Babbling against Speaking in Tongues

[John of Japan]

In Romans 8:26-27 Paul expands on his command in Eph 6:18 to "pray in the Spirit:"

"Likewise the spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes for us with groans too deep for words (stenagmoi alaletai) ...the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."

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.

In other words, the Holy Spirit can take over our prayers and pray through us for what we need to pray for rather than for what we want to pray for or think we need to pray for.

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.

What this means more specifically depends on a more precise understanding of stenagmoi alaletai, a Greek phrase that is hard to translate. The meaning becomes clear when the Latin equivalent of the phrase in Lucan's Civil Wars (a work from Paul's day) and the Latin Vulgate is taken in to account. Lucan uses this phrase to describe the inarticulate gibberish or speaking in tongues of the prophetess at Delphi that must be interpreted by the male resident prophet. So in Romans 8:26-27 stenagmoi alaletai refers to intercessory prayer in tongues through which the Spirit offers petitions that satisfy God's will and are more effective for that very reason.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

In my observation, cessationist Baptists relegate speaking in tongues and miracles to the age of the apostles because their own prayer lives are so anemic and impotent and they loathe the thought that Charismatics have far more effective and successful prayer lives than they do.

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).

Let me offer a recent testimony that demonstrates how effective praying in the Spirit, that is, in tongues can be. My friend Dave had a life-threatening blood clot that extended from his groin area to his ankle. He was in great pain and doctors warned him not to move around much because a piece of the clot might break lose and go to his heart or his brain and kill him. Well, Dave didn't want his life to be paralyzed; so he decided to take his wife to Maverick's, a restaurant I can see from my living room window.

Meanwhile, Mark (another acquaintance of mine) had been baptized in the Spirit so powerfully that he had trouble desisting from speaking in tongues. His praying in the Spirit led him to Maverick's when Dave and his wife were there. Mark didn't know Dave, but felt prompted by the Spirit to approach him and ask, "Excuse me, but do you have a serious physical condition that needs prayer?" Dave was a bit taken aback by this question, but meekly said "Yes," because he couldn't lie about his serious condition. Mark then asked, "Would you like me to pray for healing?" Again, Dave felt obliged to say Yes, but felt self-conscious because other stunned customers were looking on. Dave hoped Mark would pray quietly so as not to draw too much attention, but Mark prayed loudly for his healing. As astonished doctors would later confirm, Dave was instantly healed and freed from all pain! Praise God! Only later did I learn that James, the owner of the restaurant, also had a blood clot and Mark's discernment discovered that fact and his prayer instantly healed James as well. This testimony illustrates the unique apostolic-like power that can be released by praying in tongues.

Fresh from his healing miracle, Dave felt constrained to pray for his mother-in-law who had a case of macular degeneration so severe that she could only see a blur. Dave and his wife prayed for a healing touch for this elderly woman. He brought her to see her ophthalmologist and a nurse was doing a routine check-up on her eyes, when she suddenly blurted out, "I can now read the eye chart!" The nurse ignored her comment, having established on other visits that she saw only a faint blur. But when Dave's mother-in-law read several lines from the chart, the shocked nurse began screaming and jumping around in dismay, disturbing the other patients and bringing the doctor out to quell the disorder. The doctor simply noted that he had no explanation for her amazing vision improvement, but insisted that she continue taking her eye drops just in case she needed this.

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.

 

[Deadworm]

John of Japan: "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."

None of you naysayers seem to have read the OP carefully. The article on "glossai" in Kittel's massive multi-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" documents the use of this Greek word for a "speaking in tongues" that is apparent gibberish and not a human language, but nevertheless can and needs to be interpreted as coherent ecstatic speech. Paul attests the alternate possibility that speaking in tongues can represent angel speech (1 Cor 13:1; 14:12 [Note his reference to the Corinthians as "zealots of spirits (= angels--so Hebrews 1:7). I have cited the contemporary Jewish belief in humans uttering and interpreting angel speech.


John of Japan: "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."

You seem to have no clue about how academic exegesis is done. Ancient terms (especially those relation to religious experience) derive their meaning from their use in contemporary cultural language games. In the Book of Acts, there are no cases of interpreted tongues and, apart from Acts 2, no case in which the tongues are anything but gibberish to the tongues speakers. But in Greece, parallel interpretation tongues (glossai) is documented at Delphi, which establishes the precedent and the linguistic background for nearby Corinthian practice.

John of Japan: "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."

Thanks for teeing up my next point. Speaking in tongues is the only NT example of "praying in the Spirit (Eph 6:18). But that doesn't mean that one must speak in tongues to pray in the Spirit. After my Spirit baptism at age 16, I would sometimes climb up to the steeple room after the morning service to fast and tarry for hours in intercessory prayer. For the first 45 minutes or so, it was agony because my words seemed forced and repetitive and my knees were sore. Then it was as if a dam broke: the Holy Spirit took over and the words and thoughts of my prayer just flowed spontaneously in great joy from one topic to another. I never spoke in tongues in those prayer vigils. In our evening evangelistic services the altar was unusually lined with supplicants seeking salvation!

​

 

[Deadworm]

John of Japan: "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."

Can't you read? I was referring to cessationist Baptists and John R. Rice was not a cessationist Baptist. He believed that our God is the same yesterday, today, and forever and believed in modern miracles. And I limited my observation to my own experience and observation and stand by that perspective.

John of Japan: "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 language."

You need to read my still evolving thread on the dark side of speaking in tongues in which I observe that at least 90% of the Charismatic manifestations strike me as "of the flesh." Also, stay tuned for a post in which I will describe authentic cases in which Pentecostals spoke in a human language unknown to them with great power and impact.

John of Japan: "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:"

Sounds great, until you realize evangelical churches are in slow decline, but Pentecostalism is flourishing globally due to its unique "power and demonstration of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:4-5)."


John of Japan: "This is a wonderful story, but it was not the tongues that healed. Tongues were incidental."

Nonsense! Mark's prayers were ineffectual until his recent Spirit baptism in which he couldn't stop speaking in tongues. That correlation is decisive for his impact. btw, Mark's theology is too extreme for me, but Dave and I recognize that his intercessory gift of healing is directly related to his ecstatic gifts. And of course, God gets the glory.

btw, I am a retired United Methodist minister who hasn't spoken in tongues for a few decades. I depend on the Spirit's prompting, but also confess that I have been put off by Pentecostal excesses and anti-intellectualism such as I witness on this site. But I give them their due. When they exercise their spiritual gifts, including tongues, authentically, there is no more potent source of spiritual power.

 

[John of Japan]

None of you naysayers seem to have read the OP carefully. The article on "glossai" in Kittel's massive multi-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" documents the use of this Greek word for a "speaking in tongues" that is apparent gibberish and not a human language, but nevertheless can and needs to be interpreted as coherent ecstatic speech. Paul attests the alternate possibility that speaking in tongues can represent angel speech (1 Cor 13:1; 14:12 [Note his reference to the Corinthians as "zealots of spirits (= angels--so Hebrews 1:7). I have cited the contemporary Jewish belief in humans uttering and interpreting angel speech.

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.

You seem to have no clue about how academic exegesis is done. Ancient terms (especially those relation to religious experience) derive their meaning from their use in contemporary cultural language games. In the Book of Acts, there are no cases of interpreted tongues and, apart from Acts 2, no case in which the tongues are anything but gibberish to the tongues speakers. But in Greece, parallel interpretation tongues (glossai) is documented at Delphi, which establishes the precedent and the linguistic background for nearby Corinthian practice.

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.

Thanks for teeing up my next point. Speaking in tongues is the only NT example of "praying in the Spirit (Eph 6:18). But that doesn't mean that one must speak in tongues to pray in the Spirit. After my Spirit baptism at age 16, I would sometimes climb up to the steeple room after the morning service to fast and tarry for hours in intercessory prayer. For the first 45 minutes or so, it was agony because my words seemed forced and repetitive and my knees were sore. Then it was as if a dam broke: the Holy Spirit took over and the words and thoughts of my prayer just flowed spontaneously in great joy from one topic to another. I never spoke in tongues in those prayer vigils. In our evening evangelistic services the altar was unusually lined with supplicants seeking salvation!

​

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

 

[John of Japan]

Can't you read?

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

I was referring to cessationist Baptists and John R. Rice was not a cessationist Baptist. He believed that our God is the same yesterday, today, and forever and believed in modern miracles. And I limited my observation to my own experience and observation and stand by that perspective.

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.)

You need to read my still evolving thread on the dark side of speaking in tongues in which I observe that at least 90% of the Charismatic manifestations strike me as "of the flesh." Also, stay tuned for a post in which I will describe authentic cases in which Pentecostals spoke in a human language unknown to them with great power and impact.

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

Sounds great, until you realize evangelical churches are in slow decline, but Pentecostalism is flourishing globally due to its unique "power and demonstration of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:4-5)."

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.

Nonsense! Mark's prayers were ineffectual until his recent Spirit baptism in which he couldn't stop speaking in tongues. That correlation is decisive for his impact. btw, Mark's theology is too extreme for me, but Dave and I recognize that his intercessory gift of healing is directly related to his ecstatic gifts. And of course, God gets the glory.

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.

btw, I am a retired United Methodist minister who hasn't spoken in tongues for a few decades. I depend on the Spirit's prompting, but also confess that I have been put off by Pentecostal excesses and anti-intellectualism such as I witness on this site. But I give them their due. When they exercise their spiritual gifts, including tongues, authentically, there is no more potent source of spiritual power.

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?

 

[John of Japan]

Paul teaches that we should all strive to receive the gift of speaking in tongues. Critics of tongues have no sensible answer to these 5 points:

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."

(1) Paul's command to "pray in the Spirit" is fulfilled by striving to speak in tongues. 3 points establish this teaching:
(a) Paul commands us to "pray in the Spirit" (Eph 6:18) and speaking in tongues is the only form of praying in the Spirit in the Bible (1 Cor 14:15).

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).

(b) Paul commands us to "strive for spiritual gifts (14:1)," clarifying this command with his desire for all of us to speak in tongues (14:5).

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).

(2) Point (1) is not refuted by Paul's preference that we all prophesy (14:5). This counter-point is refuted by 2 facts:
(a) Those who disregard tongues for this reason blaspheme the Holy Spirit by implying that some of His gifts are irrelevant and not needed. If speaking in tongues were not important, why does Paul celebrate the fact that he speaks in tongues more than everyone (14:18)?

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.

(b) If prophecy is the greatest spiritual gift, speaking in tongues is just as great if it is interpreted (14:5). In that sense, both gifts are equally "great" and should therefore both be diligently sought.
(c) What critics fail to realize is this: in 1 Cor 14 Paul is addressing the specific situation in which believers are speaking in uninterpreted tongues in public worship services at which outsiders are present who are not ready for such unintelligible Spirit manifestations. But Paul encourages speaking in tongues in private prayer sessions (1 Cor 14:28; cp. 14:4) and in other public meetings (e. g. Acts 19:1-6).

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.

(a) Paul insists that we "can all prophesy one by one (14:31)." Yet the gift of prophesy is included in Paul's list that critics invoke to claim that these gifts are not divinely intended for everyone. So what Paul is instead teaching is this: Look around you: not everyone actually exercises their prophetic potential, but I want all believers to do so.
(b) So when Paul encourages us all to speak in tongues, he clearly means that this gift if available to all believers.

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?

(4) In 3 of the 4 times people receive the Holy Spirit in Acts, they demonstrate this by speaking in tongues (2:1-18; 10:44-47; 19:1-6). In the 4th case, tongues are not mentioned, but the experience of receiving the Spirit is so dramatic that Simon the Magician offers money to learn the secret of channeling such power (8:19-20). So it is reasonable to believe that these Samaritan converts also spoke in tongues when they received their Spirit baptism. This well established pattern does not mean that Spirit baptism requires speaking in tongues (see 1 Cor 12:13); but it is further evidence that the gift of tongues should be diligently sought (1 Cor 12:31: 14:1).

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).

(5) The tongues in contemporary languages in Acts 2 is NOT normative for later manifestations of this gift. That eruption is identified as prophecy (2:17-18 citing Joel 2:28), but speaking in tongues is subsequently distinguished from prophecy (19:5-6; 1 Cor 12 and 14). The tongues in Acts 10:44-47 and 19:1-6 are neither understood nor interpreted. In Greco-Roman parallels speaking in tongues (Greek: "glossai") is understood as ecstatic gibberish that needs a prophet for interpretation. Paul prefers to view this non-human gibberish as angelic language (1 Cor 13:1) and labels tongues speakers as "zealots of spirits (14:12)" a phrase that means "zealots of angels (see Heb 1:7)."

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.

Jews in Paul's day embraced the possibility of interpreting angelic languages (e. g. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai and Testament of Job)

This is completely irrelevant for Christianity.

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

 

[Deadworm]

John of Japan: "Why are you so insulting? Is that from the Holy Spirit?
Sure looked like you were attacking all Baptists."

No, you are grieving the Holy Spirit by willfully distorting what I said. I specifically refer to "Cessationist Baptists." Therefore my rebuke is justified.

John of Japan: "And John R. Rice was, to a degree, a cessationist."

He was not a cessationist in any sense relevant to this topic. To quote your grandfather: "I believe that the gifts of the Spirit are for today, that is, as much as they ever were and as much as God gives to each one severally as He will. He doesn't give all those gifts to everybody and they are not manifest in every community." I agree with this statement, but have argued (and no one here has tried to rebut my argument) that every believer should strive to speak in tongues and prophesy because Paul teaches that those gifts are intended for everyone. Again, I admonish you to actually read my OP.

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

You need to study spiritual warfare and the principles that govern it. Satan's top priority is to attack Christian ministry at points where it is the most powerful and effective. So every faith-enhancing spiritual gift has its challenging counterfeit intended to sully the Spirit's work.

John of Japan: "I thought 90% of the movement was "in the flesh"? How then can you refer to the movement "flourishing globally" as a good thing?"

You need to read "Jesus in Beijing." an astounding book written by a former NY Times reporter.Dennis Balcombe was attending a Pentecostal church north of LA, when the pastor's wife gave a message in tongues that she interpreted. She spoke fluent Hebrew (confirmed by an Israeli visitor), a language she didn't know, in a message in which the Lord called Balcombe to minister to the persecuted Chinese house churches. It's a long story, but the upshot is that largely due to Balcombe's ministry there are now 80 million charismatic believers in China's house churches. Often Balcombe didn't even need to lay on hands to receive spiritual gifts. Rather, the Spirit simply fell on his Chinese audience and they spoke in tongues spontaneously as on the Day of Pentecost and in Cornelius's household.

John of Japan: "so where in the Bible does it mandate tongues for Holy Spirit power?"

Again, you need to actually read carefully and respond to the OP's case. No other poster has done this.

John of Japan: "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?"

You maliciously create a straw man, so that you can shoot it down and feel righteous. You are putting words in my mouth. I never claimed "Tongues are the necessary sign of God's power"--and you know it. That's why I'm a United Methodist and not a Pentecostal by denomination. I'm only Pentecostal by treasured experience of the gifts of the Spirit.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have a verse that says that?

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

You have a verse that says that?

Hebrews 2:3-4

 

[Yeshua1]

Tongues contributed significantly to my salvation.
(Although I am not a tongue speaker.)

I have a LOT of issues with the modern activity commonly called “Tongues” when compared to the descriptions in scripture. I just have more trouble with a declaration of fiat that the Holy Spirit can't or won’t or doesn’t do something any more because the Church doesn’t need THAT PARTICULAR gift of the Spirit.

I can’t find the verse that says the Body outgrew the need for anything the Holy Spirit does. Does God still grant tongues ... I don’t know. Can God still grant tongues ... you bet he can!

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

Some Baptist readers are frustrated by the Baptist Ghettospeak of some of their brethren and want me to more fully expand on the biblical purpose and benefits of speaking in tongues. So I will defer my refutations of my critics until I have given a more complete treatment of the gift.

I have shared my personal testimony about how an incident of speaking in tongues was the most life-changing, emotionally nourishing, and intimate encounter with divine love, power and sweetness in my life. Much could be said about the value of tongues to the believer. But in this post I will explain just one of the most empowering functions of tongues. btw, I read a doctoral seminar paper on the point I make below to the 5 Harvard New Testament professors and it was well received.

In Romans 8:26-27 Paul expands on his command in Eph 6:18 to "pray in the Spirit:"

"Likewise the spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes for us with groans too deep for words (stenagmoi alaletai) ...the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."

In other words, the Holy Spirit can take over our prayers and pray through us for what we need to pray for rather than for what we want to pray for or think we need to pray for. What this means more specifically depends on a more precise understanding of stenagmoi alaletai, a Greek phrase that is hard to translate. The meaning becomes clear when the Latin equivalent of the phrase in Lucan's Civil Wars (a work from Paul's day) and the Latin Vulgate is taken in to account. Lucan uses this phrase to describe the inarticulate gibberish or speaking in tongues of the prophetess at Delphi that must be interpreted by the male resident prophet. So in Romans 8:26-27 stenagmoi alaletai refers to intercessory prayer in tongues through which the Spirit offers petitions that satisfy God's will and are more effective for that very reason.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

Worm, let me ask you: have you ever seen a person with a missing arm or leg suddenly grow a new one because of prayer? Have you ever seen a prayer said in a cemetery and living bodies emerge from the graves? Have you ever jumped out of a boat on a body of water during a storm and walked on that water?

The answer would be no to all of the above!

 

[Yeshua1]

Interesting. How does one 'strive' to speak in tongues exactly?

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

 

[Yeshua1]

John of Japan: "Why are you so insulting? Is that from the Holy Spirit?
Sure looked like you were attacking all Baptists."

No, you are grieving the Holy Spirit by willfully distorting what I said. I specifically refer to "Cessationist Baptists." Therefore my rebuke is justified.

John of Japan: "And John R. Rice was, to a degree, a cessationist."

He was not a cessationist in any sense relevant to this topic. To quote your grandfather: "I believe that the gifts of the Spirit are for today, that is, as much as they ever were and as much as God gives to each one severally as He will. He doesn't give all those gifts to everybody and they are not manifest in every community." I agree with this statement, but have argued (and no one here has tried to rebut my argument) that every believer should strive to speak in tongues and prophesy because Paul teaches that those gifts are intended for everyone. Again, I admonish you to actually read my OP.

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

You need to study spiritual warfare and the principles that govern it. Satan's top priority is to attack Christian ministry at points where it is the most powerful and effective. So every faith-enhancing spiritual gift has its challenging counterfeit intended to sully the Spirit's work.

John of Japan: "I thought 90% of the movement was "in the flesh"? How then can you refer to the movement "flourishing globally" as a good thing?"

You need to read "Jesus in Beijing." an astounding book written by a former NY Times reporter.Dennis Balcombe was attending a Pentecostal church north of LA, when the pastor's wife gave a message in tongues that she interpreted. She spoke fluent Hebrew (confirmed by an Israeli visitor), a language she didn't know, in a message in which the Lord called Balcombe to minister to the persecuted Chinese house churches. It's a long story, but the upshot is that largely due to Balcombe's ministry there are now 80 million charismatic believers in China's house churches. Often Balcombe didn't even need to lay on hands to receive spiritual gifts. Rather, the Spirit simply fell on his Chinese audience and they spoke in tongues spontaneously as on the Day of Pentecost and in Cornelius's household.

John of Japan: "so where in the Bible does it mandate tongues for Holy Spirit power?"

Again, you need to actually read carefully and respond to the OP's case. No other poster has done this.

John of Japan: "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?"

You maliciously create a straw man, so that you can shoot it down and feel righteous. You are putting words in my mouth. I never claimed "Tongues are the necessary sign of God's power"--and you know it. That's why I'm a United Methodist and not a Pentecostal by denomination. I'm only Pentecostal by treasured experience of the gifts of the Spirit.

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

John of Japan: "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."

None of you naysayers seem to have read the OP carefully. The article on "glossai" in Kittel's massive multi-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" documents the use of this Greek word for a "speaking in tongues" that is apparent gibberish and not a human language, but nevertheless can and needs to be interpreted as coherent ecstatic speech. Paul attests the alternate possibility that speaking in tongues can represent angel speech (1 Cor 13:1; 14:12 [Note his reference to the Corinthians as "zealots of spirits (= angels--so Hebrews 1:7). I have cited the contemporary Jewish belief in humans uttering and interpreting angel speech.


John of Japan: "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."

You seem to have no clue about how academic exegesis is done. Ancient terms (especially those relation to religious experience) derive their meaning from their use in contemporary cultural language games. In the Book of Acts, there are no cases of interpreted tongues and, apart from Acts 2, no case in which the tongues are anything but gibberish to the tongues speakers. But in Greece, parallel interpretation tongues (glossai) is documented at Delphi, which establishes the precedent and the linguistic background for nearby Corinthian practice.

John of Japan: "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."

Thanks for teeing up my next point. Speaking in tongues is the only NT example of "praying in the Spirit (Eph 6:18). But that doesn't mean that one must speak in tongues to pray in the Spirit. After my Spirit baptism at age 16, I would sometimes climb up to the steeple room after the morning service to fast and tarry for hours in intercessory prayer. For the first 45 minutes or so, it was agony because my words seemed forced and repetitive and my knees were sore. Then it was as if a dam broke: the Holy Spirit took over and the words and thoughts of my prayer just flowed spontaneously in great joy from one topic to another. I never spoke in tongues in those prayer vigils. In our evening evangelistic services the altar was unusually lined with supplicants seeking salvation!

​

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

 

[Ginnyfree]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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 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!

 

[Deadworm]

@Ginnyfree: "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."

Ginny, your experience illustrates the reason why I never recommend that new believers join Pentecostal or Charismatic groups. As I've repeatedly said here, my discernment is that about 90% of their manifestations of 'of the flesh." But I'm confident that if you experienced the real thing, you would value it as by far the most spiritually nourishing experience of your life! Since I consider you one of the few honest seekers here, let me share the 2 reasons why negative manifestations like the one you observed happen:

(1) The forces of evil seek to counterfeit and discredit the Spirit's most effective tools of spiritual growth. I currently lead a small weekly Monday prayer group. The members are Methodists, not Charismatics. Our prayers have brought us astounding miracles like healing when doctors pronounced death sentences and other dramatic answers to prayer. But 2 members of our group were previously members of a large non-Charismatic Spiritual Warfare group that prayed for struggling believers and even performed exorcisms and deliverance ministries. There was a chilling relentless onslaught of evil coincidences that destroyed their lives, caused their pastor to be fired, and drove all but these 2 prayer warriors from church--any church! By challenging Satan in such a direct, inexperienced, and perhaps prideful way, Charismatics, too, can get in way over their heads!

(2) In our obsession with instant gratification, too many Charismatics have little patience with a long period of spiritual longing and seeking that can lead to spectacular spiritual gifts. Their pastors urge them , "Just speak it out and the Spirit will take over!" Such manipulation leads to counterfeit experiences that can create problems similar to playing with a Ouija board. When anyone releases control of their tongues to unseen forces and is unconsciously motivated by the desire for a spiritual drug-like high, any spiritual entity may well take over their tongue. The Holy Spirit doesn't jump just because we crack our whip!

Many Charismatics pride themselves in their successful deliverance ministries. They think that other denominations are full of demon-oppressed people who are blind to their dire condition. In fact, their reckless pressure to induce speaking in tongues often creates the issues of demonic oppression that their deliverance ministry is intended to combat!

Ginny, please keep monitoring this thread because I will soon outline a method of pursuing spiritual gifts that can safely bring you the real thing and I guarantee you your experience will be the most life-changing and sacred experience you have ever had. The method can be practiced either in the privacy of your home or (preferably) in a small prayer group of mature believers.