Tongues

[HeavensWorship]

Since we are in the Charismatic, non-Word of Faith category, what are your thoughts about speaking in tongues?

I post this question here because it is my understanding that this is the issue that divides the charismatics from the WOF/AOG/Pentecostals.

What do you believe?

 

[Biblicist]

Since we are in the Charismatic, non-Word of Faith category, what are your thoughts about speaking in tongues?

I post this question here because it is my understanding that this is the issue that divides the charismatics from the WOF/AOG/Pentecostals.

What do you believe?

Even though you are quite right in that there are a few different understandings or views regarding speaking in tongues, it is not so much a Pentecostal vs. Charismatic issue as traditionally both movements have agreed (in most part) with how we are to pray in the Spirit and even with how it relates to a second-blessing theology.

Where you will find a differing opinion is with the more recent so called ‘Third-wave’ or neo-charismatics who do not see tongues as being evidence of one being Baptised in the Holy Spirit. Neo-charismatic beliefs can be a hard to sort out as they can believe almost anything. For many neo-charismatics they may not even be interested in praying in the Spirit and may even equate natural talents as being evidence of one having the Spirit within them.

Hopefully I have not added in any undue confusion just to answer a simple question!

 

[Little Dove]

Tongues is a gift & not all have the gift of Tongues.
I have read that Many think you Have to Speak in tongues or they say you are not saved. This is a lie! You Do not have to speak in tongues to Be Saved.

 

[HeavensWorship]

Even though you are quite right in that there are a few different understandings or views regarding speaking in tongues, it is not so much a Pentecostal vs. Charismatic issue as traditionally both movements have agreed (in most part) with how we are to pray in the Spirit and even with how it relates to a second-blessing theology.

Where you will find a differing opinion is with the more recent so called ‘Third-wave’ or neo-charismatics who do not see tongues as being evidence of one being Baptised in the Holy Spirit. Neo-charismatic beliefs can be a hard to sort out as they can believe almost anything. For many neo-charismatics they may not even be interested in praying in the Spirit and may even equate natural talents as being evidence of one having the Spirit within them.

Hopefully I have not added in any undue confusion just to answer a simple question!

I used to attend a Pentecostal church. Then I attended a "word of faith" church. Then I attended a charismatic church.

Based on my experience, and what I have read, Charismatics typically do not believe that tongues are the only gift, rather just a gift. Therefore Charismatics do not put "that" much emphasis on tongues.
On the other hand traditional Pentecostals and such teach that you must speak in tongues or you don't have the "baptism" of the Spirit.

A good, real life example is that of Kathryn Khulman. Ms. Khulman was at the heart of the Charismatic movement. I have vintage videos of her meetings and crusades (I better digitize them). On these old videos Kathryn Khulman mentions the fact that she is the primary speaker in Charismatic meetings.
A lot of people hold Ms. Khulman to the be epitome of anointed ministers. I continue to hear amazing stories from people who have attended her meetings. Some claim that Ms. Khulman is the most anointed minister of recent times. If there is anyone who knows the baptism of the Spirit it would be her. Few can compare.
But it is also known that Ms. Khulman admittedly never spoke in tongues. She is VERY charismatic, and operated in a powerful anointing. Rarely has the world ever seen such a ministry of the Spirit. However, the fact that she never spoke in tongues makes the Pentecostals heads spin.

This, as far as I can see, lies the distinction between Pentecostal, and Charismatic.

 

[HeavensWorship]

Tongues is a gift & not all have the gift of Tongues.
I have read that Many think you Have to Speak in tongues or they say you are not saved. This is a lie! You Do not have to speak in tongues to Be Saved.

AMEN!

 

[Biblicist]

I used to attend a Pentecostal church. Then I attended a "word of faith" church. Then I attended a charismatic church.

Based on my experience, and what I have read, Charismatics typically do not believe that tongues are the only gift, rather just a gift. Therefore Charismatics do not put "that" much emphasis on tongues.
On the other hand traditional Pentecostals and such teach that you must speak in tongues or you don't have the "baptism" of the Spirit...

The point that I raised was that the question is not so much between Pentecostal and Charismatics as both have in most part agreed over the years. The question should be more with how both of these groups differ with post-charismatics (“Third” Wave movement).

When questions such as these arise, there is often a lot of confusion with the terms Pentecostal, neo-Pentecostals, Charismatic and neo-charismatic and “Third Wavers”. The WoF movement is essentially a subset of the Pentecostal movement though its distinctives should never be associated with classic-Pentecostal beliefs.

Pentecostal:
A denomination that has always held to a Full Gospel Theology (AoG).

Charismatic (during the 60/70's they were also called neo-Pentecostals)
Congregations that have adopted (or partially adopted) the Full Gospel while still maintaining their links with their denomination; ie, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian etc.

Neo-charismatics / “Third” wave movement:
This was popularised by John Wimber and the beliefs of this group differ from historical Charismatic teaching. Many congregations have been established along these lines and who have no connections with any historical denominations.

 

[HeavensWorship]

The point that I raised was that the question is not so much between Pentecostal and Charismatics as both have in most part agreed over the years. The question should be more with how both of these groups differ with post-charismatics (“Third” Wave movement).

When questions such as these arise, there is often a lot of confusion with the terms Pentecostal, neo-Pentecostals, Charismatic and neo-charismatic and “Third Wavers”. The WoF movement is essentially a subset of the Pentecostal movement though its distinctives should never be associated with classic-Pentecostal beliefs.

Pentecostal:
A denomination that has always held to a Full Gospel Theology (AoG).

Charismatic (during the 60/70's they were also called neo-Pentecostals)
Congregations that have adopted (or partially adopted) the Full Gospel while still maintaining their links with their denomination; ie, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian etc.

Neo-charismatics / “Third” wave movement:
This was popularised by John Wimber and the beliefs of this group differ from historical Charismatic teaching. Many congregations have been established along these lines and who have no connections with any historical denominations.

I would add some more details to your definitions. I am very well familiar with differences between pentecostal, neo-pentecostal (word of faith), and third wave.

Apart from my attendance in a traditional Pentecostal church, I also spent 3+ years in a word of faith - type church. Then I spent 12 years at the Toronto Blessing, which could easily be dubbed the "king" of third wave.
Although I have never personally attended a traditional Charismatic church for any considerable period of time I have visited them on occasion, and as I mentioned before I have lots of videos and tapes from that era.

Having said that, your definition of traditional Charismatics is ambiguous enough to include the "Toronto Blessing" AKA Catch the Fire Toronto with one exception - they are not from the 60s and 70s.
I say this because Catch the Fire Toronto has many "chicks" or follower churches that are denominational churches that have "adopted (or partially adopted) the Full Gospel while still maintaining their links with their denomination; ie, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian"
In fact, right now I minister in music at two churches with background in Methodist and Presbyterian. They have fully adopted the "Toronto Blessing" theology, but have maintained their place within their denomination.

Please keep in mind my attendance with the aforementioned churches was more than the average Joe. I go every time I can, whether the doors are open for services, or whether the doors are just open. But recently I haven't been able to do that seeing that I have 5 children at home.

I could go into explaining the difference between Pentecostal, neo-Pentecostal, and third wave, but doing so in this post may be excessive. If need be I will in another post.

But as far as I can see, the major difference between Pentecostal (and neo Pentecostal), and Charismatic (and neo-Charismatic) is the issue of tongues.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Since we are in the Charismatic, non-Word of Faith category, what are your thoughts about speaking in tongues?"

Personally, I was Saved in 1962 in a Baptist environment, initially indoctrinated by them, and jumped about a year later into the Assemblys of God, where I've been for most of the last 49 years except for an decade running with the Charismatics in the '70s, and a period of AWOL in the '80s.

I was "Baptised in the Holy Spirit" (to use AoG vernacular) in '73. did "speak in tongues", and still do 39 years later. I HAVE manifested both Prophetic utterance, and Interpretation of tongues at least. I have NEVER been burdened to manifest a "message in tongues" in a public meeting.

Obviously, then, I'm not OPPOSED to "tongues", but don't particularly care for the DOCTRINE of "Initial evidence" which tends to be vigorously defended by Historic Pentecostals, but not so much by Charismatics - most of whom still see it as a "Normative component" of the "Baptism in the Holy Spirit".

"I post this question here because it is my understanding that this is the issue that divides the charismatics from the WOF/AOG/Pentecostals."

I would totally disagree here, and state that the INITIAL disagreement (Late '60s through the mid '70s) between the "Historic Pentecostals" (including the AoG) and the early Charismatics was more one of "Clothesline Holiness".

Since the "Charismatics" tended to be out of the more "Liberal" churches", they tended NOT to be "Holy" (Movies, Alcoholic beverages, Dress codes, Hair length, Makeup, etc.) in the way the "Historic Pentecostals" were. The Charismatics didn't care for our "Rules and Regulations", so we (the Pentecostals) rejected 'em.

And the Charismatics - who were in many cases REALLY experiencing God up front and personal for the first time, visited OUR churches, found them "dead" and "formal" (which they WERE by comparison), and went ahead with their OWN meetings.

When the Charismatic OUTPOURING (1966-1978 or so) ended MANY Charismatics flowed into the Pentecostal denominations, including the AoG, and had a liberalizing effect on us, so that now there's not much actual difference between the genres.

About the only thing we had in common in the early years was "Tongues".

WoF is an originally "Pentecostal" concept publically introduced by Kenneth Hagan in the '40s-'50s, and REALLY popularized (and blown out of proportion) by folks like Kenneth Copeland. Most WoF are out of the "Pentecostal/Charismatic? genres, and as a result, most ALSO Speak in tongues.

"What do you believe?"

That's MY story and I'm a-stick'in to it, y'all!!!

 

[Biblicist]

...And the Charismatics - who were in many cases REALLY experiencing God up front and personal for the first time, visited OUR churches, found them "dead" and "formal" (which they WERE by comparison), and went ahead with their OWN meetings...

I suspect that many who have embraced the Fullness of the Spirit or have at least begun to fellowship within the AOG or within other similar Pentecostal denominations since the demise of the Charismatic Renewal of the 60's & 70's that they would be surprised to know that what you said was (sadly) very true.

 

[Yahu]

Since we are in the Charismatic, non-Word of Faith category, what are your thoughts about speaking in tongues?

I post this question here because it is my understanding that this is the issue that divides the charismatics from the WOF/AOG/Pentecostals.

What do you believe?

How does tongues separate the 'Word of Faith' people?

They just hold to some bizarre doctrines about speaking blessings and healing without meeting the requirements. They have just turned their bibles into their spell books to speak magic words.

As to my position on tongues, well is has several uses:
1) for your prayer closet
2) to give a tongue, it be interpreted as a prophetic message
3) to supernatural give you a language that the hearer understands

 

[Biblicist]

How does tongues separate the 'Word of Faith' people?

I doubt if there is any really difference in opinion between classic-Pentecostals and ‘word of faith’ adherents regarding tongues as they are broadly a subset of the classic-Pentecostal movement.

Where things can become problematic is with how the wof movement has an over preponderance for adopting odd doctrinal positions and there are probably some odd understandings of tongues that exist within this system; this is what sets it apart from classic-Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement. Of course most wof supporters would probably see themselves as being classic-Pentecostals but for many Pentecostals there exists a degree of reluctance with acknowledging that the wof movement is indeed a legitimate expression of the Full Gospel.

To my way of thinking, the wof movement has essentially been a destructive element much the same as the latter-rain and new apostolic renewal has been.

 

[Yahu]

I doubt if there is any really difference in opinion between classic-Pentecostals and ‘word of faith’ adherents regarding tongues as they are broadly a subset of the classic-Pentecostal movement.

Where things can become problematic is with how the wof movement has an over preponderance for adopting odd doctrinal positions and there are probably some odd understandings of tongues that exist within this system; this is what sets it apart from classic-Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement. Of course most wof supporters would probably see themselves as being classic-Pentecostals but for many Pentecostals there exists a degree of reluctance with acknowledging that the wof movement is indeed a legitimate expression of the Full Gospel.

To my way of thinking, the wof movement has essentially been a destructive element much the same as the latter-rain and new apostolic renewal has been.

Oh, I agree that the WoF doctrine is screwy. I attended a charismatic bible college and when I got there found out it was WoF based. I wasn't familiar with WoF before I attended. Needless to say, I only stayed the 1st year. I just didn't see any difference in how tongues was treated verses a non-WoF charismatic church.

I had heard that college only taught scripture, not doctrines of man. It turned out to be a bold face lie so I switched over to Lee University (Church of God) to take Hebrew before I left. Actually I was booted from the WoF college for not bowing down to their domination and dictating what doctrines I had to believe. I had heard it was a school specializing in spiritual warfare. It turned out that the director was in the most need of deliverance IMO and my primary gift is discernment of spirits. I call the place 'Zona's school of witchcraft and wizardry' to learn how to turn your bible into your own personal spell book by reciting these magic words. They were not at all receptive to anyone with a prophetic gift. The place was literally ruled by Jezebel. There was no place for an Elijah there. I did learn spiritual warfare but it was against the spirits operating within that place. I also learned how NOT to run a ministry so it wasn't a total waste.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

xy

 

[ltwin]

How does tongues separate the 'Word of Faith' people?

I doubt if there is any really difference in opinion between classic-Pentecostals and ‘word of faith’ adherents regarding tongues as they are broadly a subset of the classic-Pentecostal movement.

Where things can become problematic is with how the wof movement has an over preponderance for adopting odd doctrinal positions and there are probably some odd understandings of tongues that exist within this system; this is what sets it apart from classic-Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement. Of course most wof supporters would probably see themselves as being classic-Pentecostals but for many Pentecostals there exists a degree of reluctance with acknowledging that the wof movement is indeed a legitimate expression of the Full Gospel.

To my way of thinking, the wof movement has essentially been a destructive element much the same as the latter-rain and new apostolic renewal has been.

I completely agree with this. Being a lifelong Pentecostal and being raised in a WOF church, I can tell you that beliefs about speaking in tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit are exactly the same as classical Pentecostals. In fact, I never even heard the term "Word of Faith" until I started doing research about my religious heritage. We just called ourselves Pentecostal or Full Gospel. Our beliefs about faith, positive confession, healing, and money were just presented as what the Bible said.

Most Pentecostals I have personally had contact with have seemed to me to be Word of Faith as well, so I don't have much real world experience with non-WOF Pentecostals. But from what I've read, it seems that WOF churches are far more likely than regular Pentecostals to fall into aberrant and heterodox teachings.

Also, WOF churches are very authoritarian, with the pastor and his family basically owning the church (I know from personal experience). From what I read, it seems that denominational Pentecostals vote on their pastors and they have some protection from dominating pastors by being tied to denominations.

 

[bred11six]

How does tongues separate the 'Word of Faith' people?

They just hold to some bizarre doctrines about speaking blessings and healing without meeting the requirements. They have just turned their bibles into their spell books to speak magic words.

As to my position on tongues, well is has several uses:
1) for your prayer closet
2) to give a tongue, it be interpreted as a prophetic message
3) to supernatural give you a language that the hearer understands

The bible clearly states that tongues is speaking unto God. Paul says in 1 corinthians 14:39 that we should not forbid to speak in tongues.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

1. There is the Holy Spirit enabled "Diversities of Tongues from 1 Corin 12. This is supernatural because it is operated via the Holy Spirit and can be understood by someone present.

2. There is the "unknown tongues" of 1 Corin 14 which is our spirit praying to God. It is NOT supernatural but rather "merely spiritual" because it comes from our own spirit (not I but Christ lives in me).
"when I pray in an unknown tongue, MY spirit prays..."
This is also known as the "new tongues" which Jesus said all believers would speak.
You have already spoken in new tongues, we all have. It may have been nothing more than a groan or a cry out to God. He heard it and by his divine power knew exactly what you were saying.


#2 is for all intents and purposes gibberish that only God can understand by His divine power.

 

[Yahu]

The bible clearly states that tongues is speaking unto God. Paul says in 1 corinthians 14:39 that we should not forbid to speak in tongues.

-
How did what I say even imply anything to do with forbidding tongues?

But it should be done without confusion. " but let all things be done comelily and with order."

If given in public within a service, it should have an interpretation or should not be given. Prophecy >>> tongues. When given as a prophetic word within an assembly, that is the greatest form of tongues. There is a difference between forbidding the unruly misuse of tongues and forbidding the entire practice.

Tongues given without interpretation within an assembly is dangerous. A false gift of tongues may be speaking curses over the assembly under the control of the enemy.

 

[bred11six]

-
How did what I say even imply anything to do with forbidding tongues?

But it should be done without confusion. " but let all things be done comelily and with order."

If given in public within a service, it should have an interpretation or should not be given. Prophecy >>> tongues. When given as a prophetic word within an assembly, that is the greatest form of tongues. There is a difference between forbidding the unruly misuse of tongues and forbidding the entire practice.

Tongues given without interpretation within an assembly is dangerous. A false gift of tongues may be speaking curses over the assembly under the control of the enemy.

I didn't know charismatic group agree with tongues because they don't like word of faith preaching.

 

[ltwin]

I didn't know charismatic group agree with tongues because they don't like word of faith preaching.

Speaking in tongues has been an essential characteristic of Pentecostalism since it started in 1906. When the Charismatic Renewal started in the 1960s, tongues was a big part of it. The Word of Faith movement only actually emerged as a distinct thing in like the 1970s or 80s. So, the modern day teaching on and practice of speaking in tongues is older than the Word of Faith Movement, and WoF teachers are just inheriting teaching that already existed. They haven't made up anything new in this area.

Most Pentecostal denominations believe that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. There are other evidences, outcomes and results that Pentecostals ascribe to Spirit baptism (Other immediate results include giving God praise, having joy, and desiring to testify about Jesus. Enduring or permanent results include Christ glorified and revealed in a greater way, a deeper passion for souls, greater power to witness, a more effective prayer life, greater love for and insight into the Bible, and the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit.)

Charismatics believe that speaking in tongues is one of the gifts of the Spirit and that it should not be forbidden but used to build up the body of Christ. However, they are less prone to make it the "initial physical evidence" of Spirit baptism.

 

[Yahu]

I didn't know charismatic group agree with tongues because they don't like word of faith preaching.

You don't make any sense. I already asked how WOF doctrine differed concerning tongues earlier in the thread. I don't see any difference between WOF verses non-WOF on the tongues issue.

The only commonality on not liking WOF is because this is a non-WOF forum.