Is the Pentecostal experience New Testament tongues? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Is the Pentecostal experience New Testament tongues?

mark kennedy

25th August 2005, 09:03 PM

Mathetes the kerux

10th May 2006, 07:32 PM

I would like to engage.

I have wrestled with the issue in depth and would love to talk about it!

Mathetes

mark kennedy

16th May 2006, 09:45 AM

I would like to engage.

I have wrestled with the issue in depth and would love to talk about it!

Mathetes

It's supprising after all this time for someone to finally show an interest in the subject. My view of the Pentecostal experience might be a little different. Pentecostals use anywhere from 4 to 7 primary proof texts especially Acts 2 (the tongues of fire) and other passages in Acts where tongues are mentioned in connection with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (The Gentile believers, disciples of John...etc)

I Cor. 14 is a clear expostion of the role of tongues in our corporate worship. If you take a good look at the text Paul is emphasising the edification of the saints as the most important expression of this particular gift. I would think a close look at this particular passage would be especially helpfull.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mathetes the kerux

16th May 2006, 10:39 PM

Lets deal with question 2 first.

Is the tongues presented by Paul in 1 Cor. 12-14 the same as the tongues presented by Luke?

I would say yes . . . it seems as if you would say no. I don't have time to outline an arguement now because it is late and I need to be with my pregnant wife.

So let us start with you outlining why you believe the two are different.

Thanks for your service bro!

Mathetes

mark kennedy

17th May 2006, 06:46 PM

Lets deal with question 2 first.

Is the tongues presented by Paul in 1 Cor. 12-14 the same as the tongues presented by Luke?

Actually, there is only one gift of tongues (languages), both Luke and Paul are discussing the same thing. Let's take this one bite at a time. Acts 2 describes the coming of the Holy Spirit promised by the Lord in the Upper Room and elsewhere. In the passage (I don't have a Bible handy right now) there is the mention of 13 geographical areas. In those 13 areas there were 11 languages spoken leading some scholars to conclude that each of the eleven Apostles came out speaking a different language. Most likely they dispersed in the crowd and spoke the native language of the Jews who were visiting Jerusalem during Pentecost.

Apparently, Corinth had fallen into carnality in Paul's absense. There were divisions, fornication, lawsuits among belivers and they were depriving the poor in the love feasts. In Corinthians 12 Paul begins to describe the differences of the gifts as parts of a body (the body of Christ). This is followed by the Love (agape) chapter most Christians are, or should be familar with. Then Paul turns to the subject of tongues and he is actually pretty sever in his words. Apparently, when they came together someone would be speaking in tongues in a language most of the rest did not understand. Somewhere else people would be singing, praying, prophetic utterances...etc, at the same time.

This was utter confusion and Paul exorted the Corinthians to do things decently and in order. When tongues (the miraculas ability to speak in a previously unlearned language) was expressed in had to be interpruted so the church could be edified. Now in the Pentecostal movement tongues are considered the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. While I do not believe they are speaking in New Testament tongues I am fully convinced that they are New Testament Christians.

That is the jist of where I am coming from and my concern is expostitions of the related texts. If this were the subject of traditions, baptism rites, sabbath keeping or something like that I would be apprehensive of divisions along these lines. You really don't encounter that in the Pentecostal churches. The Charismatic movement has made inroads into every mainstream denomination in Christiandom. My concern is only the texts involved and it has been my experience that Pentecostals are tolerant of my views.

I would say yes . . . it seems as if you would say no. I don't have time to outline an arguement now because it is late and I need to be with my pregnant wife.

So let us start with you outlining why you believe the two are different.

Thanks for your service bro!

Mathetes

This is a casual discussion forum so there is no great rush. I hope the pregnancy is without complications and the baby is born healthy and happy. You have the general idea of where I'm at with this topic and I await your response.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mathetes the kerux

17th May 2006, 09:11 PM

Cool . . .

Actually, there is only one gift of tongues (languages), both Luke and Paul are discussing the same thing.

I would agree. I would however add that the two are the same in essence but not function.

I agree with almost all of what you mentioned about the Corinthian Church except . . .

someone would be speaking in tongues in a language most of the rest did not understand.

I would say NONE understood . . . including the speaker.

While I do not believe they are speaking in New Testament tongues I am fully convinced that they are New Testament Christians.

Ok then here seems a good place to start. I believe a pretty solid case can be made that what is happening today is indeed the same thing that happened in Acts . . . if not in function then at least in essence. In other words, NT tongues are just as active today as they were then and they are in essence the same thing.

Ok, when it comes to an interpretation more than one can be feasible; however more than one may not be probable. If I can come up with satisfactory answers (although you may choose to believe different) and you can do the same (although I may choose to believe different) then it comes down to a matter of preference, which this particular topic usually does come down to.

Just to give you a little background, I once did not hold the Initial Physical Evidence Doctrine (IPE here after). Only through a process of careful hermeneutical examination did I say "OK I can espouse this doctrine." I came down several times on "No I can't by my preference," but was eventually introduced to a approach that allowed me to say "OK I can see that and now I can espouse this doctrine."

We can follow my steps too, as they will probably be very helpful.

But let us start here . . . In Acts 2 the question is where does the miracle take place. In other words, is the miracle that several men spoke in languages that they never knew and the audience heard each man speak a different language (a miracle in the mouth's of the speakers); or is the miracle that several men spoke in tongues (as the modern day Pentecostal movenment knows tongues) and the hearers each heard everyone of them speaking in their own language (a miracle in the ear's of the listeners). Either perspective is allowable . . . but it will come down to a investigation of the Greek.
I will respond again tomorrow. But read the passage and pray.
Till then blessings!:wave:

Thanx 4 tha blessings for the wifey 'n I

Mathetes

mark kennedy

21st May 2006, 10:36 AM

Cool . . .

I would agree. I would however add that the two are the same in essence but not function.

I agree with almost all of what you mentioned about the Corinthian Church except . . .

I would say NONE understood . . . including the speaker.

No problem there, the Corinthian Church was a pretty confused group in their worship services. Paul's remedy was that he who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interprute so that the church may be edified. This would be unessacary if the hearer understood the dialect being spoken, but if they didn't then they required a special gift to understand the language being used.

Ok then here seems a good place to start. I believe a pretty solid case can be made that what is happening today is indeed the same thing that happened in Acts . . . if not in function then at least in essence. In other words, NT tongues are just as active today as they were then and they are in essence the same thing.

Traditionally tongues have been considered a sign, miracle, wonder type gift that belonged primarily to the Apostlic age. In Pentecostal doctrine they claim a difference between the gift of tongues and the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Tongues are only mentioned three times in the Acts, once in Corinthians 12 and the only detailed expostion of tongues is found in I Corinthians 14. The tongues of Acts 2 are clearly understood as human languages, that is, the native dialects of the people who heard the wonderfull works of God at Jerusalem. It should be noted that the word glossilalia in the original is the normal Greek word for language, translated tongues in the KJV.

Ok, when it comes to an interpretation more than one can be feasible; however more than one may not be probable. If I can come up with satisfactory answers (although you may choose to believe different) and you can do the same (although I may choose to believe different) then it comes down to a matter of preference, which this particular topic usually does come down to.

I tend to agree that this is largely a matter of interpretation and personal experience has a strong influence. It has only been on rare occasions that I changed the mind of a Pentecostal about tongues but this point of doctrine isn't a bar for fellowship, for me at any rate. I'm looking forward to an interesting and edifying study of God's Word in the spirit of Christian fellowship. I see no reason it should not be exactly that as we continue.

Just to give you a little background, I once did not hold the Initial Physical Evidence Doctrine (IPE here after). Only through a process of careful hermeneutical examination did I say "OK I can espouse this doctrine." I came down several times on "No I can't by my preference," but was eventually introduced to a approach that allowed me to say "OK I can see that and now I can espouse this doctrine."

It's clearly a doctrinal issue and with you testimony and postition now clearly stated we can move on.

We can follow my steps too, as they will probably be very helpful.

Lead on...

But let us start here . . . In Acts 2 the question is where does the miracle take place. In other words, is the miracle that several men spoke in languages that they never knew and the audience heard each man speak a different language (a miracle in the mouth's of the speakers); or is the miracle that several men spoke in tongues (as the modern day Pentecostal movenment knows tongues) and the hearers each heard everyone of them speaking in their own language (a miracle in the ear's of the listeners). Either perspective is allowable . . . but it will come down to a investigation of the Greek.
I will respond again tomorrow. But read the passage and pray.
Till then blessings!:wave:

Thanx 4 tha blessings for the wifey 'n I

Mathetes

Years ago I suggested to the late Dr. Walter Martain as a caller to the Bible Answer Man program that in Acts 2 it was a subjective response to an objective event. The logic went something like this, at Bable the languages of the nations was confused but at Pentecost they got a glimse of the one language the existed before Bable and will again be spoken in the Kingdom established at the parosia (return of Christ). He said that in the 13 areas mentioned there were 11 languages spoken and that each of the Apostles had come out of the Upper Room speaking the dialects of the individule groups they were addressing. I was impressed with the answer and eventually came to the conclusion that tongues is the miraclulous ability to speak in a previously unlearned language. It benefits only those who speak that particular language since even the speaker may be unaware of the meaning of the words given to them by the Holy Spirit.

"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues (languages), as the Spirt gave utterance." (Acts 2:4)

It should be noted that they appeared as tongues of fire and this has tremendous signifigance, particularly as it relates to the OT. We are about to discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit and their are two events in the Old Testament that are important to consider here:

The Laws of Levetical Sacrifice

Then the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people and fire came from before the Lord and sonsumed the burnt offering and the fat on the alter" (Lev. 9:23,24)

This fire could not be allowed to go out, in the following passage Nadab and Abihu tried to offer strange fire before the Lord and were killed as an act of Judgment. Now if you compare the OT sacrifice to that of the one taught in the New Testament the sacrifice is no longer bulls, goats and sheep, the sacrifice is you (see Romans 12:1). The second word in the verse 'beseech' means to 'call along side to help'. It is the same word translated Comforter in referance to the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:16; 16:7). There are gifts of the Holy Spirit in the OT as well, did you know that brother?

"And I have filled with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship to design artistic works, to work in gold, in silver, in bronze, in cutting jewels, for setting, in carving wood, and the workmanship." (Exodus 31:3,4)

Acts 2 is one of three mentions of tongues in Acts, there is also the disciple of John at Ephesus and the conversion of the Gentile believers. The signifigance at Ephesus is not that hard to discern, Ephesus was the hub of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. It was an international trading port and Paul spent three and a half years there before returning to Jerusalem which resulted in him being imprisoned. The inclusion of the Gentiles came as a complete supprise to the believing Jews at the time and it didn't happen for another 8 years after Pentecost.

What I would like for you to do is track down the passages in Acts where tongues are mentioned and just give me your interprutation of texts involved. I would give you the chapter and verse but I don't have a Bible handy, sorry about that. These three passages are the primary proof texts of the Pentecostal Movement and are of key signifigance in this discussion.

Again, there is no rush, but I would appreciate it if you could send me a PM when you post your response.

Grace and peace,
Mark

SpitfireOverThames

24th May 2006, 09:43 AM

Hi Mark and Mathetes!
I have read through your discussion to this point. I like the spirit of the discussion. I'm not sure if I'd be welcome to join, but here are my initial thoughts on the subject:

When the Holy Spirit fell on the Day of Pentecost, the Baptism in (or Receiving of) the Holy Spirit took place. It was the immersion of the yielded believer with the Lord's Holy Spirit as promised and encouraged by our Lord Himself. The tongues of fire, I think, were synonymous with the Old Testament idea of sacrifices and the Brazen Altar...that is, the believer being a [living] sacrifice or an altar in which the offering is consumed but remains (as an illustration, kinda like the Burning Bush) (and also the idea that the fire would never cease burning).

I want to begin by focusing on Acts 2:6,11 (NIV):

6: When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 11: (both Jews and converts to Judaism Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"

What I see above is that the 120 that are speaking in previously unknown languages aren't speaking one-on-one with the people listening. They are "declaring" or "magnifying" the Lord God Almighty and His works. The event of Acts 2 is hardly an orderly discussion on theology or current affairs. It is people coming out of a room overflowing with ecstasy because they are experiencing something supernatural and new.... This is why people thought they were drunk at the 3rd hour in the morning (9 a.m.). This wasn't one-on-one evangelism that was coming forth out of their lips; it was the release and wonder of what God was doing in their midst. It was an event unprecedented in all of history: the Holy Spirit truly indwelling/living in the believer...God and humankind becoming one.

Notice that it took Peter to explain to everyone what was happening with his first sermon. The tongues, however, acted as an initial sign to those who were not in Christ as yet.

This lines up with 1 Corinthian 14 (NASV):
21: In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord. 22: So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers...

The tongues, then, were meant to be a sign, but not to necessarily preach the full Gospel message. That is why Peter stood up and shared his sermon and over 3,000 were added to the church.

What the people heard was the magnifying and exaltation of God through His works (both are synonymous in the Jewish mind), the uplifting of the Lord in praise and worship.

Acts 10:
46: For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.

Notice that the tongues and exalting God are almost synonymous in relationship.

I will not discount that the Lord can do whatever He wishes. If He so wishes for a person to present the full Gospel message to another in their native language under the power of the Spirit, He may do so. But for the most part, the tongues is present as a pointing, initial sign only.

I've heard this in present-day testimonies of people who were previously unbelievers who heard someone speaking in their native language (not having studied the language) and for which these events served as a pointing sign to the validity of the Lord (a supernatural work confirming God is real).

Jack Hayford, the current president of the Foursquare Movement, who is known for his balance and integrity in his teaching, once felt the Lord inclining him to share with a Native American "tongue" while traveling on a airplane. He did so--with trepidation--and the result was that the Native American heard in his own language about a "Great Light coming down to earth." The man was quite astonished. Jack Hayford was then able to share more fully the entire message of the Gospel. Although the man did not turn to Christ at that moment, one can only imagine how such an event would impact one's life to reconsider their direction in life.

Others have claimed similar experiences. John Osteen, John G. Lake, and there are present-day testimonies of people who are not as well known whereby tongues were released as an initial supernatural sign.

The question that is being asked here is whether the tongues of Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 are the same as tongues today. I would say yes for the following reason:

As you read through I Corinthians 12-14, you learn that the charismata of tongues can be used to edify the church (when interpreted which makes it equal in value to prophecy in a public setting [notice that Paul says to "pray that one may interpret" their own tongue message, so we may not understand what we are saying except by asking through prayer]), and tongues that are used to edify self (when the tongue is directed to God in prayer), or act as a sign to the nonbeliever. All three are still happening today.

What was happening at the events of Acts 2? The people were being edified in a glorious way as the Spirit "sat upon them". And because the interpretation was understood by the people, they, too, were edified and pointed to the Living Lord. Those people heard the tongues as a sign. In Acts 10, 19, the tongues is released upon believers who were absolutely ready to receive the Spirit.

In Acts 19, for example, something interesting is happening: There are no nonbelievers around. Everyone in the group--all twelve--were believers. So why the need for tongues? The tongues came as a sign of a supernatural work, as a releasing of edification, and as a result of being immersed in the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit again falls, without nonbelievers in the midst. The tongues, it would seem, have no purpose if we scrutinize that Acts 2 is the model for all occasions that the Holy Spirit falls on individuals or groups.

The fact is, I believe, that tongues would've come with or without nonbelievers in Acts 2. Of course, God is the Strategist. He knows what He is doing. But He sometimes likes to color outside the lines just to mess us up in our pre-set theologies and traditions(consider, for example, that in Acts 10, the believers are immersed in the Holy Spirit before they are immersed in water).

Are all tongues today valid? Are the tongues the same today as they were almost 2,000 years ago? Those are good questions. I would say that one cannot judge because only the Lord truly knows. I believe, however, that the practices of most pentecostal/charismatic churches today are valid in regard to their use of tongues (along with the other gifts, and always motivated with agape-love).

I have heard some people using tongues and it sounds like gibberish. But then again, after hearing the dialects of tribes in Africa with clicking and popping that is their language, I have to wonder who am I to question what is a valid language or not. Perhaps the language is no longer used. Perhaps Paul's reference to "tongues of angels" is more than poetic hyperbole (When I read I Corinthians 13:1 in context, I would say he is not using hyperbole... He is referencing something that is strange but should be considered).

The question is: when prophecy is released, is the church being edified? When tongues is released, is the individual edified? When tongues with interpretation is given, is the church edified? The result of the pentecostal and charismatic movements has resulted in over 600,000,000 people being drawn to Christ and serving Him (currently). If we consider the last century, we are talking about over 1 billion people. Is this the product of man and man-made doctrines? Or is this the work of the Holy Spirit (despite all imperfections and all abnormalities within the movement)?

Those are questions we must all come to grips with. I hope I can continue to contribute to this discussion.

~Sean

SpitfireOverThames

24th May 2006, 11:19 AM

One other aspect of the tongues today versus yester-millennium is to remember to keep things in simplicity. If we question the Baptism with the Holy Spirit today with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit in the early church, one might also question our Salvation today versus the Salvation in the early church. Yet both events, Salvation and the Baptism/Receiving of the Holy Spirit are best understood in the simplicity of what happens when yielded/surrendered vessels encounter the Lord. The first is Salvation, the second is Empowerment.

Within the simplicity of yieldedness, the Holy Spirit comes upon people and the result is a releasing of His gifts with the sign of tongues being substantially most common. Of course one could say that not all such tongue-talkers are valid manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Of course they could say that, but what is the proof? Isn't God the only One who can ultimately judge what is genuine and what is fake, demonic, flesh?

If the Lord is directing His Church through history, would it be possible for the pentecostal and charismatic movement to have been created by the works and manipulations of Humankind when the result has been more zeal for Him, for His work, for His Word, and an expansion of the Gospel that has touched not only many parts of the world but also every denomination (in mostly positive ways)?

Consider that the fastest growing religion today is Islam. If not for the growth within the Church because of the pentecostal/charismatic movements and missionary-minded groups, I dread to think what the world and the Church would look like today.

There is also another area to consider. The very logic of the world's scene--i.e. the world become more evil, more brazenly against the Lord, filled with more darkness...necessitates that the Holy Spirit's gifts and power be welcome in our time and in our circumstances. One could hardly argue that the demonic have become less deceptive or less powerful when in fact, the deception is growing and their power seems undiminished. We desperately NEED the Holy Spirit and His power if we are to be equipped properly to do the Father's business.

The mindset goes by some that the Spirit's gifts and supernatural workings were given until that which is perfect would come. Only a few will dare to take that passage and twist it to fit their denominational viewpoints, but the fact is, that which is perfect is, when examined properly within context, the Lord Himself (His Second Coming). As Peter said, "Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise is to you and to your children, and even to the Gentiles--all who have been called by the Lord our God." The promise of the Holy Spirit as seen in Acts--coming upon His people with power and supernatural signs (such as tongues), as promised in John's Gospel and Luke, is for all who have been called by the Lord our God. Who are we to change what He has said in His Word?

If the Apostles needed His supernatural power, how much more we who are in Christ today? God has not changed. His supernatural power is needed. If the supernatural power has ceased, then the Holy Spirit has ceased being the Parakletos in our midst. The fact is, there is no reason to dismiss the supernatural workings of the Holy Spirit, and that includes tongues as a gifting/sign/edification.

Just my thoughts.

~Sean

SpitfireOverThames

24th May 2006, 05:09 PM

Mathetes the kerux

25th May 2006, 11:26 AM

My son was born yesterday so it will take me a few days to respond.
But as far another joining I have no problem . . . but the thread is Mark's so he would have the ultimate say-so.

Peace

mark kennedy

25th May 2006, 07:32 PM

My son was born yesterday so it will take me a few days to respond.
But as far another joining I have no problem . . . but the thread is Mark's so he would have the ultimate say-so.

Peace

Congradulations! You might want to learn to get up at odd hours in the middle of the night before you bring him home. Trust me, there is no easy way of getting used to it. Take all the time you need brother and as far as someone else joining the discussion, the more the merrier.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy

25th May 2006, 07:37 PM

One thing I must add in correction to my previous post: we can discern when a person's actions or spiritual release is demonic, of course, and we can discern when a spiritual release might be the flesh (i.e. when it breaks the guidelines found in I Corinthians 14 or violates the agape definitions of I Corinthians 13).

I just wanted to make sure I noted the above because we are to be discerning, and spiritually/supernaturally discerning is even better (which is another gifting of the Holy Spirit).

~Sean

~Sean,

I am really interested in hearing your thoughts on this subject and I will attempt an indepth response as soon as I am able. Right now I am training for duty overseas and it might be a little while. Rest assured I will get to it the first chance I get and I think you kindly for taking an interest in the thread.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mathetes the kerux

2nd June 2006, 01:48 AM

8 lbs 12 ounces 21 inches . . . big boy!:clap:

My daughter was 8 1/2 21 inches; and my oldest son was 9 lbs 21 inches . . . so all of em were big kids!

Traditionally tongues have been considered a sign, miracle, wonder type gift that belonged primarily to the Apostlic age

Only in some circles. If you do a study on tongues there is ample evidence that tongues was present in every century since the "apostolic age" . . . the Camisards, some Catholic saints, and even Tertulian (or Origen?) became a part of a "tongue talking" sect . . . the problem was that most of the time there were some seriously questionable aspects of doctrine with a number of these groups.
The "tongues belongs in the Apostolic age" crowd are usually dispensationalists. And since dispenstionalism is a relatively young movement (2-300 yrs young) a majority of these perspectives are also "young."

Paul's remedy was that he who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interprute so that the church may be edified. This would be unessacary if the hearer understood the dialect being spoken, but if they didn't then they required a special gift to understand the language being used.

Truly . . . however Paul also says that tongues MUST ALWAYS BE INTERPRETED in a Church service . . . he also says that no one "knows" what he is saying because in his spirit he speaks mysteries. A thorough exegesis of 1 Cor. 14 shows that Paul actually is speaking of an ecstatic tongue (an unknown language TO ANY) . . . we can examine this when I have more time.

In Pentecostal doctrine they claim a difference between the gift of tongues and the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

What is claimed is:
1) The two are completely different. Both essentially and functionally.
2) The two are ONLY different functionally . . . but are the same as far as essence.

I hold to number 2 because the texts' uphold this position. Systematically speaking, all relevant texts can be reconciled easier with position 2 where position 1 requires a somewhat "forceful" use of the passages . . . bad hermeneutics.

The tongues of Acts 2 are clearly understood as human languages, that is, the native dialects of the people who heard the wonderfull works of God at Jerusalem. It should be noted that the word glossilalia in the original is the normal Greek word for language, translated tongues in the KJV.

Hmm . . . not really. I agree with the rendering of glosson . . . however the pivotal word fo interpretation in the passage is "other" not "tongue." "Other" is eteroV heteros. Theologically speaking there are two primary words used for "other" heteros and alloV allos. Heteros is used for something that is "other" while allos is used for something that is other yet OF THE SAME QUALITY. The word that Luke uses is heteros (or a variant to be more precise).
The distinction between heteros and allos is used by Paul in Gal. 1 in the distinction between the Gospel and another gospel (heteros) which really isn't another (allos) Gospel at all. The distinction is also used by John in his gospel (14:16) where John desciribes the Spirit as another (allos) comforter . . . John's usage is primary here because he uses the meaning of qualitative equality between the Spirit and Jesus.
Other places the terms are interchangable . . . it is when the context warrants the distinction that the interpretation of distinction is valid . . . so the question is does Acts 2 warrant the interpretation that Luke's usage of heteros is meant to distinguish between languages that are natural to men or languages that are other than (qualitatively different) than languages that are natural to men.
A perusal of Lukan usage of heteros is in order. When we look at Luke-Acts Luke seems to use heteros in an interchangable way . . . however, the one point of interest is that Luke only uses the phrase "other tongues" once . . . in Acts 2:4. Every other instance (chpt's 10 and 19) just use the phrase tongues. This leaves us with the conclusion that with Luke's usage of "other" he intends to be understood as the interpretative factor concerning the phenomenon throughout the Acts narrative. For he states that this is indeed the same phenomenon throughout (hence chpt 10's reference to the Holy Spirit falling on them AS HE DID ON US AT THE BEGINNING).

Years ago I suggested to the late Dr. Walter Martain as a caller to the Bible Answer Man program that in Acts 2 it was a subjective response to an objective event. The logic went something like this, at Bable the languages of the nations was confused but at Pentecost they got a glimse of the one language the existed before Bable and will again be spoken in the Kingdom established at the parosia (return of Christ). He said that in the 13 areas mentioned there were 11 languages spoken and that each of the Apostles had come out of the Upper Room speaking the dialects of the individule groups they were addressing. I was impressed with the answer and eventually came to the conclusion that tongues is the miraclulous ability to speak in a previously unlearned language. It benefits only those who speak that particular language since even the speaker may be unaware of the meaning of the words given to them by the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Martin huh? Cool! I was discipled by Dr. Buckner who was a pupil of Dr. Martin . . . I love his books.
However the question still remains: Where was the miracle?
In the ears of the listeners or the mouths of the speakers?
Is it that ONE man came out and ONE heard him speaking his language? And ONE other spoke and ONE other heard?
Or is it that ONE heard ALL OF THE DISCIPLES SPEAKING (because the text says that ALL were filled with the Spirit and were speaking in tongues . . . not just the 11 [very detrimental to Dr. Martin's theory]) in arabic and the one next to him heard ALL OF THE DISCIPLES speaking in Creatian, and so on?
I think this is the more warranted conclusion. The Greek is clear that each man/one (singular eiV or one [here rendered as "man" in the KJV]) heard THEM ALL (plural ekastoV a compound of the singular meaning more than one) speaking in there NATIVE (idia "one's own") language.
Greek is a very precise language as far as meaning within linguistic construction goes. It seems clear that the Cretans heard ALL OF THEM in Cretan, the Parthians heard ALL OF THEM in Parthian, Cappadocians in Cappadocian, et. al. AT THE SAME MOMENT. This would leave us with the conclusion that the miracle was not so much that they were speaking in tongues (although that was miraculous too) but that all these guys heard all those speaking in tongues AS A GROUP in their language AT THE SAME TIME as the others who were listening. Look at the other's response too . . . not one of awe but one of mockery. They didn't hear the languages . . . but rather they heard something that caused them to think that the ones speaking were DRUNK. Now I don't know about you . . . haven't you ever heard a drunk man speaking gibberish? Unintelligible sounds? I have heard plenty! I wasn't always with Jesus:sorry: , and being in the military . . . I am sure you know what I am talking about.

Also there is no inkling in the Greek that the 11 were the only ones present . . . all were present and speaking in tongues. The text actually seems to present the observers as looking in on the disciples and not the disciples coming out. Thus the interpretation of verse 14 is that Peter moved through the crowd of his own to where the other apostles were to speak to all those who were observing.

Mathetes the kerux

2nd June 2006, 02:44 AM

There are gifts of the Holy Spirit in the OT as well, did you know that brother?

Absolutely:thumbsup: . The only gifts unique to the New Testament (NT) are tongues and the interpretation of tongues.

Acts 2 is one of three mentions of tongues in Acts, there is also the disciple of John at Ephesus and the conversion of the Gentile believers. The signifigance at Ephesus is not that hard to discern, Ephesus was the hub of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. It was an international trading port and Paul spent three and a half years there before returning to Jerusalem which resulted in him being imprisoned. The inclusion of the Gentiles came as a complete supprise to the believing Jews at the time and it didn't happen for another 8 years after Pentecost.

Actually chpt 19 only calls them disciples, maqhthV mathetes, a term that Luke uses, when without a controlling phrase, in reference always to disciples of Christ (or an apostle) and not in relation to those of John the Baptist (otherwise Luke would have used a controlling phrase like the disciples "of John" or "of the Pharisees"). These were believers in Christ that weren't fully educated (much like Apollos in chpt 18 . . . which the first portion of 19 is actually apart of the same thought that Luke is trying to convey). This is actually approx. 22 yrs later than Pentecost and is the hardest passage of the four (chpts 2, 8, 10 and 19) for evangelicals who don't believe in the Baptism in the Spirit as subsequent from salvation (classic Pentecostalism) to overcome. The Gentiles had already been inducted in chpt 10. So chpt 19 stands as a craw to overcome . . . but we will discuss Spirit Baptism later.

What I would like for you to do is track down the passages in Acts where tongues are mentioned and just give me your interprutation of texts involved. I would give you the chapter and verse but I don't have a Bible handy, sorry about that. These three passages are the primary proof texts of the Pentecostal Movement and are of key signifigance in this discussion

Sure :)

Acts 2: The disciples were already believers and the Spirit came subsequent to their salvation and the initial phys. evidence (IPE) was that of speaking in tongues.

Acts 8: The Samaritans were already believers and the Spirit came subsequent and the IPE was speaking in tongues . . . I am aware that the text does not say this but it is well implied. Simon saw something . . . and textually that something had to be tongues. Virtually all commentators and scholars agree on this . . . even those who aren't Pentecostal and don't espouse Pentecostal doctrine (this is the passage I struggled with for the longest).

Acts 10: The Household of Cornelius (the "Gentiles") were logically chronologically believers and the Spirit fell subsequent and the IPE was tongues.

Acts 19: The Ephesian disciples were already believers and the Spirit fell subsequently . . . IPE speaking in tongues.

We can pick apart the cross ref.s and get deeper later.

Now let me tell you why chpt 8 was a problem for me:
Hermenuetically speaking, if one draws doctrine from a passage of scripture that is narrative in nature (of which Acts is . . . IE Luke is telling a story), it must be demonstratable that the doctrine being drawn is within the intent of the author for the doctrine to be perscribable (meaning something for broad perscription in the Christian life). Tongues as the IPE according to Pentecostal doctrine would then have to be spelled out by Luke as accompanying the Samaritan "revival" . . . well . . . it isn't. Even though virtually all scholars and commentators agree that they indeed did speak in tongues . . . it would be silly for Simon Magus (Simon the Mage) to ask to buy "this power" if there was not some outwardly demonstrative phenomenon to accompany the apostles laying on of hands . . . linguistically and contextually the obvious conclusion is tongues.
But hermeneutically Luke would have had to include tongues in as "clear as day" and not in "inbetween the lines" terms, for IPE to be a perscribable doctrine. This was the mountain that I could not fairly succumb to. Those around me said "Well it isn't a problem to us," and they pointed to the other passages as proof . . . but that is bad hermeneutics and I would not buy into the doctrine until this issue could be satisfactorily resolved. It must be in Luke's authorial intent.
Now most people think that the words Pentecostal and Scholar are mutually exclusive . . . an oxy moron. This is almost true . . . but I ran across a book by two Pentecostal scholars named William and Robert Menzies called "Spirit and Power". The book was penned in hopes or creating a dialouge between Pentecostal Scholars and Evangelical Scholars . . . much like what we are having now. In it Menzies presents an approach to IPE that was unlike anything I had heard previously . . . an approach that did not violate hermeneutical standard and was actually well within the realm of proper systematic theology and deductable doctrine.

We can cover this approach at a later date . . . I have to go to bed . . . it is late:blush: !

In Christ,
Mathetes

Mathetes the kerux

2nd June 2006, 03:26 AM

I must also mention that the phrase "speaking in tongues" glossolalia lailein is not unique to the NT authors. It was a phrase coined by common usage in relation to what was happening in some of the pagan cults. The "tongues" that were being spoken there were NOT languages but ecstatic speech, gibberish to those who heard. The NT authors were no doubt aware of this meaning. Chances are that they used this phrasiology knowing that their Gentile audience would interpret the phrase as "ecstatic speech."
This lends credit to the position that the real miraculous happening of Acts 2 was that each one of the listeners heard the entire group speaking in their own personal language . . . a happening that is also unique amongst Luke's accounts of tongues too. There were no "foreigners" to hear the different languages in the other accounts in Acts. This highlights the uniqueness of the miracle of those who heard in Acts 2 even further.

mark kennedy

4th June 2006, 03:48 PM

8 lbs 12 ounces 21 inches . . . big boy!:clap:

My daughter was 8 1/2 21 inches; and my oldest son was 9 lbs 21 inches . . . so all of em were big kids!

I was under the impression that this was your first, guess not though. That's great news though, I'm glad he came out healthy and happy.

Only in some circles. If you do a study on tongues there is ample evidence that tongues was present in every century since the "apostolic age" . . . the Camisards, some Catholic saints, and even Tertulian (or Origen?) became a part of a "tongue talking" sect . . . the problem was that most of the time there were some seriously questionable aspects of doctrine with a number of these groups.

I've heard this before and you might be interested to know that Montanus and Tertillian (both heretics) along with their followers spoke in ecstatic speach. In the Greeko-Roman world this was refered to as glossilalia. It was common both before and after Pentecost. We can get into this later but you seem to have done an interesting exegetical treatment of the text I would like to look at.

The "tongues belongs in the Apostolic age" crowd are usually dispensationalists. And since dispenstionalism is a relatively young movement (2-300 yrs young) a majority of these perspectives are also "young."

I never found dispensationalism or covenant theology particularly helpfull to be honest. I think the traditional interprutation of tongues in Acts that tongues is the mircalulous ability to speak a previously unlearned language is adequete to explain what happened.

In ICor. 14 Paul quotes this passage:

"With men of other tongues and other lips, I will speak to this people. and yet, for all that, they will not hear me. (Is. 28:11-12)

Paul is using a very important passage in Isiaha and the context of the passage is vital. Chapters 28-35 in Isiaha are God's warning against going down to Eqypt for help as an alliance to prevent invasion from foreign powers. God is telling the drunkards of Ephiriam that God will indeed speak to them in the language of the Assyrians. (see Is 33:19). Biblical writers often characterized distant natuions by their unintelligible speech. The unknown tongue is mentioned in Deut. 28:49, and Jeremiah 5:15 speaks of the unknown tongue as tongues of fire. This is critical to our understanding of what the unknown tongue both meant and how it was used in the Apostolic age. It was a warning to unbelieving Israel that Judgment was coming in the form of an invading army. That was Titus of Rome in 70 AD who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple as the Lord prophecied.

Truly . . . however Paul also says that tongues MUST ALWAYS BE INTERPRETED in a Church service . . . he also says that no one "knows" what he is saying because in his spirit he speaks mysteries. A thorough exegesis of 1 Cor. 14 shows that Paul actually is speaking of an ecstatic tongue (an unknown language TO ANY) . . . we can examine this when I have more time.

Just one thing to point out hear, if they were speaking French in your church and no one spoke French, you would need an interpruter. It's as simple as that and like you say we can get back to this one.

What is claimed is:
1) The two are completely different. Both essentially and functionally.
2) The two are ONLY different functionally . . . but are the same as far as essence.

I hold to number 2 because the texts' uphold this position. Systematically speaking, all relevant texts can be reconciled easier with position 2 where position 1 requires a somewhat "forceful" use of the passages . . . bad hermeneutics.

Pentecostalism differentiates between devotional tongues (the private prayer language) and the gift of the tongues that is manifest in the worship service. The initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is said to be speaking in tongues. The primary tongues are largely devotional and only certain people will speak in tongues in the worship service.

Hmm . . . not really. I agree with the rendering of glosson . . . however the pivotal word fo interpretation in the passage is "other" not "tongue." "Other" is eteroV heteros. Theologically speaking there are two primary words used for "other" heteros and alloV allos. Heteros is used for something that is "other" while allos is used for something that is other yet OF THE SAME QUALITY. The word that Luke uses is heteros (or a variant to be more precise).
The distinction between heteros and allos is used by Paul in Gal. 1 in the distinction between the Gospel and another gospel (heteros) which really isn't another (allos) Gospel at all. The distinction is also used by John in his gospel (14:16) where John desciribes the Spirit as another (allos) comforter . . . John's usage is primary here because he uses the meaning of qualitative equality between the Spirit and Jesus.
Other places the terms are interchangable . . . it is when the context warrants the distinction that the interpretation of distinction is valid . . . so the question is does Acts 2 warrant the interpretation that Luke's usage of heteros is meant to distinguish between languages that are natural to men or languages that are other than (qualitatively different) than languages that are natural to men.

I'm not entirely sure that I am following you here but this is what I'm getting. You want to make a distiction between human language and language that is qualitatively different. I assume you are making a distinction between normal human language and the language of the spirit. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken about that.

A perusal of Lukan usage of heteros is in order. When we look at Luke-Acts Luke seems to use heteros in an interchangable way . . . however, the one point of interest is that Luke only uses the phrase "other tongues" once . . . in Acts 2:4. Every other instance (chpt's 10 and 19) just use the phrase tongues. This leaves us with the conclusion that with Luke's usage of "other" he intends to be understood as the interpretative factor concerning the phenomenon throughout the Acts narrative. For he states that this is indeed the same phenomenon throughout (hence chpt 10's reference to the Holy Spirit falling on them AS HE DID ON US AT THE BEGINNING).

I would indeed agree with that genuine insight and accept it as undeniably true. The tongues of Acts 2, 10 and 19 are the same manifestation in no uncertain terms and I'll go one step further. This is the exact same manifestation that Paul is talking about in ICor. 14.

Dr. Martin huh? Cool! I was discipled by Dr. Buckner who was a pupil of Dr. Martin . . . I love his books.
However the question still remains: Where was the miracle?
In the ears of the listeners or the mouths of the speakers?

Perhaps I was unclear earlier, these were previously unlearned languages being spoken fluently by Galileans. In was from the mouths of the speakers that the actual native language of the listeners came from. It required no special miracle for someone to hear in their native language. If an Iraqi came to me speaking perfect English may hearing would not have to be altered in any way shape or form. If on the other hand, he had never learned English then it would take something extraorinary for him to speak English.

Is it that ONE man came out and ONE heard him speaking his language? And ONE other spoke and ONE other heard?

That is exactly what happened but we are talking about 1 Apostle speaking to a group of Arabic speaking Jews, Eqyptian speaking Jews...etc. They were required by the law of Moses to return to Israel for three annual feasts. I don't want to get off on a tangent but this is important as well. Some of the ones from Rome started a church there and Paul wrote his letter to the Romans to them. It is a known fact that there were 11 languages spoken in the 13 areas mentioned and makes a lot of sense from an expositional perspective.

Or is it that ONE heard ALL OF THE DISCIPLES SPEAKING (because the text says that ALL were filled with the Spirit and were speaking in tongues . . . not just the 11 [very detrimental to Dr. Martin's theory]) in arabic and the one next to him heard ALL OF THE DISCIPLES speaking in Creatian, and so on?

Just one problem with that, there were 150 disciples if memory serves. You could not have gotten that many people in the same room were the Apostles had been staying since before the Passover weekend. The passage is clear that this started in the Upper Room and spilled out into the streets. Only the Apostles, Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdelean were living there at the time.

I think this is the more warranted conclusion. The Greek is clear that each man/one (singular eiV or one [here rendered as "man" in the KJV]) heard THEM ALL (plural ekastoV a compound of the singular meaning more than one) speaking in there NATIVE (idia "one's own") language.
Greek is a very precise language as far as meaning within linguistic construction goes. It seems clear that the Cretans heard ALL OF THEM in Cretan, the Parthians heard ALL OF THEM in Parthian, Cappadocians in Cappadocian, et. al. AT THE SAME MOMENT.

That hardly seems likely unless they were all saying the same thing in unison as if they were singing a hymn. The streets would have been rather narrow and the Apostles would simply have made their way through the crowd addressing individule groups. Their would have been others who overheard who didn't happen to speak that particular language, to them it would sound like gibberish.

This would leave us with the conclusion that the miracle was not so much that they were speaking in tongues (although that was miraculous too) but that all these guys heard all those speaking in tongues AS A GROUP in their language AT THE SAME TIME as the others who were listening. Look at the other's response too . . . not one of awe but one of mockery. They didn't hear the languages . . . but rather they heard something that caused them to think that the ones speaking were DRUNK. Now I don't know about you . . . haven't you ever heard a drunk man speaking gibberish? Unintelligible sounds? I have heard plenty! I wasn't always with Jesus:sorry: , and being in the military . . . I am sure you know what I am talking about.

For the reasons I have elaborated on previously I don't think your interprutation holds up to close scrutiny. One thing is kind of interesting and I don't know if it has any signfigance or is just some kind of a coincidence. The prophecy in Is. 28 is against the drunkards of Ephiriam. Ephiriam was lush vineyard territory and the priests and prophets abandoned their duties and were all filthy drunk. The prophet confornts them and they begin to mock him saying that his prophecies are infantile and incomprehensible. It was not because they were drunk though, it was because they had hardened their hearts against the word of the Lord.

Also there is no inkling in the Greek that the 11 were the only ones present . . . all were present and speaking in tongues. The text actually seems to present the observers as looking in on the disciples and not the disciples coming out. Thus the interpretation of verse 14 is that Peter moved through the crowd of his own to where the other apostles were to speak to all those who were observing.

Peter would have addressed on of the groups and when he saw the confusion probably stepped up where everyone could see and hear him. He then addresses them, most likely in Koine Greek but possibly in Hebrew or Aramiac. The ones who thought the speakers were drunk would have no doubt been those who did not understand the foreign languages being spoken.

I should tell you that we are going to the field in a couple of days and we don't have internet access out there. When I get back we are going to Virginia for our school so if I don't post anything by the middle of the week if will be the middle of the month before I can post anything at the earliest. I will address the other two posts tommorow or possibly the day after and you can respond are your leisure. Silly Army, they think training is more important then these important theological issues. Sometimes I think they have their priorities mixed up but what can you do?

You and your family are in may prayers and I will return at my first opportunity.

Grace and peace,
Mark

GordonSlocum

5th June 2006, 08:50 AM

GordonSlocum

5th June 2006, 10:09 AM

Why do Charismatics ignore the following:confused:

In the Greek text the emphasis is emphatic.

Not all are this or that

"Not all apostles, not all prophets, not all teachers, not all powers, not all gifts have of cures, not all tongues speak, not all interpret,"

"not all tongues speak" this should end all discussion that tongues are for everyone - regardless of theological position. :o What? You mean I have been wrong along along? What does this passage say? Does it say all speak in tongues? Does God give this gift to all?

What is there not to understand of this passage?

Chapter 12 - 14 are all in the same context. Can anyone deny that?

If at the time of the writing Paul states "Now, not later, Now all that remains is Faith, Home, and Love."

Then add the defining passage from 14:21.

Who are " to this people" "LAOO TOUTOO" - I am looking forward to hear from all my Charismatic Christian Brothers and Sisters on these passages.

These passages are in the context to define and teach. We can not ignore them and explain them away.

God Bless, Love Always Finds Away.

mark kennedy

5th June 2006, 08:17 PM

Absolutely:thumbsup: . The only gifts unique to the New Testament (NT) are tongues and the interpretation of tongues.

It is true that tongues as it is practiced in the New Testament are something very unique to the New Testament church. However, I sometimes wonder if there is some relationship to the confusion of tongues (languages) at Bable and even the utterances of Balaam's ass. This is just something I have pondered but I thought I would mention it in passing.

Actually chpt 19 only calls them disciples, maqhthV mathetes, a term that Luke uses, when without a controlling phrase, in reference always to disciples of Christ (or an apostle) and not in relation to those of John the Baptist (otherwise Luke would have used a controlling phrase like the disciples "of John" or "of the Pharisees"). These were believers in Christ that weren't fully educated (much like Apollos in chpt 18 . . . which the first portion of 19 is actually apart of the same thought that Luke is trying to convey). This is actually approx. 22 yrs later than Pentecost and is the hardest passage of the four (chpts 2, 8, 10 and 19) for evangelicals who don't believe in the Baptism in the Spirit as subsequent from salvation (classic Pentecostalism) to overcome. The Gentiles had already been inducted in chpt 10. So chpt 19 stands as a craw to overcome . . . but we will discuss Spirit Baptism later.

This is a little awkward since I don't have a Bible in front of me but there are a couple of things to consider. Tongues are mentioned in connection with the initial coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, the conversion of the Gentiles who simply believed the Gospel, the disciples of John at Ephesus. At crucial periods in church history this manifestation is mentioned but not really mentioned in the epistles that emphasis ministry like Timothy and Titus. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Pentecostal/Charasmatic circles has been described as a second work of grace, in short, an empowerment for service. Personally, I can see no discernable difference between the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism into Christ. Apparently we will need to look more closely at the passages in question to clarify this but I don't think we are in any big hurry in this thread.

Bear in mind I am working from memory so if I make some mistakes on the content of the verses in question feel free to point it out.

Sure :)

Acts 2: The disciples were already believers and the Spirit came subsequent to their salvation and the initial phys. evidence (IPE) was that of speaking in tongues.

This was a unique situation, Christ had been with them so the ministry of the Spirit had not come yet. There is no real reason to suppose that salvation and the indwelling, filling or baptism of the Holy Spirt are anything other then salvation. Were it such an important outward manifestation in connection with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit it would have surely been spelled out in the doctrinal epistles. Only Paul mentions tongues and that is in connection to abuses of the gift, he never directly ties it to the Baptism of the Holy Spirt and were tongues the IPE of this landmark event I dare say he would have.

Acts 8: The Samaritans were already believers and the Spirit came subsequent and the IPE was speaking in tongues . . . I am aware that the text does not say this but it is well implied. Simon saw something . . . and textually that something had to be tongues. Virtually all commentators and scholars agree on this . . . even those who aren't Pentecostal and don't espouse Pentecostal doctrine (this is the passage I struggled with for the longest).

I'm not convinced that 'all' commentators and scholars are in agreement with this. The manifestation is not mentioned but the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is, which is an important ommision. The New Testament emphasises Christ and Him crucified and the coming of the Holy Spirt as a direct result of recieving the message in faith. We could go to Ephesians, Colossians, John's Gospel/epistles, Timothy, Titus and others and support this. The Pentecostal movement proceeded from the Holiness movement which in turn came from the Methodist movement. Trace it far enough back and you get back to John Wesley's entire sanctification doctrine. We can get into this later but we need to look a little closer at the proof texts for now.

Acts 10: The Household of Cornelius (the "Gentiles") were logically chronologically believers and the Spirit fell subsequent and the IPE was tongues.

Bear in mind that tongues are a 'sign' for unbelieving Israel that the Gospel has went to the Gentiles. The tongues of Gentile nations being spoken particularly with the manifestation of 'tongues of fire' is prophecy fullfilled. It was prophecied both in the law and the prophets is it is vital to realize that tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not for believers.

Acts 19: The Ephesian disciples were already believers and the Spirit fell subsequently . . . IPE speaking in tongues.

The Ephesians were disciples of John and were taught the doctrine of repentance. John had taught that they should believe in one that would come after him but is prefered before him, that is Christ. When they were taught Christ and Him crucified the Holy Spirit came upon them. The mark of salvation is the indwelling of the Holy Spirt and the gifts are given to believers as part of their salvation to minister to other believers. Many of the people in Jesus ministry who were healed would start to praise and glorify God. They did not speak in any special language, and the gift of tongues is a proclaimation gift.

We can pick apart the cross ref.s and get deeper later.

Lead on dear Mathetes, this promises to be both edifying and instructive.

Now let me tell you why chpt 8 was a problem for me:
Hermenuetically speaking, if one draws doctrine from a passage of scripture that is narrative in nature (of which Acts is . . . IE Luke is telling a story), it must be demonstratable that the doctrine being drawn is within the intent of the author for the doctrine to be perscribable (meaning something for broad perscription in the Christian life). Tongues as the IPE according to Pentecostal doctrine would then have to be spelled out by Luke as accompanying the Samaritan "revival" . . . well . . . it isn't. Even though virtually all scholars and commentators agree that they indeed did speak in tongues . . . it would be silly for Simon Magus (Simon the Mage) to ask to buy "this power" if there was not some outwardly demonstrative phenomenon to accompany the apostles laying on of hands . . . linguistically and contextually the obvious conclusion is tongues.

Miracles abound in the Apostolic church one wonders what allure the manifestation of tongues would have for him. On the other hand, healings and the power to cast out demons would have been very compelling. Let's say just for argument that it was indeed tongues that prompted Simon Magus to attempt to purchase the Holy Spirit. This is an historical narrative as well as the others and tongues in Acts are allways mentioned in connection to transitional events. The inclusion of the Gentiles, the conversion of John's disciples, the Samaratians...etc. This would seem to be the church in historic transition rather then the establishing of prescribable doctrine.

Still, let's see where this takes us.

But hermeneutically Luke would have had to include tongues in as "clear as day" and not in "inbetween the lines" terms, for IPE to be a perscribable doctrine. This was the mountain that I could not fairly succumb to. Those around me said "Well it isn't a problem to us," and they pointed to the other passages as proof . . . but that is bad hermeneutics and I would not buy into the doctrine until this issue could be satisfactorily resolved. It must be in Luke's authorial intent.

That is a very thoughtfull statement, you did spend some time on this. Ok, you were saying the authorial intent of Luke was...

Now most people think that the words Pentecostal and Scholar are mutually exclusive . . . an oxy moron. This is almost true . . . but I ran across a book by two Pentecostal scholars named William and Robert Menzies called "Spirit and Power". The book was penned in hopes or creating a dialouge between Pentecostal Scholars and Evangelical Scholars . . . much like what we are having now. In it Menzies presents an approach to IPE that was unlike anything I had heard previously . . . an approach that did not violate hermeneutical standard and was actually well within the realm of proper systematic theology and deductable doctrine.

We can cover this approach at a later date . . . I have to go to bed . . . it is late:blush: !

In Christ,
Mathetes

I hope we do get back to this, it sounds like an interesting approach. I won't make any further comments since we are getting some of your testimony and that is good all by itself.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy

5th June 2006, 09:31 PM

I knew a person who was a Charismatic evangelist. He worked with me for 10 years at a Auto Plant in Michigan.

He preached at evangelistic events, gave weddings, and funerals - just for money. :o

This gent went to a charismatic Bible College. :scratch:

He carried pornography and skin book in his bucket openly. :eek:

He was a tongues person, a full gospel person. :cry:

It might interest you to know that even if he did have a real gift of the Holy Spirit he need not be saved to exercise it. There is a host in heaven that say, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name, did we not cast out Demons in your name...etc" Jesus tells them, 'depart from me...I never knew you'. Sure, the manifestations of the Spirit are important and I'm excited to see God working in our lives but there is something important to consider here. In John 6 Jesus has done the feeding of the 5,000 and a large group of people found him after a long search. Jesus tells them that they were looking for him because their bellys were filled and he told them that they must believe in (literally, into) Him and they refused to follow Him any more. He then looks at His disciples and says are you going to leave to? Peter says, 'and go where? You alone have the words of life.

I'm paraphrasing but the point I'm getting at is that it is the believing of the Gospel is what is emphasised in Scripture.

I ask him personally if he was concerned about what he was doing. He told me in a calm way, I no I am going to hell. I only do this for money. Educated in a Bible College, a charismatic in practice and profession.

I know that every denomination has its wolfs in sheep’s clothing.

I don't think he is even a wolf, he is just a real sad case. It is probably due to his ability to entertain his audiance and some of the blame has to go to the people who let him pass himself off like this.

The issue here is tongues. I have seen documentation of Satanic religions and other religions speaking in tongues. Linguist have testified that the modern day sounds of the tongues movement are the same as the sounds of these movements. Christian linguist.
OK that is what it is. That being so, what is this "tongues" of charismatic churches?

Years ago the Lutheran Church and some Mental Health organization actually did investigate this for like ten years. They concluded that tongues as practiced in Pentecostal/Charasmatic churches was simply learned behavior. I would caution you to remember that even if the Pentecostal experience is not New Testament tongues many of them are still New Testament believers. At some point I want to talk about glossilalia in nonchristian contexts. It's a little early for that right now and I am enjoying the study of the various proof texts right now.

Is tongues in Acts and I Cor. the same.

Yes, it is the miraculous ability to speak a previously unlearned language. The church has allways taught this and tongues as a manifestation in church history has not been common. I think it can still manifest but under what circumstances I am still not sure, but it would be human language. There is no doubt in my mind about that one.

Why did every believer in Acts mentioned in conversion speak in tongues and in I Cor. they are restricted to a few as a special gift.

I think a better question is why was tongues mentioned in connection with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts and no where else. Not only that, if this is the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit why was it not explicitly spelled out in Paul's lengthy discussion of tongues? Paul simply discusses the abuses of tongues and he speaks very harshly in that particular passage. Something as important as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit would surely have been directly connect to tongues if it were as important as Pentecostals and Charasmatics say it is would he not?

I think there is two strong arguments that cam be somewhat supported marginally but not Scripturally. For me the issues is crystal clear in I Cor. 14.

Arguments....well...no. I would say a good solid expostion of the text could put this whole thing in perspective quickly and easily. Paul is clear about a couple of things, tongues are inferior to prophecy. Tongues are fine as long as the church is edified by teaching, knowledge, prophesing or by teaching. Paul then uses a couple of illustrations, things without life must make a distinction in the sounds like harps, flutes and trumpets.

Paul then says something I think is absolutly crucial to this as a doctrinal issue. He says, I will pray with my Spirit and with my understanding to. He goes on to say I would rather speak five words intelligibly in the church then 10,000 in a language that no one understands. This is crystal clear, in private I pray both with my spirit and may understanding and in the church I speak words easily understood.

Christians who feel, claim, experience, teach that tongues are real must be brought into biblical guide lines. I think we can all agree that unless this practice is not done according to Paul's guide line it is wrong, and even if done as Paul instructed it is still in the flesh because it was not the purpose of tongues for this self-indulgence practice. The least sought after above and more than the important gifts, ministries.

Easy there brother, there are some pretty serious Bible scholars in the Pentecostal ranks. I wouldn't be quite so bold so soon with this topic just getting warmed up here.

It really does not matter what the subject matter, if we don't abide in Christ according to the rule book we are in disobedience or in error. We have all been there and no one can say they are free of sin. "He that say he has not sin is a liar" and this was addressed to Christians.

Ok, 'In Christ' is our salvation, to that I say :amen: We are all sinners and prone to sin and error and again I say :amen: That sounds like pure gospel to me.

I have studied this subject for over 30 years. I have listened to the utterances of certain Charismatic. These utterances have been recorded and analyzed. 99 percent plus are words that are repetitious and have absolutely not connection to an existing known language. There is little or very few languages in the world that modern man does not have an understanding of. The skill and art of linguistics is so advance today that such practice is now under microscopic scrutiny. In the presence of this ability the modern tongues movement is not a know language.

Still, the Pentecostal/Charasmatic movement has grown like wildfire and there are many believers in their ranks. If it turns out that tongues is a genuine gift of simply something they learned how to do that is what is most important. It is the fruit of the Spirit that has the marks of eternity, the gifts are just for the time being. We do well to emphasis the 13th chapter whenever possible and I can tell you that with the Pentecostals I have meant, you are preaching to the choir.

That being the case what is left? An utterance that is not known - So as we discussed the real deal, the Scripture, can this practice be Biblical?

I was reading Job one night and I had a vision of the approaching whirlwind mentioned in the closing chapters of Job. I'm not putting you on, I still can see the image as if I had taken a snapshot at the actual sceen. Can I prove that this was an actual manifestation of the Holy Spirit :scratch: Probably not, but that does not change the fact that is was an amazing moment for me personally. You could say it's the work of an overactive imagination but I think otherwise, I think you will run into the same thing with Pentecostalism.

Can the believer really prove from the text that such a practice is Biblical, sanction, valid? My position is no. But the debate continues because there are feelings, personal experiences, and I think blindness.

Having studied this for a long time I would have no problem defending the proof texts of Pentecostalism. In fact I could make a defense of Pentecostalism with the same veracity I could for Justitication by faith or Sola Scriptura. It is clearly a defensible doctrine but the real question is whether or not what we are seeing in the Pentecostal movement is New Testament tongues.

Pentecostals rarely debate this doctrine and I have had the opportunity to discuss this with many of them. I have noticed that you can cover most of the important points in a suprisingly brief period of time. After that it is like talking to a Baptist about foot washings or a Pauline about baptism. To tell you the truth sometimes I think the question is purely academic and is little bearing on essential doctrine or Christian fellowship.

If the modern day tongues sounds were practice according to Paul’s direction and it in turn was to the Jewish People as stated in the Old Testament and re-stated in I Cor 14 I would accept it as real and from God, outside that I have to stand firmly that all tongues speaking as know to me in over these 30 plus years is not of God, it is an emotional experience, not evil in and of its self. It is a miss guided, false doctrine that does not line up with the facts in both Acts and I Cor.

The thing is I don't think it's New Testament tongues, but then again, I don't think it's hurting anything. I know that sounds flippant to put it like that but no real doctrine is affected here. Pentecostals are not saying that you are not saved, marked by the Holy Spirit or even that you are not equipped for service. They are saying that this manifestation of the Holy Spirit marks an important transition of the believer. I don't happen to agree about tongues but if you ever really look at the history of the doctrine they have some really important things to contribute to Christian theism.

Tongues must be a known language to be from God according to the Bible. Un-known language tongues was permitted by Paul because the believers were immature in their walk with God. He, therefor, regulated this but later clearly instructed them in what real tongues is for. His illustrations back this position, and the silence of all the rest of the NT backs it up.

This does create some real difficulties for Pentecostalism as a formal doctrine. Paul does emphasis that the languages being spoken be either easily understood or interpruted. It is also important to realize that the doctrinal portions of the New Testament do not mention tongues in connection with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. One would wonder why not if tongues is indeed the intial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Some reading this post may say to someone like me way get involved in this discussion? Because it is an issue of truth, integrity, and sound bible doctrine based upon accepting the clear teaching and guide lines in Scripture. This doctrine split’s a large segment of churches and must be addressed openly and Scripturally. No where in the Bible does or is Tongues taught as a present day gift in use. And where it is used and Paul permits it must be according to the guide linge he presented and it is not for everyone.

It is a doctrinal issue but I'll let you in on a little secret, I get most of my theology from Pentecostals. I have very little use for most theologies but the Pentecostals have one of the best around, they just don't know it. All this buisness about tongues is important but I see a discussion like this as an opportunity. Discussing the church in historical transition is exciting is it not? Discussion the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in one of the earliest Gentile churches is important as well no matter where you stand on this particular issue.

This is a great lead in for an indepth discussion about theology, an exciting period of redemptive history and expositive Bible study. I'm here for the duration, this thread has everything I'm looking for on this discussion forum.

We must wrestle with the fact that no-where else in NT writing are we taught about tongues. No where is this mentioned, alluded to, brought up or taught.
Corinth was a very evil town, full of sexual worship, and all kinds of Satanic influences. All this has to be taken into account when reading I and II Cor. They were real people and saved out of a culture of open sexual orgies, and other Satanic influences. They were true gnostics.

I agree that they were clichish, carnal, selfish, mean and in some cases down right nasty. I do not however see any indication that they were Satanic or do I see any indication of gnosticism. In fact, actual gnosticism did not get to be a real problem till long after the Corinthians had repented. Most of what you are saying is true enough but I just wanted to clarify a couple of points.

I'm sorry but my time is running out again. You make some interesting points and I do appreciate your contribution to the thread.

I just hope we can remember that the Pentecostal movement has done some pretty amazing things and they are some good soul winners. Sure, the doctrinal issues are important but I think we should allways be looking for ways to edify one another in these discussions, even when they are leading up to a formal debate. Maybe even especially, isn't that what Paul emphasises when discussing tongues?

I personally have no axe to grind and I don't see any essential doctrine in peril here. I am interested in seeing Pentecostals lay out their expositions of proof texts and theology and defend their doctrines formally. This we will do, God willing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

SpitfireOverThames

6th June 2006, 09:02 PM

I don't have a lot of time to respond, but I will weigh in my thoughts.

First of all, the fact that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are mentioned in I Corinthians is enough for me that the Gifts are part of the ministry of the Paraclete, that that ministry has never diminished nor has it ended. If the early Church needed the charismata for ministry effectiveness, likewise so do we! If one wants to say that "Corinth was an evil city, blah, blah, blah" so be it...but that is hardly Scriptural proof but merely an opinion. I think most of the westernised world today makes Corinth look like a virgin in a white dress in comparison when it comes to "evil" being practiced and endorsed. We need the ministry of the Holy Spirit today MORE, not LESS.

It is only logical that if the Son of God needed the Holy Spirit in fullness, if the early Church needed the Holy SPirit in fullness for its mission, so will we! It is only logical. God has NOT changed His mind about the workings of the Holy Spirit. It is the Church that has changed.

I could easily quote Acts 2 where Peter says "This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel when he said, 'In the last days...'" Are we still in the Last Days? The Spirit's outpouring was for all of the last days, not just the first phase of it. And that is why Peter says in Acts 2 that this promise of the Holy Spirit is for any and all whom the Lord our God calls. There is NO REASON to diminish the Immersion with the Holy Spirit as seen in Acts 2 by saying that one receives the Holy Spirit upon coming to Christ. Of course they receive the Holy Spirit. But the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is what releases Him (and the Fruit of the Spirit is what He puts into us through teaching and life experiences) and His power. (And its amazing to discover how many Baptist and Nazarene missionaries believe in the Gifts and Baptism with the Holy Spirit in the field... Why? Because they know they need His power to do their jobs! I even know of a Baptist pastor who secretly speaks in tongues!!! Why? Because he needs the Spirit's power to do his job! Talk about closet Christians, eh?)

Tongues was not of primary focus to Paul in I Corinthians. It was that the Gifts--any and all--be motivated by agape love, not any other reason. As Paul said, "I am glad I speak in tongues more than you all", and, "do not forbid to speak in tongues", and the words of Jesus Himself in Mark 16. The attitude of Paul and our Lord are much different then our learned scholars who are against the Gifts and/or Baptism in the Holy SPirit today. In quoting Paul's writings above, I am not attempting to lift Paul's words out of context. But his attitude is not to forbid what is good (tongues) but to use it effectively (to interpret when it is publicly proclaimed) and also to remember the proper motive. Tongues, when interpreted, becomes equal to prophecy because both must fulfill one or all of the following: to edify, encourage, and comfort the Body of Christ.

If one wants to tear out of their Bibles I Corinthians 12, 14 and most of Acts, so be it...and that is exactly what many Bible scholars and ministers should do if they do not believe the ministry of the Holy Spirit is for today. In I Timothy, 2 Timothy, I Thessalonians 5, Romans 12, and I Corinthians (and other places I am sure), Paul is emphatic on allowing the work of the Holy Spirit whether it is prophecy (that edifies, encourages, comforts and revealing the secrets of one's heart), whether it is using the gift that was imparted as part of the laying on of hands (impartation of gifts) through prophetic ministry, or
using the various Gifts of the Holy Spirit to edify the body of Christ. The burden of proof for coming to a conclusion that the Gifts have ceased is on the cessationist to prove SCRIPTURALLY... Don't tell me your pet theories and ideas and interpretations of what you think so and so means. Give me one verse that states they are not to be used in our gatherings any longer... Scriptural proof. But the truth is, it can't be found.

The Gifts will cease at the coming of Christ or our going to Him. The Scriptures FOR spiritual Gifts easily outweighs any argument AGAINST.

Moving along...

In I Thessalonians 5, it is mentioned that we are made up of spirit, soul, body (in that order). In I Corinthians 14, Paul says, "I will pray with my spirit and I will pray with my understanding. I will sing with my spirit and I will sing with understanding." The Scriptures say, then, that our spirit can pray. And Paul says twice in I Corinthians 12-14 that our tongues are not toward men but to God...

Tongues are, for the most part, a devotional language that produces edification because we are speaking heart-to-heart (ours to His). It is deeper than known language, and studies have shown that those that speak in tongues are using the same sphere of the brain that produces music, art, imagination, which means that when we speak in our spirit (by the Spirit), we will be "priming the pump" for visions, dreams, and more from the Lord.

Tongues may also be used as a sign to unbelivers as we see in Acts 2. There are modern-day testimonies of men who spoke in tongues wherein people heard a message in their native language which became a sign to a nonbeliever pointing them to the Lord Jesus Christ. Jack Hayford, John G. Lake, John Osteen are just three examples of people who claim to have used tongues themselves in a way in which the result was another person hearing a message pointing them to Christ in their native language. And I have heard of no-name people who have had similar experiences.

In Acts 10 and 19, there weren't any unbelievers in their midst. So why the tongues when no sign was needed? Because the Spirit falling on the men (their spirits) caused them to "overflow" in tongues and praises/worship to the Lord... Their spirits were responding to His infilling. They were being edified, encouraged, and comforted which IS the result when the Baptism with the Holy Spirit takes place. Does the body of Christ today need edification, encouragement, comfort--and power/boldness to do their jobs? Yes indeed!

Yes, there are fakes and flakes out there. I honestly don't trust many of the charismatic ministers out there. I feel few have integrity and many of them will stand before the Great Throne with grave sadness. There are fakes and flakes in all areas of the Body of Christ. But we do not disregard the genuine Gospel because of others. Likewise it is equally true for the genuine Gifts of the Holy Spirit or being immersed in Him.

I respect our brothers in faith who are not for Gifts because we are in Christ regardless of our position on this subject. But if not for charimata today, the world would be much more Muslim and much more Catholic. Over one billion since the early 20th century have come to Christ because of Pentecost being unleashed on the people of God. One should consider that as a viable evidence that this is not just men's imaginations...but that this is a mighty work of God!

But I hope this makes someone think about the subject more indepth and with an eye to understand the will of God for his/her life. We need the Holy Spirit's ministry today. If we disregard the Gifts and the Baptism with the Spirit, we rob ourselves (and the body of Christ) of a beautiful truth: the Paraclete is here to be our Helper with power, and with supernatural relevance. We need His supernatural power or else we cannot hope to stand.

~Sean

Mathetes the kerux

6th June 2006, 11:47 PM

If at the time of the writing Paul states "Now, not later, Now all that remains is Faith, Home, and Love."

The 1st Corn. 13:13 passage about "faith, hope, love" remaining . . . um nuni (nuni) is a transitional term linking the future tense of the previous verse to the present tense of the conversation.
Not to mention that without the link of kairos or chronos the sense of nuni can be other than a strict sense of time but rather a emphatic literary device meant to communicate something other than strict "time."

Besides, if nuni is meant to mean "at this moment" thereby rendering the ceasing of the charismata, then Paul has contradicted himself . . . for "now" he himself STILL SPEAKS IN TONGUES. Sorry . . . try again.

No matter of fact start a different thread if you want to debate the cessation of the charismata because that is not what this thread is about. Send me a link to the thread you start and I will glady join the fray. We need not detract from this thread now.

I will respond brother Mark later. I only have time for a quick post.

L8R
Mathetes

Mathetes the kerux

10th June 2006, 08:48 PM

Here is the problem that needs to be surmounted in order for a case for tongues being literal known human languages in Acts:

1) The Greek doesn't allow for a concept of a one-to-one ratio of hearing and speaking. Rather the Greek supports a one hearing all speaking.

2) The common Koine usage of "glossolalia lailien" in connection with ecstatic tongue speaking in the common world. The phrase "speaking in tongues" (in this literary form) becomes a buzz phrase, something along the lines of the contemporary usage of "pro-life," hence carrying with its usage a whole plethora of meaning that may not be known without a perusal of ancient Koine usage.

3) Luke's distinction between "glosson" (tongue) and dialektos (dialect). The disciples spoke in "tongues" but those who heard did not hear "glosson" but rather "dialektos." Luke's usage is illuminating to his meaning.

4) The purpose of the "languages" in Acts 2 is NOT common throughout the Acts' passages. The purpose of "languages" is only in Acts 2.

5) If one assumes that the "tongues" presented in Acts 2 is the same "tongues" that Paul speaks about in 1st Corn. 12-14 (as you do Brother Mark), the context of 1st Cor. 14 is clear that the tongues in view (regardless of function or usage) is indeed ecstatic, thereby rendering the tongues of Acts 2 ecstatic as well.

These are the issues that must be answered if one desires to make the tongues of Acts 2 known foreign languages.

One more issue of import . . . concerning Paul's quotation of Isaiah . . . Paul is notoriously known for quoting Old Testament (OT) passages WAY out of context. So trying to quote an OT passage's meaning within context to affrim the meaning of a NT quotation of said OT passage, is pointless and futile.

It is said that a passage must be interpreted within the meaning of its context . . . to which I say yea and amen:amen: . This is good hermeneutical execution.
However, NT authors do NOT do this; and the evangelical doctrine of inspiration/revelation allows NT authors to quote and apply OT passages WAY OUT OF CONTEXT because they see NT authors as under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so whatever interpretation a NT author gives to an OT passage is given authoritative immanence . . . even if the OT passage is qouted grossly out of context.

And Paul is notorious for doing this.

Grace on your exercises

Mathetes

mark kennedy

16th June 2006, 09:10 PM

I really hate the fact that this discussion is finally taking off and I am so busy with my training. I have not abandoned the thread and I check on it when I can. I also have an ongoing discussion related to Origins theology that I have been into for years now.

I just wanted to drop a line and let you guys know I will, or should, post something when I get the time. By the way, there is no rule that the formal debate has to be with me. If you guys wanted to have one between yourselves there would be nothing stopping you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mathetes the kerux

14th July 2006, 05:30 PM

How ya doin' Brother Mark?

mark kennedy

18th August 2006, 08:15 PM

How ya doin' Brother Mark?

Doing good brother, I'm training at Atterbury in Indiana for duty in Iraq. I hope once I get settled in over there I can find some time for this thread. God willing I will.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mathetes the kerux

18th August 2006, 10:27 PM

I patiently await bro! Once again thank you for what you do!

Mathetes

dkbwarrior

22nd October 2006, 10:44 AM

First off, the debate I am suggesting is not whether or not Pentecostals are New Testament Christians. What is more I do not wish to argue that tongues somehow ceased in the Apostolic age, I am certain that it did not. These are the issues I would like to discuss with any person or persons who wish to defend these two doctrines of the Pentecostal movement.

1. Speaking in tongues is the evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
2. Speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is different then the gift of tongues.

Second, I spent about a year in an Assemblies of God church and my views on tongues was never a hinderance to fellowship. I was close to the Pastor and the single group lay minister and our discussions were mutually edifying. The Pastor was puzzled that this I was not unconfortable in this assembly but I assured him that I embraced most of their theology wholeheartedly. There was this one sticking point and usually we could cover the subject in about a half an hour.

Pentecostal are rather unique in two respects. One, most Pentacostal groups have very diverse congregations (white, black, young, old, rich poor...etc). Also they have a lot of lay ministers that go out and help the homeless, evangelize and have music ministries that are truly wonderfull. I am not saying that other denominations don't of course, but it seems more common among Pentecostals.

The texts I am most interested in are the instances where tongues is mentioned in connection with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts, first and formost. Also, I Corinthians 14 is the longest discussion of New Testament tongues in Scripture and it is a crucial doctrinal discussion.

If for whatever reason I neglict to keep up with this thread and you are interested in participating in this debate, please feel free to PM me at anytime.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I would love to have this discussion with you. However, I should state my position first. Reading between the lines of your post, I feel that I may be somewhere in between the AOG position and your own.

I am WOF, and pastor of a house church.

In regards to your fist issue:
I don't believe that speaking in tongues is the evidence, but rather the manifestation, of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

I believe that all those who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit can speak in tongues, if they choose to, but if they do not, this does not mean that they have not been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

In regards to your second issue:
I do believe that the prayer language of speaking in tongues is different from the gift of speaking in tongues, and am quite willing to debate the scriptural reasons for this.

Please fell free to contact me, if you wish.

Peace...

Inan3

24th July 2007, 11:37 PM

One more issue of import . . . concerning Paul's quotation of Isaiah . . . Paul is notoriously known for quoting Old Testament (OT) passages WAY out of context. So trying to quote an OT passage's meaning within context to affrim the meaning of a NT quotation of said OT passage, is pointless and futile.

It is said that a passage must be interpreted within the meaning of its context . . . to which I say yea and amen:amen: . This is good hermeneutical execution.
However, NT authors do NOT do this; and the evangelical doctrine of inspiration/revelation allows NT authors to quote and apply OT passages WAY OUT OF CONTEXT because they see NT authors as under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so whatever interpretation a NT author gives to an OT passage is given authoritative immanence . . . even if the OT passage is qouted grossly out of context.

And Paul is notorious for doing this.

Grace on your exercises

Mathetes

If you are still available would you mind giving us your elaboration on this subject, using the scriptural references you believe support your conjecture, and why you hypothesize this to be a valid conclusion.

I want you to understand that presently I am in disageement with you but I would like to hear your supposition on the matter. For all intents and purposes, though, it might be more beneficial if it were a bit less vocabularied.

Mathetes the kerux

25th July 2007, 06:44 AM

If you are still available would you mind giving us your elaboration on this subject, using the scriptural references you believe support your conjecture, and why you hypothesize this to be a valid conclusion.

I want you to understand that presently I am in disageement with you but I would like to hear your supposition on the matter. For all intents and purposes, though, it might be more beneficial if it were a bit less vocabularied.
Sure . . . where would you like me to start . . . a reference point would be good seeing as I have said alot.

Inan3

5th September 2007, 10:32 AM

Sure . . . where would you like me to start . . . a reference point would be good seeing as I have said alot.

Sorrry it has taken so long to get back but I've been caught up in evolution threads.

You stated in your quote I posted when I asked my question.

Paul is notoriously known for quoting Old Testament (OT) passages WAY out of context

What is your proof of this? Why do you say that?

Mathetes the kerux

6th September 2007, 06:12 AM

Sorrry it has taken so long to get back but I've been caught up in evolution threads.

You stated in your quote I posted when I asked my question.

Paul is notoriously known for quoting Old Testament (OT) passages WAY out of context

What is your proof of this? Why do you say that?
Take Paul's quote of Isaiah in 1 Cor 14 . . . the quote is either a compilation of several portions of Isaiah . . . a VERY loose quote of one verse . . . or an allusion to Leviticus. Whichever way you go . . . the OT context has NOTHING to do with NT gifts of the Spirit. So we have Paul ripping an OT passage out of its context and applying it very liberally to a NT concept. I don't have a problem with this . . . but our current evangelical articulation of inerrancy chalks this up to "Oh he was inspired by the Spirit" as a response to why he can do it but we can't.

Inan3

6th September 2007, 10:12 PM

Take Paul's quote of Isaiah in 1 Cor 14 . . . the quote is either a compilation of several portions of Isaiah . . . a VERY loose quote of one verse . . . or an allusion to Leviticus. Whichever way you go . . . the OT context has NOTHING to do with NT gifts of the Spirit. So we have Paul ripping an OT passage out of its context and applying it very liberally to a NT concept. I don't have a problem with this . . . but our current evangelical articulation of inerrancy chalks this up to "Oh he was inspired by the Spirit" as a response to why he can do it but we can't.

Forgive me but what verse are you speaking about?

Mathetes the kerux

7th September 2007, 07:40 AM

Forgive me but what verse are you speaking about?
1 Cor 14:20-22
21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.
NASU

which is a loose quote of

Isa 28:11
Indeed, He will speak to this people
Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,
NASU

Inan3

7th September 2007, 08:21 PM

. the OT context has NOTHING to do with NT gifts of the Spirit. So we have Paul ripping an OT passage out of its context and applying it very liberally to a NT concept. I don't have a problem with this . . . but our current evangelical articulation of inerrancy chalks this up to "Oh he was inspired by the Spirit" as a response to why he can do it but we can't.

So why do you say that it has NOTHING to do with NT gifts of the Spirit? Are not other tongues one of the gifts of the spirit?

As to the second part of what you said. Why do you say that we can't under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit quote OT scriptures when making a point?

Mathetes the kerux

10th September 2007, 12:11 PM

So why do you say that it has NOTHING to do with NT gifts of the Spirit? Are not other tongues one of the gifts of the spirit?

As to the second part of what you said. Why do you say that we can't under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit quote OT scriptures when making a point?
"other" tongues spoken of in the NT are NOT languages . . . but ecstatic speech. So a reference to the language of the Chaldeans/Babylonians doesn't fit the context of 1 Cor 14.

I agree that under the inspiration of the Spirit one can make an analogy, or illustration, of any OT text . . . it is the same Spirit after all who inspires both. Being a Pentecostal (in theology) I do believe that the gift of prophecy is very much active . . . and one "word" of God cannot be deemed as "less" authoritative than another . . . if it be Godspeak it is God nevertheless.

My problem is that our current evangelical articulation of our doctrine of inspiration won't allow this . . . the hermeneutical standard for the conservative church won't have it . . . but they make allowances for it for the apostles and other writers of Scripture.

My feeling is that our understanding of the gifts of the Spirit and their relationship to our doctrine of Scripture is different than that of the early church and the apostles.

Where we reside now is good for keeping from error . . . but not good because it quenches the Spirit.

Inan3

11th September 2007, 08:39 PM

"other" tongues spoken of in the NT are NOT languages . . . but ecstatic speech. So a reference to the language of the Chaldeans/Babylonians doesn't fit the context of 1 Cor 14.

I agree that under the inspiration of the Spirit one can make an analogy, or illustration, of any OT text . . . it is the same Spirit after all who inspires both. Being a Pentecostal (in theology) I do believe that the gift of prophecy is very much active . . . and one "word" of God cannot be deemed as "less" authoritative than another . . . if it be Godspeak it is God nevertheless.

My problem is that our current evangelical articulation of our doctrine of inspiration won't allow this . . . the hermeneutical standard for the conservative church won't have it . . . but they make allowances for it for the apostles and other writers of Scripture.

My feeling is that our understanding of the gifts of the Spirit and their relationship to our doctrine of Scripture is different than that of the early church and the apostles.

Where we reside now is good for keeping from error . . . but not good because it quenches the Spirit.

So you were making the point that there are those who say that this particular inspiration is done away with today, rather than criticizing Paul for depending on it? Am I correct? You believe we should speak under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as they did in the early church. If that be true then we ARE in agreement.

Mathetes the kerux

12th September 2007, 08:44 AM

So you were making the point that there are those who say that this particular inspiration is done away with today, rather than criticizing Paul for depending on it? Am I correct? You believe we should speak under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as they did in the early church. If that be true then we ARE in agreement.
I do believe that God speaks the same today as then . . . but I don't feel that Scripture is still being written. I believe that words of prophecy (if they are from God) are authoritative . . . but not infallible. Hence Paul's injunction to judge prophetic words.

I have a problem with the majority of the evangelical church's position about the relationship between holy writ (scripture) and godspeak (prophecy)

Inan3

12th September 2007, 08:47 AM

I do believe that God speaks the same today as then . . . but I don't feel that Scripture is still being written. I believe that words of prophecy (if they are from God) are authoritative . . . but not infallible. Hence Paul's injunction to judge prophetic words.

I have a problem with the majority of the evangelical church's position about the relationship between holy writ (scripture) and godspeak (prophecy)

So you're a Mormon?