there is no indication that they all prophesied after they'd been filled with the Holy Spirit.
There are any number of other incidences that don't include prophesying when there is the report of speaking in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:1
Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

This verse indicates that prophesying does not automatically follow speaking in tongues, as I think that you are attempting to imply. But the apostle Paul encourages believers in prophesying as a goal to attain to by faith as they continue to practice the speaking in tongues.

Who is going to require the pace of that attaining such a goal? The apostle Paul didn't give any.

Then the entire chapter goes on about tongues and prophecy..with instructions on how to properly exercise the gift of tongues, which I have seen many Christians and entire churches go way of track...especially this:

verses 27 - 28
"If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

This assumes that the church is practiced enough concerning the teachings that the congregation is aware that there would be no one there who has the ministry of interpretation operating among them.

Who is to put an achievement pace on any church assembly? The believer in the pew looking with disapproval on all other believers? .. the pastor?..

Your AoG background should tell you, why Paul gives only encouragement, not disapproval, not rebuking, for those who speak in tongues to seek to be able to interpret and therefore prophesy to edify the entire congregation.

The verse about being silent and speaking to himself and to God is speaking to those who do speak with tongues, therefore following the verse, "he that speaks in tongues edifies himself."

Yet I have seen people blurt out tongues with no interpretation, or a bunch of people start speaking tongues with no interpretation, not just 2 or 3.

Since you come from an AoG background, You should recall the pastoral leadership that gives permission for such things to be allowed.

And, you should recall that it is during congregational prayer, worship and praise unto God.. which is personal and therefore does not need to be interpreted for the entire congregation to know what private matters are being communicated.

Another place where "he that speaks in tongues edifies himself" comes into practice.

Your AoG background should remind you that the stipulation of 2 or 3 to interpret at the most is to limit the offerings of what would otherwise be the unorderly multiple interpretations that would ensue.. or simply the zealous believer speaking in tongues too loudly and be mistaken for a ministry tongue.

This teaching of Paul's is according to those in the church assembly who are operating in the ministry gift of tongues.. they should either have unction of the Holy Spirit to interpret it themselves, or wait for the ministry of interpretation. If no one knows that they have such a ministry, then the church has what you describe.

Which is where the encouragement of Paul to follow after being perfected in God's love, if the Holy Spirit should grant, to operate in the ministry of interpretation.

But, with that first is experienced awkward occasions until the teachings and the faith and spiritual knowhow and growth finally produces the well sounded symphony of the operational gifts of the Spirit.

All of this is what I've learned from having an AoG background.

 

[shioks]

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1)"

Swordsman's bias against acknowledging the possibility of nonhuman languages as the referent here betrays his desire to trivialize the need for him to seek this gift (so
12:31; 14:1) and his ignorance of modern commentaries. For example, Hans Conzelman's commentary points out the Jewish background of the comment, including the Testament of Job48-50, where "Job's daughters speak in the dialect of various kinds of angels (p. 221)." So Conzelman adds, "Paul is presumably thinking realistically of the language of angels." that said, Pentecostals are sometimes inspired to speak in unknown human tongues with an incredibly edifying impact.
Here are just 3 examples.

(1) When I was 19, I joined YWAM (Youth with a Mission), a Christian organization devoted to witnessing in the streets and door to door all over the world. It founder, Loren Cunningham, was driving our bus from Winnipeg to Toronto, when he told me this story. He was visiting an Amazon tribe, hoping to find a way to share his faith beyond the usual tracts. No interpreter was yet available. So he just spoke in tongues, and the natives were shocked to hear him witness to Jesus in their language. Just then a woman with cataracts approached him. Loren realized that she wanted him to pray for her. So he laid hands on her and her cataracts vanished! This miracle opened minds to the Gospel in a unique way. Loren's testimony illustrates the frequently close connection between speaking in tongues and divine healing.

(2) In his early 20s, Dennis Balcome was attending an independent Pentecostal church in Almonte outside Los Angeles, when the wife of the main preacher began delivering a mesage in tongues. A congregational member gave the interpretation aloud: the gist of it was that Dennis was going to be used in a great missionary work in Communist China. An American Jew who spoke Hebrew and just happened to be be present in the meeting confirmed that the message had been given in fluent Hebrew and that the interpretation (translation) was totally accurate.

But Dennis got derailed from his calling for a while. He was drafted and spent a year in Vietnam in 1969. During a week of R & R in Hong Kong, he attended a local Pentecostal church and someone prophesied that God was calling him to stay there after his military service. So he studied Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese there and then pioneered a Chinese church. He told his people to think of him as an egg--white on the outside and yellow on the inside!

Soon Dennis got permission to teach English in Communist China and used that privilege to bring in a hundred thousand Bibles there. Then in the 1980s, several Christian house church leaders wanted him to teach them about Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues. After a year of resistance, the Holy Spirit fell on many and they spoke in tongues. Dennis became the first white missionary in many decades to travel to inland China. It was dangeous work: sometimes he was moved in a coffin on a cart with wheels. Once the police interrupted his meeting, but he hid in the coffin, and the cops never opened it. Other times he wore a face mask, a fur hat, and a thick, padded cotten coat. Other times still, he wore women's clothes.

There were regular dramatic healings, including many blind who received their sight. When Dennis laid his hands on people, they sometimes were so intoxicated with the Spirit that they couldn't sleep for days! Once filled with the Spirit, these new Christians couldn't stop themselves from boldly witnessing to others. Within a decade of his ministry there, one half to two thirds of the 80 million strong house church movement became Pentecostal or Charismatic!!! How crucial to Chinese church history was Dennis Balcombe's calling in a message in Hebrew tongues back in the late 1960s! Source: David Aikman, "Jesus in Beijing," pp. 271-275

(3) A young female missionary in a remote village in Uganda became gravely ill, so ill that her parents in Saskatchewan, Canada, received a telegram that she was too sick to be moved the many miles of jungle trails to the nearest doctor and would likely die shortly. This need was brought before a prayer meeting at the parents' Pentecostal church in Saskatchewan. There was a message in tongues. A visiting African student stood up and proclaimed that the message was in Swahili, his native language. The message said that God had given the young woman a healing touch and she would soon be reunited with her parents. There was great rejoicing when this prophecy came true.

I have not read the book Jesus in Beijing but I have reservation on the claim of "half to two thirds of the 80 million strong house church movement became Pentecostal or Charismatic". I said this as a person who has worked and lived in different parts of China for the last one decade and have had involved in house churches.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I have not read the book Jesus in Beijing but I have reservation on the claim of "half to two thirds of the 80 million strong house church movement became Pentecostal or Charismatic". I said this as a person who has worked and lived in different parts of China for the last one decade and have had involved in house churches.

That has certainly been my observation, as well, having also taught the Bible among various house churches in China. Although pentecostalism, as well as contemporary American Christianity, are making strong inroad among Chinese Christians, the majority have not completely embraced these by any stretch of the imagination.