Singing in tongues en masse

[Bob Carabbio]

"As we do not need to be lead or impressed to speak in tongues within a congregational meeting or to be more specific, that the Spirit does not lead us to do so,"

I Disagree completely with ALL aspects of this claim. When the Holy Spirit desires the manifestation of a gift (regardless of what it is), He "Burdens" the specific individual that HE has selected to manifest the gifting, and enables Him to perform the ministry.

That the Holy Spirit Does not lead us to manifest "tongues" in a meeting is foolishness easily dismissed by reading 1 Cor 14 without paradigmatic glasses on.

 

[Biblicist]

That the Holy Spirit Does not lead us to manifest "tongues" in a meeting is foolishness easily dismissed by reading 1 Cor 14 without paradigmatic glasses on.

This would be a good opportunity to return to my unanswered post #57, particularly as the following question (and yours above) can be answered from 1Co 14.

My questions were;

• [FONT=&quot]where we are permitted to all speak in tongues in masse[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]where tongues has ever been used to speak to a specific individual or group[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]why someone needs to feel impressed or led to pray in tongues within a congregational setting[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]where the Scriptures have ever equated tongues + interpretation = prophecy[/FONT]

Bob, you may feel that this is foolishness in your eyes but I know that I have been able to avail myself of a great deal of contemporary research on this question which has allowed me to consider my view as being unassailable; so as I have mentioned previously, the onus is now on you to prove from 1Co 14 that my position cannot be defended.

 

[stormdancer0]

Well, as for the first question, we are not. Neither are we specifically "permitted" to wear shoes in church, or drive cars to church. Speaking in tongues in a group is also not forbidden, when done in personal praise. And yes, you can get so wrapped up in worship in a group that you spontaneously speak in tongues in worship.

Second, the first episode of tongues was directed to the Jews visiting Jerusalem during Pentecost. Also, why would there be a gift of interpretation if there were no message to give, either to a person or a group? The gift of interpretation would be useless, according to your reasoning.

Third, I have felt compelled to pray in tongues several times in a congregational setting. Again, so wrapped up in worship that I spontaneously burst out in tongues.

Fourth, I need to look into that, I can't remember exactly where. Paul is saying that it is good to speak in tongues, but he'd rather we prophesy, UNLESS there is an interpretation, which would edify the whole congregation the same as a prophecy would.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"This would be a good opportunity to return to my unanswered post #57, particularly as the following question (and yours above) can be answered from 1Co 14."

My questions were;

"where we are permitted to all speak in tongues in masse"

Acts 2:4 is one recorded instance.

where tongues has ever been used to speak to a specific individual or group

1 Cor 14:26,27 Case closed.

why someone needs to feel impressed or led to pray in tongues within a congregational setting

It would be because The Holy Spirit decided to burden a person to manifest the gift, of course. That would be 1 Cor 12:11

"Where the Scriptures have ever equated tongues + interpretation = prophecy"

It's contextually obvious in 1 cor 14:5

"Bob, you may feel that this is foolishness in your eyes"

True - and I said so plainly and signed my name to it.

"but I know that I have been able to avail myself of a great deal of contemporary research on this question which has allowed me to consider my view as being unassailable"

Well, OF COURSE YOU DO!!!! Everybody here thinks their view is "unassailable". It goes with the territory, don'cha know!!!

"the onus is now on you to prove from 1Co 14 that my position cannot be defended."

No, silly - there IS NO "onus". You have stated your "opinion" in detail, and I have stated Mine in detail. And the readers of the posts will decide for themselves which side is more credible. That's how "Forums work", y'all!!

Simple as that.

 

[stormdancer0]

"but I know that I have been able to avail myself of a great deal of contemporary research on this question which has allowed me to consider my view as being unassailable"

Quite honestly, I would trust "contemporary research" less than i would any other kind. Today's "researchers" are far more interested in destroying faith than encouraging it.

So, your view is unassailable? Unarguable? Hate to burst your bubble, but there's no such thing. Any unbeliever would argue with you. Heck, I'll argue with you just for fun - I love to debate.

Why do you think that Bob (or anyone else, for that matter) has any kind of onus to prove anything? Who are you, exactly, that others are under onus to prove you wrong, just because they disagree with you?

Your position will always be able to be defended. Not necessarily well, or effectively - I am not even sure what you two are arguing about. The only way your position "cannot be defended" is if you refuse to defend it.

 

[Biblicist]

Quest: "where we are permitted to all speak in tongues in masse"
Reply: Acts 2:4 is one recorded instance.

It could be difficult to equate the first collection of the Saints when they received the Holy Spirit with the normal every occurrence of the Church – not that I would particularly mind seeing the Holy Spirit falling this way in our regular Sunday meetings.

If nothing else, as Paul did not come onto the scene for a few years this means that the Spirits injunction forbidding speaking in masse in tongues during a congregational meeting had not yet been stipulated. Adding to this, as the Day of Pentecost was a unique and an unrepeatable event within the Scriptures then I suspect that we might be able to consider it to be a singular event designed to announce a new age. Unless of course one assumes that whenever someone speaks in tongues at the end of a congregational meeting that we should also witness the Holy Spirit falling upon the individual with flames of fire and a sound of a rushing wind.

Quest: “Where tongues has ever been used to speak to a specific individual or group”
Reply: 1 Cor 14:26,27 Case closed.

[FONT=&quot]14:26 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]What then shall we say, brothers? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When you come together, [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]everyone has a hymn, [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]or a word of instruction, [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]a revelation, [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]a tongue [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]or an interpretation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.[/FONT]

To my knowledge, everyone agrees that a word of instruction, a revelation and an interpretation are words that are certainly directed toward the congregation or an individual. When it comes to a tongue, Paul does not say that a tongue is directed to the congregation or even to the Lord in this text – unless of course one is prepared to say that we also sing hymns to each other and not to the Lord.

Quest: "Where the Scriptures have ever equated tongues + interpretation = prophecy"
Reply: It's contextually obvious in 1 cor 14:5

14:5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Even though I also said much the same thing for years, which was not hard considering that this is one of those beliefs that you hear on virtually every street corner; but nothing within the context suggests that this is the case. All that Paul is doing is saying that both prophecy and tongues + interpretation have edification value; prophecy edifies us by the Spirit speaking to the group or to an individual whereas with tongues + interpretation we gain edification through understanding what the Spirit is saying to the Father.

Statement: "but I know that I have been able to avail myself of a great deal of contemporary research on this question which has allowed me to consider my view as being unassailable"

Reply: Well, OF COURSE YOU DO!!!! Everybody here thinks their view is "unassailable". It goes with the territory, don'cha know!!!

Even though I am thoroughly convinced that my position is solid – you have still made a good point.

Statement: "the onus is now on you to prove from 1Co 14 that my position cannot be defended."

Reply: No, silly - there IS NO "onus". You have stated your "opinion" in detail, and I have stated Mine in detail. And the readers of the posts will decide for themselves which side is more credible. That's how "Forums work", y'all!!

Far from being the case! This was the second time that I requested that you address these four vital questions and of course it is up to others to assess the validity of our interactions; as you may be able to see from my replies, I have no doubt that my view still holds the high ground.

…………………….

I enjoy our interactions, as in my view you seem to reflect the majority opinion on many given issues that are found within the Pentecostal movement; this means that most of your opinions are not unique to yourself but are those that are generally held by the majority. If I had of read many of your posts/replies say a decade or so ago, then I probably would have agreed with you on more points, but as I have spent a lot of time reconsidering what I thought was good doctrine in light of some solid work that has been undertaken by numerous commentators, then I simply had to reconsider and let go of some of my once cherished positions.

 

[Biblicist]

Quite honestly, I would trust "contemporary research" less than i would any other kind. Today's "researchers" are far more interested in destroying faith than encouraging it.

So you are saying that everyone who has obtained a degree from a Christian institution in some area of Theology or mission over the past few decades is a heretic and desires to destroy our faith – maybe we read different books and listen to different commentators.

So, your view is unassailable? Unarguable? Hate to burst your bubble, but there's no such thing. Any unbeliever would argue with you. Heck, I'll argue with you just for fun - I love to debate.

Well, my Bible tells me that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for my sins. If you feel that this is not unassailable then are you maybe agreeing with those who say that we Christians are arrogant because we hold steadfastly to the absolute of God’s Word; of course they also say that Jesus was merely a good man and that maybe Mohammad is also a prophet of God – see my point!

Why do you think that Bob (or anyone else, for that matter) has any kind of onus to prove anything? Who are you, exactly, that others are under onus to prove you wrong, just because they disagree with you?

The onus is ALWAYS on the other to prove key points, not matter what the question may be; which is why I pointed out that these four points were need of a reply – simply the way it is.

 

[poetforjesus]

If the whole church is speaking in tongues,then it must be the Holy Spirit's will for that to happen. Enjoy the beauty of it! Plus, we shouldn't be worrying about what non-believers think of us. We should only care about what God thinks of us!

 

[tturt]

A few more examples of tongues en mass - not in the Upper Room:
1-Cornelius’ house filled with friends and family who were baptized. Acts 10:44-46 Acts 10:44 ”While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."
2- ---Disciples of Ephesus Acts 19:2 "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” 6”And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7 And all the men were about twelve.”
3 -not Acts 2 but Acts 4 Peter, John, and their own company v23 31 "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."

All tongues can be interpreted I Cor 14:13

 

[Biblicist]

A few more examples of tongues en mass - not in the Upper Room:
1-Cornelius’ house filled with friends and family who were baptized. Acts 10:44-46 Acts 10:44 ”While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."

As with the inauguration of the Holy Spirit within the New Covenant on the Day of Pentecost, this event which occurred as a formal meeting in a private home could not be deemed to be a congregational meeting. I suppose one could say that once the Centurion, his family and friends were filled with the Spirit that this could constitute a congregational meeting but this would still be stretching the point a bit. Another important factor is that tongues were not enabled with any expectation of them being interpreted as these Latins were simply praising God in the Spirit.

I tend to wonder how the congregational meetings were run considering that Paul had not yet come onto the scene which meant that the Spirit had probably not yet told the Twelve how things were to be done in order; this was to be Pauls role sometime in the future.

A question can be asked, when has anyone ever heard a congregation speak in known human languages within a congregational meeting and for that matter – all at once, this is another key aspect of the Day of Pentecost which separates it from the congregational setting.

2- ---Disciples of Ephesus Acts 19:2 "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” 6”And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7 And all the men were about twelve.”

The immediate question to be asked is where did Paul meet these unregenerated disciples? In all probability he may have met them in someones home maybe for an evening meal to discuss where they were at, or maybe during the midday Mediterranean siesta. Again this can hardly be construed to be a believers congregational setting.

3 -not Acts 2 but Acts 4 Peter, John, and their own company v23 31 "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."

I can’t see any connection with tongues being spoken here in masse, or for that matter where tongues were even employed at all.

Tongues are a sign of believers to unbelievers

You seem to have inadvertently altered the wording of 1Co 14:22 but I’m not sure for what purpose. The Scriptures tell us that tongues are a negative sign to the unbeliever as they will not be able to understand them. When tongues are improperly employed in masse then this will incline the unbeliever to think that the congregation is essentially mad and this will end up pushing them away from the Gospel.

Mark 16:17 “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;”

True...but what is the connection between Mark 15 with the improper use of uninterpreted tongues within a congregational setting?

 

[stormdancer0]

So you are saying that everyone who has obtained a degree from a Christian institution in some area of Theology or mission over the past few decades is a heretic and desires to destroy our faith – maybe we read different books and listen to different commentators.

No, that's NOT what I said. I said I trust older research than contemporary research. I think many of today's "researchers" are trying to make the Bible too complicated, and twisting it to say what they want it to say. Many, not all. Maybe not even the majority. But that has been my experience. I'm an ordained minister - ordained by both God and man. I am educated in the Bible and theology. I find more truth in the older theologists, for the most part. Please do not twist my words or take them to the extreme.

Well, my Bible tells me that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for my sins. If you feel that this is not unassailable then are you maybe agreeing with those who say that we Christians are arrogant because we hold steadfastly to the absolute of God’s Word; of course they also say that Jesus was merely a good man and that maybe Mohammad is also a prophet of God – see my point!

Just because I said his position was not assailable, does not mean I think the position is wrong. As almost any active Christian will tell you, we are argued with on an almost daily basis. Nothing is assailable, because there's always some idiot out there willing to argue with you.

The onus is ALWAYS on the other to prove key points, not matter what the question may be; which is why I pointed out that these four points were need of a reply – simply the way it is.

The only onus I accept is one given to me by God. Man will never put an onus on me. THAT, friend, is simply the way it is. It may be that I put more weight on the word "onus" than you do. We all have our own dictionaries in our minds. I take it to mean something I am required or pressed to do, with great burden. Like having an onus to pray for someone, a heavy burden for prayer. Perhaps my dictionary does not agree with yours?

 

[Biblicist]

No, that's NOT what I said. I said I trust older research than contemporary research...

You may need to define what you feel is contemporary as say against the older more dated work but for me I deem that most work (but not exclusively) that was produced prior to say 1980 as being a bit dated and quite often even redundant. Due to the wealth of material that has been written on Pneumatic topics especially on 1 Corinthians since the mid 90’s onwards, I find that I am constantly referencing material that is fairly recent from men such as Barrett, Blomberg, Carson, Fee, Garland, Winter, Witherington, Thiselton and others and to my knowledge I’m not aware that any of these men are particularly trying to derail the faith of their students.

One benefit that I do have being employed by a State University is that I have access to numerous online databases including the superb Journal of Biblical Literature along with the ability to download countless Christian scholarly e-books. There are a few other journals that I would like the university library to source but as this is a cost factor for them I don’t think that I will push my luck. I think that I will probably have to source a large overseas Christian University that will provide a higher level of access to online material but of course this will be a cost to me – but it will be worth it!
If any North American’s know of some Christian universities who provide great online access then please let me know.

Another major limitation with material that was produced say prior to the 80’s was that there was very little solid material being produced by Pentecostals, Charismatics and with the increasing number of those who deem themselves to be open-but-cautious; and they have essentially become open to the Full Gospel simply by re-reading the Scriptures in the light of a Spirit-hermeneutic. When it comes to 1 Corinthians alone there are numerous important passages that have not been adequately addressed prior to the 80’s and for that matter even the late 90’s. When I do come across the occassional article that was produced decades ago, I often consider them to be fairly primitive and lacking in substance - but this is certainly not always the case.

One major development with Paul’s writings is that since the 80’s there has been a wealth of material produced that addresses the socio-rhetorical aspects of his writings and to my knowledge (which may be deficient) there has not been any serious material written on this topic before this period. When one understands the socio-rhetorical aspect of 1 & 2 Corinthians in particular it makes these two books far clearer.

Just because I said his position was not assailable,

Well actually you used this term in a very broad manner but I accept your correction.

The only onus I accept is one given to me by God. Man will never put an onus on me. THAT, friend, is simply the way it is.

Whenever a discussion is held on any given subject, when a person provides a summary of the key points then the other person is somewhat obligated to adequately address them – otherwise meaningful debate is relegated to being merely argumentative diatribe.

 

[stormdancer0]

I do some of my research with the writings of Polycarp, Tertrillian, and other 2nd - 4th century writers. I have a CD with all of Henry's commentary, as well.

But mainly, I use the concordance to get the meaning of words in Greek/Hebrew, and do my own research. I see no reason to rely on the research of others, because God has given me a brain as well. The Lord will show me what I need to know.

I also enjoy Beth Moore's writings, as well as Max Lucado. I know they are not academic type theologians. But the Bible was not written to theologians, but to ordinary people.

I don't have a problem with Theology, but I never let it get in the way of hearing from God through His Word.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"I don't have a problem with Theology, but I never let it get in the way of hearing from God through His Word."

I like this!!!

I think, though, that it would be more accurate to say that the Bible was written BY "Ministers" - TO "Ministers" - who are "ordinary people", since we ordinary folks ARE the Church.

 

[Biblicist]

"I don't have a problem with Theology, but I never let it get in the way of hearing from God through His Word."

I like this!!!

I think, though, that it would be more accurate to say that the Bible was written BY "Ministers" - TO "Ministers" - who are "ordinary people", since we ordinary folks ARE the Church.

Even though I let the first statement slide by when it was posted, I am stunned that Christians can so easily denigrate Gods Word as if it is merely a collection of quaint sayings where we are only required to pick and choose what suits us and when it comes to the things that we don't like or understand, then all we have to do is to simply make it to mean whatever we want it to mean.

As for Paul being a mere average church leader; anyone who knows even a morsel about the person of Paul will readily realise both from what we know of Paul and with the style of his writings that he is indeed an academic and one of the highest calibre.

As for defining Theology which is simply the study of God, how can we let the study of God get in the way of hearing from God through His Word?

 

[stormdancer0]

Sorry, Biblicist. I meant systematic theology, i.e. other men's opinions of what they think the Bible is saying. To study the Bible, I prefer to get my knowledge first hand - from the Bible.

Paul was very academic, well-taught, and wrote very well. Therefore, I do not need much man-made theology. He was anything but "average." However, his writings were written to average men, in less-than-perfect churches. I believe he adjusted his writings according to his audience, though none of his writings could be considered "dumbed down."

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"how can we let the study of God get in the way of hearing from God through His Word?"

Look around at the state of the "Visible church" in 2012, and see how easy it was for THEM to do that.

 

[Nikos7]

There is nothing wrong with up to date theology. In fact it is far better than some of the old stuff. It is important however, to be careful who you are reading and studying. However, everything we read and study must be in harmony with the Word of God for it is the final authority.
I would never accuse Paul of adjusting his writings to the level of the listener. Paul wrote the scriptures as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. When we read the Bible it is given to us as the Holy Spirit gave it to the writer. Praise God I don't have to feel that I am missing anything.

 

[hopeinGod]

I believe there exists within Pentecostal and Charismatic circles a conscious effort to give less value and attention to theology and more value and attention to what has been labelled revelation knowledge. Especially today, what is getting the most notice by the congregants is not theological training. Instead, whatever form the declared present move of God or movement has taken -- that is where the focus is.

Movements are being bred in a fairly predictable pattern. Once falling down in the spirit lost its newness, then laughing and barking came along, and now the newest movement, "impartation," with its most overused word, "glory," has taken over.

The presentation of a systematic study of the first principles of God is not on the agenda -- has it ever been? -- but rather a repetitious expression of the points held within the present movement.

The reason for this, I suppose, is due to a desire to live more in the preceeding word of God. Although this is indeed a good desire, it is taking place in the absence of providing believers with a well balanced and researched foundation. Keeping members stirred is the goal today, not getting them studied and deeply rooted in all that the Word contains.

 

[Nikos7]

How strange that some believe that falling in the Spirit and other unusual mainfestations of the Spirit are new. Yet history is replete with these manifestations and a study of the early revivals in the United States will prove this to be true. The Pentecostal movement is based on solid footing and there are many Bible scholars within the movement to give the guidance and direction needed. I am sick and tired of those non-believers coming along and acting as if there is no real pentecostal scholarship when in our pentecostal colleges and universities there are some outstanding men who are highly educated in the biblical languages. Pentecostals do not believe that the creeds and historical documents of the Church and the Bible are only to be read. Pentecostals believe that we are to experience the Power of God in our lives. If experience is done away with all that is left are the dusty tomes upon the shelf af some spiritually dead and dry scholar and the Church will become lifeless.
Let the Church be alive and full and vibrant of the power of the Holy Spirit! Hallelujah!