Speaking in Tongues Volume 4...

"I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also."

"Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." (or, put another way: "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, that by my voice I might teach others also.")

 

Loving the Lord and our brothers and sister in faith should be the main focus of our lives [I Corinthians chapter 13.

And yet God tells us to 'desire spiritual gifts.'[14:1]. Denying these gifts is antithetical to God's direction for our lives as stated in the Corinthian epistle. If you accept the rest of God's Word you cannot deny these two chapters: 12 & 14.

Most of us pray private prayers in church. And yet for some people they reject praying in 'tongues'in a public setting. If you are an all English speaking church, would you frown on a hispanic person praying in Spanish who attended your church? 99% of Christians would probably say no.

And we do realize that when 'tongues' is spoken it is loud so all the congregation can hear, and then will come the 'interpretation of tongues' as is warranted in Scripture.

God give some Christians one gift and other people several, but we all compliment each other and should respect and cherish every person in the congregation.

As has been said, pride appears in many places in in many Christians. Knowing that all things come from God should leave us with merely self-esteem and not pride. All that we know and have experienced has come from the Lord, and there is no room for pride.

'Freely we have received; freely we give.'

 

"And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"

 

This whole thread is interesting. It is funny how the Pentecostals do not recognize that Paul was chastising the church (in a very diplomatic way) for the abuse of unknown tongues (languages).

The Bible is clear that tongues is nothing more than another language, or an unknown language (to the congregation).

Paul is speaking "tongue-in-cheek" when he makes the comment about speaking even in the tongues of angels.

An unknown tongue would obviously be self-edifying if you cannot understand the language being spoken.

If only one person could understand it, it might be a worthwhile gift, but then an interpretor is needed to edify the rest of the congregation.

Taken completely in context the message Paul gives us about unknown tongues (languages) is very clear. Taken OUT of context and we have a church that spends more time trying to prove "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" because of speaking in tongues than we do preaching the message of the Good News (Jesus Christ) as taught and shown by the Holy Spirit.

 

Don,

You said, '"And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"

 

Phillip,

You said, 'This whole thread is interesting. It is funny how the Pentecostals do not recognize that Paul was chastising the church (in a very diplomatic way) for the abuse of unknown tongues (languages).

The Bible is clear that tongues is nothing more than another language, or an unknown language (to the congregation).

Paul is speaking "tongue-in-cheek" when he makes the comment about speaking even in the tongues of angels.

An unknown tongue would obviously be self-edifying if you cannot understand the language being spoken.

If only one person could understand it, it might be a worthwhile gift, but then an interpretor is needed to edify the rest of the congregation.

Taken completely in context the message Paul gives us about unknown tongues (languages) is very clear. Taken OUT of context and we have a church that spends more time trying to prove "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" because of speaking in tongues than we do preaching the message of the Good News (Jesus Christ) as taught and shown by the Holy Spirit.'

.

 

If you study Baptist history objectively you will find that the Baptists do not have a "founder." Baptists have existed since the time of the Apostles, though called by different names, but adhering to the basc principles or distinctives that Baptists hold today. There have been "Baptists" (again called by different names" throughout every age of history). For example, even some Catholic historians will admit to the existence of the Waldenses from the time of the Apostles for the first 1200 years of history. (Waldenses = people of the valley). They adhered to basically the same principles that we do today, thus Baptistic or our Baptist forefathers. Much of their history has been slandered and revised by the Catholics.

As for the Reformation, Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc. were Catholics who tried to reform the Catholic Church from within. Baptists were never in the Church. Thus they cannot rightly be called Reformers or Protestants. They were never in the Catholic Church to begin with. They always existed outside of the Caltholic Church, and were always against their doctrine.

Both Calvin and Luther, as well as the Catholic Church and the Church of England persecuted the Baptists, the Ana-Baptists, and anyone else who held Baptist-like principles. One of the main isses at that time was Baptism by immersion after salvation by faith alone in Christ. The act of adult baptism often resulted in death. This was true by the hand of all four groups mentioned above. But again, true Bible believers--Baptists, existed since the time of the Apostles. None were ever persecuted for "spiritual gifts," They were unheard of. They had ceased. They were persecuted because of doctrine that they held: justification by faith alone, baptism after salvation as opposed to infant baptism, baptism by immersion as opposed to sprinkling or pouring, the Lord's Table as an ordinance instead of a sacrament (transubstantiation), etc. The issue was never the gifts of the Spirit. All agreed that they had ceased, unless they were heretics or pagans.

The reformation was good in that it brought these major doctrines--sola scriptura, sola fide, etc. to the light. It put the Bible into the hands of the people. It lifted the veil of corruption off of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless the Reformers retained some of their Catholic practices with them. They couldn't shake off all the influence of the Catholic Church (ex. infant baptism).

Quite true

This is also true.

This is a false statement. That is akin to saying that there were no believers before the Reformation, but there were. The modern tongues movement started at the beginning of the 20th century. That was its beginning. There was no such thing before that time, except among paganism and heretics. The gifts of the Spirit had ceased at the end of the first century. No great man of God had ever spoke in tongues or had the gift of miracles or healing or any of the other gifts that are widely seen today: not Spurgeon, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Luther, David Livingston, etc. None of these great men of God ever spoke in tongues, had the gift of miracles, or gift of healing. You infer that the Holy Spirit was dead or that God was dead for 1800 years. This is an absurd position to take.

There was no explostion of gifts. There was an explosion of speaking in gibberish, demonic activity--people in trances, people practicing levitation, all the marks of the occult. These were not the signs of the gifts of the Spirit, but rather of the occult.

I am thankful for some of the things that came out of the Reformation, but not everything that came out of the Reformation was good. Some of the most horrible persecution in history came out of the Reformation, and it was done by Calvin himself. Some of the most wicked doctrine came out of the Reformation when Calvin set up his own church-state governement in Switzerland.

Ecstacy (also known as a drug that can make you dangerously high) is not a spiritual gift. Likewise speaking in an ecstatic tongue is not a spiritual gift, and never was. It was never practiced by any Christians prior to the 20th century. Give me one good reason why it should be practiced now. It is a pagan practice, commonly practiced among pagan religions. The Biblical gift of tongues was speaking in actual foreign languages. That is precisely why it was a gift. It was a supernatural gift to speak in a language not previously known to the one speaking it. It was a marvelous ability. I wish I had received that gift before I went to the mission field. But, no, I had to study and work hard to learn the language. So does every Charismatic missionary who believes in the gift of tongues. They must learn the language of the nation to which they are sent. That is pure hypocrisy. If they really believed in tongues, then God would just give them the language wouldn't he. But the gift has ceased, and God doesn't operate that way any more.

That is a totally unsciptural point of view. That is not what the Bible says about the end times.

2 Timothy 3:1-2 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Things are not getting better and better; they are getting worse and worse.
--The deception of the Charismatic movement is one of those signs.
DHK

 

.

 

This is just your opinion only. It cannot be verified in history. I already challenged you and others: Why have none of the great spiritual leaders throughout history (both missionaries and theologians) never speak in tongues? Was the Holy Spirit dead for 1800 years? Give evidence for your answer.

That's a mighty long Jordan River you are thinking of Ray, especially since Paul went to Rome, which is in Italy, and then to Spain (between his two imprisonmnets), also to Greece (Corinth), and throughout Asia and Achaia. Are you saying that the Jordan River flows all throughout Israel, Europe, and Asia? That is a mighty long River. Better check your geography.
The Ethiopian eunuch was immersed in the middle of a desert area, where they both went into the water and they both came out of the water.
The Jordan River was deep enough to immerse any adult. The word "baptize" means immerse.
However, you still have the problem with the definition of "languages" in the Bible don't you. There is no such thing as an ecstatic language in the Bible. They wera all national language. You have yet to prove that they weren't.
DHK

 

An interesting quote by one of the early church fathers:

SPEAKING IN TONGUES
DHK

 

. </font>[/QUOTE]Its not a theory. Simply read what Paul says and if you cannot see what he is trying to say then maybe you are trying to read something into it.

One other issue that is interesting is the fact that out of all of the gifts, Paul played down tongues the most and Pentecostals seem to play it UP the most.

Our pastor told us a story last night about a group of Pentecostals that brought a fifty-five gallon drum to church and demanded that Satan go into that drum (rebuked him) and then made fun of him. Funny, I don't see anything like that in the Bible. I know Satan can be rebuked, but only in the name of the Lord. I don't think it is going to do much good to make him go into a fifty-five gallon drum and make fun of him.

 

No joke, Amen to that.....

 

Most baptist churches actually practice true biblical tongues. A missionary may come from abroad (speaking Portuguese say)and tell us of the work the Lord has been doing. There will be an interpter there to interpt for the people. That way he speaks no mysteries, all are edified, all understand as the body. Baptist have been practicing tongues long before some whacko came up with the jibberish nonesense of today.

 

I can't make heads or tails out of anything you said here. Probably an IQ problem.

And by the way Ray, I would compare IQ's with anyone here, if I put any credence as to it's value. It's what a person does with his God given mind, that matters.

 

Phillip,

I agree with you that we need to respect--pay attention to the evil one lest we fall into or commit sin.

There are a lot of crazies out there.

 

.

 

DHK,

You said, 'by their songs and incantations.
SPEAKING IN TONGUES'

.

 

It is difficult to make sense of his post. But here is some background information.
I believe it was Atestring that threw out the 3500 number claiming that there were 3500 languages in the world and thus setting forth the challenge that if we were claiming that the Charismatics were speaking in tongues we would have to be conversant in all 3500 languages to prove that it wasn't one of those languages.
I wondered where he got the figure from since he never documented it.

So upon my own research, I found out that there are almost twice that number, almost 7,000 languages in the world: 6,912 to be precise.
However out of all those languages there are only 94 language families. Languages are grouped into families. If one is familiar with a couple of different languages he should be able to identify quite a few others of the same family. For example I studied French. Though I don't know Spanish, Mexican, or, German I can easily identify these as languages (and even the language that they are) and not just gibberish. One does not have to "know" all the languages of the world to be able rule out whether or not a person is speaking in a real foreign tongue or just babble or gibberish.
Real foreign languages were spoken in the Bible.
Gibberish is Satan's imitation of it for today.
DHK