Speaking in Tongues

[edie19]

as far as i know all tongues speakers can do it by will ........... i can still do it!

but i don't think it is genuine so I don't do it ........... I wish it was genuine , no-one likes admitting being "taken for a ride."

My pastor grew up in a Pentecostal/Charismatic church. He talks about going to bed at night and hearing his mother praying in tongues in the living room. Both David and his wife have talked about the church they attended when they first married - the church "taught" tongues. Now, if it can be taught then it isn't a spiritual gift. That's one of the things that started David looking at the Puritans and Reformers.

All I can say is thank goodness that God turned David's head - because he's a wonderful pastor and teacher.

 

[Jon_]

Now see - I would have called them legalists (if one uses the Biblical concept of the word - self justification). They would say that you need the Holy Spirit to be saved (no problem with that) but that the sign of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. Hence - if you don't speak in tongues you aren't saved. It's Jesus plus. . . . what man brings to the table.

True saving faith says that Christ alone is enough.

Right, but that's what makes them heretics. They deny that faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation. They deny that baptism by water in the name of the Triune God is a sufficient baptism. Instead, they make tongues-speaking and the baptism of the Holy Spirit further necessary for salvation.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[lmnop9876]

Right, but that's what makes them heretics. They deny that faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation. They deny that baptism by water in the name of the Triune God is a sufficient baptism. Instead, they make tongues-speaking and the baptism of the Holy Spirit further necessary for salvation.

speaking in tongues and baptism of the Holy Spirit are not regarded by most Pentecostals as necessary for salvation.
from the official website of assemblies of God in USA

Receiving eternal life does not depend on being baptized in the Holy Spirit; for salvation is by grace through faith alone (Habakkuk 2:4; John 6:28, 29; Galatians 3:6; 5:6; Ephesians 2:8). It is a gift purchased for us by Christ when He was crucified. All we have to do is accept the gift. Just as the repentant thief on the cross next to Jesus was assured of entering paradise that very day we too are assured a place in heaven with the Father if we believe in Jesus Christ. It is most unfortunate that some have said, "Unless you have spoken in tongues you will not go to heaven." This is not true. It is contrary to the Scriptures.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Saying crazy things like ... All spiritual gifts have ceased. mwahaha.. heresy! heresy!

Greetings friend,

i believe that you have painted with too broad a brush in your response. There is no Christian who would believe that all spiritual gifts have ceased. That position would be considered heresy, and it is not a position that any cessationalist i have ever known or read has ever taken. B.B. Warfield strongly preached and taught against an "antisupernatural" Christianity, and he was definately a cessationalist.

The proper cessationalist argument is that the "miraculous sign gifts" of the spirit have ceased. They supposedly, as you have addressed below with the completion of the canon of scripture...according to the cessationalists.

OK, LET'S GET CALVINIST DARK LORD'S BIASES OUT OF THE WAY RIGHT NOW:

When asked my view on the continuation or lack therof of the charismata, i usually reply the following:

"i once had the charismatic disease, but God miraculously healed me."
​

which tells the questioner...exactly nothing, as the statement is a contradiction. Soooo, without taking a position, please bear with me as i take a shot at the rebuttal that you would hear against the position that you have articulated here.

I know I'm gonna get flamed for that ... but before that, here is the reasoning,from a complete cessationist viewpoint. I'm still actually looking into this...

Not from THIS dark lord you're not. This is simply an excercise. As you have said, you're still looking into the matter. Perhaps this is a bit of a direction for further inquiry.

Every spiritual gift has ceased at the end of the 1st century with the completion of the New Testament canon as the preeminent sign of the church's maturation. Each spiritual gift passage in the NT must be intrepted rigorously in its own unique context, without unduly allowing the other texts, particularly 1 Cor 12-14, to have the role of interpretive grid, whereby all the other text are exegeted in light of 1 Cor 12-14. That is to undermine and denigrate the full inspiritation, sufficiency, and unique contribution of each individual passage.

The idea of ALL spiritual gifts ceasing has already been addressed above. It is NOT the cessationalist position. Ok, context, what you wrote and what you mean are probably two different things. Let's just pass on this one shall we? Next issue: i'm a bit confused with the statement. In the first sentence, which do you mean:

1. That the completion of the canon was the preeminent sign of maturity of the church, or
2. That the spiritual gifts (i believe that you mean the charismata) was the preeminent sign of the maturation of the church.

In any event i'd have to say that both positions would be incorrect. Jesus said that individuals and groups would prove to be his disciples by the fact that:

1. They would bear much fruit
2. They would love one another

No mention of the charismata or the understanding of the canon there.

i quite agree that each passage of the bible that addresses the subject of spiritual gifts (and/or charismata) must be interpreted in light of it's own context...it is also true that such passages must be limited or defined in light of other passages that address the same subject(s). This is standard Protestant hermeneutics.

The evidence from Biblical History:

There is generally regarded to be three great periods of God's miraculous work through His chosen human instruments in biblical history. Those three periods are the time of Moses, Elijah and Elisha and Jesus Christ and His apostles. Each period is punctuated by an outpouring divine revelation being inscripturated as part of the written Word of God. Hence, we can safely assert that these miracle-eras were brought about by God in order to validate His mesengers and most of all, the Word that they carried to His people Israel and to the rest of the world )particularly in Jesus' time).
Miracles do take place throughout the bible, but not in huge clusters as in these three specific periods. In fact, miracles are not too frequent as one peruses the pages of Scripture. These of course, has to do with the purpose of miracles mentioned above.
Again, history is just that, history. It is not meant to be slavishly copied. Principles can be drawn fro the sake of application. But seeking to recreate one-time experiences in your own Christian life will prove to be futile.

You've hit on something very interesting here that is not often observed. If one considers the time period covered by the book of Acts, the Pauline epistles, and the general Epistles, it is correct that not much miraculous is documented. Those aren't a lot of miracles for that amount of time...certainly not as many as Benny Hinn or Orel Roberts would claim today.

By definition, a miracle is a rare event, or it wouldn't be a miracle...it would be a phenomena that we do not understand fully, such as the issue of de ja vous.

Yet the scriptural record records many "dry periods" where the miraculous did not occur. The period after the exodus, before and during the time of the Judges comes to mind, where the word of the Lord is said to be rare and precious. The point is that the present occurance or lack of occurance of the charismata cannot be considered as a barometer of whether or not it has ceased today. It would not have been so at the time of the Judges. One must keep in mind that we have a Sovereign God who gives gifts when, and to whom He will.

The Evidence from the Purpose of Tongues

What was the purpose of tongues? 1 Cor 14:22 says, "Tongues are for a sign not to those who bleieve but to unbelievers." The word for "sign" speaks of a miraculous happening with a deeper spiritual or symbolic significance. This gift was given by God to authenticate an inspired message.
Tongues served to scatter the gospel to new language groups. In Acts 2,10 and 19, tongues gave evidence that God was including all peoples in His newly created body, the body of Christ, the church. Once the church began to grow in size and i geographical distribution, the need for tongues went away and with it the gift itself.

Question:

Where were the spectacular signs for over 1,800 years of church history?

By the same token, what need for tongues at all? By God's Providence, Alexander the Macedon conquered most of the known world, and Greek became the Linga Franqua of the known world. Why would one need tongues at all when almost all of the world spoke Greek?

In fact, because the known world is far more diverse in language today, it would be rational to suggest that tongues are needed in greater abundance now than during the First Century.

Again, this is just food for thought and further inquiry. i do not take a public position on these issues.