SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Help make this the DEFINITIVE learning thread

[ARBITER01]

these points could be and are made right back at those in your practice. every thing you guys say about tongues is pure tradition

It is established practice that is in accordance with the bible, and that is as it should be since The Holy Spirit is administering the gifts.

The practice of tongues has been with us since the inception of the church, and that gift and the others will continue to be with Christians until we all come to the unity of the faith, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The cessionalist idea that Christians have somehow just been wrong all these years about tongues is quite funny. That really doesn't give The Holy Spirit much credit though, and I think such idle talk against Him and how He manages the gifts in the body will be given account of.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Standing in the 'midst' of the brethren does not necessarily mean that the 120 were all gathered in the Upper Room. No doubt they were close by but all of them gathered into one room for nearly two months seems a little far fetched. Be that as it may, this should not distract from the main point that tongues were human languages.





That's very true and the '12' are mentioned repeatedly, Paul obviously accepted Mattias as the 12th Apostle. I just happen to think that Paul was God's choice for Judas' replacement but the question is purely academic.



I agree that this quote is specifically indicating a replacement Apostle. That is about as far as the text will take you, whether or not God intended them to choose an Apostle by casting lots is another matter entirely. An Apostle has to be called and equipped by God for that office. Jesus never directed them to choose a replacement Apostle, they were told to go to Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit.



Paul was nevertheless accepted as an Apostle and Peter's criteria was not based on any divine direction on the matter.


Where does it say that the Lord has chosen on of those two? Peter prays that God will show them which one of the two are God's choice. The assumption that God directed them to do this, prior to the coming of the Holy Spirit is staggering to the totality of Scripture. It also makes very little sense that God would give them enough direction to boil it down to two choices and them 'reveal' the right choice on a roll of the dice.



I'm sure they were in close contact but at the time of Pentecost the 120 may or may not have been present. I expect they were but your antecedent does not make the case that the manifestation of tongues were not human languages.





It's almost 2 months later, have you factored that into your scenario?



It doesn't do me any good either if I don't understand what I am saying.



That does not mean that the language was not understood. Technically at Pentecost there was no interpretation of tongues but only because the people hearing understood the language being spoken.



When Paul spoke in tongues he made sure the message was understood. When the Corinthians were doing it they were as sounding brass and a clanging symbol. If it is not understood it does not build the church which is the whole point. Even if I'm proclaiming in a true manifestation of the Spirit and don't understand what is being said it does not benefit even me. Now it's true that I am in the Spirit at the time but it defeats the purpose of tongues to speak in a language that no one understands, even the speaker.





We will, just give me a little time.




The Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer produces both manifestations of grace internal and external. There is no premium put on one manifestation over the other, what all believers manifest are the fruit of the spirit. I'm going to throw in this visual image I used in a formal debate even though it's not really on topic. Notice that the wheels are opposed to one another, we can get more into this when we get into the Ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Well, that would be better then emphasizing the gifts and neglecting the fruits. Of course they are both important since they are two parts of the same thing, the Holy Spirit of promise working both within and without.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Standing in the 'midst' of the brethren does not necessarily mean that the 120 were all gathered in the Upper Room.

Problem is tho that Greek is pretty precise in both language and in conceptual expression. "They" must have an antecedant, and the nearest concept of antecedant is the "brethren" which consisted of about 120 people including the Apostles. It just is what it is . . .

No doubt they were close by but all of them gathered into one room for nearly two months seems a little far fetched.

I think u got your time frames mixed up. Acts 1:1 does not begin on the heals of the resurrection . . . it is about 5-10 days before Pentecost. It begins at the END of the 40 days of teaching of Christ.

So two months is not accurate.

AND, the upper room was QUITE large to the point where it is called "megas" (Luke 22:12, Mark 14:15) . . . so, while I do not believe that the whole 120 stayed there the whole time, it was certainly large enough to house a great many.

Also, the text does not preclude a going out and coming in of the group, so as to allow that people went to homes to sleep and came back together for the purpose of prayer and waiting for the Spirit as had been instructed. So to assume that they are all static in one place doesnt work, and the text stating that they were all there does not require this either.

Be that as it may, this should not distract from the main point that tongues were human languages.

The reason why I am contending this point is because the 11=11 apostles to languages ratio is one of the key concepts of the unity of the arguement that you presented PARTICULARLY. True enough one does not need this to contend further that tongues in acts 2 are human languages, albeit unknown to the speaker . . . but part of the supporting of your thesis was this point . . . and I am seeking to show you that linguistically this is just not the case. That is all.

I just happen to think that Paul was God's choice for Judas' replacement but the question is purely academic.

Unfortunately tho the author and Peter both feel that the two presented forward were the two that were supposed to be put forward and that ONE of these two were the one which the Lord wanted . . . and the lots showed this. Mind you, lots were part and parcel of the Judaic experience of the day, much like the urrim and the thummim.

That is about as far as the text will take you, whether or not God intended them to choose an Apostle by casting lots is another matter entirely.

Brother that is what is assumed by the speech of the text. Peter feels that this leading was from the Lord. Luke does not comment on it negatively . . . no one contends it . . . it is birthed in the midst of continual prayer . . . no dice.

An Apostle has to be called and equipped by God for that office. Jesus never directed them to choose a replacement Apostle, they were told to go to Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit.

The fact that the OT is cited as proof for the support of the decision speaks volumes tho. The OT is not cited in the NT unless it is considered an authoritative interpretation. Sorry bro, but the text shows that they felt that they were being led by God to do so, Peter's own perception and that of ALL THOSE GATHERED was that this was to be done, Luke's commentary is favorable and the OT is cited as source authority . . .

Paul was nevertheless accepted as an Apostle and Peter's criteria was not based on any divine direction on the matter.

I dont feel that Peter's qualifications are for Apostleship either . . . JUST FOR THAT PARTICULAR Apostleship . . . the point is that it was 12 Apostles that were present in Acts 2 and the 11='s ratio is false . . . that is all.

Where does it say that the Lord has chosen on of those two?

rit her

Acts 1:24
You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
NASU

You kno hermenuetic brother, right? Hermeneutically this is the case.

Peter prays that God will show them which one of the two are God's choice.

Yes indeed, but Peter's prayer is predicated upon the fact that one of these two is INDEED who the Lord has chosen . . . and that the process in putting forth these two men was led and ordained by God.

The assumption that God directed them to do this, prior to the coming of the Holy Spirit is staggering to the totality of Scripture.

Well, JOhn 20 is pretty clear that the Spirit was already there . . . Acts 2 was a unique impartation of power for the purpose of witness . . . not the general presence of the Spirit in leading Gods people. Your contention is not tenable.

It also makes very little sense that God would give them enough direction to boil it down to two choices and them 'reveal' the right choice on a roll of the dice.

Didnt make much sense for Jesus to make mud out of spit and heal someone with it . . . nor one man to be only partly healed of blindness . . . but that is what the text says, and we take it for what it says regardless of sense. Obviously this interim period was unique . . . but that does not give us reason to denounce their actions . . .

It's almost 2 months later, have you factored that into your scenario?

Nope, cause that time frame is not accurate.

That does not mean that the language was not understood.

Agreed . . . I am simply seeking to point out that the person who rails "interpretation interpretation" needs to understand that, yes, this is the norm and is what is should be, BUT we DO NOT ALWAYS SEE AN INTERPRETATION GIVEN. That is all . . .

Even if I'm proclaiming in a true manifestation of the Spirit and don't understand what is being said it does not benefit even me.

Not according to Paul.

1 Cor 14:2-4
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church
NASU


Think critically about the arguement:
Paul dichtomizes between tongues and prophecy. Prophecy is superior to tongues because it is SPEAKING TO MEN . . . where tongues is SPEAKING TO GOD . . . the goal of EDIFICATION CORPORATELY is found in the larger blessing to the Body NOT IN THE PERSONAL EDIFICATION OF ONESELF. ERGO, even when not understood, the tongue practioner is still edified, tho those around him are not. The comment of "edifies himself" is without interpretation and therefore dichotomized against prophecy. So w/o interpretation it does indeed edify the practitioner. Hence:

1 Cor 14:13-18
13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.
NASU

Notice that the FIRST thing he says is that HE HAS NO UNDERSTANDING of what he says! His mind is unfruitful . . . blessing in the spirit (tongues) ONLY ='s GIVING THANKS WELL ENOUGH . . . the interpretation is what brings the edification of the Body . . . but there is still "WELL ENOUGH" for the individual.

We will, just give me a little time.

(me thinks we were speaking about this b4 anyways)

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

well, a few points....

what the girls did, is not what your practise does,
I believe they understood what they were saying,
even if it was called ecstatic,. They spoke named dialects of angels

the meaning of ecstatic back then, may not be the same as today.

there was a long time period between 1Cor14 and Test of Job,
tradition or changing grammar have to be considered.

but as I said, even if I concede the point,
it would not change the facts of the scripture,
which repeatedly teaches the same subject,
and it is not ecstatic tognues.

ecstatic is not mentioned in 1Cor14

Paul is not speaking of the same thing that happened in either the testiment of Job or the Book of Acts

what the girls did, is not what your practise does,

Entirely beside the point . . .

I believe they understood what they were saying,
even if it was called ecstatic,. They spoke named dialects of angels

Only reason why they understood it was because of the girdles . . . not because of it being a human language. Apart from the gridles there was NO UNDERSTANDING.

the meaning of ecstatic back then, may not be the same as today.

My own definition of ecstatic doesnt match what people think of today anyway . . . u would kno this if you really read my article.

AND ecstatic is a biblical word, and I use it in the same manner as Acts 10.

So the meaning remains the same . . . if u import something else . . . that is on you . . . I use in keeping with the meaning of the Koine term

there was a long time period between 1Cor14 and Test of Job,
tradition or changing grammar have to be considered.

Not really, 50-150 years with a language like Greek is not a long time. AND grammar doesnt have sway on core meanings of words . . . it holds sway on the way a word is used in a line of concept and communication, but history of usage is not defined by grammar because grammar is the way that the word FITS into a passage. CONTEXT determines meaning . . . grammar helps . . .

as for tradition, it is what precedes that determines tradition, not what follows.

The point stil stands, we see that within the normal and accepted meaning and concepts of glossa and dialektos that unintelligible non natural (non human) language is found. THAT IS ALL.

but as I said, even if I concede the point,
it would not change the facts of the scripture,

. . .
Paul is not speaking of the same thing that happened in either the testiment of Job or the Book of Acts

I guess it did not work. Your statements show that you just dont get it (or dont want to) . . . for I have said this for you several times.

Luv ya anyways



MTK

 

[Servant of Jesus]

The practice of tongues has been with us since the inception of the church, and that gift and the others will continue to be with Christians until we all come to the unity of the faith, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Mmmh, but this comment really should be put into its proper perspective.

According to this article in Wikipedia, the Pentecostal movement represents about 6% of the total number of Christians in the world, so those who put such an emphasis on the practice of "speaking in tongues" are really a pretty small minority.

Not only that, but according to this second article, the historical roots of the Pentecostal movement really only go back to 1906. The article does acknowledge there are earlier references to it- but they are few and far between.

In this diagram, the Pentecostal movement falls into the very end of Protestantism.


I'm sure that there are other historical and scholarly documents that would provide more and perhaps better information on this matter, but I will leave it to others here, who so zealously push their interpretation of a small part of Scripture on the rest of us, to respond.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

So to bring up another question brought up earlier in this thread: is "speaking in tongues" a group exercise, or something that can be done by an individual?

My reading of the Bible (again, note all the verses quoted in the OP) suggests that "speaking in tongues" requires communication involving a speaker, interpreter, and one or more individuals who hear the message. Since God does not require interpretation, "speaking in tongues" by yourself is therefore simply prayer.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Finally, I want to re-submit an example of what we are talking about when we discuss "speaking in tongues". I know that some of you that have been following this thread, and related ones, from the beginning have seen this example, but it bears repeating for newcomers.

YouTube - Renee and girls speaking in tongues

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Mmmh, but this comment really should be put into its proper perspective.

According to this article in Wikipedia, the Pentecostal movement represents about 6% of the total number of Christians in the world, so those who put such an emphasis on the practice of "speaking in tongues" are really a pretty small minority.

Not only that, but according to this second article, the historical roots of the Pentecostal movement really only go back to 1906. The article does acknowledge there are earlier references to it- but they are few and far between.

In this diagram, the Pentecostal movement falls into the very end of Protestantism.


I'm sure that there are other historical and scholarly documents that would provide more and perhaps better information on this matter, but I will leave it to others here, who so zealously push their interpretation of a small part of Scripture on the rest of us, to respond.

.

Problem is tho that Pentecostalism is not the sole proponent. Tongues have been seen in the church throughout the years, tho with the advent of Pentecostalism the practice surely exploded.

Also, u must not fall into this:

According to this article in Wikipedia, the Pentecostal movement represents about 6% of the total number of Christians in the world, so those who put such an emphasis on the practice of "speaking in tongues" are really a pretty small minority.

because ur conclusion is wrong. The Charismatic movement of the 60-70's sent tongues into mainline denominations and so a correct understanding of those who:

put such an emphasis on the practice of "speaking in tongues"

puts the number more than a mere 6% . . . matter of fact most estimates places tongues speakers between 20-25% of the total number of worldwide Christians.

Here is a cool little article

Speaking in tongues: Faith's language barrier? - USATODAY.com

just do a search on total tongues speakers not merely the Pente. denoms.

 

[ARBITER01]

Problem is tho that Pentecostalism is not the sole proponent. Tongues have been seen in the church throughout the years, tho with the advent of Pentecostalism the practice surely exploded.

Also, u must not fall into this:



because ur conclusion is wrong. The Charismatic movement of the 60-70's sent tongues into mainline denominations and so a correct understanding of those who:



puts the number more than a mere 6% . . . matter of fact most estimates places tongues speakers between 20-25% of the total number of worldwide Christians.

Here is a cool little article

Speaking in tongues: Faith's language barrier? - USATODAY.com

just do a search on total tongues speakers not merely the Pente. denoms.

That's true.

And I also said that the Assemblies of GOD were not the only pentecostal denomination across the world, there are many.

 

[ARBITER01]

So to bring up another question brought up earlier in this thread: is "speaking in tongues" a group exercise, or something that can be done by an individual?

My reading of the Bible (again, note all the verses quoted in the OP) suggests that "speaking in tongues" requires communication involving a speaker, interpreter, and one or more individuals who hear the message. Since God does not require interpretation, "speaking in tongues" by yourself is therefore simply prayer.

.

This is where we begin to expose problems with individuals and their understanding of the gifts, and it was the reason that Paul was correcting the church of Corinth.

The gift of tongues has two forms, personal and corporate. The gift can be stepped out in faith and operated 24/7 by most individuals as prayer, and as you said, it is to be between that person and GOD, not an exhibition before people.

In the assembly, the gift can be operated by The Holy Spirit as a ministry, and therefore provide edification to that corporate body. This is when it requires the gift of interpretation. Not everyone that speaks in tongues has this ministry, just like not everyone who operates in the gift of prophecy has a ministry with that gift before their assembly. It is strictly by utterance of The Holy Spirit in the assembly.

- Do Christians operate their prayer tongue incorrectly before others at times? Yes. That was one of the reasons why Paul called those Christians carnal, because they were not working with The Holy Spirit to ensure things were kept decent and in order in their assembly. The problem is also with the audience of Christians who approve of it.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

So to bring up another question brought up earlier in this thread: is "speaking in tongues" a group exercise, or something that can be done by an individual?

My reading of the Bible (again, note all the verses quoted in the OP) suggests that "speaking in tongues" requires communication involving a speaker, interpreter, and one or more individuals who hear the message. Since God does not require interpretation, "speaking in tongues" by yourself is therefore simply prayer.

.

suggests that "speaking in tongues" requires communication involving a speaker, interpreter, and one or more individuals who hear the message.

The problem is tho that Paul calls it speaking in tongues even when it is just between an individual and God.

Since God does not require interpretation, "speaking in tongues" by yourself is therefore simply prayer

This statement is much better than the merri-go-round that we went thru last time

BUT, still . . . if you want to use the same language as Paul, your best bet is to distinguish in this way:

1. Speaking in tongues corporately requires interpretation for the benefit of those around
2. Speaking in tongues individually can also be speaking in tongues . . . but I would choose to make a distinction between this and the corporate use by calling this expression "praying in tongues"


I make the same distinction, but one I refer to as the ministry of tongues and the other devotional tongues.

The reason why is that in 2 places where Paul is distinguishing between corporate use interpreted and private use . . . he still calls the private use "speaking in tongues."

1 Cor 14:1-2
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
NASU

where this is the reason for interpretation and thus precedes interpretation and Paul still calls it speaking in tongues

1 Cor 14:18-19
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.
NASU

Where Paul speaks of what he does apart from the church, as seen in his distinguishing his personal use with "however IN THE CHURCH," and still calls it "speaking in tongues" . . . apart from its use in the church.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

[/SIZE]

personally, I agree...but Mat does not.

these points could be and are made right back at those in your practice.
every thing you guys say about tongues is pure tradition

Of course, in response to that I can't help saying how I practice the gift of tongues.

I practice it in private when I am alone with God, and speak to Him in definite languages which I believe that He understands. I have found that the languages have changed in nature depending on the type of prayer that I have been praying, ie: praise, fellowship, intercession. I have always felt that I have been strengthened in my faith after spending time praying in tongues. Most times I have felt no emotion other than peace, joy (sometimes) and satisfaction. Through using the gift, I have found that when I have switched to English, my power of expression and insight into what I am praying about has been significantly enhanced.

I have always been very careful to exercise my gift strictly according to what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 14. I do not speak in an "ecstatic" language because I have been very cool, calm and collected when I have used the gift. There's no point in putting on a big act of emotion before God, because He is not usually impressed by shows of the flesh. I do not mumble, or say "bibibibibababa" when I speak in tongues, I use language like this: (hold on to your false teeth and your stomach for this:

"Requitando kapasa kitatu ramanda quioa" etc, which is interpreted (not translated) as: "I lift my heart to you, my God and Saviour." So you can see that I would not express my gift without interpretation, which is also in keeping with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 14.

I think that I have testified to you before about my friend who spoke in tongues in a prayer meeting. Now he had a very limited and repetitive vocabulary in tongues. His main word was "kyandai". He was heard speaking in tongues by a visitor from Guana who told my friend what he said in his own village dialect. My friend would not have known that language in a million years. Another time when I was praying in tongues, a Maori lady came to me and told me that I spoke encouraging things to her from the Lord in the Maori language (an official native language of New Zealand alongside English). I did not know a word of Maori. So these testimonies attest to the fact that my friend and I were not babbling "ecstatic" tongues, but speaking clear articulate languages that changed to an appropriate language to be heard by certain people who needed to hear an encouraging word and to know that it definitely came from the Lord.

So, it is difficult to refute actions performed in private with God in faith, and also difficult to refute real testimonies of the Lord speaking through people speaking languages they have never learned.

Frankly, I am not too concerned about how other use/misuse the gift of tongues. I am more concerned that when I use it, I am exercising the gift in accordance with the clear teaching of 1 Corinthians 14, which I think is the definitive standard.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Since God does not require interpretation, "speaking in tongues" by yourself is therefore simply prayer.

.

Actually it is the most powerful form of prayer because it is a direct communication between the believer's spirit and God. When we pray in tongues, we are always praying in the will of God. Prayer in tongues also makes it much easier to exercise the other gifts of the Spirit because it prepares the heart and mind and makes it more sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Therefore it is a very useful tool in the spiritual toolkit.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Finally, I want to re-submit an example of what we are talking about when we discuss "speaking in tongues". I know that some of you that have been following this thread, and related ones, from the beginning have seen this example, but it bears repeating for newcomers.

Although I am a passionate advocate of the gift of tongues, I have a very strong check in my spirit about this video clip. This is a clear example of the practice of tongues which Paul taught SHOULD NOT BE DONE when he dealt with it in 1 Corinthians 14. Also, to record people reaching out and worshiping God in a sacred moment and then publishing it on the internet for all to see gives me great concern about the spiritual state of the persons recording and publishing it in this way. If a recording like this was made of me worshiping God like this without my permission and then published without my permission, I would be demanding our Privacy Commissioner to prosecute these people under our Privacy Act laws. I see this as a disgusting invasion of privacy, and an insult to the worshipers in that meeting.

As you can see, I have very strong views about this, and I would encourage anyone seeking the gift of tongues to see this example as a very sinful act against the Holy Spirit by the people recording and publishing something which is sacred and meant to be kept private within the bounds of that church fellowship meeting.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Thank you both- very worthwhile answers that again add to our understanding of the subject matter.

I was very interested in Oscarr's post where he claims to have actually written up that which was spoken in tongues. Some have claimed this is not possible- which I found puzzling when it was first brought up.

What do others think? If Bible translators can basically take any primitive language and produce a written text, then why can't that which is spoken in tongues be written out?

.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Of course, in response to that I can't help saying how I practice the gift of tongues.

I practice it in private when I am alone with God, and speak to Him in definite languages which I believe that He understands. I have found that the languages have changed in nature depending on the type of prayer that I have been praying, ie: praise, fellowship, intercession. I have always felt that I have been strengthened in my faith after spending time praying in tongues. Most times I have felt no emotion other than peace, joy (sometimes) and satisfaction. Through using the gift, I have found that when I have switched to English, my power of expression and insight into what I am praying about has been significantly enhanced.

I have always been very careful to exercise my gift strictly according to what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 14. I do not speak in an "ecstatic" language because I have been very cool, calm and collected when I have used the gift. There's no point in putting on a big act of emotion before God, because He is not usually impressed by shows of the flesh. I do not mumble, or say "bibibibibababa" when I speak in tongues, I use language like this: (hold on to your false teeth and your stomach for this:

"Requitando kapasa kitatu ramanda quioa" etc, which is interpreted (not translated) as: "I lift my heart to you, my God and Saviour." So you can see that I would not express my gift without interpretation, which is also in keeping with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 14.

I think that I have testified to you before about my friend who spoke in tongues in a prayer meeting. Now he had a very limited and repetitive vocabulary in tongues. His main word was "kyandai". He was heard speaking in tongues by a visitor from Guana who told my friend what he said in his own village dialect. My friend would not have known that language in a million years. Another time when I was praying in tongues, a Maori lady came to me and told me that I spoke encouraging things to her from the Lord in the Maori language (an official native language of New Zealand alongside English). I did not know a word of Maori. So these testimonies attest to the fact that my friend and I were not babbling "ecstatic" tongues, but speaking clear articulate languages that changed to an appropriate language to be heard by certain people who needed to hear an encouraging word and to know that it definitely came from the Lord.

So, it is difficult to refute actions performed in private with God in faith, and also difficult to refute real testimonies of the Lord speaking through people speaking languages they have never learned.

Frankly, I am not too concerned about how other use/misuse the gift of tongues. I am more concerned that when I use it, I am exercising the gift in accordance with the clear teaching of 1 Corinthians 14, which I think is the definitive standard.

I do not speak in an "ecstatic" language because I have been very cool, calm and collected when I have used the gift. There's no point in putting on a big act of emotion before God, because He is not usually impressed by shows of the flesh.

that is not what the word ecstatic means anyway . . . ekstasis, in Greek, simply means out or apart from normal standing . . . hence it is used of Peter's vision in Acts 10.

You have taken a common understanding of the term ecstatic, frothing at the mouth, bumping into walls, emotionally worked up, and not the biblical understanding of the term ecstatic (ekstasis).

jus so ya kno . . .

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

that is not what the word ecstatic means anyway . . . ekstasis, in Greek, simply means out or apart from normal standing . . . hence it is used of Peter's vision in Acts 10.

You have taken a common understanding of the term ecstatic, frothing at the mouth, bumping into walls, emotionally worked up, and not the biblical understanding of the term ecstatic (ekstasis).

jus so ya kno . . .

Yep. Thanks for the clarification. I think the normal rank and file Christian would interpret "ecstatic" as being emotionally worked up. They would not know the Greek meaning.

While your definition is correct and would properly describe the tongues that anyone would speak, the other respected poster on the thread, in his description of contemporary Pentecostal tongues, describes the tongues as ecstatic, implying that Pentecostal tongues are the emotionally worked up type.

 

[ARBITER01]

Thank you both- very worthwhile answers that again add to our understanding of the subject matter.

I was very interested in Oscarr's post where he claims to have actually written up that which was spoken in tongues. Some have claimed this is not possible- which I found puzzling when it was first brought up.

What do others think? If Bible translators can basically take any primitive language and produce a written text, then why can't that which is spoken in tongues be written out?

.

Other than what teaching we have from Paul about tongues and interpretation, there is none, not true Christian teaching from our Christian forefathers.

Our prayer language is between GOD and us, so while such a thing can be possible for some Christians, it wouldn't meet the biblical requirements if exhibited before folks. I'm not saying that Oscarr was trying to elevate himself by showing you that, but that whatever capacity our gifts operate in must remain decent and in order.

For me, even if I was able to do something like that, it would not be a thing where I use to communicate in email and other things like that, which I have heard people do. There is just too much room for error when we step outside of the biblical standards denoted for the gifts. It is also easy to put yourself in question before those who know their bibles.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Other than what teaching we have from Paul about tongues and interpretation, there is none, not true Christian teaching from our Christian forefathers.

Our prayer language is between GOD and us, so while such a thing can be possible for some Christians, it wouldn't meet the biblical requirements if exhibited before folks. I'm not saying that Oscarr was trying to elevate himself by showing you that, but that whatever capacity our gifts operate in must remain decent and in order.

For me, even if I was able to do something like that, it would not be a thing where I use to communicate in email and other things like that, which I have heard people do. There is just too much room for error when we step outside of the biblical standards denoted for the gifts. It is also easy to put yourself in question before those who know their bibles.

I respect your position and I would not ask you to do the same as I do. My original purpose in encouraging people to write their tongue was when I was counselling them over email how to receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. If you read my article on tongues which I posted somewhere on this thread I think, it described my journey with God through the difficulties of getting "chronics" (those who had great difficulty getting released in tongues) through to the gift of tongues.

When I described that on the P/C forum in 2006 when I first started in CF, people would PM and email me asking how to be filled with the Spirit. I could take them through the first steps of faith on line, but then I had to find a way to get them to have the faith to launch out in tongues. I prayed about it and got the idea of writing words down that they could say. Then I would tell them to put it all together start speaking my words and not stop. Then there was the difficulty to knowing for sure that when they said they could speak in tongues whether their language was genuine. A lot of the time they didn't really know themselves. So I got them to type out what they said. When I read what they typed, I sensed a joy in the spirit that assured me that their language was genuine. Then I gave them the interpretation of what they said, and that just blew some of the away.

But this is the path I believe that God led me, so that I could exercise my ministry of getting people baptised in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. The ones on the forum who were helped can testify to the genuineness of what they received. Some of them reported a sense of being filled with the Spirit and having joy when they start to speak in tongues.

I agree that any language can be transcribed into print, even tongues. I am trained in phonetics, and I could have written the phonetic symbols for the sounds I spoke, but putting the words into English characters is much more straight forward for people not trained in phonetics. I don't see anything risky in that because it is the same with writing prophecies instead of saying them, or imparting wholeness and wellness in writing to someone in the forum and getting them to lay hands on their monitor as they pray the prayer of acceptance. A lady on the P/C forum got healed of a kidney infection through that, which shows that God is not limited in the way He communicates the ministry of the Holy Spirit to people.

By the way, just in case some think that I am trying to elevate myself, my purpose in all this is to (1) keep people out of Hell, and (2) get people baptised in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I had a good thought today which is quite relevant to this thread.

I was thinking about the evangelist Smith Wigglesworth who was one of the pioneer Pentecostals who passionately advocated the gift of tongues very similar to what is practiced in most Pentecostal churches today. He would give a tongues message in the middle of running a service and his preaching and then interpret it.

Now, his ministry is characterised by the genuine healings that happened right around the world, including New Zealand when he visited here in 1922 and 1927. These healings were documented in medical records and even reported in the local newspapers. There is absolutely no doubt that the healings were genuine and were demonstrations of the power of the Holy Spirit working through his ministry.

Another example is that of Kathryn Khulman, who did not set out to have a healing ministry, but people with terminal diseases started being spontaneously healed during her meetings, and sometimes when they were on their way to her meetings. There are at least three books of testimonies of people who were given up by the medical profession and who were healed as the result of Khulman's ministry. She was also a traditional Pentecostal ministry.

My point is that if the Holy Spirit is supporting a ministry with demonstrations of God's power to heal, then He must be approving of these preacher's use and teaching of the contemporary gift of tongues. There is no way that God will support a ministry with His healing power if the gift of tongues as they practiced it was outside of His will. It is not part of the nature and character of God to allow preachers to do things He disapproves of, and support their ministry with powerful healings at the same time. God does not contradict Himself. Holiness cannot be partial. If a person is continuing regularly in known sin, God cannot work through that person's ministry. Practicing and teaching a false gift of tongues would be engaging in a regular sinful practice, and that person's ministry would not be supported by God's mighty healing power.

So, I reckon that the arguments of those who oppose the practice of tongues in Pentecostal fellowships is absolutely scuppered by this principle alone.

 

[zeke37]

I had a good thought today which is quite relevant to this thread.

I was thinking about the evangelist Smith Wigglesworth who was one of the pioneer Pentecostals who passionately advocated the gift of tongues very similar to what is practiced in most Pentecostal churches today. He would give a tongues message in the middle of running a service and his preaching and then interpret it.

i see that today, and I am very weary of it.
99% truth + 1 % untruth = a lie.
there is absolutely no way for the listeners
to discern whether the supposed message from God
was interpreted correctly
or if it was just from the preachers head to begin with
and that there was never any message from God


the point about ACTS2 is that it was unfakable....
it was a true Miracle.
the Word of God went into multiple languages that day,
perfect understanding in their own home dialects...
for the express reason
of spreading the fulfilled Word about Christ the Messiah
into all their langaues

that is not what is seen in the charismatic circles with regards to tongues

Now, his ministry is characterised by the genuine healings that happened right around the world, including New Zealand when he visited here in 1922 and 1927. These healings were documented in medical records and even reported in the local newspapers. There is absolutely no doubt that the healings were genuine and were demonstrations of the power of the Holy Spirit working through his ministry.

there is always doubt....
who ever reports the news is able to swing popular opinion.
many preachers claim to be accompanied by faith healings,
but when we look into them, closely,
it seems that they are con men.
there are sooooo many con men/women preaching God on tv today
that it is hard to count. some of them preach tongues and healings

people I know would SWEAR that miraclulous healings occure
with the likes of Benny Hinn,
but "their proof" would never convinve me...

"got to get your flask of miracle olive oil"
"got to get your miracle olive oil soap...wash the sin away....it really works!!!!!!"

Another example is that of Kathryn Khulman, who did not set out to have a healing ministry, but people with terminal diseases started being spontaneously healed during her meetings, and sometimes when they were on their way to her meetings. There are at least three books of testimonies of people who were given up by the medical profession and who were healed as the result of Khulman's ministry. She was also a traditional Pentecostal ministry.

Benny Hinn has thousands and thousands of testimonials of healing....
do you believe them?

My point is that if the Holy Spirit is supporting a ministry with demonstrations of God's power to heal, then He must be approving of these preacher's use and teaching of the contemporary gift of tongues.

again, no proof...only speculation....
faith healers today use the same means of fooling their audience,
choosing who gets "healed" and who does not even get looked at
and that was way back then,
when it was much harder to determine who was false.

folks were even simple-er back then

but today, with tech. and internet
and records and medical visitations,
and history of acctually being able to talk with
the so called healed people and their families,
it is easier to examine the facts and make an informed descision...


i'm not saying that miraclulous healings don't occure,
infact I believe they do
but they are not seen on TV ministries as they would have us believe.

IMO there are no accompanying "unknown charismatic tongues"
to any legit healings...
but for a side show, sure...why not.

There is no way that God will support a ministry with His healing power if the gift of tongues as they practiced it was outside of His will. It is not part of the nature and character of God to allow preachers to do things He disapproves of, and support their ministry with powerful healings at the same time. God does not contradict Himself. Holiness cannot be partial. If a person is continuing regularly in known sin, God cannot work through that person's ministry. Practicing and teaching a false gift of tongues would be engaging in a regular sinful practice, and that person's ministry would not be supported by God's mighty healing power.

when you see a missing arm or leg miraclulously form/heal....then let me know..

because side show con men
have been fooling the "spiritual minded"
for a long, long time now.

so fake "tongues" and fake "healings"
are tools of the con man...

So, I reckon that the arguments of those who oppose the practice of tongues in Pentecostal fellowships is absolutely scuppered by this principle alone.

if it was a truth that your understanding of tongues was correct,
and that God healed folks in that kind of practice,
then I'd have to agree with you and amend my opinion.

but since all I see are
con men CLAIMNING speak for God,
and CLAIMING to heal,
I reserve the right to disagree with the practice.

and an 80 year old report of a ministry's supposed healing practice
and charismatic tongues usage
is hardly proof.

and I'll add that the so called charismatic personal prayer language tongues (I hope that was a nice way of saying it)
are not ever mentioned at all in 1Cor12-14