Tongues

[Rev Randy]

Randy, if anything contradicts the written Word of God then it is not true.

Without a doubt and I never said elsewise. My point was against the statement that if it isn't in the Bible it isn't true. Example: Rev Randy's wife drives a yellow VW beetle. That is not in the Bible. That, however, is very true. The Holy Spirit does give us revelation that is not specifically in our written Word of God. God didn't stop working of when the Bible was cannonized.

 

[Giver]

Without a doubt and I never said elsewise. My point was against the statement that if it isn't in the Bible it isn't true. Example: Rev Randy's wife drives a yellow VW beetle. That is not in the Bible. That, however, is very true. The Holy Spirit does give us revelation that is not specifically in our written Word of God. God didn't stop working of when the Bible was cannonized.

I agree with you. My statement was meant for those who contend that scripture can be negated by what tradition tells us.

Jesus /Holy Spirit does clarify what the written Word of God is telling us.

In fact Jesus once clarified the following verse for me. In fact Jesus’ clarification of the verse makes me hesitate in taking you very seriously. I may be wrong, but it does make me wonder about one’s relationship with Jesus.

(Matthew 23:8-12) “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Because a Catholic priest objected to me not addressing him as father, and telling me I was reading scripture wrong, I told him that I would ask Jesus about if I should call any one father. Jesus told me that it was dangerous for both parties. It was dangerous to be called father, and to call some one father.

If we are all brothers, then one is not more revered then another in the Lord. We all have gifts and they are given to us by God, and the gift one receives does not make one more respected.

 

[Rev Randy]

Your not to call anyone "My(Your) Father" not father. But that's another thread. Jesus Refered to Abraham as Father Abraham in quite a few translations.

 

[Giver]

Your not to call anyone "My(Your) Father" not father. But that's another thread. Jesus Refered to Abraham as Father Abraham in quite a few translations.

Have you read what Jesus told us?
New Jerusalem Bible
(Matthew 23:8-11) “You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have on one Teacher, the Christ.


(Matthew 23:8-12) “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Now tell me is Abraham on earth?

 

[Rev Randy]

Have you read what Jesus told us?
New Jerusalem Bible
(Matthew 23:8-11) “You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have on one Teacher, the Christ.


(Matthew 23:8-12) “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father,and he is in heaven.Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.The greatest among you will be your servant.For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Now tell me is Abraham on earth?

So by your method, you can't even speak the Name Abraham as looking up what it means would be a real goof. Yes I know at least ten men named Abraham who are on earth. A part of Abraham is on earth (his dust) as the ressurection has not yet occured. Do you know what the title Father a priest is given means? Are my parishioners calling me their Father? Also this was pre-crusifixtion as well as who Jesus was rebuking in this passage. After the ressurection of Christ we (the redeemed) are given crowns. At the time this was spoken, there were no redeemed.

 

[Giver]

So by your method, you can't even speak the Name Abraham as looking up what it means would be a real goof. Yes I know at least ten men named Abraham who are on earth. A part of Abraham is on earth (his dust) as the ressurection has not yet occured. Do you know what the title Father a priest is given means? Are my parishioners calling me their Father? Also this was pre-crusifixtion as well as who Jesus was rebuking in this passage. After the ressurection of Christ we (the redeemed) are given crowns. At the time this was spoken, there were no redeemed.

What Jesus told us is easily understood, and it is sad the lengths some people will go to in order to feed their egos.

(Matthew 23: 8-11) “You, however. Must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ.

 

[CrashTestPoster]

Tongues - it's not for public meetings unless there are interpreters. All other times, tongues is for private. A lot of meetings I've went to had people pretty much speaking "in tongues" en masse, sometimes when the minister cued it. It always disturbed me. I did hear a tongue in public once for which there was an interpreter - a friend of mine told me that she was just praising God in the language of her people. I was the only one - as far as I know - who knew about this. She should have told everyone, but at least she told me.

Also, I don't think that the operation of that particular gift is confirmation of salvation. It's just one of a number of gifts of the Spirit. I think it's used a lot in the churches, because it's very easy to open your mouth and let...gobbledy-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]...out. I don't know whether it's easy just to have faith when you don't know what you're saying, or whether some people really are just saying nonsense. What I do know is that it's the most obvious manifestation of *something*, and when it's said by someone in public, it should be investigated.

I don't know what those denominational labels entail as it's been a while since I've been exposed to all that. I never identified myself as anything except a Christian. I don't like fads or "movements". I just want the truth. If it helps, I'm not a fan of most of the "big honchos" (like the Benny Hinns and the Copelands) and I view the Airport Fellowships with *great* suspicion.

 

[Rev Randy]

Tongues - it's not for public meetings unless there are interpreters. All other times, tongues is for private. A lot of meetings I've went to had people pretty much speaking "in tongues" en masse, sometimes when the minister cued it. It always disturbed me. I did hear a tongue in public once for which there was an interpreter - a friend of mine told me that she was just praising God in the language of her people. I was the only one - as far as I know - who knew about this. She should have told everyone, but at least she told me.

Also, I don't think that the operation of that particular gift is confirmation of salvation. It's just one of a number of gifts of the Spirit. I think it's used a lot in the churches, because it's very easy to open your mouth and let...gobbledy-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]...out. I don't know whether it's easy just to have faith when you don't know what you're saying, or whether some people really are just saying nonsense. What I do know is that it's the most obvious manifestation of *something*, and when it's said by someone in public, it should be investigated.

I don't know what those denominational labels entail as it's been a while since I've been exposed to all that. I never identified myself as anything except a Christian. I don't like fads or "movements". I just want the truth. If it helps, I'm not a fan of most of the "big honchos" (like the Benny Hinns and the Copelands) and I view the Airport Fellowships with *great* suspicion.

There is something about that phrase "It always disturbed me". That could well be warented or could be as most any tongue speaker felt before they came to peace with the gift given them. There is something good to know about the use of tongues. Not every speaker is at the same place spiritually as others.
All spirital gifts come fully but we don't usually process them fully all at once (except for a few). But that said, when something disturbs me deeply, I need to discover why it disturbs me. Is it disturbing my spirit or my shame or desire? If iit's disturbing my spirit I might conclude it wasn't of God. If it's the other , I might conclude I'm the olny kid in class without an ice cream cone.
The "big honchos" are another matter. It is wise not to trustmen seeking great wealth and fame from the Name of Jesus.
My friend, I assure you there are fakes speaking in assemblies everywhere. But there are also the genuine. I'd endure 20 fakes to hear one giving a real utterance.
We are told to seek the best gifts and told that God gives them severally (simply meaning more than one gift at a time). Perhaps your seeking the wrong gift? I prayed for another gift and recieved the gift of tongues as well.

 

[HeavensWorship]

Evidence yes but what brings you to the point of thinking it's the only evidence? Didn't Paul go on a bit further? Didn't he speak of an more excellent way? Spiritual gifts are given to those baptized in the Holy Spirit. Prophecy is superior following love. I speak,pray and sing in tongues but would never suppose someone isn't baptized in the Holy Spirit because they don't possess this gift. Speaking in tongues is indeed evidence but we must remember that even the devil speaks in the tongue of angels.

Paul wrote his first epistle to the Church in Corinth as he found this Church having grave problems and one of those problems was the misuse and over use of tongues. It's not that the gift was bad but the intoxication of it led some to put the gift above the love Christ instills in a Christian at salvation. Paul gave guidelines to keep the misuse in check and I rarely see this employed in our assemblies today. Seems we fear hurting someones feelings rather than to worship as a body of believers. If someone has a word from God, and there is not a gifted interpreter in the congregation the word is not delivered and therefore useless except to the speaker.
Speaking in tongues on Sunday then speaking like an angry drunken sailor on Monday doesn't seem like good evidence of anything. Tongues without love is simply noise. I agree with the writer I quoted that this gift is not evidence of salvation as that clearly goes directly against the Word of God. But I find those not gifted with tongues often find them selves as second class members in many a Pentecostal Church. I can clearly remember being held by two sister at the altar with one saying hold on and the other saying let go. They seemed to think I was missing something I needed desperately. Their prayers and howlings produced nothing as some years later I received the gift at home in prayer when I was at a loss about how to pray about a situation. The gift has nothing to do with some supposed holiness level. The gift has nothing to do with how close you are to God. It is a tool given of God for edification, prayer and worship and should be used with reverence, not as a "LOOK AT ME" tool.
As a pastor, I've found this gift to be the most used and most misunderstood gift of all. It's no wonder non Charismatics think we're faking and insane.Too often we draw tongues like a gun then agrue about those not gifted so.

Awesome! This reply has to be followed by a big AMEN!
Well said, Rev Randy

 

[vanillaicecream]

Is it true that the gift of tongues is the "key" to opening the other gifts? Do you really need to have tongues first before you can develop the others?

 

[Giver]

Is it true that the gift of tongues is the "key" to opening the other gifts? Do you really need to have tongues first before you can develop the others?

Personally I walked in other gifts of the Holy Spirit before Jesus gave me the gift of tongues.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Is it true that the gift of tongues is the "key" to opening the other gifts?"

In ONE respect it is - not that it "Opens anything" particularly, but it DOES "familiarize you" in a private way to the process of speaking in faith with your mouth, words/sounds that flow into your mind from the Holy Spirit.

One doesn't "Develop" the Gifts. They're either PRESENT when they're needed, or they're not. and we don't "Own" the gifts - The Holy Spirit does, and HE burdens 'em when and where they're needed. If you just be obedient and responsive to the Spirit when he burdens you to manifest a "Gift" things go just fine. Just minister what you're given, and don't get "Creative".

When one is "Baptized in the Holy Spirit" (to use AoG terminology) one most generally receives the ability to speak in a "tongue" at will - in a "Worship/praise/prayer" mode - i.e. "another language you don't understand, but which is always there for you to speak any time you want for as long as you want".

I have been Speaking in tongues in that manner privately since '73.

I HAVE NEVER been burdened to deliver a "Message in Tongues" in a church meeting, although I've been burdened to "Interpret" many times, and more occasionally to deliver "Prophesy", and once to minister a healing (which I chickened out on).

 

[vanillaicecream]

"Is it true that the gift of tongues is the "key" to opening the other gifts?"

In ONE respect it is - not that it "Opens anything" particularly, but it DOES "familiarize you" in a private way to the process of speaking in faith with your mouth, words/sounds that flow into your mind from the Holy Spirit.

One doesn't "Develop" the Gifts. They're either PRESENT when they're needed, or they're not. and we don't "Own" the gifts - The Holy Spirit does, and HE burdens 'em when and where they're needed. If you just be obedient and responsive to the Spirit when he burdens you to manifest a "Gift" things go just fine. Just minister what you're given, and don't get "Creative".

When one is "Baptized in the Holy Spirit" (to use AoG terminology) one most generally receives the ability to speak in a "tongue" at will - in a "Worship/praise/prayer" mode - i.e. "another language you don't understand, but which is always there for you to speak any time you want for as long as you want".

I have been Speaking in tongues in that manner privately since '73.

I HAVE NEVER been burdened to deliver a "Message in Tongues" in a church meeting, although I've been burdened to "Interpret" many times, and more occasionally to deliver "Prophesy", and once to minister a healing (which I chickened out on).

Woah. You're pretty awesome.
thanks for the wisdom!

 

[NorrinRadd]

It's common (in my experience) for Pentecostal churches to have times when the whole congregation prays or sings together in tongues, with no interpretation. Some people take this as a violation of the "at most three," "taking turns," and "let one interpret" instructions of 1 Cor. 14. Does that mean that the tongues-speakers in Acts 2, 10, and 19 were therefore violating divine rules of order?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"It's common (in my experience) for Pentecostal churches to have times when the whole congregation prays or sings together in tongues, with no interpretation."

TRUE statement (unfortunately NOT true of our congregation, but true in others, so I hear). A time of worship in prayer where a variety of languages is spoken including tongues is typical, as is the practice of "all praying/Worshipping together".

"Some people take this as a violation of the "at most three," "taking turns," and "let one interpret" instructions of 1 Cor. 14."

True statement - there are many hyper legalists, often anti-Full Gospel in paradigm that PASSIONATELY believe that the entire Bible, including 1 Cor 14 is a collection of "Federal laws" that folks HAD BETTER FOLLOW TO THE LETTER to avoid angering God (or other folks who want to enforce their own little laws).

A little intelligence applied to the issue, though reveals that the Corinthian church was an "Outta control" bunch, and apparently there was nothing but CONFUSION going on in their services with all sorts of folks trying to get attention, and ignoring everybody else (like typical town meetings here in Dallas. The section starts out in C11 with their disastrous drunken "Lord's suppers" and the C12 has 'em despising each other based on the "Gifts" that they manifest (even though they have nothing to do with producing them, since it's up to the Holy Spirit - HEY you!!! I do Miracles - all YOU do is interpret - I have NO NEED of you!!!. And then there's the "Love chapter" where He tries to get the fools to understand that they're SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER EACH OTHER, and then C14 where the MESSAGE is - HEY!!! if you're going to edify folks in your meetings - it's a REALLY GOOD IDEA to speak a language everybody understands (duh).

"Does that mean that the tongues-speakers in Acts 2, 10, and 19 were therefore violating divine rules of order?"

"Divine RULES OF ORDER!!!!!" I don't see any "Divine rules of Order" - I see Paul trying to beat some common sense into the idiots in the Corinthian Church. There's no "Wild disorder" in any of the Acts cites, and in Acts two - the languages spoken were UNDERSTOOD by the folks in the crowd!! And there's no "Wild disorder" related to "Worship, and Prayer times (where no teaching is going on) in Pentecostal churches in 2013.

But that won't keep the critics from beating their breasts and howling "FOUL" about it in their ignorance.

 

[Biblicist]

It's common (in my experience) for Pentecostal churches to have times when the whole congregation prays or sings together in tongues, with no interpretation. Some people take this as a violation of the "at most three," "taking turns," and "let one interpret" instructions of 1 Cor. 14. Does that mean that the tongues-speakers in Acts 2, 10, and 19 were therefore violating divine rules of order?

In my experience of Pentecost since 1974, there are probably two primary and differing approaches to Pauls admonition regarding the use of tongues in the congregational setting.

1. Some would only permit three individual tongues providing that they were each accompanied by an interpretation along with a maximum of three prophecies.

There are two differing approaches to corporately praying in the Spirit during congregational meetings:​

• When it comes to corporate worship, some would not permit any public display of tongues outside of the 3 + 3 but they would allow individuals to quietly pray in the Spirit so that others could not hear; something that can be very easy to do in a full blown Spirit led meeting.

• Others would allow the entire congregation to corporately sing in the Spirit all at once.

2. Other congregations do not place a limit on the number of prophecies and tongues in their meetings.​

• Congregations such as these would be unlikely to forbid the corporate use of tongues; as they have already disregarded Pauls strict 3+3 injunction then for them to put in place any other of Pauls restrictions seems to be a bit pointless.

When it comes to the situation in Acts 2, this was a unique and apparently unrepeatable event with the inauguration of the giving of the Spirit. As the 3+3 scenario did not apply, in that there were no occurrences of interpretation occurring it can be considered to be somewhat different. Another issue is that even though we don’t really know where their assembly was (it may have been in an upper room), there were obviously no unbelievers present which means that they could justifiably corporately praise the Lord in the Spirit – but of course the unregenerate Jews did actually hear what was going on but instead of being repulsed (which is Paul’s argument in 1Co 14), the nearby Jews were impressed with how these rustic Galileans were able to speak in the native tongues of those who were listening. Undoubtedly they would have noticed the rustic accent of these Galileans which would have no application in our current congregations as we are not speaking in known human languages.

Acts 10: As this was simply a private domestic meeting of Gentile enquirers along with a handful of believers, this means that this private meeting of believers with some enquirers was not ‘church’ but a simple home gathering where the disciples were invited to speak to some Gentiles. When they were baptised in the Holy Spirit this was evidenced by them speaking in tongues much the same as when an individual or two or three accept the Lord and are filled with the Spirit in say a street setting. The same scenario can also be applied to the contemporary ‘alter call’ in that there is no prohibition for having a group of individuals all of a sudden praising the Lord in the Spirit who have just come to the Lord; for that matter there would be no prohibition with them all prophesying at once.

As for Acts 19, we find that Paul has encountered a number of rather less than well informed believers but we do not know where he found them, maybe it was in a believers home where the host had invited his believing friends to join in to hear what Paul had to say. As this was most likely a home meeting of friends, there is no reason that all could not speak in tongues and prophesy particularly as these manifestations appeared during a salvific event . It should be pointed out as with Acts 10 we do not have any record of their being any interpretations of tongues so this event is outside of the congregational restrictions that has Paul (later) establishes for the Church.

When it comes to Pauls strong admonition to the Corinthians that they are to abide by the 3+3 rule for tongues along with the maximum number of three prophecies; when you read much of the populist material that speaks ardently against Pauls teachings, we could be forgiven if were to presume that his detractors think that Paul is a bit of dunce who has no idea of what he is speaking about. Sadly, Pauls warning to the Corinthian church would be the same with todays churches where we often encounter the unbridled use of tongues. Considering the amount of disparaging talk by many modern commentators about Paul and his teachings, we can well understand that when Paul wrote 2 Corinthians that he knew full well that he had fallen out of favour with them – which is little different with that of todays church.

Needless to say, the Scriptures strongly prohibit the audible corporate use of tongues during congregational worship and we are only to permit three words given in a tongue providing each is accompanied by an interpretation.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Bob and "Bib" -- Thanks for the replies.

My own view is much closer to Bob's, though I would not be surprised to find that my own views overall are even "looser." The short version is that once upon a time I regarded Scripture as an inviolable "instruction manual," with "rules" such as those in 1 Cor. 14 being universally binding; I'm now at the point where I believe such a view only amounts to replacing the Old Law with a new one, a notion which completely misses the point of the New Covenant. I regard most of the "how to act" instructions of the NT as addressing practical concerns in specific congregations, not as universally applicable. The one and only universally applicable rule is "Love on another" (in John's works) or "Love your neighbor as yourself" (in the Synoptics, Paul, and James).



I know a fairly common Pentecostal approach to trying to observe the "rules" of 1 Cor. 14 while still imitating the obvious practice of Acts is to posit two different "versions" of tongues -- one for prayer and praise (to which the "rules" don't apply), and one for "messages" (to which the rules DO apply). IMO, that unnecessarily complicates both Acts and 1 Cor. I agree with the increasingly common view that "tongues" is intended mainly if not exclusively for prayer and praise, with any "message" delivered via the interpretation to be a secondary purpose.


Since the early Church commonly met in private homes, I think the case for supposing different "rules" for different "kinds" of meetings is weak.

 

[Biblicist]

Bob and "Bib" -- Thanks for the replies.

My own view is much closer to Bob's, though I would not be surprised to find that my own views overall are even "looser." The short version is that once upon a time I regarded Scripture as an inviolable "instruction manual," with "rules" such as those in 1 Cor. 14 being universally binding; I'm now at the point where I believe such a view only amounts to replacing the Old Law with a new one, a notion which completely misses the point of the New Covenant.

I’m a little curious as to how you say that certain things “completely miss the point of the New Covenant” especially when the New Testament is its own witness and if the Scriptures are as flexible as you believe, then how can you decide what the point of the New Testament is – especially when you are trying to use the NT as proof for your position? I presume that your line of approach is that we can simply do as we please and if it feels good – then all is well! How then do you handle Pauls strong warning in 1Co 14:33-38 …let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this he himself is to be ignored.

I know a fairly common Pentecostal approach to trying to observe the "rules" of 1 Cor. 14 while still imitating the obvious practice of Acts is to posit two different "versions" of tongues -- one for prayer and praise (to which the "rules" don't apply), and one for "messages" (to which the rules DO apply). IMO, that unnecessarily complicates both Acts and 1 Cor. I agree with the increasingly common view that "tongues" is intended mainly if not exclusively for prayer and praise, with any "message" delivered via the interpretation to be a secondary purpose.

I agree with this in that this common Pentecostal misnomer is certainly incorrect; the Scriptures simply speak of one type of tongues which can be used for both personal prayer and during the congregational meeting providing that each tongue is followed up with an interpretation. It seems that you might be closer to what the Scriptures have to say than you think. I can understand how many can be confused when they encounter many of these misnomers that exist within Pentecost but the discrepancy is always on the part of the Church and not with that of the Scriptures.

The situation that you now find yourself in may be due to your frustration with trying to equate the numerous doctrinal aberrations that exist within Pentecost and that maybe you have been exhausted with trying to equate this with the Scriptures.

 

[Yahu]

I agree with this in that this common Pentecostal misnomer is certainly incorrect; the Scriptures simply speak of one type of tongues which can be used for both personal prayer and during the congregational meeting providing that each tongue is followed up with an interpretation.

Actually it talks about a diversity of tongues.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I’m a little curious as to how you say that certain things “completely miss the point of the New Covenant” especially when the New Testament is its own witness and if the Scriptures are as flexible as you believe, then how can you decide what the point of the New Testament is – especially when you are trying to use the NT as proof for your position? I presume that your line of approach is that we can simply do as we please and if it feels good – then all is well! How then do you handle Pauls strong warning in 1Co 14:33-38 …let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this he himself is to be ignored.

For some reason, when you quoted me you completely ignored/removed the last portion of my paragraph, which portion was hardly an optional addendum:

"I regard most of the 'how to act' instructions of the NT as addressing practical concerns in specific congregations, not as universally applicable. The one and only universally applicable rule is 'Love on another' (in John's works) or 'Love your neighbor as yourself' (in the Synoptics, Paul, and James)."

I would add that this can most efficiently be summarized as "Treat others as you would have them treat you," the so-called "Golden Rule."

Paul is clear and emphatic in teaching that we are no longer under the Law, and that while the Law itself was good, its effect in controlling bad behavior was not only useless but counterproductive. And contrary to what some claim, it was not only the ritual and civil laws he repudiated, but the entirety of it except for "Love your neighbor as yourself" -- which is not even part of the Decalogue. There are no "clean" or "unclean" foods. There are no "holy" or "unholy" days -- even Sabbaths or Sundays. There are no mandatory rites.

Yes, I realize in his vice lists and elsewhere he forbids certain behaviors, declaring that some will exclude from the Kingdom. Most of those -- adultery, strife, slander, etc. -- are simply specific examples of breaching the Law of Love. Any that go beyond that must be explained within the more consistent context that teaches that "rules don't work" and "the only law is Love"; maybe they are mistranslations, maybe they are temporary measures to deal with specific issues in those churches, maybe they are means to avoid unnecessarily offending the local culture or government.

Whether or not it "feels good," BTW, has little to do with it.

As for the specific question about 1 Cor. 14:33-38, part of the way I deal with it is to accept the text-critical expertise of Fee, Payne, etc. and dismiss vv. 34-35 as margin glosses.