Signing in tongues!?!

[JimB]

Since Pentecostals believe that tongues is THE “initial physical evidence” of the Baptism (i.e., initial filling) of the Spirit, I have often wondered how it would be evidenced if it was a person who only spoke, say, Cantonese or some remote dialect on a South Seas island, who was filled in a English-speaking American church. How would we know if he was speaking in tongues or Cantonese? How would it be “evidence”?

I have also wondered how we could possibly know (evidence) whether or not a deaf-mute person is speaking in tongues. Or, how a person without a physical tongue (and there are people born that way as well as people whose tongues are in paralysis or have been severed) could possible “speakin tongues”. Would they “sign” in tongues, I used to joke.

But someone has thought this thing through and written a serious and studied article on the subject. No kidding! Cheryl A. Taylor, D.Min., Adviser and Adjunct Professor, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary has presented a paper entitled “The Deaf and the Initial Physical Evidence”. The article can be found at this link: http://www.agts.edu/encounter/articles/2004_summer/taylor.htm

She believes signing is a valid way of “speaking in tongues.” Her conclusion: “This study would in no way indicate that speaking in unknown signed tongues is the only possibility for deaf people. Problems will arise if individuals say this is the only evidence of deaf people being filled with the Holy Spirit. When a deaf individual is baptized in the Holy Spirit, the initial physical evidence may be speaking in unknown signed tongues or in unknown audible tongues. The point is simply that it appears this passage by no means intends to limit the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit to an audible tongue only.It would appear that signed glossolalia should be affirmed. It is valid historically, practically, and biblically. It has the potential to be a powerful manifestation of the Spirit for deaf people. Perhaps by this discussion, an honest question about glossolalia for the deaf can be answered. Perhaps also some deaf people themselves, who have assumed their deafness puts the Pentecostal experience beyond their reach, may be encouraged to continue seeking this promise of God. These experiences may be signaling a time of revival among the deaf and a cause for great rejoicing. May the Church today experience the New Testament promise being fulfilled among its deaf members. May God’s Spirit be poured out upon all flesh.”

Since I do not believe tongues is the “intital physical evidence” of being the infilling of the Holy Spirit, I have no trouble disagreeing with her conclusions and even find her position ludicrous.

What do you think?

\o/

 

[Shalia]

Um... give me a few minutes to get over being flabbergasted. And maybe I'll form an opinion. I don't doubt that God can do anything, but I'm not entirely sure I'm buying this.

 

[JimB]

Um... give me a few minutes to get over being flabbergasted. And maybe I'll form an opinion. I don't doubt that God can do anything, but I'm not entirely sure I'm buying this.

One person who is familiar with the article carried it to another logical problem that “tongues as the only initial evidence” of the initial infilling of the Spirit would have with these hypothetical (but potentially real) situations. They wanted to know, How would a blind Christian know a mute person was signing in tongues? There would be no visible, vocal or aural evidence possible.

\o/

 

[Asaph]

It's amazing the lengths we humans will go to walk by sight instead of by faith.

Somebody once told me that if I wanted to ruin a persons walk with Christ, just pay their way through seminary. That seems more true every day.

Asaph

 

[riverpastor]

Just reading the post, Jim, brings up part of the point of the position of speaking in tongues as being physical evidence: that it may (or may not be) the "INITIAL" evidence.

Which is to say that there are certainly other evidences of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. But at the point of "entry" into this spiritual spectrum called the "infilling of the Holy Spirit", it appears throughout biblical context that speaking in tongues accompanied this experience in God, thus, I assume, the reasoning behind church history-makers of the past calling it the "initial" evidence.

The word "initial", obviously, does not appear in scripture text. So it is by conclusion of those who decided to label speaking in tongues, as such, as the INITIAL evidence, or the "beginning" evidence.

I believe that speaking in tongues is a part of the infilling, and that, eventually, one will speak in tongues as he/she yields to the Holy Spirit.

This is not to say that I am in the process of starting a new theology of the "eventual" evidence of being filled with the Spirit.

But, obviously to bring up the subject of "evidence" itself, says that we are addressing and confronting the fact that we admit to a manifestation which is directly related or involved in the infilling of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.

 

[riverpastor]

They wanted to know, How would a blind Christian know a mute person was signing in tongues? There would be no visible, vocal or aural evidence possible.

\o/

But it would be evidence to those who saw and heard...

Maybe we should also heal the blind and deaf when they get saved so that when they are filled with the Holy Spirit, that it would produce the "proper evidence".

Darn it! Started another new theology: The PROPER evidence of being filled with the Spirit!

Or

the POLITICALLY CORRECT evidence of being filled with the Spirit...

 

[JimB]

I used to say that my philosophy of life was “If it don’t fit, force it.”

Maybe that spilled over into my theology, too. Maybe, even, it spills over into all our theologies. First, we adopt a premise (doctrine), find it appealing and defensible, and then commit to it. Then, along comes an objection that makes our doctrine look weak or illogical. Because we have committed to it, we begin a process of trying to make the illogical logical and forcing it to fit our premise, our theology. I call this “If-It-Don’t-Fit-Force-It” Theology.

When our doctrine is threatened we instinctively try to redefine words, hunt for more acceptable translations, attack our opponent, deny inconsistency – anything and everything but admit that, maybe, we need to rethink our position.

I am as guilty as the next person, so I am not pointing at you.

Perhaps this is what has happened with the “tongues as the initial physical evidence” believers. Their entire premise is built, not on what scripture explicitly says, but on what it infers. You know, since there is evidence in Acts that (almost) all people spoke in tongues in the narratives when they were first filled with the Spirit, then, ergo, it must be concluded that tongues must be the evidence of experience. The problem is that there is no scripture – not one - that directly supports the doctrine. It is all based on inferences from narrative biblical literature. And IMO you cannot build a stable doctrine on narrative.

Unfortunately, Pentecostal theologs have done just that and have constructed a logically indefensible “tongues as the only evidence” doctrine. The article in the OP link is a case in point. If it don’t fit, force it.

Some Pentecostal friends of mine are reexamining their position on this and are agreeing that, for the most part, it the “tongues as the only evidence” doctrine is vulnerable and have modified their position, bringing them closer to Charismatics that have long seen the inconsitency of their position.

What do you think?

\o/

 

[foursquareman]

Though I am Pentecostal, my denomination does not believe Toungues is the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit. I always thought Jesus taught us to test things by their fruits, and not to seek signs. So I believe that evidence of the Baptism is the Fruit of the Spirit.

Having said that, I wouldn't put it past the Holy Spirit to give someone a gift of a heavenly signing language.

 

[CelineDion]

ugh...im shocked at this. But i to am pentecostal/messianic, i think tongues is one bit of evidence but the fruits tell the tale.

 

[SOLDOUT4HIM]

I believe that God could very well use signing as a way for the deaf/mute to speak in tounges, but I like the idea of them being healed, yay! NEways, I've felt many times in worship that I was supposed to use ASL. I really want to learn it. I think it can be a truly awesome ministry. Oh, and BTW God can do anything He wants. I also don't really believe the initial evidence stuff either.

 

[Christian Dude]

I'm Pentecostal also but tongues is an outward sign of the manifestation/baptism of the Holy Spirit, as well as Prophecy, Exhortation, and more. The fruits that are reaped from what a person has sown is the main thing everyone should look at to see if it is a true baptism of the Holy Spirit as well as an initial evidence of it.

 

[Blade]

It's amazing the lengths we humans will go to walk by sight instead of by faith.

Somebody once told me that if I wanted to ruin a persons walk with Christ, just pay their way through seminary. That seems more true every day.

Asaph

Not sure how you ment that but I could not stop laughing.. If I took it wrong sorry..

 

[HGFireStarter2k3]

Hmm, "signing in tongues," eh? I wonder what that would look like in a Holy Ghost meeting. I'm just curious, what would happen if a signing "message in tongues" came forth, who would interpret it?

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical of this, especially since I've been made aware of deaf-mute people who have received the baptism in the Holy Ghost, and they verbally SPOKE in other tongues, when they received. I think Dennis Bennett, in his book The Holy Spirit and You, touches on it briefly. I do know that various Pentecostals that especially emphasize the initial evidence doctrine (in particular, Oneness churches, like the United Pentecostal Church International, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, etc.), pray deaf-mutes through to a vocal tongues-evidenced Spirit-baptism. I'm sure they wouldn't buy this "signing in tongues" business. I don't see an iota of scripture for it.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

Really have to think about that some. What would the manifestation be? I am pentecostal (actually an independant pentecostal church), and from my understanding of Scripture, there is in ALL, not most, but ALL of the more than 7 accounts in the Bible of people being filled with the Holy Spirit, there was an IMMEDIATE and INITIAL evidence, manifestation if you like, of that great inner work of the Holy Spirit.

On the basis of very strong Biblical support, I would say no manifestation, then there has been no baptism. A good verse to contemplate is Acts 9:20.

Now the question is "what is that initial evidence"? And I think this is where the Pentecostal doctrine of tongues as THE (and only) intial evidence is wrong. When you look at those many Bible accounts, you find 'tongues', you find 'prophecy', you find 'bold preaching'. At least 3 different manifestations. All verbal, all proclaiming Jesus, all giving glory and praise to God. Just as in Acts 9:20.

I have a fuller discourse on this, in THIS THREAD
Don't really want to repeat all of that here. So how would our deaf&mute or blind brother or sister manifest? Firstly the manifestation is supernatural, but subject to the control of the individual, so I would not be surprised to see the mute speaking or the blind seeing, however if that did not happen then what?

I personally can't comprehend 'signing' in tongues, as the language would have no earthly language signed equivalent, until there was an interpretation. However, I could easily see biblical support for a believer 'signing' a prophecy as a result of Holy Spirit baptism, or bolding proclaiming Jesus with their 'signing'.

I could also imagine the person, dancing before the Lord as an expression of praise and worship. I could believe in a blind person also doing this and supernaturally not running into anything.

Now if you could 'sign' in tongues, what would be really cool would be if a blind person brought the interpretation, having not been able to see the signing. Now that would be God, and God alone. Of course the interpretation would be subject to the discernment of those with the gifting, to ensure that it was in line with the Word of God. I do not see this as impossible, or even without Biblical support.

Wherever, there is a Holy Spirit infilling, there is a proclaimation and honouring of Jesus. The how is not that relevant. What is important is that it is a work of the Spirit, and God is glorified.

 

[riverpastor]

Jim, I hope you know I was only jesting in my second post.

As for me, I am very neutral on this point. I honestly do not have an opinion one way or another concerning "initial evidence"...

I hate to see us bashing "tongues" just for the sake of bashing "tongues"...

I merely pointed out that you pointed out that what we were discussing was tongues being the INITIAL evidence...

No where in the NT do the writers specifically say that speaking in tongues is the INITIAL evidence of the infilling...

I believe it to be an evidence of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, just as the fruits are of the Life of Christ within us...

 

[JimB]

I'm Pentecostal also but tongues is an outward sign of the manifestation/baptism of the Holy Spirit, as well as Prophecy, Exhortation, and more. The fruits that are reaped from what a person has sown is the main thing everyone should look at to see if it is a true baptism of the Holy Spirit as well as an initial evidence of it.

Hey Dude,

Thanx for sticking in here and dukeing it out with us old veternas. You’re quite a remarkable 17-year-old. I do not want to pour water on your enthusiasm, but want you to see that there is more to the picture than you may have been shown.

Only Pentecostals (and not all of them) believe that a person must speak in tongues when they are filled with the Holy Spirit for the first time. This is because they wish to identify with an experience that was meant to happen only once, the coming of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

One Pentecostal writer has realized this in a commentary on Acts:

“There will never be another Pentecost. It was a unique event and a mixture of climactic events that changed world history. We can enjoy the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, but we cannot enjoy another Pentecost, and we show our lack of understanding of Pentecost if we suggest otherwise. For Pentecost was a mixture of empowering, of declaration of a new covenant and a new beginning for the world, and of an outward proclamation to the world that the “age to come” had arrived. (Matthew, Mark and John would not have denied this. They merely felt that they had shown the same reality in a different way. Some emphasize the Holy Spirit, others the risen Christ. This also happens among Christians in the present day. We must beware of condemning people, or suggesting that they are lacking, because of terminology).”

IOW, Pentecost was a unique historical event never to be repeated. It was a distinctive, unique, matchless, unparalleled event because:

1. It was the inaugural appearance of the Holy Spirit and birth of the Church.
2. The event was the fulfillment of a direct prophecy of Jesus (Acts 1.5).
3. According to Peter (although his interpretation has been questioned), the event was a direct fulfillment of Joel chapter 2.
4. The coming of the Spirit was accompanied by an aural sound “rushing wind”.
5. The coming of the Spirit was accompanied by visible spectacle “tongues like fire”.
6. The Day of Pentecost is a unique historical event is the way Scripture connects Pentecost with Christ’s glorification or enthronement at the right hand of God. (Jn. 7:39). In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter explains what occurred: “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear” (Ac. 2:33). Pentecost is treated in Scripture as an historical events in salvation-history, never to be repeated.
7. The “tongues” that were spoken were recognizable foreign languages, not “unknown tongues”.
8. The event resulted in the conversion of 3,000 people.

So, to be truly “Pentecostal” (IMO) would mean that all of the above, not just one of them, has to take place. In other words, why do we just single out tongues as the only evidence of the Pentecostal experience?

\o/

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

Only Pentecostals (and not all of them) believe that a person must speak in tongues when they are filled with the Holy Spirit for the first time. This is because they wish to identify with an experience that was meant to happen only once, the coming of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

One Pentecostal writer has realized this in a commentary on Acts:

“There will never be another Pentecost. It was a unique event ...

IOW, Pentecost was a unique historical event never to be repeated. It was a distinctive, unique, matchless, unparalleled event because:Pentecost is treated in Scripture as an historical events in salvation-history, never to be repeated.

The “tongues” that were spoken were recognizable foreign languages, not “unknown tongues”.

So, to be truly “Pentecostal” (IMO) would mean that all of the above, not just one of them, has to take place. In other words, why do we just single out tongues as the only evidence of the Pentecostal experience?

\o/

Hi Jim,
I don't doubt that some believe that (tongues only), which is problematic. It is also quite clear that "the day of Pentecost" was incredibly significant, and as the 'beginning' it is a one off. However it signified the beginning of something that is on-going and has not stopped.


It was true for Paul, it was true for the Ephesian believers, it was true for the Corintian believers and also for Cornelius household. The experience of Holy Spirit infilling SUBSEQUENT to salvation, was NOT a one off, as the rest of Acts, attests to.


Also while the 'tongues' of Acts 2, where understood by various language groups, there is no indication that the speaker (or speakers) understood that they were speaking an earthly language. Paul in Corintians also clearly defines more than one type of tongues.


Pentecostals (or any other group) are wrong if they think that 'the day of Pentecost' is the only way God can do it. God is sovereign, and not locked into a box on how this promise is to be fulfilled in an individual's life. This is why 'tongues' is AN initial evidence, but it is not the one and only evidence. Prophesying is just as valid, so is boldly preaching or witnessing.


What Pentecostals say that is correct, is that there is an initial evidence that can be observed. This IS supported by Scripture. Tongues, while the most common manifestation is not the only one.

 

[Christian Dude]

Actually... There is evidence in the Bible that the Revival that is about to come that was fore-told in scripture along with the future generation which is taking place right now with people who are tired of just sitting there and eating the stale bread that comes from knowing about God but not from knowing God personally. I for one am tired of going to church and seeing routine things and I'm praying on it and am in the process of letting the Holy Spirit use me at the church I am attending which is kind of a traditional Pentecostal Holiness church, to help the youth step forth as mighty warriors for Christ.

Whereas I do agree with you Jim, there will be no other Pentecost... But yet there will be something far greater than Pentecost... The revival that is soon to hit will prove that... remember this time every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess.

 

[JimB]

Actually... There is evidence in the Bible that the Revival that is about to come that was fore-told in scripture along with the future generation which is taking place right now with people who are tired of just sitting there and eating the stale bread that comes from knowing about God but not from knowing God personally. I for one am tired of going to church and seeing routine things and I'm praying on it and am in the process of letting the Holy Spirit use me at the church I am attending which is kind of a traditional Pentecostal Holiness church, to help the youth step forth as mighty warriors for Christ.

Whereas I do agree with you Jim, there will be no other Pentecost... But yet there will be something far greater than Pentecost... The revival that is soon to hit will prove that... remember this time every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess.

Brian, You are right, some see “evidence in the Bible” of an ene-time revival, the “latter rain” (e.g., Joel 2), but it is purely a matter of interpretation and it based on the belief that this is the “last days”. It is a uniquely Pentecostal doctrine. Personally, I do not believe the Bible teaches an “end-time revival” - a second Pentecost. So this becomes a moot point for me.

I maintain that what happened at Pentecost (Acts 2) was unique and cannot be duplicated for all the reasons I mentioned in post #16 above.

Jim\o/

 

[Father Rick]

Ok... I HAVE to jump in here...

What most of you don't know about me is that I am/was an interpreter for the deaf. While I am not actively interpretting now, since I am the one preaching, I did interpret for a large church for a number of years while in seminary.


I have seen/heard the deaf be baptized in the Spirit and speak in tongues audibly. That's really interesting, since they don't know how loud they are and can be REALLY loud sometimes.

There are documented cases where hearing people have been baptized in the Spirit and began to sign. In one particularly notable case, 2 teens at the same youth camp were on opposite sides of the building, both were 'slain in the spirit', and both began to sign the identically same thing in perfect unison even though they could no see each other so there was no way they could be copying each other.

I have had deaf give prophecies, and I had to interpret the prophecy into English for the hearing congregation.

I have also had deaf give prophetic words via TTD (teletype) since that is the only way they could communicate with the hearing people receiving the word.

I have never known of a deaf person 'speaking in tongues' by signing a different sign language than they know (for those who don't know, each country has it's own sign language and some are radically different from others). But I have seen the deaf, while in worship, make some very beautiful guestures of worship and praise that were not ASL. Were those a different sign language? Very possibly, but the only way one could confirm is to have someone present who reads that language. One must understand, however, that sign is an extremely concrete language with very few abstract concepts (I know of only one idiom in ASL- 'Train zoom'-- those who know ASL will know what that means, and for those who don't 'train zoom' ) so there are degrees of overlap in various sign languages as well.