Speak in Tongues - essential :

[1stcenturylady]

Alright, what word would you find acceptable?

-CryptoLutheran

Seeing as you do not believe the tongues we speak are the true gift of speaking in tongues, then just say "not the true gift." Let's see how it goes. Okay? The other word causes a pain in my heart for God.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Perhaps not all speak in tongues but all are given a gift for the building up of the body.

No argument from me on that.

According to scripture however - some more than others. Speaking in tongues with the interpretation for the purpose of bringing a Holy Spirit inspired prophecy is said to edify the Body of Christ.

I don't know of anyone in the world who is doing that in known human languages. They all seem to do it in unknown tongues. Which is exactly my point.

And yet you use your rationality to argue the inference for the scriptures meaning both to the original audience and now. So it seems that we are getting in your response more than the HS teaching us.

No - as I have clearly said -I see it in scripture first and it is merely verified by what I observe (and don't observe) happening in the church worldwide.

I don't know how you limit the damage of such a statement so at one time it makes you impervious to cessationists without destroying the 7 ecumenical councils that give us our Christian creeds, which were clearly teaching of men.

The ecumenical councils and various creeds are merely summations of what hopefully Spirit led Christians see in the scriptures.

They are hopefully no more only the teachings of men then is any sound systematic summation of what the scriptures teach.

Obviously we return again and again to the scriptures to verify whether the various teachings and practices of the church are correctly interpreted.

Hundreds of millions of charismatics and Pentecostals have seen again and again what I believe to be the truth of the matter.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Unfortunately you have deleted some Biblical data.

Didn't Paul say that not all speak in tongues?

If you are going to claim We must pray in tongues then do you also pick up serpents? Drink poison? Heal the sick?

Since they are contextually in the same passage and same list, you can't divorce tongues from the others.

And why use verses from Mark 16:9-20 that is agreed by most scholars, internally and externally to be a late addition. It doesn't appear in the early manuscripts (4th century). Jerome and Eusebius both say these passages are not authentic!

Personally, I believe all of the Mark passage in question. Including the non-presumptuous handling of snakes and poison. In other words, by accident as Paul was bitten and not harmed. We also know that in scripture serpents and scorpions can represent demons, and thus we have the authority to cast out demons, just as we have the authority to heal the sick.

Mark 16:16-18New King James Version (NKJV)

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

As far as the last verses in Mark being added later, they have been tested by Dr. Iran Panin and found to have the signature of God. Chuck Missler has a teaching on it below:

 

[swordsman1]

If we are to believe the statistics provided by the researchers at Wheaton College, approaching 1/3 of the church practices the charism of speaking in tongues privately in prayer and publicly in their services.

That should read: "approaching 1/3 of the church practices glossolalia privately in prayer and publicly in their services." It is nowhere near proved that the modern phenomenon is the NT gift of speaking in tongues. Even pentecostalism's leading theologian Gordon Fee admits that.

Since the scriptures tell us that no man can understand the unknown tongues spoken in Corinthians

It doesn't say "no man can understand". It says "no one understands". There is a big difference. Yes, no one understood the tongues spoken in Corinth, but that doesn't mean no man could understand it.

 

[Marvin Knox]

That should read: "approaching 1/3 of the church practices glossolalia privately in prayer and publicly in their services."

What rendition of the scriptures uses the translation "glossolalia" for the phenomenon of speaking in tongue?

If it is your opinion that tongues as practiced by the church is glossolalia or even gibberish, you are welcome to your opinion. But please don't tell me that what I said should really have used one of your words. I'll write my own posts if that's OK.

It is nowhere near proved that the modern phenomenon is the NT gift of speaking in tongues.

No one said that it was proven or even that it can be proven. In fact I believe that it can't be proven either way precisely because if it isn't a known human language. It wouldn't by it's very nature be able to be proven.

It doesn't say "no man can understand". It says "no one understands". There is a big difference. Yes, no one understood the tongues spoken in Corinth, but that doesn't mean no man could understand it.

IMO you're splitting hairs just have something to say that is argumentative.

Of course some could understand it at Corinth. Some can even understand it in Seattle, Dallas and central Africa. Those who can do so at any given time are said to have the interpretation.

I understand what you mean by the distinction between no man and no one. No man means no one on earth where as no one means no man in Corinth.

But "no man", "no women", "no child", "no one", "no two", or "no three" - it just doesn't matter much. It says nothing at all about whether or not the tongues in the Corinthian church were the languages of earth or Heaven or of men or angels.

I say, just like millions of like minded believers also say, that it makes a lot less sense to see the Holy Spirit inspiring a prophecy in the Romanian language to a person who speaks only English to bring to a congregation of Englishmen --- then it does to see the Holy Spirit inspire it and bring it through some sort of spiritual language which then needs an interpretation which only He can provide.

 

[Anto9us]

32 pages on TONGUES in Controversial Christian Theology Forum -- and we're still going -- amazing...

Sub-topics including the alleged Tripartite nature of man as Spirit Soul and Body -- the authenticity of "the long ending" of Mark -- this is beyond a THREAD; it's a SEMINARY...

 

[swordsman1]

What rendition of the scriptures uses the translation "glossolalia" for the phenomenon of speaking in tongue?

But it is not proven that the modern practice is the speaking in tongues of the bible. The commonly accepted term for the modern understanding of tongues as a non-human language is 'glossolalia'. (Glossolalia - Wikipedia). Although people frequently mix up glossolalia with xenoglossia (miraculously speaking another human language).

No one said that it was proven or even that it can be proven. In fact I believe that it can't be proven either way precisely because if it isn't a known human language. It wouldn't by it's very nature be able to be proven.

Then why make the statement that charismatics "practice the charism of speaking in tongues", if you know the modern practice it is not proven to be the NT charism?

Of course some could understand it at Corinth. Some can even understand it in Seattle, Dallas and central Africa. Those who can do so at any given time are said to have the interpretation.

There was no one interpreting at Corinth. That was Paul's objection. They were speaking tongues that no one there understood and was not interpreted.

But "no man", "no women", "no child", "no one", "no two", or "no three" - it just doesn't matter much.

My objection isn't with your use of the word "man", it is with the word "can". Paul did not say "no man can understand" as you claimed. That would imply that no man anywhere was ever able to understand. He simply said "no one understands".

It says nothing at all about whether or not the tongues in the Corinthian church were the languages of earth or Heaven or of men or angels.

I agree. Hence that verse cannot be used to claim that NT tongues is a non-human language.

I say, just like millions of like minded believers also say, that it makes a lot less sense to see the Holy Spirit inspiring a prophecy in the Romanian language to a person who speaks only English to bring to a congregation of Englishmen --- then it does to see the Holy Spirit inspire it and bring it through some sort of spiritual language which then needs an interpretation which only He can provide.

I can't see the difference myself. Both would be unknown to both speaker and congregation and would require interpretation. (not that tongues is ever described as prophecy btw)

 

[1stcenturylady]

32 pages on TONGUES in Controversial Christian Theology Forum -- and we're still going -- amazing...

Sub-topics including the alleged Tripartite nature of man as Spirit Soul and Body -- the authenticity of "the long ending" of Mark -- this is beyond a THREAD; it's a SEMINARY...

Right, it's a seminary where no one wants to learn something new!

Hope they don't test us on this.

 

[Anto9us]

I personally consider Mark 16:9-20 as canonical, and consider man of tripartite nature as Spirit, Soul and Body -- these things are not a matter of HERESY if you don't see 'em the same way -- for that matter, same goes for TONGUES; but I have my opinions (and EXPERIENCE) as does everyone.

A couple of my experiences with Tongues might be seen as quite humorous, and as this thread seems to go on forever, perhaps I will relate them after explaining my theological perspective on EXPERIENCE.

 

[Anto9us]

lol

IF they test us, 1stcenturylady, may it be given by the Holy Ghost IN THAT HOUR how to answer, we need not worry ahead of time

 

[Anto9us]

glossolalia, xenoglossia and whether Mark 16:9-20 is a GLOSS...
can Pentecostal women wear lip GLOSS as long as their heads are covered?
Is the Johannine Comma a GLOSS?
All these and more will be covered, I am sure, in our "Seminary Thread" here, but I wish to address EXPERIENCE from my denominational perspective, which I am sure other Methodists might say MISREPRESENTS IT, but I will try.

I am NOT "Sola Scriptura" -- I am Wesleyan Quadrilateral -- which is not really John Wesley's, but rather centuries later, a 1960's theologian (Albert Outler) coined what Wesley "might have written" if he wrote of a Quadrilateral.

Scripture, Reason, Experience and Tradition are the four elements by which the Holy Spirit "guides us" if you will. Scripture is primary and preimminent, but not exclusive.

We apprehend SCRIPTURE through our REASON
These 4 elements are an expansion of Anglican Hooker's original "Scripture, Reason, Tradition" (I think there is an Anglican Forum named that here at CF) -- but I have seen discussions saying Hooker "included Experience" as 'part of REASON' -- so there may not be a dime's worth of difference between the 3-legged stool of Hooker and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

In the Quadrilateral, Reason and Experience help guide us in interpreting Scripture -- as does Tradition -- although these three elements cannot/should not OVERRULE Scripture

(I submit that a Christian's TRADITION actually establishes the SCOPE of her/his SCRIPTURE, iow, Catholics and Orthodox have more scripture books than Protestants.)

Even in this one thread, you can see how a member related his EXPERIENCE of speaking in tongues/baptized in the Spirit; and then came to see later that he deemed it sort of invalid. I have indeed seen posters elsewhere discredit even their own salvation experience - so "changing one's mind" about a particular spiritual experience is not that unusual.

Experience can be helpful but it also can be deceiving...
It is a TOOL of the Quadrilateral, not the be-all end-all as it would be in Existential Philosophy.

I am sure that all of this is DULLER than what happened one time in a Charismatic Episcopal Church I used to go to...

 

[Anto9us]

I 'knew a man' about 14 years ago who went to a Charismatic Episcopal Church. This church was what I could call "overboard BY THE BOOK" in that -- during the SERVICE -- there was no tongues whatsoever unless in the strict Corinthian guide-lines of being followed by an interpretation.

No "prayer language by everybody at once" as all raised hands praising in Tongues - None - Never.

Only utterances in Tongues immediately followed by an Interpretation in English.

Once I sat way at the back left of sanctuary -- someone at right front gave a message in Tongues...

Minutes went by.

No Interpretation. People starting to get nervous -- this never happened!

More minutes went by.

Then - about a pew away from where the Tongues had been spoken -- a CELL PHONE RANG! (not as common 14 years ago as now) and I exchanged glances with some in the sanctuary who had a sarcastic sense of humor like myself -- we had the same hilarious thought (the interpretation was coming in over the phone)

which was silly of course, it was just COINCIDENCE -- the interpretation was finally given, service went on -- but I couldn't stop laughing until I was long gone from the Church that day.

 

[Marvin Knox]

That'll do it on this thread for me folks.

See you on the way up.

I'll be the 4-point Calvinist speaking in tongues.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I personally consider Mark 16:9-20 as canonical, and consider man of tripartite nature as Spirit, Soul and Body -- these things are not a matter of HERESY if you don't see 'em the same way -- for that matter, same goes for TONGUES; but I have my opinions (and EXPERIENCE) as does everyone.

A couple of my experiences with Tongues might be seen as quite humorous, and as this thread seems to go on forever, perhaps I will relate them after explaining my theological perspective on EXPERIENCE.

I see you are Methodist. I just looked up what John Wesley, who I greatly admire, thought about the gifts of the Spirit.

Several years ago, United Methodist evangelist Ed Robb spoke of a time in his life when he believed that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were exclusively for an apostolic age, not for today. He is now convinced that this age is the apostolic age and that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are just as relevant today as they were in the days of the first apostles.

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, certainly would have concurred. In his Journal entry for August 15, 1750, he wrote, "I was fully convinced of what I had long suspected, 1. That the Montanists, in the second and third centuries, were real, scriptural Christians; and, 2. that the grand reason why the miraculous gifts were so soon withdrawn, was not only that faith and holiness were well nigh lost; but that dry, formal, orthodox men began even then to ridicule whatever gifts they had not themselves, and to decry them all as either madness or imposture."

Wesley clearly believed that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were relevant for the church in any age. He defined them. He described them. He experienced them. He defended them.

I 'knew a man' about 14 years ago who went to a Charismatic Episcopal Church. This church was what I could call "overboard BY THE BOOK" in that -- during the SERVICE -- there was no tongues whatsoever unless in the strict Corinthian guide-lines of being followed by an interpretation.

No "prayer language by everybody at once" as all raised hands praising in Tongues - None - Never.

Only utterances in Tongues immediately followed by an Interpretation in English.

Once I sat way at the back left of sanctuary -- someone at right front gave a message in Tongues...

Minutes went by.

No Interpretation. People starting to get nervous -- this never happened!

More minutes went by.

Then - about a pew away from where the Tongues had been spoken -- a CELL PHONE RANG! (not as common 14 years ago as now) and I exchanged glances with some in the sanctuary who had a sarcastic sense of humor like myself -- we had the same hilarious thought (the interpretation was coming in over the phone)

which was silly of course, it was just COINCIDENCE -- the interpretation was finally given, service went on -- but I couldn't stop laughing until I was long gone from the Church that day.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I 'knew a man' about 14 years ago who went to a Charismatic Episcopal Church. This church was what I could call "overboard BY THE BOOK" in that -- during the SERVICE -- there was no tongues whatsoever unless in the strict Corinthian guide-lines of being followed by an interpretation.

No "prayer language by everybody at once" as all raised hands praising in Tongues - None - Never.

Only utterances in Tongues immediately followed by an Interpretation in English.

Once I sat way at the back left of sanctuary -- someone at right front gave a message in Tongues...

Minutes went by.

No Interpretation. People starting to get nervous -- this never happened!

More minutes went by.

Then - about a pew away from where the Tongues had been spoken -- a CELL PHONE RANG! (not as common 14 years ago as now) and I exchanged glances with some in the sanctuary who had a sarcastic sense of humor like myself -- we had the same hilarious thought (the interpretation was coming in over the phone)

which was silly of course, it was just COINCIDENCE -- the interpretation was finally given, service went on -- but I couldn't stop laughing until I was long gone from the Church that day.

That's hysterical! I went to a church where if a person stood up and gave a message in tongues that wasn't recognized by the pastor as going to our church, they were immediately stopped. He was very strict. On the other hand, we DID take time to praise God as on the Day of Pentecost, as a choir to God, but it was always under the directive from the pulpit, and never on Sunday morning, only Wednesday night when not many visitors would be present. It is beautiful. That was California. I haven't found a church here in Tennessee as demonstrative. In fact, on another post, someone commented that it seems the Holy Spirit is almost silent. Not much prophecy or tongues and interpretation going on.

 

[Anto9us]

I did return to Methodist Church after only a little while in Episcopal -- but it was a stormy time, the Episcopal Church had ordained a Gay Bishop somewhere in New England -- things got really ugly...

although that particular Episcopal Church was ultra-sound on the Gifts, and the denomination itself has sound doctrine in the Book of Common Prayer -- this "Gay Bishop" thing just -- drove a lot away by the nastiness among factions that resulted

 

[swordsman1]

For those who have been aware of Fee’s approach to the historically difficult passage of 1 Cor 14:14, they would know from his material: (Fee 1987, 1994, 1996) that Thiselton has on this occasion obviously misunderstood Fee on this issue; I can imagine the quiet words that Fee must have had with Thiselton on this point, but maybe Thiselton’s ecclesiastical heritage sent him down the wrong path.

It is not just Thiselton who rejects Fee's theory. Garland, Barrett, Bruce, Fitzmeyer, Taylor, Witherington, Oster, Ward Powers, Collins, Lenski, Picirilli, Perkins, & Lipscombe also affirm it is the human spirit not the Holy Spirit that prays in tongues. In fact I could not find a single commentary that agrees with Fee. The others I checked didn't specifically say but they all used "spirit" and not "Spirit" in the text of their commentaries.

Seems he has a lot of convincing to do, not just with the other commentators but also with the English bible translators who without exception render this verse as "my spirit prays".

 

[1stcenturylady]

I did return to Methodist Church after only a little while in Episcopal -- but it was a stormy time, the Episcopal Church had ordained a Gay Bishop somewhere in New England -- things got really ugly...

although that particular Episcopal Church was ultra-sound on the Gifts, and the denomination itself has sound doctrine in the Book of Common Prayer -- this "Gay Bishop" thing just -- drove a lot away by the nastiness among factions that resulted

Yes, I can imagine, if he practiced. That church I went to I told you about had gays there, and some were friends of mine. They all abstained. As Paul said, of such were some of you. Can you imagine how much they gave up for Christ? It's not like they all of a sudden were attracted to women. They just helped each other be strong - but always single.

 

[Waggles]

Simply observe what goes on in our world today, there are no miraculous gifts. There is the Holy Spirit that does dwell in God's people yet It's function is different from what it did in the apostles.

What planet do you live on?
Back here on planet Earth all nine miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost still operate in our
Pentecostal Fellowship.

Plus all over the world there is a continuing Holy Ghost revival wherein Acts 2:38 is upheld by
thousands and thousands who obey this and are all water baptized by full immersion and all are
baptized in the Holy Spirit with the Bible evidence of speaking forth in new tongues.
Papua New Guinea has gone from one Pentecostal saint, Godfrey Wippon, who healed his mother by
the gift of healing and then the whole village abandoned their spiritually dead religions and embraced
the gospel delivered by the Apostles.
In thirty years the Revival Fellowship has grown from one person to now over 50,000 Pentecostal saints of whom ALL speak in tongues and enjoy the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost within the Church.

 

[Marvin Knox]

............Papua New Guinea has gone from one Pentecostal saint, Godfrey Wippon, who healed his mother bythe gift of healing and then the whole village abandoned their spiritually dead religions and embraced the gospel delivered by the Apostles. In thirty years the Revival Fellowship has grown from one person to now over 50,000 Pentecostal saints of whom ALL speak in tongues and enjoy the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost within the Church.

We need to rush ViaCrucis and the Swordsman down there to that island to help set those simpletons right.