Speaking in tongues

[swordsman1]

Luke's narrative is the account of one person's view of what happened in the Early Church. He related events that he personally witnessed and what was told to him by Peter and Paul. Later on he recounted his journey's with Paul and what happened on those journeys as Paul's companion. Therefore his account is just a slice of everything that happened in the Early Church. Therefore we have no knowledge of events that took place in the areas where Peter and Paul never went. For example, there were 11 other Apostles. We only have early Christian history to have any clue to how they ministered and spread the gospel. We have an idea of how the Early Church functioned through Luke's account, just enough to give some idea of it, but not a hard and fast doctrine which we must adhere to or else.

I didn't say Acts was a complete record of everything that happened in the early church. But Luke's account of what happened at Pentecost is certainly accurate and happened as he said it.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I didn't say Acts was a complete record of everything that happened in the early church. But Luke's account of what happened at Pentecost is certainly accurate and happened as he said it.

Please respond to my question to you.

 

[swordsman1]

Let me ask you a personal question about your beliefs on tongues. You said on this thread that Pentecostal tongues today is not the same as in the first century. So, to you, what was the purpose of tongues back then, and is that purpose still necessary today?

Tongues had 2 purposes.
1) A confirming sign (Mark 16:17,20) which, along with the other miraculous gifts of healing and miracles, were signs that God was present in new situations.
2) If spoken in the church, they were to be translated for the edification of the congregation.

The gift is not necessary today.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Jerusalem was filled with people from other countries on the Day of Pentecost.
There were lots of groups talking to each other in foreign languages.

If you were in an international airport, and you heard a group of strangers talking to each other in a language you didn't understand, would you call them drunk?

Of course not. That's illogical.
You would be ridiculed for such an accusation.

People who are drunk don't stand around acting normal, talking in foreign languages.

People who are drunk have lost a bit of control of their "normal bodily functions."
They might get loud. They might stagger. They might laugh, cry, or do other emotional things.
All of which are rather disturbing to those who like things well-regulated and predictable.

But drunks do NOT stand around speaking foreign languages in a dignified manner.

Now, if you were in an international airport, and saw a group talking foreign languages while doing other behaviors, which are common actions of drunk people, then you might accuse them of being drunk.

Notice Peter's defense. He never once said they weren't acting drunk. Because they were.

Reading the account carefully, it says that some of the crowd said they were drunk. Peter got up and said, "No, they are not drunk because it is too early in the morning." It does not say that the disciples were staggering around out of control. It does show that they were laughing, singing, rejoicing, and speaking in foreign languages. This was what made some think they were drunk because they probably only saw drunk people behave like that in their experience. I have seen people at airports laughing, rejoicing at seeing loved ones, and actually singing, and generally behaving high spiritedly, and speaking in foreign languages, but I would never think they were drunk.

Actually, (and I'm not having a go at you) the whole debate about how the crowd heard their own dialects when the disciples were speaking in tongues is pointless because it can never be proved whether the disciples spoke the actual languages or that the crowd had the languages interpreted in their ears like the intergalactic interpretation devices on Startrek. Luke says that they did hear their own dialects, but how that was achieved is in the area of God being God in an area where we cannot work out. We can only guess. It's the same principle as how God was able to create the heavens and the earth in seven days and yet make it appear to have been around for millions of years. All theories about it has to be mere guesswork.

For us who believe in the gift of tongues and enjoying praying that way, how the mechanics of it works is beyond us, because who knows the mind of the Holy Spirit except the Holy Spirit Himself? The unity that we have in the gift is that we do it and it works for us. But when we try to explain it to prejudiced cessationists, we can get quite tangled up.

I was thinking about this on the bus stop this morning. Who cares whether one has one interpretation of Scripture and someone else has another? If I read the Scripture in a certain way and I exercise faith on that basis and it works for me, and it is not inconsistent with the gospel of Christ, then God accepts that. If someone else interprets the Scripture another way which might be just as feasible as mine and he or she exercises faith on the basis of that and God accepts it because it to does not violate the principles of the gospel, then who am I to say that the other person is wrong? Do I have perfect knowledge about the ways of God when Paul says that none of us has perfect knowledge and will not have until we are with the Lord in glory?

But the differences between us in knowledge and interpretation makes interesting and fun debates on the forum!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Tongues had 2 purposes.
1) A confirming sign (Mark 16:17,20) which, along with the other miraculous gifts of healing and miracles, were signs that God was present in new situations.
2) If spoken in the church, they were to be translated for the edification of the congregation.

The gift is not necessary today.

So what you are saying that anyone who operates the gift is not of God and therefore of the devil? Come on! Be honest and say it!
When my daughter was 16, I gave her an Abrahamic blessing as she came out of the waters of baptism. What happened was that I spoke a message in tongues and then gave the interpretation. So come on then! Tell me that what I did was inspired by the devil! That is what you believe isn't it??

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oscarr, you may enjoy the new thread on that subject.

I went there and posted my testimony. I enjoyed doing that. It is the first time I have given that testimony in that way.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Tongues had 2 purposes.
1) A confirming sign (Mark 16:17,20) which, along with the other miraculous gifts of healing and miracles, were signs that God was present in new situations.
2) If spoken in the church, they were to be translated for the edification of the congregation.

The gift is not necessary today.

Do we belong to a different church than the one started on Pentecost?

 

[swordsman1]

Do we belong to a different church than the one started on Pentecost?

Same church, but the church is no longer fledgling.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Same church, but the church is no longer fledgling.

So when did we stop needing the Holy Spirit?

 

[swordsman1]

So when did we stop needing the Holy Spirit?

Who said that? Not me.

 

[swordsman1]

So what you are saying that anyone who operates the gift is not of God and therefore of the devil? Come on! Be honest and say it!
When my daughter was 16, I gave her an Abrahamic blessing as she came out of the waters of baptism. What happened was that I spoke a message in tongues and then gave the interpretation. So come on then! Tell me that what I did was inspired by the devil! That is what you believe isn't it??

No, I have already explained what I think modern glossolalia is - not the NT gift of tongues, but a natural phenomenon which people THINK is the gift of tongues.

 

[1stcenturylady]

No, I have already explained what I think modern glossolalia is - not the NT gift of tongues, but a natural phenomenon which people THINK is the gift of tongues.

Your "faith" says Christian, but what is the name of your cessationist group?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Do we belong to a different church than the one started on Pentecost?

What has happened is that the Church has evolved into two different streams: One where the reality of the Holy Spirit has been exchanged for rituals and ceremonies. That's where the Cessationist fellowship. The second is the Church where members identify themselves with the Church of the Book of Acts and practice everything that the ones in the Early Church practiced, and who welcome the reality that the Holy Spirit lives inside of them and that when they come to Church they bring the presence of the Holy Spirit with them. They know that Jesus heals and delivers people in their churches in the same way that happened in the Book of Acts. This Church is decidedly Continuist and it is a part of all denominations. This is because this Church is made up of the people and not the building, denomination or its religious systems.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Same church, but the church is no longer fledgling.

Oh? So a Church that is healing the sick, freeing people from demons, winning thousands of pagans to Christ, is less mature than most of ours that are doing anything like that to the same extent? So your church, where there is no healing, deliverances and very few souls won to Christ is actually more mature than the one in the Book of Acts? Haw Haw Haw!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Who said that? Not me.

But if He is not active in the same way as He was in the Early Church then, where is He in your church? Tied up in a corner so He can't do anything so you can get on with your programmed services?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, I have already explained what I think modern glossolalia is - not the NT gift of tongues, but a natural phenomenon which people THINK is the gift of tongues.

So you are saying that I was not inspired by the Holy Spirit? You seem to be reticent to say that I was actually inspired by some other spirit. I guess accusing a person like that would be a violation of the forum rules, so I can't really force you to do that. I would not report you because I asked for it, but others on the thread might.

 

[1stcenturylady]

So you are saying that I was not inspired by the Holy Spirit? You seem to be reticent to say that I was actually inspired by some other spirit. I guess accusing a person like that would be a violation of the forum rules, so I can't really force you to do that. I would not report you because I asked for it, but others on the thread might.

The two categories seem to be like Sardis/Laodecia and Philadelphia.

To Sardis:He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. To Laodecia: I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth."

Philadelphia: "Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name...10 Because you have kept the word of perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to those who dwell on the earth.

 

[swordsman1]

Oh? So a Church that is healing the sick, freeing people from demons, winning thousands of pagans to Christ, is less mature than most of ours that are doing anything like that to the same extent? So your church, where there is no healing, deliverances and very few souls won to Christ is actually more mature than the one in the Book of Acts? Haw Haw Haw!

Who said cessationists don't believe in healing or winning souls to Christ?

We are called to pray for the sick and if it is God's will for them to be healed, he will heal them. Praying for the sick is not the same thing as having the spiritual gift of healing, as they had in the 1st century. The disciples then didn't pray for the sick, they healed people instantly and completely with a command or a touch. If people have to pray for the sick today, it is a sure sign they don't have the gift of healing. Same for miracles - we can pray for them, and God may grant them, but we do not have the ability to perform them ourselves as the disciples did.

 

[1stcenturylady]

So what you are saying that anyone who operates the gift is not of God and therefore of the devil? Come on! Be honest and say it!
When my daughter was 16, I gave her an Abrahamic blessing as she came out of the waters of baptism. What happened was that I spoke a message in tongues and then gave the interpretation. So come on then! Tell me that what I did was inspired by the devil! That is what you believe isn't it??

Remember what I wrote in my book about the guy who wrote that thesis? He may have been the one to start this whole "speaking in tongues is of the devil" blasphemy.

 

[swordsman1]

But if He is not active in the same way as He was in the Early Church then, where is He in your church? Tied up in a corner so He can't do anything so you can get on with your programmed services?

This might come as a surprise to you, but there is more to the Holy Spirit than speaking in tongues.

The Holy Spirit is fully active in our lives. He regenerates us. We are baptized in Him. He places us in the body of Christ. He indwells us. He seals us. He convicts us. He sanctifies us. He teaches us, guides us, comforts us, intercedes for us, helps us interpret scripture, controls us if we are yielded to Him, produces fruit in us, and last but not least bestows spiritual gifts (but no longer all those listed).