The Administration Of Tongues

[Alithis]

there is a lot of waffle going on..i prefer to get on with the doing of it rather then the debating of it

 

[Biblicist]

there is a lot of waffle going on..i prefer to get on with the doing of it rather then the debating of it

I'm sorry, thanks for the invite, but I think that New Zealand might be a bit far for a friendly serving of waffles, thanks anyway!

 

[Alithis]

In that case your cooking .. we are headed over end of july

 

[Biblicist]

In that case your cooking .. we are headed over end of july

Does that mean that you and your family are coming to Melbourne??

 

[Alithis]

Does that mean that you and your family are coming to Melbourne??

not this time ... this time its the Gc

 

[Imagican]

If you read Paul's intent with uninterpreted tongues being a "negative" sign to the unconverted then it will make sense.

Then you are openly admitting that anyone who would speak in tongues IN FRONT of an unbeliever, or one YET to be converted, is doing something that Paul DISCOURAGES.

Yet in the 'churches' where tongues are spoken, this principle doesn't seem to 'get in the way'. For SURELY, in a gathering of dozens, hundreds, there are BOUND to be at least a FEW that have YET to be 'born again'. And HOW would 'you know' one way or the other? Can you honestly SAY with AUTHORITY that YOU KNOW that ANYONE you have ever MET has been "BORN AGAIN"? If you say YES, PROVE IT.

But I offer that it's YOUR confusion over the scripture. It does NOT mean what you have indicated. It means EXACTLY what it says. Tongues are for a SIGN to them that BELIEVE NOT. It is the MEANS that was given in power of the apostles to speak to people of OTHER LANGUAGES. NON believers of OTHER languages. Not only could the apostle speak and the other understand the GOOD NEWS, but the very FACT that the apostles were ABLE to speak and be understood by people of other languages was a SIGN of the POWER of God. KNOWING that the person speaking SHOULDN'T be able to speak in their language yet WITNESSING the persons ability to do so would SURELY be a SIGN of the power of God. No different than healing or the raising of the dead.

My 'place' in the Body is TEACHER. While you may not acknowledge it or agree doesn't alter what has been revealed in TRUTH. I may not be a 'rocket scientist' and my ability to communicate may not suit all or be PERFECT, everything I have offered can ONLY make sense to anyone truly LISTENING.

Once I was discussing music with a group. One of the members of the group at one point spoke up and offered, "I wouldn't care if God Himself revealed that playing my electric guitar in 'church' is wrong, I would continue to do it anyway.

While I certainly respected his honesty, I really found it difficult to believe what I heard this person offer. Basically they were offering that the PLAYING of their guitar was MORE important to them than GOD. And if this was the case, this person OBVIOUSLY wasn't "born again" or even Spiritual in any way, shape or form. They were simply 'playing the game'. PRETENDING to be a follower of Christ when in truth, they were following a DIFFERENT ''spirit''.

So it's not surprising that someone that INSISTS that their 'self edification' is MORE important than the TRUTH would find my words confusing. For that is the nature of ANYONE exposed to words they 'don't like' or refuse to accept. Instead of recognition of the TRUTH, (which would force them to question THEIR understanding), they simply choose a path of DENIAL and in choosing this path, the others words then become incomprehensible. Easier this way than coming to an understanding that requires 'change' or 'letting go' of something that one holds DEAR.

If a voice has NO meaning. If a voice has NO purpose other than self edification. If a voice does NOT conform to the rules laid out by Paul. If someone hearing that voice would end up considering the person vocalizing it a BARBARIAN. If the person hearing the voice is a believer yet still has NO IDEA of the purpose or meaning of the voice. If five words of wisdom and understanding are MORE important than 10,000 words uttered in 'this voice'. How does one come to the conclusion that this voice has RELEVANCE? If EVERYTHING Paul offered in truth was CONTRARY to speaking in gibberish, how does one come to the conclusion that Paul was ENCOURAGING it?

And then there is THIS: In EVERY gathering of Pentecostals I have EVER attended, those that profess to 'speak in tongues', the overwhelming majority of those that spoke in tongues in the 'gathering' were WOMEN. Yet Paul, summing up what he offered concerning TONGUES usage, STATES that 'women are to remain SILENT in the 'church'. An OPEN and OBVIOUS statement that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a WOMEN to speak in any TRUE form of tongues AS THE SPIRIT gives UTTERANCE, in the 'church'. Yet in EVERY instance which I have witnessed 'gibberish' being considered tongues by the congregation, a NUMBER of women were speaking this gibberish at the SAME TIME, IN THE CHURCH. Which Paul concludes, "If one is even 'spiritual' that they are to agree that the WORDS he had offered were the COMMANDMENTS of God". Not merely HIS OPINION, but divinely revealed KNOWLEDGE that he was sharing. "Women are to remain SILENT in the 'church'. Yet I have witnessed OVER and OVER GROUPS of women speaking in gibberish, WITHOUT an interpreter, AT THE SAME TIME, IN THE "CHURCH".

Now, let me ask this question: Are these those that are TRULY speaking in tongues according to the Bible and those that AREN'T? Are there ANY that are PRETENDING to speak in tongues? Are there ANY that are merely seeking personal edification and have found that those around them seem to RESPECT them more when they PRETEND to speak in tongues? Any that are merely MIMICKING what they have witnessed others DOING?

And in ending. Paul would NEVER encourage behavior that he states is fruitless or without merit. So the offering that 'tongues are for a sign' is NOT a reference to ANYTHING but a MEANS to discern the TRUTH of tongues. If tongues are NOT being used for the edification of the BODY, then they are NOT 'true tongues'. That is WHY Paul offered all the words pertaining to this subject that he DID. And it's obvious that the 'church' in Corinth was having a PROBLEM with 'speaking in tongues' and THAT is WHY he ONLY wrote to the Corinthians ABOUT this issue. To set the record STRAIGHT. To help them GET OVER this MISUSE of what they were calling TONGUES. He TOLD THEM: GROW UP and STOP being 'children'. In malice be like children in understanding but in the Spirit, grow up and BE MEN. Put away this 'childish behavior'.

And I offer that ANYONE that is confused or MISINTERPRETING Paul's words have YET to 'grow up and put away childish things'. His words aren't confusing. They are simply NOT what those that profess gibberish being tongues WANT to hear. And you also know what the Bible says about ITCHING EARS................if not, just ask and I'll direct.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[TheBarrd]

Over the past maybe 30 years many scholars and commentators have briefly raised this issue and undoubtedly they will until the Lord returns. Even though it is interesting, where the use of tongues on the Day of Pentecost could possibly be seen as a 'reversal of the confusion of languages at Babel', as there is not really all that much information to go on it tends to remain as a bit of a couriosity point only.

From my perspective, as the crowd were confused by what they heard, it seems to have a parallel with Babel in that on both occassions, in spite of the crowd being able to hear words in their own languages, that the languages being spoken were still unclear to both groups. Now if the 120 had of provided an evangelistic message instead of words of praise that they were directing toward the Father, then the 'reversal of Babel' viewpoint would have some merit.

That didn't make any sense. However, those who are involved in such things as tongues and being slain in the spirit, or other manifestations of the "Toronto Blessing" have my sympathy.

 

[Biblicist]

That didn't make any sense. However, those who are involved in such things as tongues and being slain in the spirit, or other manifestations of the "Toronto Blessing" have my sympathy.

Okay, let me rephrase the second paragraph.

With Babel (Gen 11) we have the languages of the earth being confused due to sin where it then became very hard for the various tribal groupings to communicate with one-another; this forced the tribes to somehow seperate into their unique language groups.

As many commentators have suggested, the Day of Pentecost could have been a ‘reversal-of-Babel’ where the various human language barriers were overridden with the 120 speaking in known human languages – now this part is fairly simple. As such, their speaking in the Spirit overrode the event of Babel, though only briefly.

My problem with this perspective is that as the numerous Diaspora Jews were perplexed and confused with the words of praise that the 120 were saying to the Father, that this hardly makes it a ‘reversal’ as they were still confused. If Peter had not have presented an evangelistic message to the crowd in Aramaic in response to their questioning, then they would have undoubtedly left the place where the disciples were meeting being none the wiser.

If you're struggling with the logic of the 'Babel-reversal' then in my view you are quite justified. Even though the 'reversal' viewpoint is novel I'm not all that certain that it makes any real sense.

 

[Alithis]

That didn't make any sense. However, those who are involved in such things as tongues and being slain in the spirit, or other manifestations of the "Toronto Blessing" have my sympathy.

you feel pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.? how so?

I'v never been to toronto .. but i have been baptised in the promised holy Spirit and fire .
and i have observed with my own eyes a young fellow with the fire of the holy Spirit all over him (as on day of pentecost ) -tongues of fire
when i was baptised in the holy Ghost I spoke in tongues (many differing distinct tongues to the ear ) and have ever since .i saw a vision of the lord Jesus walking on the oceans of the globe of this world .
i testify openly and joyfully "IN the name of the LORD JESUS "his word is true and his promises are true and he is faithful to them .
"these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

do not feel pity for me

 

[TheBarrd]

Have you picked up any serpents lately? There are churches that do that, you know.
And there was this one guy with the kool aid...but that didn't work out so well....

 

[TheBarrd]

Okay, let me rephrase the second paragraph.

With Babel (Gen 11) we have the languages of the earth being confused due to sin where it then became very hard for the various tribal groupings to communicate with one-another; this forced the tribes to somehow seperate into their unique language groups.

As many commentators have suggested, the Day of Pentecost could have been a ‘reversal-of-Babel’ where the various human language barriers were overridden with the 120 speaking in known human languages – now this part is fairly simple. As such, their speaking in the Spirit overrode the event of Babel, though only briefly.

My problem with this perspective is that as the numerous Diaspora Jews were perplexed and confused with the words of praise that the 120 were saying to the Father, that this hardly makes it a ‘reversal’ as they were still confused. If Peter had not have presented an evangelistic message to the crowd in Aramaic in response to their questioning, then they would have undoubtedly left the place where the disciples were meeting being none the wiser.

If you're struggling with the logic of the 'Babel-reversal' then in my view you are quite justified. Even though the 'reversal' viewpoint is novel I'm not all that certain that it makes any real sense.

In the narrative in Acts 2, it never says that the 120 were all speaking in different languages. It seems they all understood one another just fine. It was the people around them that were confused...at least at first.
I would suggest that God opened their understanding, and they heard their own languages.
Evidently, everyone understood Peter.
And 3000 people were added to the church.
A miracle happened that day, do not doubt it.

 

[TheBarrd]

you feel pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.? how so?

I'v never been to toronto .. but i have been baptised in the promised holy Spirit and fire .
and i have observed with my own eyes a young fellow with the fire of the holy Spirit all over him (as on day of pentecost ) -tongues of fire
when i was baptised in the holy Ghost I spoke in tongues (many differing distinct tongues to the ear ) and have ever since .i saw a vision of the lord Jesus walking on the oceans of the globe of this world .
i testify openly and joyfully "IN the name of the LORD JESUS "his word is true and his promises are true and he is faithful to them .
"these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

do not feel pity for me

You're not going to like me, but I feel pity because I don't believe the spirit behind the Toronto thing was holy.
I grew up in a small town near Buffalo, by the way...I had friends involved in that.
It wasn't good.

 

[Biblicist]

Then you are openly admitting that anyone who would speak in tongues IN FRONT of an unbeliever, or one YET to be converted, is doing something that Paul DISCOURAGES.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Paul (the Scriptures) strictly forbids the uninterpreted use of tongues within the congregational setting. He also states that we may only have three people per meeting prophesying and three people (men or women) who can pray in the Spirit (tongues) where each one must be interpreted before the next begins.

Yet in the 'churches' where tongues are spoken, this principle doesn't seem to 'get in the way'. For SURELY, in a gathering of dozens, hundreds, there are BOUND to be at least a FEW that have YET to be 'born again'. And HOW would 'you know' one way or the other? Can you honestly SAY with AUTHORITY that YOU KNOW that ANYONE you have ever MET has been "BORN AGAIN"? If you say YES, PROVE IT.

Sadly, it is an all too frequent occurrence where dozens or hundreds corporately sing in the Spirit (tongues) all at once during times of congregational worship.

Paul does allow us to quitely pray/sing in the Spirit to ourselves where this can often be easy to do during times of congregational praise where many dozens or hundreds are all signing at once. This means that it an uninitiated unbeliever or cessationist would not be unsettled by the Spirit speaking through a Believer.

But I offer that it's YOUR confusion over the scripture. It does NOT mean what you have indicated. It means EXACTLY what it says. Tongues are for a SIGN to them that BELIEVE NOT.

As your position has been a plank within cessationism for many years, I can appreciate that it can be hard to let go of it. The view might have been acceptable in serious theological circles in the 60's and early 70's but in this day age it has become little more than a couriosity of a past age.

It is the MEANS that was given in power of the apostles to speak to people of OTHER LANGUAGES. NON believers of OTHER languages. Not only could the apostle speak and the other understand the GOOD NEWS, but the very FACT that the apostles were ABLE to speak and be understood by people of other languages was a SIGN of the POWER of God. KNOWING that the person speaking SHOULDN'T be able to speak in their language yet WITNESSING the persons ability to do so would SURELY be a SIGN of the power of God. No different than healing or the raising of the dead.

As I've already mentioned in some detail. We have absolutely no examples of where anyone was able to present an evangelistic message to an unreached people group. Where Paul explicity says in 1Cor 14:2

"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".​

My 'place' in the Body is TEACHER. While you may not acknowledge it or agree doesn't alter what has been revealed in TRUTH. I may not be a 'rocket scientist' and my ability to communicate may not suit all or be PERFECT, everything I have offered can ONLY make sense to anyone truly LISTENING.

Once I was discussing music with a group. One of the members of the group at one point spoke up and offered, "I wouldn't care if God Himself revealed that playing my electric guitar in 'church' is wrong, I would continue to do it anyway.

While I certainly respected his honesty, I really found it difficult to believe what I heard this person offer. Basically they were offering that the PLAYING of their guitar was MORE important to them than GOD. And if this was the case, this person OBVIOUSLY wasn't "born again" or even Spiritual in any way, shape or form. They were simply 'playing the game'. PRETENDING to be a follower of Christ when in truth, they were following a DIFFERENT ''spirit''.

Unfortunately all I am reading when I see your use of "believing God" is that you might only be recognising that people are believing God when they believe only what you say!

So it's not surprising that someone that INSISTS that their 'self edification' is MORE important than the TRUTH would find my words confusing.

That's a strange thing to say. Who has said any such thing! Again, it seems that you are equating 'TRUTH' as being only that which you believe. I have the advantage in that I can make reference to a wealth of scholary research by scholars who are Pentecostal, charismatic, open-but-cautious and Evangelical. This means that my views reflect a broad range of opinions that are held by differing scholars where you are more than welcome to directly engage with the material that I have already presented.

For that is the nature of ANYONE exposed to words they 'don't like' or refuse to accept. Instead of recognition of the TRUTH, (which would force them to question THEIR understanding), they simply choose a path of DENIAL and in choosing this path, the others words then become incomprehensible. Easier this way than coming to an understanding that requires 'change' or 'letting go' of something that one holds DEAR.

Oh! I've been referring to this dilemna for years as the cessationist mindest, where hardcore-cessationism is little more than a relic of a bygone era.

If a voice has NO meaning. If a voice has NO purpose other than self edification. If a voice does NOT conform to the rules laid out by Paul. If someone hearing that voice would end up considering the person vocalizing it a BARBARIAN. If the person hearing the voice is a believer yet still has NO IDEA of the purpose or meaning of the voice. If five words of wisdom and understanding are MORE important than 10,000 words uttered in 'this voice'. How does one come to the conclusion that this voice has RELEVANCE? If EVERYTHING Paul offered in truth was CONTRARY to speaking in gibberish, how does one come to the conclusion that Paul was ENCOURAGING it?

It seems that you have not understood what Paul was saying. Even though he values tongues within the congregation meeting, he still preferrs prophecy whereas tongues are always directed to the Father in words of praise, prophecy has the benefit of allowing the Holy Spirit to speak directly to the congregation. This is why he said that he would prefer to speak a few words/sentences in prophecy than many thousands of words to the Lord in tongues as prophecy has the ability to uplift and edify the congregation.

And then there is THIS: In EVERY gathering of Pentecostals I have EVER attended, those that profess to 'speak in tongues', the overwhelming majority of those that spoke in tongues in the 'gathering' were WOMEN. Yet Paul, summing up what he offered concerning TONGUES usage, STATES that 'women are to remain SILENT in the 'church'. An OPEN and OBVIOUS statement that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a WOMEN to speak in any TRUE form of tongues AS THE SPIRIT gives UTTERANCE, in the 'church'. Yet in EVERY instance which I have witnessed 'gibberish' being considered tongues by the congregation, a NUMBER of women were speaking this gibberish at the SAME TIME, IN THE CHURCH. Which Paul concludes, "If one is even 'spiritual' that they are to agree that the WORDS he had offered were the COMMANDMENTS of God". Not merely HIS OPINION, but divinely revealed KNOWLEDGE that he was sharing. "Women are to remain SILENT in the 'church'. Yet I have witnessed OVER and OVER GROUPS of women speaking in gibberish, WITHOUT an interpreter, AT THE SAME TIME, IN THE "CHURCH".

To pick one point out of this mix, Paul was not forbidding women to prophesy or to pray in the Spirit during congregational meetings, but that they were not permitted to judge the content of a prophesy. You might want to take a look at the research by Grudem in this regard which has been well known for over 25 years where countless commentaries have addressed his views.

Now, let me ask this question: Are these those that are TRULY speaking in tongues according to the Bible and those that AREN'T? Are there ANY that are PRETENDING to speak in tongues? Are there ANY that are merely seeking personal edification and have found that those around them seem to RESPECT them more when they PRETEND to speak in tongues? Any that are merely MIMICKING what they have witnessed others DOING?

Are you asking me if there are some amongst the reported 500 million Pentecostals and charismatics who are faking tongues; let's see, as we are speaking of anywhere around 500 million people, then I think that you can probably answer that one for yourself.
Of course, I have also met those who have falsley confessed Jesus as Lord, so does this mean that all those who have confessed Jesus as Lord are fakes?

And in ending. Paul would NEVER encourage behavior that he states is fruitless or without merit. So the offering that 'tongues are for a sign' is NOT a reference to ANYTHING but a MEANS to discern the TRUTH of tongues. If tongues are NOT being used for the edification of the BODY, then they are NOT 'true tongues'. That is WHY Paul offered all the words pertaining to this subject that he DID. And it's obvious that the 'church' in Corinth was having a PROBLEM with 'speaking in tongues' and THAT is WHY he ONLY wrote to the Corinthians ABOUT this issue. To set the record STRAIGHT. To help them GET OVER this MISUSE of what they were calling TONGUES. He TOLD THEM: GROW UP and STOP being 'children'. In malice be like children in understanding but in the Spirit, grow up and BE MEN. Put away this 'childish behavior'.

Wow. . . you've certainly thrown in quite a few different things i this particular paragraph. It's sort of like someone trying to make a single slice cheese sandwich where they have ended up with a massive hamburger, which can make it a bit hard to bite into. There are so many things that are obviously wrong here that it is hard to know where to start.

And I offer that ANYONE that is confused or MISINTERPRETING Paul's words have YET to 'grow up and put away childish things'. His words aren't confusing. They are simply NOT what those that profess gibberish being tongues WANT to hear. And you also know what the Bible says about ITCHING EARS................if not, just ask and I'll direct.

Okay, I think that before you "can direct" that you will first need to not only take a fresh look at the Scriptures, but also with the wealth of literature that has been produced by the best scholars of our day; where you might want to start with D.A. Carson, Gordon Fee, Wayne Grudem, Craig Keener, Frank Macchia, Anthony Thiselton and Ben Witherington for starters.

With Paul's use of "putting away childish things" he was making reference to the temporal things that we have here on earth, where once the Lord returns in his Kingdom there will be no need for prophecy or with how we currently pray in the Spirit (tongues). He was not saying that prophecy and tongues were childish but that they were temporal. In fact, why would he say these activities of the Spirit were childish when it is the Spirit himself who is operating them through the Believer - there very dangerous views to espouse in my opinion.

 

[Biblicist]

You're not going to like me, but I feel pity because I don't believe the spirit behind the Toronto thing was holy.
I grew up in a small town near Buffalo, by the way...I had friends involved in that.
It wasn't good.

Don't worry, you could be in pretty good company as many of us will question much of what is reported as being "holy" in this and many other meetings.

 

[Alithis]

You're not going to like me, but I feel pity because I don't believe the spirit behind the Toronto thing was holy.
I grew up in a small town near Buffalo, by the way...I had friends involved in that.
It wasn't good.

some things associated with every revival from the day of pentecost until this day are "maligned and judged as not good "
1000 people whom we have never met ,can go on to walk with the lord saved and born again all the days of their life, but because you knew 3 folks who gave a bad report you will judge the whole by that ? toronto was what ?20 years ago and some odd things have come out of it long after .. but i assure you ..
the lord jesus was glorified to me when i was baptised in the holy ghost and spoke ( and speak ) in tongues and he is revealed to me as the word of god made manifest in the flesh s LORD which any spirit which is NOT of god cannot confess .. so based on the word of God ,such loose judgments of fellow believers is really not wise .

methinks some read into too many website opinions and not enough bible

 

[Biblicist]

In the narrative in Acts 2, it never says that the 120 were all speaking in different languages. It seems they all understood one another just fine. It was the people around them that were confused...at least at first.
I would suggest that God opened their understanding, and they heard their own languages.
Evidently, everyone understood Peter.
And 3000 people were added to the church.
A miracle happened that day, do not doubt it.

Offhand, I can't think of any respected contemporary scholar who feels that the Spirit gave the crowd their own personal interpretation as it makes no sense of the text.

 

[Biblicist]

Have you picked up any serpents lately? There are churches that do that, you know.
And there was this one guy with the kool aid...but that didn't work out so well....

Now your being rather immature.

 

[Alithis]

Have you picked up any serpents lately? There are churches that do that, you know.
And there was this one guy with the kool aid...but that didn't work out so well....

yes it was a funy reply .. but i'll answer it ..
nope no serpents picked up by me ..

tongues spoken-check
hands laid on & sick healed - check
demons cast out - check

sorry about the snakes .. i pray the lord does not test me in that ..i kind of don't like snakes very much

 

[TheBarrd]

I'm not too crazy about snakes myself.
Nor do I intend to drink any poisoned kool aid.
Still, both of those things were among the signs you mentioned, yes?
If you have the holy spirit with all those signs, you ought to be able to (gulp) handle snakes, although I do not blame you if you don't-
And drink poison, although I do not recommend it.

As I say, I have friends who were involved in the Toronto thing. It did not turn out well for them.
Did you know that Satan can transform himself to appear as an angel of light?
I am convinced that the spirit behind this stuff is not holy...

 

[TheBarrd]

Now your being rather immature.

How so?
"these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Now, it seems to me that it would be rather foolish to claim one or two of these signs, and not all of them. These people want to claim that they have cast out demons, they speak in new tongues, they lay hands on the sick, and they recover...and yes, there are a few who like to handle snakes...after the snakes have been properly refrigerated, of course.
However, I've yet to hear of any of them who drink poison....and again, I am not recommending that anyone try.
As Alice commented..."if you drink too much from a bottle marked "poison" it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later"...