Featured Babbling against Speaking in Tongues

If they are "groans too deep for words," then how is it possible for the tongues speaker to utter them? That's a contradiction in your doctrine.

I experienced this exact, very precious experience in Japan at a very difficult time in my ministry. But I did not speak in tongues--didn't have to, because it was the Holy Spirit speaking.

I'm so glad I don't have to depend on a pagan, idolatrous source for my interpretation of Rom. 8:26-27. I can simply depend on a straight exegesis of the Word of God. And of course since the word glossa only appears once in Romans in a negative sense meaning an actual tongue as a human organ (3:13), and nowhere else in Paul's writings but 1 Cor. 12-14 (there to correct errors), you don't have a single exegetical leg to stand on for putting it into Rom. 8:26-27.

It appears to me, going by your statement of source, that Jerome copied the secular source. That's just as reasonable an explanation as yours. I'll check Jerome's Vulgate on Monday (won't take time today), but really, you're grasping at straws.

 

This supercilious charge is completely false. This type of rhetoric does no good to your cause. I serve in a college and church that regularly sees miraculous answers to prayer.

I call to your attention the life of John R. Rice, author of the best selling book on prayer, Prayer: Asking and Receiving (over 500,000 copies and still in print). He tells of numerous healings and other answers to prayer in this book and others. He saw over 200,000 souls come to Christ in his ministry, and all without speaking in tongues, but actually opposing the Charismatic version of tongues. Yet he would freely endorse the Biblical version of tongues: a miraculous language for the purpose of soul-winning.

The problem is, after the Azusa Street Revival, Pentecostal missionaries went out expecting this gift but did not receive it. "Pentecostal believers went from America in 1906, believing that the gift of speaking in tongues which they had received would enable them to preach the gospel to the heathens in their own languages. A source from January 1908 reports eighteen cases from China, Japan, and India, all of which were unsuccessful" (Azusa Street and Beyond, ed. by L. Grant McClung, Jr., p. 13, quoting Nils Bloch Howell in The Pentecostal Movement). But I know a young lady missionary in Africa, an independent Baptist (non-tongues speaking) who saw just this happen.

What matters is not tongues, but the power of the Holy Spirit. And the sign of the power of the Holy Spirit is not tongues, but the Gospel preached with boldness, in whatever language: "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness" (Acts 4:31).

This is a wonderful story, but it was not the tongues that healed. Tongues were incidental. Give glory to God and His power, not to the tongues.

 

Well, first of all, I do have Kittel, but cannot access it right now since we are out of town. But frankly, you must be cut off from the academic world, because Kittel are rare since he was soundly debunked by Barr and Silva so thoroughly debunked his semantics method, which was based on etymology rather than contemporary usage. And yes, I did read your OP--I'll get to it.

And by the way, the typical Charismatic "tongues" has been examined by numerous linguists (including me ), and found to be without syntactic structure or discernable semantic content. (I can give quotes from linguists.) So "the tongues of angels" view is out. Tongues are usually just gibberish.

I've actually been trained in Greek exegesis at the grad level (have you? ), and oh yeah, I teach Greek.

Now, give me the actual quote about Delphi--I've never seen it, though I've looked for it. All I found was something about "ecstatic speech," which could be in a known language rather than an unknown babble. You have yet to prove that the Delphi quote is glossa.

This is much better than "tongues," much closer to the model in Acts. Why then do you need tongues?​

 

Why are you so insulting? Is that from the Holy Spirit?

Sure looked like you were attacking all Baptists. And John R. Rice was, to a degree, a cessationist. He believed in miracles in answer to prayer, but did not believe he had (or anyone had) the power of the apostles to work miracles. I ought to know--I'm his grandson. (He did believe in laying on hands for healing as per James, but that was still through prayer.) And he did write two books opposing Pentecostal and Charismatic tongues. (The two movements are different historically, you know.)

If 90% of the movement is "of the flesh," what does that say about the whole movement?

I thought 90% of the movement was "in the flesh"? How then can you refer to the movement "flourishing globally" as a good thing? I've been to Africa, and can witness to the incredible harm that the Charismatic movement is doing there. Our church sponsors a church-planting movement there.

So then, in the ministry of which I am a part, we are seeing some wonderful miracles and revival in answer to prayer. But we don't speak in tongues as the Charismatics do. And as for the evangelical movement decreasing in power, that is true. But the independent Baptist movement, of which I am a part, has a sizable revival movement in it.

Yeah, but we believe the Bible, right? so where in the Bible does it mandate tongues for Holy Spirit power? If this were true, why do not "tongues" appear in every reference to Holy Spirit power in Acts? After ch. 2, it is absent except in 10:46 and 19:6, yet awesome things happened throughout Acts by the power of the Spirit.

Then if you haven't spoken in tongues for decades, yet tongues are the necessary sign of God's power, have you been without Holy Spirit power for those decades?

 

Deadworm has bragged about this OP as being unanswerable. I am reminded of Ahab's taunt: "Let not him who dons his armor boast like he who takes it off."

This is a huge leap of logic. Prove that to "pray in the Spirit" is the same as speaking in tonuges. You can't, because Paul mentions tongues nowhere in Ephesians. The phrase in Eph. is en pneumati without the article. Prove to me that it means the Holy Spirit and not the human spirit (praying spiritually rather than in the flesh).

This begs the question. Prove that Paul means the same kind of tongues as the Charismatic movement means. I say that Paul is speaking simply about known languages, since Corinth was a port city with many languages spoken, so that the church there was an international church. I've preached at such a church, being simultaneously interpreted into Japanese, Chinese, and Thai.

(c) Paul repeatedly commands us to imitate his spirituality (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17) and makes it clear that such imitation includes a demonstration of the Spirit and of power (4:29-20; cp. 2:4-5).

You are once more begging the question without proving that the tongues of Paul are the same as modern Charismatic tongues. I say that Paul meant that he was simply more educated linguistically, speaking Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, etc.

I often speak to myself in Japanese and occasionally Greek. My son and I joke together in these two languages. When he came to the US for college, he would talk in his sleep in Japanese. Occasionally we'll interpret what we are saying for someone. This is all Paul meant: actual languages, not Charismatic confusion. (Surely you know that "unknown" is not in the Greek.)

(3) Point (1) is not refuted by the false claim based on 12:29-30) that the gift of speaking in tongues is not divinely intended for everyone.

Then why did Paul make the point that not everyone speaks in tongues? You've not answered that here. And no, Paul does not "encourage us all to speak in tongues." You still have not proven that this means the Charismatic version and not known languages. Are all Bible translators or Greek teachers or foreign missionaries?

I thought that to you the gift in Acts 2 was different than the gift in Corinth. How then are you conflating the two with this post? This is illogical. You can't have your cake (known tongues in Acts) and eat it too (unknown angels' tongues in Corinth).

If Acts 2 and later manifestations in Acts are different, why do you say they are the same? And how in the world do you get "zealots of angels" from Heb. 1:7? It's not there.

This is completely irrelevant for Christianity.

I have to go. Won't be back to this thread until Monday. It's been real...something.

 

The writer of hebrews make sit clear that the Apsotles witnessed and tersfied to jesus thru their signs and wonders, but that was them, and no tthe current generation of his writting!

 

Hebrews 2:3-4

 

s of the gifts in Acts though was to testify and witness to Jesus was the Messiah and Lord, and I can see God perhaps doing what he did in Acts in areas where Gospel has not yet been preached, but that would not be the norm, as we now have the more sure written word of God to us!

 

Paul reference in Romans was not stating that we will be bumbling to God in gibberish, but that the Spirit will take our prayers to God in a perfect fashion, even when we cannot even mouth the right words to speak due to anguish!

 

The answer would be no to all of the above!

 

We are told to covet the gift pf prophesy, but not tongues, and the Holy Spirit Himself determines who gets which gift anywise, right?

 

99% of the theology and the practices of modern day Charasmatic Chaos are from doctrines of demons though, as while a few are indeed sound in their theology and have a balanced view on this issue, vast majority are lost in confusion.
Do you hold to thesecond act of grace as evidenced by tongues than?

 

I thought that God Himself said not by might, nor by by power, but the Holy Spirt, and not by tongues?

 

Are you basing this upon liberal/critical research, or upon sound and conservations ones?

 

When I was a new Christian, I wandered around a bit and went to all the different things going on in my Church. I tried this and that and the other thing, looking for what would suit me most. I went to several Charismatic groups and there was much that draws one's attention, including much that was considered praying in tongues. It was novel and interesting to look upon. One thing though that completely stopped me from going back, was at one of these sessions, a particular woman began her version of praying in tongues, but as she progressed she began gargling and growling and become rather odd. She gave off a very negative vibe. You could feel the evil presence around her. I pulled back and actually got up and went to the back of the gymnasium where all this was going on and pretended to be interested in the cookies and coffee. Another member of the group came back and started making excuses for her, which to me was also very telling. "She just gets that way sometimes." Well, my instincts told me that what I'd just witnessed was NOT of God. I never went back. It was not long after that they shut that group down. I have no idea what happened, but I left there thinking if she continued like she was, she'd need an exorcist. It happens. Never offer to be a channel for any kind of spirit, EVER! God bless. Ginnyfree.

 

The big problem is that there is so much demonic activity and doctrines of demons mixed into modern charasmatic movement, hard to really be learned in scriptures to know the difference!