Speaking In Tounges...

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oscarr,

Are you promoting the view that tongues is the "initial physical evidence" of the baptism with the Holy Spirit and that one will not be able to speak in tongues without this experience?

In Christ, Oz

My view is that the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is faith. When a believer comes to the certainty that the baptism in the Spirit is God's will for him/her, and uses the Scriptural way of receiving God's blessings by asking for Him to come into his/her life; and then receiving the Spirit into his/her spirit, then the believer makes a statement of faith: "I am now baptised in the Spirit". This assurance of faith is the first evidence. A person does not have to wait for a sensory "experience" for this to happen. In fact, waiting for a sensory manifestation before he/she believes that the baptism in the Spirit has taken place is actually faith in manifestations and experiences, rather than in the promises of God's Word. This is where some Pentecostals and others miss the point.

Where tongues comes into the picture is the fulfillment of what Jesus said to the woman at the well: "From out of your innermost being shall flow rivers of living water." Jesus was speaking to her of the Spirit that believers will receive.

Receiving the baptism in the Spirit accepts the Spirit into the believer's spirit. He now indwells the believer. But the Holy Spirit has to have a way of flowing out through the believer. Some believe that this is the fruit of the Spirit, but that does not happen right away. It can take weeks, months or even years for that to happen completely.

But a flow can happen right away as soon as the believer starts exercising the gifts of the Spirit. This is where I believe the gift of tongues comes in. There are two aspects of tongues: the prayer language, and the actual gift of tongues which is interpreted. The former is practiced before God in private, the latter in the church.

This is why I encourage believers to speak in tongues, because this is the best way of getting that flow of the Spirit to come out of the person.

Therefore, to answer your second question: A person does not have to speak in tongues in order to believe that they are baptised in the Spirit. But a person baptised in the Spirit is able to speak in tongues.

In the same manner, a car mechanic does not have to use a socket set to fix cars to be a mechanic, but as a mechanic he is free to use a socket set to fix cars if he sees the need for it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is exactly the test I was referring to when I said it would be fairly easy to distinguish people who's speaking in tongues is from God and people who talk gibberish from the Devil. So here is the test: does the person speak in tongues more often when by himself than he does when in church in the absence of an interpreter? Would he rather speak 5 intelligible words in church than a thousand in a tongue? This will tell you whether the individual in question is trying to edify himself, edify his church, or glorify himself in the sight of man.

Yep. The more a person speaks in tongues in his private prayer time with God, the more his faith and dependence on Christ is built up. When we talk about a person edifying himself, we are not talking about the individual being any closer to God or any more spiritual than what he is already. As individuals, there is nothing good in us, and if we try to build that up we are trying to build on a rotten foundation that has the sentence of death in it.

Building oneself up as an individual is New Age thinking and it contrary to Christian faith.

No, speaking in tongues builds us up in faith in the promises of God and increases our dependence on Christ. This is the building up of our most holy faith that Jude speaks of. We come more into line with God's will and are more sensitive to His voice. This is what tongues do when we practice it before God in private.

Prophecy is the way that we build up our fellow believers in the Body of Christ. So Paul spent hours praying on tongues before God in private, and when he came to a church meeting he prophesied. But there is something beautiful when a person does speak out in tongues in a church meeting and someone gives the interpretation. This often has the effect of activating the flow of the other gifts.

This of course would take place in church meetings where the Holy Spirit is allowed to flow like this. It would not take place in programmed church services made up of three hymns and a sermon.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oscarr,

I think that it is dangerouse to use this passage from 1 John as "the best test", as a Scriptural test for Pentecostals.

You and I know that there are many brands of Pentecostals. For example, the United Pentecostal Church would agree that Jesus came in the flesh, but it is a denomination that teaches the heretical doctrine of unitarianism - oneness Pentecostals. It does not support the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

We need to judge every church by the totality of Scripture.

Would you say that the Pentecostal support of the Toronto "Blessing" was all of God? Are the Pentecostals who follow the teachings of Rodney Howard Browne practising biblical Christianity? What about the alleged laughing revival? Were these manifestations of God?

"Pentecostals, experience & Scripture" is an article that provides some interesting challenges to the Pentecostal movement.

In Christ, Oz

I go along with what you are saying. If a group are practicing manifestations and cannot say that Jesus came in the flesh, then we can say that another spirit is operating there.

But then, saying Jesus came in the flesh would include Jesus being sent by the Father, and sending the Holy Spirit to church when He went and offered His blood in the heavenly holy of holies to the Father. The United Pentecostal Church believes in "Jesus only", implying that there is no separate Father or Holy Spirit. In fact, Jesus cannot be seated at the right hand of the Father in their theology, nor could He send the Holy Spirit to the church, unless they believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person, which I suspect this is what they believe.

They also cannot say that Jesus is Lord either, because the Scripture says that God has given Jesus a name above every other name. So the Lordship of Christ was bestowed on Him by the Father. But if the UPC does not believe in a Father, and Jesus did not bestow His Lordship on Himself, they cannot really believe that Jesus is Lord, can they? Actually their theology has holes big enough in it to be able to drive a London bus through.

Also, the UPC stems from the ministry and teaching of William Branham, who was called to ministry through an angelic visitation. This is called into question because although angels have come to comfort and strengthen believers as in the experience of Paul, or to rescue, as in Peter being released from Prison. There is no parallel to a ministry being called through Angels. When Paul and Barnabas were called it was through prophecy from the group of prophets and teachers at Antioch, and Timothy was called to the ministry by the laying on of hands and the prophetic word. So, many Pentecostals believe that the angel did not come from God, and this is borne out by the fruit - crazy doctrinal teaching in Branham's later ministry, and major divisions in the Pentecostal movement.

So, I have difficulty believing that the UPC is a church moving in the Holy Spirit, mainly because they do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a person. I don't know what they believe about the Spirit. Maybe they think that He is some type of indeterminate mist or electrical charge that comes and "anoints" people. Actually "anointing" is an Old Testament term for the work of the Spirit. New Testament Christians have the Spirit dwelling within them and the move of the Spirit consists on what they do in faith as they exercise the gifts and ministries that are part of Him.

So, at best, I would say that the UPC is a church moving in the flesh and programmed by man, with the Holy Spirit being absent.

If those who participate in or support the Toronto Blessing can say that Jesus is Lord, or that He came in the flesh, then they are not being motivated by any evil spirit. But many of their "manifestations" (as described by you) would not be in the Spirit either. So the only alternative is that as the Spirit moves in them, they are responding in the flesh, allowing their natural emotions to run away with them.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Throughout the Bible, looking for signs is treated as an evil thing to do. The Jews were evil, so they looked for signs, and Jesus criticized them for it.

"Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." Jesus replied (independent clause), "An evil and adulterous generation demands a sign". This could have been anything. It could have been Jesus pulling a rabbit out of his hat. It's not, as you suppose "those signs", as if it's a specific set of signs.

Luk 23:8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him.

The word translated "sign" is often translated "miracle". Jesus performed many signs, but not those who asked for the sake of seeing something supernatural. There is a difference between God offering a sign and someone wanting to see a sign.

Pentecostals test God by wanting a sign, and then they mock God by acting like clowns.

So let me get this straight. You are implying that Pentecostals are evil, like Herod, right?

Don't you think that there is a difference between wanting to see miracles as a thrill seeking spectator, and wanting to strengthen, build up, heal the sick, reduce suffering, glorify God, release people from Satanic bondage through believing God for the miraculous?

It seems that you so disbelieve in the miraculous, especially as believed on by Pentecostals, that you are prepared to scrape the bottom of the barrel by quoting Scriptures out of context to support your position.

 

[OzSpen]

My view is that the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is faith. When a believer comes to the certainty that the baptism in the Spirit is God's will for him/her, and uses the Scriptural way of receiving God's blessings by asking for Him to come into his/her life; and then receiving the Spirit into his/her spirit, then the believer makes a statement of faith: "I am now baptised in the Spirit". This assurance of faith is the first evidence. A person does not have to wait for a sensory "experience" for this to happen....

Therefore, to answer your second question: A person does not have to speak in tongues in order to believe that they are baptised in the Spirit. But a person baptised in the Spirit is able to speak in tongues.

Oscarr,

You seem to be saying that a person is baptised in the Spirit when he/she receives salvation and then such a person is available for God to send the supernatural gift of tongues to him/her when the church gathers?

Is that what you mean? If it is, it is quite different from the AoG understanding of "initial evidence".

In Christ, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

.
If those who participate in or support the Toronto Blessing can say that Jesus is Lord, or that He came in the flesh, then they are not being motivated by any evil spirit. But many of their "manifestations" (as described by you) would not be in the Spirit either. So the only alternative is that as the Spirit moves in them, they are responding in the flesh, allowing their natural emotions to run away with them.

I agree. But I do not support much of the existential "stuff" that went on with the Toronto movement. However, those who want to attribute the Toronto manifestations to Satan are treading on dangerous territory, in my view, as existential follow-the-leader can happen as a fleshly reaction in church activities and in other actions outside of the church.

In Christ, Oz

P.S. I was saddened to hear on tonight's TV news out of Brisbane of further earthquakes in Christchurch. I know that you are a long way removed from Christchurch, but it must be a terrifying experience for these people to have it again. I'm praying for the Christchurch people and the NZ people affected by this earthquake.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oscarr,

You seem to be saying that a person is baptised in the Spirit when he/she receives salvation and then such a person is available for God to send the supernatural gift of tongues to him/her when the church gathers?

Is that what you mean? If it is, it is quite different from the AoG understanding of "initial evidence".

In Christ, Oz

Well, it depends on a person's faith when they believe they are baptised in the Spirit. I know that the Baptist position is that it comes along with salvation. I have no problem with that because receiving the baptism is a matter of faith before experience. Others believe they receive it when they are baptised in water, taking the experience of Jesus when He was baptised by John and the Holy Spirit came and rested on Him as a dove. Others believe it is a second work of grace (coming out of the Methodist Holiness movements of the 19th Century), and this is okay as well because it is according to a person's faith. So there is no strict time, and when a person comes to believe and receive, the Holy Spirit is there for him/her. After all, it was given to the church 2000 years ago, so believers can receive Him at any time.

A person can use the gifts of the Spirit at any time, according to his/her faith. There is a private prayer language and a public one. It depends on how the Holy Spirit decides to use a person.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I agree. But I do not support much of the existential "stuff" that went on with the Toronto movement. However, those who want to attribute the Toronto manifestations to Satan are treading on dangerous territory, in my view, as existential follow-the-leader can happen as a fleshly reaction in church activities and in other actions outside of the church.

In Christ, Oz

P.S. I was saddened to hear on tonight's TV news out of Brisbane of further earthquakes in Christchurch. I know that you are a long way removed from Christchurch, but it must be a terrifying experience for these people to have it again. I'm praying for the Christchurch people and the NZ people affected by this earthquake.

I am aware that I cannot comment too much on the Toronto Blessing because I haven't experienced it first hand. I wouldn't go so far as to attribute it to the devil. If the manifestations are not of the Spirit, then the best description is that they are of the flesh; but this does not say that the people are not loving Christ or are not passionate for the Lord and for saving souls for Christ.

It is good to delve below the outward froth and bubble to see what the more stable and sound believers are like. If there is a solid foundation of dependence on Christ and growing in grace and holiness, then that's what we need to look at. When I have a good milkshake I like to get right down to the flavoured milk and icecream rather than messing around with the froth on top.

 

[NvxiaLee]

Still, no Pentecostal here has explained to me the difference between random syllables that they believe is tongues vs. real tongues.

Even if the horrid interpretation of Pentecostals of the Bible is correct, that's still no evidence that a Charles Mansion in church is really speaking in tongues from God.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Still, no Pentecostal here has explained to me the difference between random syllables that they believe is tongues vs. real tongues.

Even if the horrid interpretation of Pentecostals of the Bible is correct, that's still no evidence that a Charles Mansion in church is really speaking in tongues from God.

Quite simply, tongues is a prayer language that is spoken in faith, believing that God understands what is being said. It is a tool for personal prayer to allow praise, fellowship and intercession to flow from the believer's spirit to God without the hindrance of the natural mind. A lot of times we feel the need to pray over an issue or for a person but we don't know what to say to God. The prayer language overcomes that barrier, and often leads to a greater clarity of exactly how to pray in English.

Romans 12 tells us that God gives us abilities and gifts according the the measure of faith He bestows on us. Therefore, some have the ability to speak in tongues as part of their particular measure of faith, and other don't. The Holy Spirit invites us to make use of the tools and abilities He has for us, but He will never force them on us.

If we try to use our natural, logical mind to try and explain many things about God and what He does, we will always get tangled up, and tongues is one of those things. It is a matter of faith - whether we believe 1 Corinthians 14 is relevant to us today, or not. I guess it is something that comes by revelation, and that flesh and blood cannot reveal it, in the same way that Peter did not know that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God until he received it by revelation.

So, until a revelation about it is received, tongues will always look like some sort of foolishness to many people. But for those who have received the revelation of it, tongues is a very useful, pleasant tool to use that enhances praise, prayer, and intercession; and is the catalyst for the operation of the other gifts of the Spirit.

 

[OzSpen]

Still, no Pentecostal here has explained to me the difference between random syllables that they believe is tongues vs. real tongues.

Even if the horrid interpretation of Pentecostals of the Bible is correct, that's still no evidence that a Charles Mansion in church is really speaking in tongues from God.

Nvx,

Are you associating Pentecostals with the criminal, Charles Manson? If not, who is Charles Mansion?

Oz

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to take part in this discussion, even though my icon is Pentecostal. I am actually an elder in the Presbyterian church, and involved in a couple of interdenominational ministries promoting and equipping believers in the prophetic. I had had several years of association with the Baptist church in two cities in New Zealand, and was a deacon in one of those churches. I found fellowshiping with Baptists a very pleasant experience. I still have a lot to do with Baptist churches in my interdenominational involvements, and we have a number of members of my Presbyterian church who have Baptist backgrounds.

I hope that my posts have been helpful to you to give you a clearer understanding of the gift of tongues from someone who is a Pentebaptipressy type of Christian.

I know that there are many who don't believe in it, and I respect that, but in spite of that, I want to assure you that not all believers who pray in tongues (and I emphasise the word pray rather than "speak" because there is a major difference) are people who babble in public in an out of control manner. It is usually the lunatic fringe who give Pentecostals a bad name, but the vast majority of Pentecostal believers respect and obey the teachings of Paul and are very self-controlled in the way they practice the Spiritual gifts.

 

[NvxiaLee]

Nvx,

Are you associating Pentecostals with the criminal, Charles Manson? If not, who is Charles Mansion?

Oz

Tongues starts at about 2:35
YouTube - ‪Charles Manson interview in San Quentin Prison‬‏

 

[His_disciple3]

Charles manson was a sick evil individual, I hope that he could also one day find Christ as his salvation, but it takes another kind of person to compare someone's faith in the Word of God to a sick individual as Charles, I am just not sure which one would be more evil? ye shall know them by their fruits!!

 

[New_Believer]

My opinion on the matter pretty much agrees with the OP. I believe tongues can be a spiritual gift but I think it's misused and abused by many churches today. I know it says somewhere in either I Corinthians or II Corinthians that you shouldn't speak in tongues unless there is someone there to interpret it. A lot of churches believe speaking in tongues is a must for salvation; if you haven't spoke in tongues then you have not been baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is the kind of thinking that I don't agree with. We all have a spiritual gift; not all of us will preform miracles. And it's pretty clear how someone reaches salvation in John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Now I don't mean any disrespect for those who speaking in tongues is a strong part of their faith; I just don't agree with those who think it's the only way to come to know God.

 

[NvxiaLee]

So, until a revelation about it is received, tongues will always look like some sort of foolishness to many people.

Thank you for an answer to my question. But, your answer begs the question, is tongues from God? Pentecostal Revelation is only real if tongues is real.

A real language has a complicity lacking in tongues. Tongues is usually very repetitive and is a string of sounds native to the speaker. For example, Hispanics who speak in tongues often use a rolling R-sound. English-only speakers don't use that sound.

Real tongues might be known by someone hearing it, someone who doesn't claim any gifts from God. Stories from Africa don't count, unless its on video. But, whenever Pentecostal miracles are on video, they never turn out to be what they were claimed.

Your answer makes tongues even less credible. The interpretation of tongues "never" matches the tongues. Languages generally have a 1-to-1 word correspondence. "Olive tree" in English is going to be two words in nearly every language that exists. The failure of interpretations to match tongues in style is further proof that tongues isn't real.

Speaking of interpretation and prophesy, in Pentecostal churches, this is all garbage, too. The Holy Spirit never corrects bad doctrine, but only repeats the bad doctrine of the speaker. Nothing of value ever comes from interpretation or prophesy in a Pentecostal church.

Pentecostals say tongues makes them feel better. But, where in the Bible is tongues suppose to make anyone feel better? And, why would it make a spiritually healthy person feel better, as opposed to the spiritually weak that wants to see miracles? Anyway, if it makes anyone feel better, it's because of their belief that it's real, not because it actually is real - that's the worst of all reasons to approve of tongues.

The first century church was in the dark. They didn't have a New Testament or even a Christian tradition to draw upon. Without Prophesy, they wouldn't know much of what Christianity is about. Without tongues, they couldn't efficiently spread the Gospel in a very multi-lingual region of the world. None of this applies today.

 

[OzSpen]

Tongues starts at about 2:35http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uhmtAmwnDQ&NR=1

Nvx,

The fact is that you spelled Charles Manson incorrectly as Charles Mansion.

Oz

 

[NvxiaLee]

The fact is that you spelled Charles Manson incorrectly as Charles Mansion.

I was speaking a Heavenly language that is very similar to English. In this language, the correct way to spell Manson is with an 'i'.

 

[OzSpen]

I was speaking a Heavenly language that is very similar to English. In this language, the correct way to spell Manson is with an 'i'.

I do not find this kind of sarcasm to be Christ-exalting.

Oz

 

[NvxiaLee]

Are you associating Pentecostals with the criminal, Charles Manson? If not, who is Charles Mansion?

Pentecostal TV Evangelists are almost synonymous with scandal. But, the point of Charles Manson is to illustrate that tongues has nothing to do with righteousness, religion, or denomination. The difference between a prison convict and a Pentecostal isn't that one has the gift of tongues, but that one wants to test God on the issue.