Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How can anyone learn mechanics only by studying about it, without any hands-on experience?
How can anyone lead anyone else to the Lord, without first experiencing salvation?
How can anyone understand the gift of tongues, only by studying about it, outside of the context of experience?
If I wanted to learn from any preacher or teacher about any gift, I would seek out someone who actually has experience in it, instead of one who thinks it isn't for today.
That kind of teaching only exists to prop up a lack of experience.
Kind of like the kind of theology that says you can't know if you are saved.
The preachers who don't have the experience will tell others they can't know, either.
So says every denomination about every doctrine which they are too blind to see in the word.Experience is not the determinant of divine origin. People can experience all sorts of strange phenomena - hypnosis, out of body experiences, premonitions, etc. Are they from God too? Many experiences are purely psychological.
Scripture alone is our only test as to whether a particular experience is from God. And modern glossolalia fails that test - it does not match the biblical description of tongues.
Experience is not the determinant of divine origin. People can experience all sorts of strange phenomena - hypnosis, out of body experiences, premonitions, etc. Are they from God too? Many experiences are purely psychological.
Scripture alone is our only test as to whether a particular experience is from God. And modern glossolalia fails that test - it does not match the biblical description of tongues.
(....is watching from the sidelines, as the bait is cast...)Please give us your own scriptural interpretation of the biblical description of tongues.
(....is watching from the sidelines, as the bait is cast...)
shhh... you might scare the fish away...
No, I haven't read it, but you have. So tell us in your own words what he said. You can even write out your favorite passage.
oh, then he "evolved"I think he got out of the water and ran for the hills...
I see that our friend has a Masters of Divinity from a Presbyterian seminary.
I as a Pentecostal have no problem with anything you've said so far.Well, there's three authors so there isn't really a single "he said" about any of it. The three contribute a passage each, one on glossolalia in the NT, one which is a brief history of the phenomena, and one which provides a "socio-psychological" study of the topic.
The best part to me, and the one I most frequently use, is Stagg's summary of the three ways in which the phrase "speaking in tongues" is used in the NT on pages 22-23:
"Glossa unmistakably refers to the tongue as an organ of speech in Luke 16:24, where the rich man in torment wants water for his tongue. It is used in the literal sense here and elsewhere (cf. Mark 7:33, 35; Luke 1:64; Rom. 3:13; 14:11; 1 Cor. 14:9; Jas. 3:5-6; 1 John 3:18; 1 Peter 3:10; and Rev. 16:10). In Acts 2:3 it is used in a figurative sense for forked flames of fire. Glossa is used in a figurative sense or personified sense in Acts 2:26, 'my tongue rejoiced,' and in Phil 2:11, 'every tongue confess.'
A second usage for glossa is found in Acts and Revelation. In Acts 2:11 the plural of glossa is used for language, where the statement 'we hear them telling in our own tongues' parallels vs. 8, 'we hear, each of us in his own native language.' Manuscripts in Acts 2:6 differ, some having 'dialect' and some 'tongues,' whether or not with different meaning is not clear. The book of Revelation follows the Old Testament precedent in employing glossa for language in a figurative or personified sense, using it as a synonym for 'tribe', 'people,' and 'nation' (5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; and 17:15). In this usage, tongue simply distinguishes one linguistic group of people from another.
The third usage is most difficult, where glossa is used for strange or obscure speech or utterance, now commonly called glossolalia. This usage is found in 1 Cor. 12:10, 28, 39: 13:1, 8; 14:1-27, 39; and Acts 10:46; 19:6. It will be a major concern of this essay to question whether or not this usage is to be found in a source underlying the second chapter of Acts (particularly 2:4) and obscured by Luke, as is widely held. The implications of each conclusion will be pursued, i.e., that Luke correctly represents the 'tongues' at Pentecost as intelligible language, or that he deliberately or unknowingly obscured an older tradition that the 'speaking in tongues' at Pentecost was unintelligible, ecstatic utterance."
I've never been trying to argue about the genuineness or authenticity of tongue speaking, just trying to recommend a book I've found to be a good read.I as a Pentecostal have no problem with anything you've said so far.
Well, there's three authors so there isn't really a single "he said" about any of it. The three contribute a passage each, one on glossolalia in the NT, one which is a brief history of the phenomena, and one which provides a "socio-psychological" study of the topic.
The best part to me, and the one I most frequently use, is Stagg's summary of the three ways in which the phrase "speaking in tongues" is used in the NT on pages 22-23:
"Glossa unmistakably refers to the tongue as an organ of speech in Luke 16:24, where the rich man in torment wants water for his tongue. It is used in the literal sense here and elsewhere (cf. Mark 7:33, 35; Luke 1:64; Rom. 3:13; 14:11; 1 Cor. 14:9; Jas. 3:5-6; 1 John 3:18; 1 Peter 3:10; and Rev. 16:10). In Acts 2:3 it is used in a figurative sense for forked flames of fire. Glossa is used in a figurative sense or personified sense in Acts 2:26, 'my tongue rejoiced,' and in Phil 2:11, 'every tongue confess.'
A second usage for glossa is found in Acts and Revelation. In Acts 2:11 the plural of glossa is used for language, where the statement 'we hear them telling in our own tongues' parallels vs. 8, 'we hear, each of us in his own native language.' Manuscripts in Acts 2:6 differ, some having 'dialect' and some 'tongues,' whether or not with different meaning is not clear. The book of Revelation follows the Old Testament precedent in employing glossa for language in a figurative or personified sense, using it as a synonym for 'tribe', 'people,' and 'nation' (5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; and 17:15). In this usage, tongue simply distinguishes one linguistic group of people from another.
The third usage is most difficult, where glossa is used for strange or obscure speech or utterance, now commonly called glossolalia. This usage is found in 1 Cor. 12:10, 28, 39: 13:1, 8; 14:1-27, 39; and Acts 10:46; 19:6. It will be a major concern of this essay to question whether or not this usage is to be found in a source underlying the second chapter of Acts (particularly 2:4) and obscured by Luke, as is widely held. The implications of each conclusion will be pursued, i.e., that Luke correctly represents the 'tongues' at Pentecost as intelligible language, or that he deliberately or unknowingly obscured an older tradition that the 'speaking in tongues' at Pentecost was unintelligible, ecstatic utterance."
The languages ARE legitimate languages. God is the author of all languages and understands them all. So the question is now - Do you believe in speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance, or not?
I've never wanted to argue one way or the other, but since you've asked directly, no. I would consider myself a cessationist.
Do you have any scriptural reasons for being a cessationist? I hope so, even if wrong, otherwise, it is just unbelief. I was raised a cessationist, so I can relate, but God got a hold of me and opened me up to His full gospel.
As I've said, I am not going to argue with you.
Actually that is a smart move when you don't have a leg to stand on.
I'm surprised you could see my legs at all from atop your high horse.
Please give us your own scriptural interpretation of the biblical description of tongues.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?