Seeking help with this one...

[Jairus]

I wasn't quite sure if I should post this here or in the Apologetics area. I hope I will get some meat on this one. I have a bit of a faith struggle. How I got here is a whole different area that needs to be addressed elsewhere. It is very troublesome for me to say the least, so I hope you will be gracious and compassionate.

Lets start with this. I have met several Assemblies of God folks who practice the gift of tongues. Most Reformed groups do not follow this practice or believe it is still extant. Now I have met many wonderful believers who say it is still a gift for today. Now here comes the trouble for me. First I have a hard time believing that there aren't committed Christians on both sides of the issue. Now Christian A speaks in tongues. Christian B says no that has ceased and whatever Christian A is doing, it certainly isn't from God, which would imply its demonic or delusional. If I hold to Christian B's theory then I have to conclude there is something seriously wrong and the possibility that the vast majority of the A group is deceived or not even Christian. Now if I go with the theory that it is a gift of the Spirit, I have to conclude there are a great number of confessed Christian have a problem!

This and similar thoughts have eroded my faith with nagging thoughts like, "Are you sure this is not all (Faith in a personal God) just a figment of your human imagination?

There are other like scenarios such as the Paedo Baptism vs. Credo Baptism and on and on. If there are true Christians on both sides, praying for the truth, how is it we come to opposite conclusions? Why would or does God allow this.

If you have a good answer please post it or book recommendations etc. A persons faith is in the balance, a soul in need.

I seriously appreciate your time,

Jairus

 

[Andres]

I'll just speak from personal experience... I was a Pentecostal for 8 years. I was 100% totally convinced that speaking in tongues what completely biblical and that those people that didn't were missing out. Was I delusional? I don't know, maybe. Long story short, I was 100% totally wrong. Tongues have ceased in the modern church era. Thankfully God was gracious in helping me to understand the truth. Now, I have no doubt in my mind that in all my years of Pentecostal error, I was a born-again Christian and I have many Pentecostal friends that, while in error regarding the gifts of the Spirits, I fully believe are Christians.

 

[Free Christian]

I was once Pentecostal. And I was struck by those who claimed to have the gift that the only tongues they spoke were not a known language. Of all those that I meet or talk to today and in times past I ask this "do you or any of those you know, for example, speak in a language that you don't know and cant or have never spoken before, say Chinese, and there is a Chinese person present who knows what you are saying and hear you speaking the wonders of God in their language just like there were examples of tongues in the Bible in Acts?" Often I meet with no response to that question and not once has anyone replied yes! They all say when pressed that the tongues they speak are angelic. Unbiblical.

 

[Peairtach]

Has God not spoken clearly enough on "tongues" or baptism? Maybe He has spoken clearly enough on these subjects but some Christians are not reading their Bibles carefully enough.

These things are important but not of the essence of salvation, and the Lord is under no obligation to speak with equal clarity on every detail, although I believe the Bible's teaching on tongues and baptism is not veiled as some topics are, e.g. some points of eschatology.

We are taught in the Bible that the Church will reach full maturity through an historic process of growth involving the illumination of Scripture. See e.g. Ephesians 4:11-13.

We need to rest in Christ for salvation and trust Him to teach us more about our salvation, and also about things that are not of the essence of salvation e.g. tongues, baptism, the man of sin, etc.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Elizabeth]

This and similar thoughts have eroded my faith with nagging thoughts like, "Are you sure this is not all (Faith in a personal God) just a figment of your human imagination?

The reality of the Jesus and his redeeming grace is not bothered one little bit by your nagging thought. Isn't it wonderful to know that our minds cannot undo what has been done? The objective reality is set in such stone, that our silly little imaginings(which we sometimes take far too seriously, as if THEY could remove us from his grace) are like a little, tiny down feather falling upon it.

Just wipe such thoughts aside, or examine them if you must and laugh a bit, as they are about the worst the devil can do to you.

I always liked Puddleglum's take, from The Silver Chair, CS Lewis. I know Lewis is not quite up to snuff,theologically, but this has been useful to me in the past, when such thoughts would come about.

" Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things -- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow."

 

[Scott Bushey]

I would only add: In light of this issue, one must make the distinction between heresy and error. Some error becomes heresy, depending on the person and vice versa.
The other thing to consider is that the elect come from every tribe, tongue and nation.
Lastly, if tongues was a sign gift which always pointed towards something else, i.e. prophetic message from God, what exactly is the message that tongue speakers bring? What message can they give that is not already established in the closed canon?
As well, if I understand the discipline, whenever a tongue is used, there must always be an interpretation....but I digress.

 

[JimmyH]

Let me start by saying that when I was first saved, at 37 years of age, having been raised by atheists who went to their grave in that state, as far as I know, God used my private reading of the Holy Bible for His purpose, the Holy Spirit enlightened the eyes of my understanding and I knew that the Word was true, that I was a sinner and in need of a Saviour. I began attending an Assemblies of God church, my first exposure to a house of worship. I had resolved, come what may, to continue attending on Wednesday and Sunday, for three months no matter how I felt about it.

I was very put off by my observation of the practice of speaking in tongues and saw no edification in hearing it. At least not for me personally. Following the requisite 90 days I had set for myself I moved to a Bible believing Baptist church where I felt the Spirit much more in evidence through the quiet reverence of the brothers and sisters in attendance there.

With that background I would say, as the writer of the Book of Hebrews states, in 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." .Below is a quote from the Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones book, "God The Father, God The Son," page 37 ;

"The first thing we must do, in view of all that we have seen together, is agree to grasp the Bible as our full and final authority in all matters of revelation. Having seen that we cannot get anywhere without the Bible, then the obvious thing to do is to say, 'Very well, I accept the Bible. I don't know anything apart from it. I have no knowledge of God apart from what the Bible tells me. I may theorize, and other people may do the same thing, but I really do knot know anything apart from what I find in this book.' So the first decision we must make is that we are going to be, as John Wesley put it, men and women 'of one book'. Here is my only source, my only authority.

But I want to underline this and even emphasise it still further. I must submit myself entirely to the Bible, and that will mean certain things. First, I start by telling myself that when I come to read the Bible and its doctrines, I am entering into a realm that is beyond the reach of my understanding. By definition, I shall be dealing with things that are beyond my power to grasp. The very idea of revelation , in and of itself, I suggest to you, must carry that implication. We are going to try and know God and study the doctrines concerning Him, and it must be the case that these truths are beyond our understanding. If I could understand God, I would be equal with Him. If my mind were able to apprehend and to span the truth about God then it would mean that my mind is equal to the mind of God, and that, of course, is altogether wrong.

For instance, in our next lecture we hope to be dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity. Now there by definition is a doctrine that no one can possibly understand, but let us agree to say that before we come to the doctrine. Let nobody think, however, that this means committing intellectual suicide when we take up the Bible. It simply means that we recognize that there is a limit to reason. We agree with the great French mathematician and philosopher, Pascal, that the supreme achievement of reason is to teach that there is an end and limit to reason. Our reason takes us so far and then we enter into the realm of revelation, where God is graciously pleased to manifest Himself to us.

But now I am anxious to emphasise the second point. It means that we must accept truths where we cannot understand them and fully explain them. Not only must we agree that we cannot, of necessity, understand everything, but also, when we come up against particular doctrines and truths, we must accept them if they are in he Bible, irrespective of the fact that we can or cannot understand them. Now I rather like to think of faith in that way. I am not sure but that the best definition of faith we can ever arrive at is this: faith means that men and women decide quite deliberately to be content only with what they have in the Bible, and that they stop asking questions."

It is tough to 'stop asking questions' and I suppose none of us do completely. For myself I have stopped asking questions as a skeptic, a mocker and a scoffer, but reserve my questions to try and better understand what God is teaching in His Holy Word. Paul tells us in Ephesians that we are saved by grace, through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. James says draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you.

I still have a good friend who attended that aforementioned Pentecostal church 30 years ago, and still does. We don't debate the question of tongues, I accept him as a brother in Christ and he accepts me, doctrinal issues aside. Read the Bible, pray that God the Father increases your faith, and leave these questions that 'war against the soul' far from you. We battle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the dark forces of this world, against spiritual wickedness in the heavenly realms. Put on the full armor of God.

 

[bookslover]

One way to tell that tongues are not for today is that Paul sets out clear rules under which they were practiced, rules which today's charismatics seem quite happy to ignore.

 

[py3ak]

There are other like scenarios such as the Paedo Baptism vs. Credo Baptism and on and on. If there are true Christians on both sides, praying for the truth, how is it we come to opposite conclusions? Why would or does God allow this.

Dear Troy,

First of all, I pray that God will settle you in the faith.

Second, the real question is not who is right or wrong about tongues or baptism, but why are there disagreements -- can these disagreements mean that one party is not even converted? So I won't speak about tongues or baptism as such, but merely as examples of disagreement.

Error is not good, yet not every error means that grace is not present. The same thing is true with practical sins as well; though they are opposed to grace in their own nature, yet in our present state grace and sin coexist. Even though they are at war, they occupy the same ground. Errors in doctrine and mistakes in practice are undesirable; but they don't automatically or necessarily mean that God is not at work.

Seen in that light, your question is essentially the same as this: why doesn't God instantly sanctify his people perfectly? I think there are several parts to a comprehensive answer, but for now I'll just mention this one. Henry Smith said, "Mercy hath a heaven, and justice a hell, to display itself to eternity, but long-suffering hath only a short-lived earth." It highlights the glory of God's long-suffering with us that he loves us through our numerous errors and repeated failings.

Finally, this sort of 'fiery dart' arises from taking for granted that we know what God would or should do. Then if reality doesn't match up, it becomes an argument that God must not be (or must not be the kind of God we've been told about). But there is a mistake from the very beginning. Without God's revelation, we don't know what he would or should do. God alone tells us what he is like, and what he purposes to do. And God's word reveals his people as very much in need of active protection from false teaching, because they are frequently misled by plausible but wrong ideas of one kind or another. Yet God's word also reveals God being faithful to a foolish people, and saving them in spite of themselves. If we can dismiss the idea that we know what God would do, and confine ourselves to accepting what he has done and trusting him for the realization of what he has promised to do, that practical exercise of faith serves as a shield to protect us from this kind of argument. If we judge God by a false standard, it's no surprise that he comes up short; but the real problem is with our standard, not with God.

 

[KeithW]

How about starting with the Bible. Does the Bible explain what tongues are? Yes, it explains there are three different categories. In Acts there are tongues described as speaking in languages of men that the person speaking did not know. Paul writes the chapter of love in 1 Cor. 13. But the chapters before and after are rules of order about speaking in tongues aloud in the church. It is supposed to only be done if there is an interpretation. Then Paul also speaks of praying in tongues.

If people telling you whether tongues are from God or not, or are applicable to our day or not, they need to also be able to explain what the categories are. If they can't...

It is rare to find someone who holds to reformed theology (the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace) AND speaks in tongues. I once talked with a man about this who holds to both. People with reformed theology mostly approach the Bible as if every doctrine of the Bible can be logically explained so that we can understand it. Tongues don't fit logic so are excluded from reformed thinking. For some reasons charismatics don't hold to those same rules of logic (and hence don't hold to reformed theology) but are open to what is going on with the Spirit so excercise gifts of the Spirit. Charismatics will go as far as (incorrectly) saying salvation is evidenced by speaking in tongues.

Can there be tongues in the church which are not from God? Yes. Can there be reformed doctrines in the church which are not from God? Yes.

This and similar thoughts have eroded my faith with nagging thoughts like, "Are you sure this is not all (Faith in a personal God) just a figment of your human imagination?

Faith is not based on whether you speak in tongues, or which type of baptism you hold to, or if you have "a personal God". The explanation of faith is in Romans chapter 4. In the Bible God declares things about Himself. He declares things about His kingdom. He make promises about what will happen and how things will be. Faith asks the question, do we believe God when He says these things? Are we persuaded that when God makes promises along these lines that He is faithful to keep His promises?

Even 30 years after believing on Jesus Christ there are still times when I seem to be overwhelmed with the question, isn't this just a figment of your imagination? They only thing I can fall back on is to remember who God says He is.

 

[Scott Bushey]

How about starting with the Bible. Does the Bible explain what tongues are? Yes, it explains there are three different categories. In Acts there are tongues described as speaking in languages of men that the person speaking did not know. Paul writes the chapter of love in 1 Cor. 13. But the chapters before and after are rules of order about speaking in tongues aloud in the church. It is supposed to only be done if there is an interpretation. Then Paul also speaks of praying in tongues.

If people telling you whether tongues are from God or not, or are applicable to our day or not, they need to also be able to explain what the categories are. If they can't...

It is rare to find someone who holds to reformed theology (the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace) AND speaks in tongues. I once talked with a man about this who holds to both. People with reformed theology mostly approach the Bible as if every doctrine of the Bible can be logically explained so that we can understand it. Tongues don't fit logic so are excluded from reformed thinking. For some reasons charismatics don't hold to those same rules of logic (and hence don't hold to reformed theology) but are open to what is going on with the Spirit so excercise gifts of the Spirit. Charismatics will go as far as (incorrectly) saying salvation is evidenced by speaking in tongues.

Can there be tongues in the church which are not from God? Yes. Can there be reformed doctrines in the church which are not from God? Yes.

This and similar thoughts have eroded my faith with nagging thoughts like, "Are you sure this is not all (Faith in a personal God) just a figment of your human imagination?

Faith is not based on whether you speak in tongues, or which type of baptism you hold to, or if you have "a personal God". The explanation of faith is in Romans chapter 4. In the Bible God declares things about Himself. He declares things about His kingdom. He make promises about what will happen and how things will be. Faith asks the question, do we believe God when He says these things? Are we persuaded that when God makes promises along these lines that He is faithful to keep His promises?

Even 30 years after believing on Jesus Christ there are still times when I seem to be overwhelmed with the question, isn't this just a figment of your imagination? They only thing I can fall back on is to remember who God says He is.

Simple question for you: What service does speaking in tongues bring to the table for the church?

 

[Curt]

I am so blessed to have been saved while in a Reformed context. I have never had to go through Pentecostal or Arminian phases, though it is a given that all my theology isn't always exact. I'll find out the Truth one day.

 

[SeanAnderson]

I know some Christians are faithful and otherwise sound in their doctrine, yet they 'speak in tongues'. I generally suffer them in silence, but it still makes me cringe inside. I do not think it is demonic, but a perversion of spirituality nevertheless.

More alarming are the Charismatics who think all Christians should be speaking gibberish and actively encourage them to do so.

Cessationist or continuationist, the Pentecostal gift of tongues is simply not scriptural. They are not actual languages; they do not propagate the gospel; they do not confirm the authority of God.

Charismatics claim that they are speaking some kind of angelic tongue or private prayer language, but this is totally unsubstantiated. There is no clear segmentation in the words, it is repetitive and the phonological patterns often resemble those of the person's native language, from what I've heard. And without even any interpretation, how could it be seen as a gift?

Do we have any historical record of Christians speaking angelic or prayer languages? I do not believe so.

I long for the demise of the Pentecostal contamination of Christianity.

 

[Free Christian]

One way to tell that tongues are not for today is that Paul sets out clear rules under which they were practiced, rules which today's charismatics seem quite happy to ignore.

True, for the Church I was in anyway. There would at times be a dozen or more speaking out loud in tongues at the same time.

 

[Andres]

I long for the demise of the Pentecostal contamination of Christianity.

 

[Jairus]

Thanks to all who responded. I think Ruben captured what I was asking. It wasn't really about tongues or baptism in the end. It was an issue of faith. I somewhat think that I am a little like the Pharisees of Jesus day, all the evidence in the world yet they continued to seek for a sign and we all know how that went. Among many of my faults has been the desire to erase all doubt and answer every single theological riddle before resting assured. This I now realize is like trying to understand God as if He is a mathematical formula or something I can scientifically prove. If I could there would be little use for faith and without faith we know it is impossible to please Him.
In the end, its faith that I must grapple with and exercise. I hope I've made my issue more clear as I think my first attempt was lacking.

Thank you all,

 

[KeithW]

In the end, its faith that I must grapple with and exercise. I hope I've made my issue more clear as I think my first attempt was lacking.

No, it was clear. Folks just got sidetracked when you mentioned tongues.

How familiar are you with the doctrines of grace, which is also called the sovereignty of God? That is a very important area for understanding who God is and who God says man is. Both of which are helpful in establishing a foundation for faith. A good book for this is Arthur W. Pink's book The Sovereignty Of God.

How familiar are you with the attributes of God? These are characteristics which God describes about Himself. Pink's book The Attributes Of God is very good for this. If you are like me, most chapters caused me to stop in awe and worship Him.

Pink's books are available in electronic form for free in the Arthur W. Pink Archive. The least expensive hardcopies are published by Watchmaker Publishing.

Here is a quick forum post on What Is Faith? The idea that faith is being fully persuaded that God keeps His promises, or He speaks the truth, can be applied to any question.

Do I really believe God created the heavens and the earth?
Do I really believe God wiped out mankind in the flood and only saved a remnant?
Do I really believe that God had the right to do this?
Do I really believe God when He says there will be a resurrection of the body of both the just and the unjust?
Do I really believe God when He says there will be a day of judgment?
Do I really believe that the only way to be saved is through Jesus Christ?

Becoming stronger in faith I liken to a battleground. Every one thing we come to grips with is like taking one step forward and occupying that piece of the battlefield.

 

[KeithW]

Simple question for you: What service does speaking in tongues bring to the table for the church?

Scripture answers that question. I already pointed to that section. (I also mention them below.)

I do not promote speaking in tongues. But I am leary of throwing out any New Testament Scripture as not being applicable to today. There are many things I have set on the shelf because I don't know what to make of them. But if you approach 1 Cor. chapters 12-14 with the possibility that God is giving us instruction, "all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for..." (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV), then I'll point out that these chapters really are in the Bible. We are all on our own as to what conclusions we draw from them.

(This question does miss the point of my response to the original post.)

 

[py3ak]

Thanks to all who responded. I think Ruben captured what I was asking. It wasn't really about tongues or baptism in the end. It was an issue of faith. I somewhat think that I am a little like the Pharisees of Jesus day, all the evidence in the world yet they continued to seek for a sign and we all know how that went. Among many of my faults has been the desire to erase all doubt and answer every single theological riddle before resting assured. This I now realize is like trying to understand God as if He is a mathematical formula or something I can scientifically prove. If I could there would be little use for faith and without faith we know it is impossible to please Him.
In the end, its faith that I must grapple with and exercise. I hope I've made my issue more clear as I think my first attempt was lacking.

Thank you all,

May the Lord continue to bless you, Troy. Rest in God is not quite the same as having all questions answered. Whatever obstacles one may find, it remains true that there is no one else to whom to go, for only Christ has the words of eternal life. There is a bit of wisdom I find valuable in that curious document, the Theologia Germanica:

Had we no must-be’s, nor ought-to-be’s, but such as God and the Truth show us, and constrain us to, we should have less, forsooth, to order and do than now; for we make to ourselves much disquietude and difficulty which we might well be spared and raised above.

 

[jandrusk]

My thoughts are if speaking tongues complies with the revelation in Scripture I have no problem accepting that it still can take place. If as a means of speaking in tongues is a means for additional revelation or contradicts the Scriptures it must be rejected outright.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I would not focus on the issue of tongues ceasing or not...
I would focus on building your faith on the word and not on experiences

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I do not promote speaking in tongues. But I am leary of throwing out any New Testament Scripture as not being applicable to today. There are many things I have set on the shelf because I don't know what to make of them. But if you approach 1 Cor. chapters 12-14 with the possibility that God is giving us instruction, "all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for..." (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV), then I'll point out that these chapters really are in the Bible. We are all on our own as to what conclusions we draw from them.

(This question does miss the point of my response to the original post.)

Keith,
You can not take all scripture personally as being always applicable for all time for all ages of the Church and it's individuals. Even in the New Testament. There are things that fade away as normal and there are things in scripture that end up being fulfilled or abrogated. Methods change or are set aside that God used during different times. Confessionally Reformed Christianity affirms this. So one has to understand the who, what, when, and where's. St. Paul affirms this in the Chapters you referenced. St. Paul rhetorically asked, Do all speak in tongues? Are all Apostle's? There are no Apostles today even though they are a New Testament category. Their practical function is over. We are to build on their foundation. But not with the same authority they had nor functionally as they did. One needs to be careful and to study to show approval from God concerning these issues. All scripture is God breathed but it shouldn't be applied the same way for every person when it comes to some specifics.

Another thing is that we are not on our own as to what conclusions we draw from the scriptures. We have a testimony and a Church that God has given us in History to keep us and mature us in the faith. We also have gifts given to us to mature us. Those gifts are offices that men fill in the Church. If we were to fully stand on our own for understanding we would at best be very confused. I believe Ephesians 4 affirms that we are not to stand on our own. We have a foundation which we are built upon and gifts given to help us mature.

Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

1Co 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.


Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever...
Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.





Jarius,
One thing that is most important is that we keep a focused eye on what the Gospel is and who it is about. It is about God reconciling man to Himself and growing redeemed mankind into the image of Christ. We could focus on a lot of issues such as marriage even. It is one really sweet gift from God. But are we all suppose to partake in that? Christ never married. But it is His will that most will. I have found that keeping a focused eye on Christ as Messiah and God while seeking his will for my life has helped cause a wonderful perseverance in life. He came that we might have life and have it abundantly. Knowing God and walking with him is that wonderful abundance. He is the most wonderful gift. He has given Himself to us. He is heaven. I will pray that you experience that and grow to understand that. I still need that same reminder the older I get. And even more so as I age and my body and mind starts it decay.

Be very encouraged brother. God has proven His love for you in Christ.

 

[timmopussycat]

More alarming are the Charismatics who think all Christians should be speaking gibberish and actively encourage them to do so.
Cessationist or continuationist, the Pentecostal gift of tongues is simply not scriptural. They are not actual languages; they do not propagate the gospel; they do not confirm the authority of God.
Charismatics claim that they are speaking some kind of angelic tongue or private prayer language, but this is totally unsubstantiated. There is no clear segmentation in the words, it is repetitive and the phonological patterns often resemble those of the person's native language, from what I've heard. And without even any interpretation, how could it be seen as a gift?

I was converted in, and came out, of charismatic circles. And while I disagree with any theology that reads biblical tongues as some kind of angelic language (especially to try to get around the fact that much of what is claimed to be tongues speaking is provably natural glossolalia), the above quote illustrates one huge problem with "the debate over tongues today" namely that while reducing the tongues issue to a glossolalic strawman, it completely obscures other factors. To wit: not all Pentecostals believe that tongues are not human languages: I was recently informed that a major local Pentecostal church insists that the languages must be human languages not known to the speaker. A second incident comes from early Calvary chapel days in which a lady in the congregation found herself supernaturally enabled to speak French and another lady found herself supernaturally enabled to translate this language she did not otherwise know. That the speaking and translating were accurate was verified on several occasions and not only by a French speaker in the congregation. In at least one incinded, an outsider – a university French major – heard a prayer in tongues and consequent interpretation and was able to recognize that not only was the language used a prayer that glorified God but also that the translation was accurate. Details can be found in Chuck Smith, Charisma vs. Charismaia.

It is this latter kind of phenomena which must be addressed before the case against any genuine gifting of NT tongues today can be considered as made.

Do we have any historical record of Christians speaking angelic or prayer languages? I do not believe so.

I don't know how one could prove either way whether anybody spoke a prayer language at any time since no heaven based publisher that I know of is currently publishing its heavenly language dictionaries here on earth. But if by prayer language you mean praying in human languages not otherwise known to the speaker, then see previous comment.

 

[MW]

[/I]It is this latter kind of phenomena which must be addressed before the case against any genuine gifting of NT tongues today can be considered as made.

It is a matter of principle that all such gifting has ceased with the coming of age of the New Testament church, which is called "the perfect" in New Testament language.

 

[earl40]

A second incident comes from early Calvary chapel days in which a lady in the congregation found herself supernaturally enabled to speak French and another lady found herself supernaturally enabled to translate this language she did not otherwise know. That the speaking and translating were accurate was verified on several occasions and not only by a French speaker in the congregation. In at least one incinded, an outsider – a university French major – heard a prayer in tongues and consequent interpretation and was able to recognize that not only was the language used a prayer that glorified God but also that the translation was accurate. Details can be found in Chuck Smith, Charisma vs. Charismaia.

So if they wrote down what they heard as a direct word from God would that be scripture?

 

[Andres]

A second incident comes from early Calvary chapel days in which a lady in the congregation found herself supernaturally enabled to speak French and another lady found herself supernaturally enabled to translate this language she did not otherwise know. That the speaking and translating were accurate was verified on several occasions and not only by a French speaker in the congregation. In at least one incinded, an outsider – a university French major – heard a prayer in tongues and consequent interpretation and was able to recognize that not only was the language used a prayer that glorified God but also that the translation was accurate. Details can be found in Chuck Smith, Charisma vs. Charismaia.

So this story is relayed by Chuck Smith (founder of Calvary Chapel) and by his account was (supposedly) verified by those at a Calvary Chapel church? And how convenient that Smith's story supports his false system of doctrine. Yeah, with all due respect to you brother, I'm not buying it.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

I am not much of a John McArthur guy (having to edit out all the dispensationalism). However, I thought his analysis of the "gift of tounges" in the book "Strange Fire" was most helpful in putting the gift in the proper perspective in the early church, and why it has ceased.

 

[Rom]

A second incident comes from early Calvary chapel days in which a lady in the congregation found herself supernaturally enabled to speak French and another lady found herself supernaturally enabled to translate this language she did not otherwise know. That the speaking and translating were accurate was verified on several occasions and not only by a French speaker in the congregation. In at least one incinded, an outsider – a university French major – heard a prayer in tongues and consequent interpretation and was able to recognize that not only was the language used a prayer that glorified God but also that the translation was accurate. Details can be found in Chuck Smith, Charisma vs. Charismaia.

So this story is relayed by Chuck Smith (founder of Calvary Chapel) and by his account was (supposedly) verified by those at a Calvary Chapel church? And how convenient that Smith's story supports his false system of doctrine. Yeah, with all due respect to you brother, I'm not buying it.

I have heard this exact same story verbatim from multiple devotees of Calvary Chapel. But they have never investigated much more thoroughly than that. Color me skeptical for now. I'd love to know the content of this prayer as well. No one ever recounted that for me. Does anyone have any details?

 

[KeithW]

Another thing is that we are not on our own as to what conclusions we draw from the scriptures. We have a testimony and a Church that God has given us in History to keep us and mature us in the faith. We also have gifts given to us to mature us. Those gifts are offices that men fill in the Church. If we were to fully stand on our own for understanding we would at best be very confused. I believe Ephesians 4 affirms that we are not to stand on our own. We have a foundation which we are built upon and gifts given to help us mature.

Your argumentation is incomplete. This is the reasoning every church gives for their specific doctrines. Such as issues like,

There are other like scenarios such as the Paedo Baptism vs. Credo Baptism and on and on. If there are true Christians on both sides, praying for the truth, how is it we come to opposite conclusions? Why would or does God allow this.

The answer to the latter question deals with who God is. How sovereign is He? The Calvinists have a high view of this - the Arminians a low view. How patient or longsuffering is God? The Pink books I mentioned are good with these areas.

Does God's Word every say there will factions/heresies among you? Will there be false teachers and teachings among you? The New Testament does give instruction about this.

 

[py3ak]

This thread is ridiculously off track. It was never supposed to be about tongues or baptism. Please create different threads for that discussion.