Questioning Modern Pentecostalism

[dwmoeller1]

It's cool man. It's a good argument ain't it Gordon? At least until dwmoeller comes back and ruins it.

Why does God send a man a tongue to speak if that language is not spoken by any in hearing? Or, if you like, why should a Christian feel the need to speak in French if there are no French in the Church and why would he know there was no interpreter before he speaks?

Or Swahili for that matter. The reason: to the the one who doesn't know the language, its the same as gibbersish to them. The key is that whatever language it is, it is spoken by the power of the HS.

(For us: An interpreter becomes someone who understands French so that he can tell the English speakers what an English speaker is saying in French seems odd).

No, the interpreter is not one who understands the foreign language (any more than they understand gibberish), but one who is empowered by the HS to interpret whatever is said regardless of the actual language used.

My point is that a foreign language that no one in the congregation knows fulfills these parameters as well as gibberish.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Why does it really matter? Does it matter if I speak with the tongue of men or of angels. Obviously its not talking about just speaking in a foreign language they naturally know, its speaking of talking in a tongue under the power and influence of the HS. If no one else understands it, then it doesn't really matter if it is gibberish or German. Either way, the experience will meet the goal of 'encouraging the speaker'.

Consider the example of Pentacost. To many of the hearers, the apostles speaking in a known but foreign language was gibberish. Hence the reason why they thought the apostles were drunk.

The point is that it doesn't really tip it either way. It is suggestive and it does leave open the possibility of it being gibberish (hence why I will disagree with anyone who says that *all* references to tongues is of known languages), but it does not argue strongly either way.

I respect your right to differ. The text dealing with Tongues is a know language and we are sure of it because that is what it says. It is not a guessing game. They hear in their own language. Or I will speak to these in the language of another people.

No ambiguity in that.

 

[Allan]

Why does it really matter? Does it matter if I speak with the tongue of men or of angels. Obviously its not talking about just speaking in a foreign language they naturally know, its speaking of talking in a tongue under the power and influence of the HS. If no one else understands it, then it doesn't really matter if it is gibberish or German. Either way, the experience will meet the goal of 'encouraging the speaker'.

If you can speak with the tongues of men and of angels then you must also believe a person can have all understanding all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains...
Boy, THAT would help solve the C?A debate. We could go to that person or people and be able to know what the bible means and how it is actually meant to be understood by God. Wait, is that what Jesus is about?

The usage here is metaphorical dispaying NOT that we can speak in different languages of men and angels but that those things which are impossible for men to do and have, EVEN if they COULD do and have are worthless if not done in a selfless and non-self-centered way.

12:7 shows the purpose of ALL the spiritual gifts given and that is to edify everyone. Meaning it is for others and NOT for self edification.

Have you ever wondered why 13 (the Love chapter) is in between Paul speaking about gifts given to the people for the CHURCH. The answer is in 13. Love is not selfish but gives, it is not about self but others. Chapter 13 is the epitimy of of what Paul was trying to get across in 12:7 and in 14. This is why 14 is known as a rebuke NOT AGAINST tongues but against the fact it was used for self edification. They spoke to themselves but Paul rathered they prophesied! All Pauls speaking in the church was to grow them - Love - by using his gifts for them. Gifts are not and never were designed for you but to be given and used for and toward His Church. I have a very lengthy discourse on this subject and this is but a small rendering though hopefully you get the gist.

Consider the example of Pentacost. To many of the hearers, the apostles speaking in a known but foreign language was gibberish. Hence the reason why they thought the apostles were drunk.

Did it ever occur to you beyond the teaching of Benny Hinn (who says the same thing) those people thought the Jews were drunk because they were talking about a dead man coming back to life and that through Him salvation is assured. That He went up to heaven and is coming again. Scripture doesn't say the staggered around like a drunk or slurred speak like a drunk, but the people call them drunk after hearing their message!!

The point is that it doesn't really tip it either way. It is suggestive and it does leave open the possibility of it being gibberish (hence why I will disagree with anyone who says that *all* references to tongues is of known languages), but it does not argue strongly either way.

No it doesn't. Paul states that if ANYONE speaks in an tongue let him pray that he may interprets. (Why would paul ask them pray unless it be Gods will they understand what they say. If you notice Paul uses himself as the example since he does do it with KNOWING what he is saying) Paul would NOT speak unless he understood the language he was speaking. Else if you pray in the spirit how shall the one sitting beside you say 'Amen".

I do disagree. Angels spoke always in the language of men. What is the purpose of speaking in the tongue of an angel (assuming they have their own language), please?? There is NONE, for the tongues are for the unbelievers. Are you trying to win the lost angels back to God?? Are you praying in Gods most holy language that the words which God fashioned on your lips with which to speak, is truly not good enough to make your petitions known? Or maybe as the pentacostals say "it is so the devil can't know what you are praying." Which is silly since he is an angel himself though fallen. Tongues were as a sign to the unbeleiving jews that Gods judgment had once again come upon them for their unbelief, and also for the unbelieving gentile when God enable a person to speak a language the person speaking in tongues should not have previously known!


Take it for a grain of salt if you wish but is pretty much the extent of what I wish to say.



ONE MORE QUICK NOTE: If you heard a person speak plainly to you in your native tongue, which you KNOW they did not know previously; would you think they were drunk?

 

[GordonSlocum]

The usage here is metaphorical dispaying NOT that we can speak in different languages of men and angels but that those things which are impossible for men to do and have, EVEN if they COULD do and have are worthless if not done in a selfless and non-self-centered way.

12:7 shows the purpose of ALL the spiritual gifts given and that is to edify everyone. Meaning it is for others and NOT for self edification.

Color Added

Your Punch Line Says It All "Not for self edification"

"May Our Lord Help Us To Humble Our Hearts and Bow Before His Magisty and Holiness In Complete Contrition and Brokennes"

There is a song out that asserts "It's All About Him"

Very Good Allen

 

[dwmoeller1]

erse 8 and 9 are defined by the following verses 11-13
(1)verse 8 Prophecy will be done away with
(2)verse 8 tongues will cease
(3)verse 8 knowledge will be done away with not eradicated.
(4)Verse 11-the comparison of verses 8 and 9 to the maturation of the life cycle of a person does not leave any room to wiggle does it? I know some will still argue their case what can I say. Verse 12 a repeat of verse 10 in different words and that too is a form of genre used in the art of language & it is a literal use conveying an emphasis. When these two verses are compared to verse 11 and 13 the teaching is crystal clear and final. They are all context - remember - how important context is and the flow of meaning the author is conveying.
(5)Verse 13 - BUT - now that is a big But. But what “NOW” When? When is now referring to in this context, keep it in context - OK? Would you agree that “Now” is the time in which Paul is living and writing? I would. Why? Because I really want to understand the truth and how to apply it within the context and in my life. If I can not understand the contextual meaning of the section of scripture I am studying then I will never be able to apply it to my life correctly.
(6)The context simply states that three things will stop and that there are three but mainly only one that will remain of these in the context. What are they? Faith, Hope and Love. There isn’t any mystery about all this tongues doctrine. The text and statements of Paul’s writing is so clear. It’s a done deal as some would put it.

Is this an argument for cessation? IOW, are you arguing that 'now' (ie. at the time of Paul) there were tongues and prophecy, but 'then' (ie. after the time of the apostles) tongues and prophecy will cease?

If so, it seems to me to ignore the import of vs. 12. When is 'then'? "Then" in vs. 14 is when we will know Christ as He knows us. That does not seem to be a description of today any more than back then. It seems a much better rendering to see it as a reference to death and/or resurrection (considering chapt 15, more likely the latter). Maybe you can explain in more detail how you reach the conclusion of 'then' including the present cause as it stands, it seems to be a big and unwarrented stretch.

If that is not what you intend to argue though, then I am totally in the dark as to your points concerning vs. 8-13. I am simply not following your logic.

B. Starting at verse one read through to verse eleven. Verses 10 and 11 are the explanation and understanding of all that precedes it in chapter 14 up to these verses. If I isolate any of the verses prior to these defining verses I will come to a wrong conclusion and thus a wrong interpretation. Verses 10 and 11 brings us back to the reality that tongues are know languages. The illustration, of not recognizing a sound, is clarified with these two verses. The person speaking in a tongue legitimately is speaking in a know language on the face of the earth. Not an angelic language or a gibberish language but a know language.

I see your assertion, but I don't see how you support it. How do vs 10 and 11 make clear that what is being spoken of is a known language?

E.If the previous verse was not enough look at what the Holy Spirit leads Paul to pin. Can you imagine that. He has brought these baby Corinthians full circle back to the clear meaning and purpose of tongues. What does it say, “So then tongues (the subject at hand) are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers, (remember Acts). Now back up to verse 21. Who are the tongues for ? What does it say? “This people” Israel.

Yes Paul use a verse that has to do with Tsrael, and establishes from Scripture the purpose of tongues. However there is no indication in the passage that he is restricting it to unbelieving Israel. It is a sign for unbelievers, not simply unbelieving Israel.

F.You see the real God the Spirit given gift of tongues was given to believers in the infant church stages as a sign to the Jews. There is absolutely no way to miss understand this verse. I can’t think of one unless I refuse to accept the truth, and twist the meaning .

You take the quote of Pauls too far. Paul several times uses quotes from the OT which were originally in reference to the Jews but applies them to all. For example, Rom 3:15 quotes Isa 59:7 which is specifically in reference to Jews, yet in Rom 3 Paul is applying it universally. So yes, there is a way to misunderstand the verse...by coming to it with cessationist or pentacostal presuppositions. Sorry to be snippy, but you make a much harder stance than is warrented by the passage.

G. The last instruction to the immature Christians at Corinth. Here Paul is not running rough shod over the new immature believers The none biblical speaking in tongues these believer were engage in is permitted in a setting to stop it completely. Notice he say OK don’t stop it but if you want to speak in tongues one, two or not more than three and you must have some one to interpret the tongue and it must be a know language.

Are you saying that Paul says it must be a known language or that this is tne logical conclusion of what Paul says? If the former, then I protest that the verse says nothing of the sort. If the latter, then see below.

Everyone knows that only known languages are relevant in this stetting.

You can make this conclusion only if you presume that interpretation is to be done by natural means. If the interpretation is by supernatural means, then both known languages and private language would be possibly relevant. If the interpretation is supernatural, then your logic falls.

 

[EdSutton]

One could be "the greatest preacher in the world" and "spirit-filled", to boot (whatever any of that means) and preach a sermon in, say, German, Chinese, or the native languages of India, or as JohnofJapan might, Japanese, and I would not understand one word. How would I be edified?

I only speak and understand three languages, fluently. They are English, 'Redneck' and 'BS', and unfortunately I get the last two (even on the BB), all too well, being as I'm from the hills of KY.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Or Swahili for that matter. The reason: to the the one who doesn't know the language, its the same as gibbersish to them. The key is that whatever language it is, it is spoken by the power of the HS.



No, the interpreter is not one who understands the foreign language (any more than they understand gibberish), but one who is empowered by the HS to interpret whatever is said regardless of the actual language used.

My point is that a foreign language that no one in the congregation knows fulfills these parameters as well as gibberish.

Actually all the Scriptural passages in question mention "speaking in tongues/languages (glossa)", and the disciples "spoke" in Acts. Only I Cor., to my knowledge, mentions 'interpretation' as a 'gift'. Hence it is not my place to 'preach' a 'great sermon' in royal, eloquent, flowery, English {double } when my audience knows only Spanish, and there is no interpreter. Better some lay person give a not particularly good message in Spanish, and I keep my trap shut! That is the gist of what Paul is saying!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I Corinthians Chapters 12-15

1. First lets establish the purpose for tongues in this setting and context. Look at 14:22. Now can anyone say that this declaration of the purpose of tongues is not a part of the context. A straight forward statement of the real purpose and use of tongues as discussed in I Cor. 12-15? Let God be true and every man a liar. Can you say amen to that?

2. Question: Are you willing to accept the context of these chapters? This is a hard question and it will take some real gut searching and truth bearing. It is an easy answer but for some it will be a gut wrenching reality. Looking at facts are not easy. I have gone through a number of changes in my thinking over the years when I was willing to deal with facts in Scripture and in life in general. I don’t like the way it makes me feel but the end result is pleasant and rewarding.

3. Chapter 12 Three Classifications

A. Gifts 12:4
B. Ministries 12:5
C. Effects 12:6

4. 12:7 the manifestation for the common good vss. 4-10

A. to one wisdom
B. to one knowledge
C. to one faith
D. to one healing
E. to one miracles
F. to one prophecy
G. to one distinguishing of spirits
H. to one tongues
I. to one interpretation of tongues

5. Who give these gifts, ministries, effects? The Spirit and only as the Spirit wills not us. You can not will to have what the Spirit does not will you to have. This is different from earnestly seeking anything in the list, but seeking and getting are two different things. If the Spirit wills it for you then you will have it. That is so simple.

6. Lets face another real hard reality. The Spirit is God - No problem. God the Spirit decides if you will have this or that. Now everyone in the Church will not have the gift of tongues can I get a witness based upon Scriptural truth? Someone say amen. 12:11

7. Now lets deal with verse 12:13-31

A. “We were all baptized into one body” regardless ok

B. The previous verses clearly teach that no one individual will have all the gifts, effects, ministries. It is not rocket science - it really is simple.

C. The distinct clear doctrinal guidelines of this chapter is solid and the historical reality of the beginner church basically all experiencing the gift of tongues is not a basis to require all to speak in tongues. What did the clear statement in verse 11 say? God the spirit will decide who gets what. It is obvious that God the Holy Spirit chose to give the gift of tongues to basically all who believer in the book of Acts. Now do you think that nullifies this 11th verse. We must let God be God. God has the right to do it His way.

D. Look at verse 18 - Who places in the body as He pleases? That is right! It is God. Who’s desire is it that decides who is what or gets what? Your are right again - it is God

E. What does verse 20 say? Does it not say the same thing in a different way with verse 13? Of course it does.

F. Now you would think that at this point the point is understood, perhaps not, so Paul by the inspiration of the Spirit is carried along to write the following verse 27-31

G. The bottom line “not all have” it is self explanatory - everyone would agree

H. God through Paul puts another twist and clarification with respect to tongues in verse 31. Notice what he says, “earnestly desire the greater gifts.” Two things to remember: (1) God the Holy Spirit decides who gets what. (2) God has instructed Paul to tell us that we should desire the greater gifts. Tongues are not one of the greater gifts. Remember the discussion here is tongues not other gifts so don’t get off on a miracles or healing tangent.

Since you asked for an "Amen" to both points "1" and "6", I'll say 'Amen!' and 'Amen!'

Just don't assume I'll automatically give 'em. (Or you'll automatically get 'em!) :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

If you can speak with the tongues of men and of angels then you must also believe a person can have all understanding all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains...
Boy, THAT would help solve the C?A debate. (Snipped)

:laugh: :laugh:

Best laugh I've had today! My side is actually hurting between coughing and laughing!

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[dwmoeller1]

One could be "the greatest preacher in the world" and "spirit-filled", to boot (whatever any of that means) and preach a sermon in, say, German, Chinese, or the native languages of India, or as JohnofJapan might, Japanese, and I would not understand one word. How would I be edified?

If there were an interpreter, you would be.

...but I fail to see your point. I raise several concerns and questions and you seem to be side-stepping them.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Actually all the Scriptural passages in question mention "speaking in tongues/languages (glossa)", and the disciples "spoke" in Acts. Only I Cor., to my knowledge, mentions 'interpretation' as a 'gift'.

Yeah so? Thats the same book as I Cor 14, hence its perfectly applicable.

Hence it is not my place to 'preach' a 'great sermon' in royal, eloquent, flowery, English {double } when my audience knows only Spanish, and there is no interpreter. Better some lay person give a not particularly good message in Spanish, and I keep my trap shut! That is the gist of what Paul is saying!

Are you referring to preaching and interpreting Spanish by natural means? If not, I am not following you. Can you elucidate?

If so, then I can only point out I Cor 12 in which both are stated as being gifts of the Spirit. Why would you reduce what elsewhere is clearly supernatural to what is simply natural?

 

[EdSutton]

Are you referring to preaching and interpreting Spanish by natural means? If not, I am not following you. Can you elucidate?

If so, then I can only point out I Cor 12 in which both are stated as being gifts of the Spirit. Why would you reduce what elsewhere is clearly supernatural to what is simply natural?

Since I do not have the gift of 'glossa', I am not referring to preaching 'Spanish'. I could therefore only preach in English. Unless one is present who has the gift of interpretation of languages, hence being able by the spiritual gift to interpret what I may be preaching in my own language, and speaks Spanish, or alternatively one who understands and can interpret by 'natural means', as you put it, the effect and difference is the same. The Spanish audience has no 'tool' by which to understand, unless one or the other of the 'situations' is in play.
Absent either, my 'job' is to "keep my trap shut". I am not 'reducing' the "clearly supernatural" to the "simply natural" at all. One does not cancel out the other, nor does one 'outrank' the other, in the guidelines given in Scripture, for they are the guidelines God gave via the writers. Our 'job' is to follow them. Gotta' go to a doctor's appointment.

Ed

 

[dwmoeller1]

Since I do not have the gift of 'glossa', I am not referring to preaching 'Spanish'. I could therefore only preach in English. Unless one is present who has the gift of interpretation of languages, hence being able by the spiritual gift to interpret what I may be preaching in my own language, and speaks Spanish, or alternatively one who understands and can interpret by 'natural means', as you put it, the effect and difference is the same. The Spanish audience has no 'tool' by which to understand, unless one or the other of the 'situations' is in play.
Absent either, my 'job' is to "keep my trap shut". I am not 'reducing' the "clearly supernatural" to the "simply natural" at all. One does not cancel out the other, nor does one 'outrank' the other, in the guidelines given in Scripture, for they are the guidelines God gave via the writers. Our 'job' is to follow them. Gotta' go to a doctor's appointment.

Ed

Yet as I continue to point out, all that can be true with 'gibberish' as well. The only difference is that 'gibberish' can't be translated by natural means. Why then would one insist that the reference in I Cor 14 is to known languages only. I should not preach in English without a translator if my audience does not understand English, neither should I speak in 'gibberish' without a translator since my audience won't be able to understand that.

Now also, it seems as if you are saying that gift of tongues can be exhibited by natural means. If so, I would strongly challenge this assertion. For one, the examples in Scripture are of it be a supernatural exercise. Secondly, I Cor 14 seems to indicate that it is also speaking about a supernatural and not natural exercise of the gift. Notice, vs. 13 and 14:
For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

If I were praying in another language that I naturally understood, then this passage makes no sense. If I naturally spoke both English and Spanish then why would 'my mind be unfruitful', if I prayed in Spanish instead of English? It seems clear that the exercise Paul is speaking of here must be a supernatural one - one in which my spirit is engaged but my understanding doesn't quite follow.

So, since all explicit descriptions of tongues show it to be a supernatual exercise, I would challenge the assertion that it is to be viewed as a natural exercise. Might it be? Possibly...but that would have to be asserted without any Scriptural evidence I am aware of. So, since we are dealing with a supernatural exercise, lets deal with it in those terms.