Tongues - Tongue of Angels

Actually it was supposed to be a discussion about the "scriptural" evidence of tongues of angels not what thoelogians have to say about them.

I don't see it in the text of scripture. I am not merely dismissing their claim. I listened to it, examined it in context and then dismissed it.

If you want to keep insisting that I am suffering from blind dogmatism then believe what you want. In actuality I was blindly believing in their existance until I was challenged to do otherwise. That is when I saw the truth, not because of what someone told me the Bible said, but because I read it for what it really had to say.

One thing I do not understand is how you can be supporting this tongue that is supposedly coming from the power of the Holy Spirit and then deny the Spirit's ability to teach me without me needing help from another man.

~Lorelei

 

Actually only the non-cessasionist will say "my experience".

The reason we say things such as "I see" or "I don't see" is because we are not looking at the word blindly. We are looking at the word for truth.

How can you know your way is right if you don't open your eyes to "see" it either way?

Talk about blind dogmatism, the one who doens't have the will to even look would fit the bill nicely. Good thing you pointed out that cessastionists not only have eyes to see, but we use them.

~Lorelei

 

Qwerty,

I think if all are honest, then none would deny that they rely on experience in their interpretation of the word of God to some point.

Where things take a turn for the silly is when one side claims that only the other is interpreting in the light of experience, and tries to claim the "high ground" on that account. Cessartionists, as Jack Deere points out, no less than charismatiocs, are working from experience when it comes to interpreting the texts dealing with charismata; it is simply negative experience (bad or non-existant).

For myself I am grateful for the work of folks like Wayne Grudem and Gordon Fee who have helpd take the issue to a more mature, theologically informed level.


Lorelei,

There is nothing contrary to the issue of discussing scriptural evidence in refering to the insights of other christians who have studied the scriptural evidence, and have greater experience and training. If there were then you would never utter the words "my pastor said" or refer to a sermon. Indeed, you would never listen to one.

I have offered plenty of evidence, and to this point you have not interacted with much of it. You have denied it and dismissed it. You have not interacted with most of it.

Would you mind explaining WHY you dismissed it? To what extent is your dismissal based on the fact that acepteance would mean changing yor mind? IOW, exactly how objective are you? Not very from what I can see. You seem quite intent on dismissing anything that might contradict your opinion.

Its not about what I am inisting. Its about the way you are acting. You don't interact with things. You dimiss them out of hand without giving a reason. You stand proudly on not having the knowledge of scholars while you dimiss ther insights BECAUSE they are scholars and you're not. Your ignorance seems to make you superior in your eyes.

I heaven't done that Lorelei. I said that such apeals are, of themselves, of no value since the claim can be made equally by both sides. It becomes "The Spirit told me" vs The Spirit told me".

All I have asked is that you substantiate your denials with reasons. You have not done so.

I strongly urge you to read the work of Wayne Grudem and Gordon Fee. They are first rate scholars, men of God. They too have the Spirit. Why not actually listen, with an open heart and mind, to them? The wors that could happen is that you might change your mind.

And of youare now recoiling in horror at THAT thought, then you should simply admit that there is nothing that can be said to change your mind, that you are not really open to hearing other points of view except as you can attempt to refute them. That isn't listening and it isn't discussion, on any topic.

 

Latreia,
If you have never been in the cessationist camp, then it might be hard to understand the thinking.

For the cessationist, the matter of gifts is kind of life and death struggle. This issue is as basic as the definition of what constitutes proper and acceptable Christian practice.

The cessationist has long ago determined that the gifts, and especially tongues, are invalid for our time. Because they are invalid, therefore, by definition, any practice of the gifts today is questionable at best, and devilish most likely.

There can be no give on this issue. There have been other discussions about this on this board, and the cessationists have come up with some very novel interpretations to try to maintain their theology. Because if the cessationist ever loses this argument, then their whole life is called into question.

 

I have never been a cessasionist in the sense of being self-conscious about denying the gifts of the spirit. For several years I was one of those who knew that there were claims made about them, and about scriptural support, but never saw them in action and was skeptical about the claims of authenticity.

However, I had not to that point actually studied the issue of the biblical evidence. I had no commitments one way or the other. My commitment was to finding out what scripture teaches. If that led one way or another I was going to gothat way. It was with that mindest that I approached things. And you know where it led me.

I understand that there are some complex theologies that would be heavily impacted in the life of the cessationist. I had to struggle, for example, with the implication of prophesy or words of knowledge on my doctrine of scripture and its sufficiency. In the end I was able to reconcile them, simply by acknowledging what I already knew; that not all revelation is the same. We don't say that general revelation compromises scriptural suffciency, nor do we hold that the "holy unctions" that even cesssationists will often admit to having do that either. So why should we be backed into a corner on prophesy, tongues, or words of knowledge? After all we already know that not all prophesy is scripture.

As you might imagine this was no small thing; I am committed to the sufficiency, authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures. I am a full adherent of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I would add one word of caution though. I don't like being caught up in borad brushes, and I imagine the same is true of cessationists. While what you say may well be true of some, many, maybe even most, cessartionists, I am uncomfortable with the generalisation.

Thank you though for your comments.

 

The reference in Rev. 14 simply implies that the angels have a language to say that only 144,ooo men could hear this is to read something into the passage. The pasaage looks vvery simple to me.
In II corinthians 12:4 the words were "heard"!!!!
Which means to me that there is a language of angels in heaven.
I do not claim to be a scholar but the question on this forum is about "tongues of Angels" and I simply looked in a commentary and found a reference.
By the way ,loralee I did not claim this to be infallable but a very logical comment on the subject of "tongues of Angels."

 

Romans 14:5 states my opinion very well also!
Have a wonderful day!

 

Yeah, that's why I FINALLY shut up.

~Lorelei

PS. I know you didn't mean to tell me to shut up, but if you really really knew me, you might have!

 

I just want to thank everyone who participated in this thread. I think it is wonderfully informative. I think both positions have been well articulated.

If by "headway" you mean, was anyone converted from their position, I don't think it would be possible for any one in this thread to be changed from their position.

We are all fairly entrenched in our positions because of our knowledge of the scriptures, and our experience as Christians.

 

If I may add my two cents: I was licensed to preach with the Assemblies of God for about three years.A prerequisite to this of course was you had to be a speaker in "othertongues". I am no longer a part of either. Through the leading of the Holy Spirit I was brought out of this false movement.
They (the Assemblies, as do most so-called classical Pentacostalists) believe that there are two kinds of tongues--unknown ("tongues...of angels", and a known tongue or existing language, but not learned by the speaker.
However, as I said, the Holy Spirit brought me out of that. One way was that, over the years I began to notice a similiarity in all the tongues. No matter from what part of the country or world all"tongues" sounded very much like the same language. I could go on and give a laundry list of other problems I believe was revealed to me, but since the subject is "angelic tongues" I will stop at this.
Was I demon possessed? No.I knew I was truly saved. Was I decieved, a part of mass hysteria and hype? I believe yes. And this is true of many within the movement. I know many of them love the Lord and wish to do His will. Nevertheless, they are deceived.
I have since repented of all my involvement, and no longer believe or participate in vain babbling.I would ask that you pray for those who do.