POLL: Was Corinthians' Glossolalia the same as the Charismatics'?

[rakovsky]

Here is the question I am trying to get at, but it's hard to word for a simple Yes/No poll: If Corinthians' glossolalia was the same as the modern Charismatics', and Charismatics' glossolalia is psychological in nature, then what does that say about the Corinthians' own glossolalia?


First, we must consider whether the Charismatics have the same experience as the Corinthians, or whether the Corinthians were speaking in national languages.

In other words: Were the Corinthians speaking in foreign national languages, or were both the Charismatics and Corinthians speaking phonetics that are not national languages?

One Orthodox monk writes:

However, the question arises, did a Church service that St Paul attended sound like an Assemblies of God service today? We really do not have any way to know…
orthodoxmonk.blogspot.com/2010/10/gift-of-tongues.html

Why some people think they were the same experience:
A) Some propose that the Corinthians were speaking in angels' tongues and that people cannot understand them. In 1 Corinthians 13, we read: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass.” But this never says what exactly those tongues of angels are. It does not say whether the angels have a different phonetic pattern of speech, as in the Bible the angels' sentences are comprehensible, and secondly it does not say whether the Corinthians were speaking in angels' supposed tongues.

B) Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13-14 that when people speak in tongues "no one understandeth him". If the person was speaking in a national language, then it seems like at least someone, like a traveler from another country would understand him. One theologian said that Corinth had travelers from other countries and so someone should have been able to understand the language if it was a real language.

C) Paul warned that Corinthians should be careful to speak at most two at a time in tongues and to have a translator, because otherwise bystanders would think that they were being "maniacs". This resembles the impression that Charismatics speaking in tongues sometimes makes on critics.
But this does not prove whether the Corinthians were speaking national languages, because people talking at once in national languages could make the same impression.

D) Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14 that a person speaking in tongues speaks to God because no one understands the person. However, in Acts the kinds of tongues discussed were languages directed by the spirit that foreigners understood and were meant for the foreigners to do so, so 1 Corinthians 14 must be talking about a different kind of method of speech, one that no one understands. Since the prayer is directed to God, it means that God understands the speech. In this case, it means a tongue that no one understands but God, a categorization that excludes foreigners from understanding it.
But the counterargument would be that Paul was just talking about no one at Corinth understanding the tongues.

E) Another argument is that in Acts whenever the apostles spoke in tongues, they were speaking in chaotic phonetics, even at Pentecost, and that God gave foreign bystanders the miraculous ability to understand it. But if that is what is meant by speaking in tongues, then why could not Christian believers at Corinth understand tongues, while at least some bystanders at Pentecost who heard the languages were disbelievers?

F) Razare made this argument to say that it's the same thing:

If a person tries to say tongues is only as a sign for unbelievers where someone speaks their national language, then they ignore several verses I mentioned where it says tongues is not for man but for God. And it also ignores that tongues can be for the church, where people interpret to edify the church, where by someone interprets supernaturally by the spirit.

How can tongues both be for men to interpret naturally, who are lost and natively understand the language, but then also tongues be a language no man knows, but only God? It's more than one thing.

G) Charismatics pray and feel sincerely and emotionally led to perform their tongues. They ask why they could be led in a mistaken spiritual direction after sincere prayer. They don't think God would allow that spiritual misdirection to happen.
Unfortunately, there are major cases of sincere believers being led in opposite directions on teachings and practices even after sincere prayer. Two examples are (1) the mutually opposing positions on infant baptism among Reformed Protestants and (2) the very opposing positions on the experience during communion meals between Lutherans/Catholics on one hand and the Salvation Army/Quakers on the other, the latter group not even observing ritual meals.

H) Paul said in 1 Cor, I speak in tongues more than any of you, not I speak in more tongues than you. So he did not mean I am educated in more languages than you. He was talking about an inspired practice of some kind.

Why other people think that the Corinthians were speaking in national tongues
A) A few Church fathers said that the Corinthians were speaking national languages. However, those Church fathers lived in a later era a few centuries removed. They were not present when the Corinthians were speaking in tongues. St. John Chrysostom wrote that they were speaking national languages in Corinth, but he said that the phenomenon was obscure for him and had ended by his time.

B) Paul spoke in tongues successfully to spread the gospel to foreigners a few times in Acts. Plus there was the case of Pentecost when speaking in tongues meant national languages. Since Paul never specifies in 1 Corinthians whether the Corinthians were speaking national languages, the default understanding of what language he had in mind could be the same experience that we see narrated in Acts, ie. one of speaking real national languages.

C) Paul further connected his tongues to the Corinthians when he said:

I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. (1 Cor 14)​

Here he is talking about words that are not in his understanding, but as we know from Acts, Paul's tongues were understood to foreigners who spoke languages that he did not understand. So when Paul said that he speaks in tongues in this passage, he was not saying that he has studied foreign tongues and speaks them naturally. But this does not rule out either that he is speaking in national languages unknown to him.

D) Paul instructs the Corinthians to use an interpreter. For there to be an interpreter, it suggests that there was a real national language to interpret.
But Pentecostals also sometimes invite in interpreters, but that doesn't show that what the Pentecostals are interpreting is a real national language. They can just be interpreting the speaker's thoughts or emotions that are expressed in the chaotic phonetics.

E) Paul says that with no interpreter, speaking in tongues makes one sound like a barbarian. Barbarians speak foreign tongues. However, perhaps he minds that talking in chaotic speech patterns makes one sound like an uncultured barbarian, as opposed to a person from a foreign civilized nation.

F) Speaking in tongues was a gift from the spirit to spread the gospel to other nations. So it doesn't make sense why the early Christians at Corinth would be made by the Spirit to speak in phonetics that are not real foreign languages. However, this tension exists in Paul's own statement on tongues in 1 Cor 14: if tongues are for preaching to foreigners like in Acts 2 and in places where Paul uses tongues with foreigners in Acts, then why does he say that "no one understandeth him" in 1 Cor 14, unless he was talking about two kinds of tongues, the Corinthian one being a special prayer one? Maybe when he wrote about "no one understandeth him", he was just talking about no one at Corinth understanding the foreign tongues?

 

[Biblicist]

If Corinthians' glossolalia was the same as the modern Charismatics', and Charismatics' glossolalia is psychological in nature, then what does that say about the Corinthians' own glossolalia?[/quote]
You should probably qualify your use of “psychological in nature” as our ability to pray in the Spirit is not a psychological activity in isolation, but one where the Holy Spirit in some unknown way speaks to the Father (and to the Father only) through us.

In your point ‘F’ you stated “Speaking in tongues was a gift from the spirit to spread the gospel to other nations” which is something that Paul certainly never alludes to. Paul states that when we speak in tongues (pray in the Spirit) that the Holy Spirit will always address the Father. Some many people will attempt to point to the Day of Acts (as you also did) to demonstrate that tongues is supposed to be used to evangelise the lost, but even on this unique event the use of tongues failed to reach the unsaved, where it only served to confuse them and if Peter had not have provided an evangelistic message then the crowd would have walked away thinking that these Judean’s were drunk and little more.

If our ability to speak in tongues was intended to be used for evangelism, then why did Paul not talk about this amazing possibility, where instead, he says in 1Cor 14:2

"For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit".​

If Paul had of believed that tongues could be used to evangelise the lost then he certainly would not have said that speaking in tongues IS NOT TO MEN but to GOD or he would have at least qualified his point!

 

[rakovsky]

You should probably qualify your use of “psychological in nature” as our ability to pray in the Spirit is not a psychological activity in isolation, but one where the Holy Spirit in some unknown way speaks to the Father (and to the Father only) through us.

I mean the proposal that it is basically psychological in nature, an ability that actually any person, Christian or not, can produce in a stream of phonetics, deliberate or not, rather than a supernatural miracle gift that only the elect have.

In your point ‘F’ you stated “Speaking in tongues was a gift from the spirit to spread the gospel to other nations” which is something that Paul certainly never alludes to. Paul states that when we speak in tongues (pray in the Spirit) that the Holy Spirit will always address the Father. Some many people will attempt to point to the Day of Acts (as you also did) to demonstrate that tongues is supposed to be used to evangelise the lost, but even on this unique event the use of tongues failed to reach the unsaved, where it only served to confuse them and if Peter had not have provided an evangelistic message then the crowd would have walked away thinking that these Judean’s were drunk and little more.

If our ability to speak in tongues was intended to be used for evangelism, then why did Paul not talk about this amazing possibility, where instead, he says in 1Cor 14:2

"For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit".​

If Paul had of believed that tongues could be used to evangelise the lost then he certainly would not have said that speaking in tongues IS NOT TO MEN but to GOD or he would have at least qualified his point!

Yes, I see that Paul's writing here is an argument for the belief that this is not a real national language (eg. Persian).

D) In the list of "Pro" arguments seems to have internal tension.
On one hand, at Pentecost, people walking by understand it and Paul uses it in Acts to talk to foreigners.
But then in the verse you've cited it says that tongues are only done to talk to God.

So there is an internal tension. A way to solve it is by saying that Paul was talking about two kind of miracle "tongues".

 

[Razare]

If tongues is psychological then God's a liar and all the apostles were false prophets and Christianity is a useless religion of liars.

Any other way of dicing it and slicing it, twists scripture and a person is deluding themselves with their interpretation.

Some might want to believe the apostles were liars but happened to see Jesus raised. If so, don't bother reading the NT. It was a revelation given by liars of an event they did not comprehend.

And the reason God would be implicated with lying, is he sent Jesus who picked out the apostles and Christ was sorely mistake when he picked them because they were just all deceived about what they said.

 

[rakovsky]

If tongues is psychological then God's a liar and all the apostles were false prophets and Christianity is a useless religion of liars.

Hello, Razare!

Do you think unintelligible tongues typically produced today are the same kind of tongues that the Corinthians experienced?

 

[Razare]

Hello, Razare!

Do you think unintelligible tongues typically produced today are the same kind of tongues that the Corinthians experienced?

Tongues has 3 modes as quoted in scripture. Just like the "gifts of healings" is plural in scripture, tongues is plural, but in the many tongues that can be spoken there are 3 modes given in scripture. It is not 1 gift.

Type 1 - Acts 2:8 is tongues as a sign and wonder, to unbelievers, just as said in 1 Corinthians 14:22. Because it is a sign, this is the rarest manifestation. It is like calling fire down from heaven as a sign. You don't see it every day.

Type 2 - Is tongues as prophecy to the church, not as a sign or wonder. While 1 Corinthians 14:22 mentions that tongues is not for believers but for unbelievers, because prophecy is for the church and not tongues for the church... it gives a qualification where by tongues becomes equivalent to prophecy, thus meaning when it becomes equal with prophecy it is then for the church. Tongues + Interpretation of Tongues is prophecy. 1 Corinthians 14:5 This is the 2nd most common. This is quite common in Pentecostal churches, I have seen it happen at least once.

Type 3 - Tongues as a prayer language directly to God, with no interpretation. It says in 1 Corinthians 14:28 that if there is no interpretation a person should pray in tongues privately to God. It does not say they should not pray in tongues, it says they should not do it in church congregation but do it privately to God. When a person speaks in tongues in this manner, they pray to God, and they are not speaking to man, 1 Corinthians 14:2. This is the most common because it is available to all believers. It is a gift we get through the atonement of Christ, and not a special manifestation of the spirit, but a common manifestation just like salvation is common to all who believe and not apportioned as the spirit wills.

This is the only way to interpret tongues from scripture, otherwise it becomes contradictory. If a person tries to say tongues is only as a sign for unbelievers where someone speaks their national language, then they ignore several verses I mentioned where it says tongues is not for man but for God. And it also ignores that tongues can be for the church, where people interpret to edify the church, where by someone interprets supernaturally by the spirit.

How can tongues both be for men to interpret naturally, who are lost and natively understand the language, but then also tongues be a language no man knows, but only God? It's more than one thing.

Before I was saved some angel came to me speaking another language once. No idea what they said. Sometimes people who speak in tongues, speak in the language of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1). If it is of angels, no man knows it.

And to answer your question, yes, what we get today is the same as what they had back then. Nothing changed with God or the atonement. What did change is scoffers came along and said it was impossible, and then Christians began believing the scoffers rather than God or his word. And so they began interpreting scripture according to the doctrine of scoffers. Certainly if we want to scoff, tongues is impossible, and if that is the centerpiece of my Christian theology, then certainly what I said is incorrect.

 

[rakovsky]

Hi Razare,

I am inclined to think you are right and that it's the same thing.
But I am not sure there is a slam dunk argument to prove it. And I think that mainstream Christians would be very divided on this question. I am not sure how to prove to them that it's the same thing.

If a person tries to say tongues is only as a sign for unbelievers where someone speaks their national language, then they ignore several verses I mentioned where it says tongues is not for man but for God.

Yes, well "maybe" it means that the national tongues, when spoken with no foreigners, are for God. And the national tongues' gift works to edify the church and foreigners in the church and outside it, when someone interprets supernaturally like you said:

And it also ignores that tongues can be for the church, where people interpret to edify the church, where by someone interprets supernaturally by the spirit.

How can tongues both be for men to interpret naturally, who are lost and natively understand the language, but then also tongues be a language no man knows, but only God? It's more than one thing.

But I still think you made a good argument in saying that.

 

[Razare]

Hi Razare,

I am inclined to think you are right and that it's the same thing.
But I am not sure there is a slam dunk argument to prove it. And I think that mainstream Christians would be very divided on this question. I am not sure how to prove to them that it's the same thing.

I think only a preterist has a legitimate case not to believe in it being the same thing.

I do not like preterism, but there is a logic to it. If the atonement wasn't finalized until 70 AD, and then revelation was largely fulfilled then, then there would be a dispensational argument as to why tongues ceased.

And really to them, we would try to get them off of preterism before we convince them of tongues.

Yet from scripture, to believe that tongues and other gifts passed away not as part of God's plan revealed in scripture, but just as a common sense argument, then really that's a bad position.

Common sense says Christ can't be raised from the dead after 3 days. So if common sense were our guide, then most of the rest of scripture fails along with tongues.

A lot of people who are against gifts quote this verse: 1 Corinthians 13:10

But if a person reads that with a high degree of self-honesty, they'll realize the context is talking about when prophecy ends during the millennial kingdom. Zechariah 13:4 - where prophecy ceases, but it is not yet.

And 1 Corinthians 13:12 - For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

"but then" referring to that day when perfection has come. That day will be marked by no longer seeing through a mirror dimly, but by "I shall know just as I am also known."

Not many people claim to know as God knows them, which is to know perfectly. So that day has not come.

So then preterism is the only sort of construct I know of which attempts to legitimately argue against gifts like tongues. Arguing against preterism is a mess, though, and I generally wont bother.

 

[Biblicist]

I mean the proposal that it is basically psychological in nature, an ability that actually any person, Christian or not, can produce in a stream of phonetics, deliberate or not, rather than a supernatural miracle gift that only the elect have.

Okay. As we are told that when we pray in tongues that it is always the Holy Spirit who is the one who is praying through us to the Father, then we know that as only a Believer can have the Holy Spirit residing within him that only a born again Believer is able to pray in the Holy Spirit. It is not something that can be taught but where we must simply trust God and his Word and allow the Holy Spirit who resides within us to perform his mandated ministry – as to how we are to “allow” the Holy Spirit to first do this is a good question but if we allow him to do so then he will and without exception.

As I have been able to pray in the Spirit for 42 years and where I have been surrounded by those who have been praying in the Spirit even longer than this, I could possibly be forgiven if I were to occasionally succumb to feeling that a Believer’s ability to have the eschatological Holy Spirit praying through him could be almost somewhat ordinary or an everyday experience or even something that could be seen as nothing but commonplace for the Believer; for me, to hear a Christian saying that they can pray in the Spirit is much the same as them saying that they can breath air or drink water – but this is what can happen when we allow our familiarity with God or anyone else to dull our senses of something that is unique.

But there are certainly those times where I wonder why the Father chose to provide his children with the Holy Spirit as this compels the Spirit of God to dwell within imperfect creatures. To add to this, he has also authorised the Holy Spirit to pray to him on our behalf where the Holy Spirit somehow takes our inner desires and thoughts and conveys them via our tongues in a perfect angelic utterance to our heavenly Father.

With these thoughts in mind, we also have the situation where we have been grafted into the Kingdom of God by the sacrifice of the Son and through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit we have been both sanctified by his presence; through the work of Christ on the Cross and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, we have now entered into the Kingdom of God which is both not yet but now is.

We can sum up the Biblical record with how the Children of God are able to pray in the Holy Spirit, by recognising that the Holy Spirit is not only our down payment of the future Kingdom of God but that the groanings of the eschatological Holy Spirit are a declaration of the Kingdom of God which is not yet but which is now here among his children. In this present world we have been enabled to pray or speak in the Spirit to the Father but without any cogniscant understanding, but when we enter into the fullness of the Kingdom of God we will be not only speaking in an angelic language but we will be doing so with our understanding.

Yes, I see that Paul's writing here is an argument for the belief that this is not a real national language (eg. Persian).

D) In the list of "Pro" arguments seems to have internal tension.
On one hand, at Pentecost, people walking by understand it and Paul uses it in Acts to talk to foreigners.
But then in the verse you've cited it says that tongues are only done to talk to God.

So there is an internal tension. A way to solve it is by saying that Paul was talking about two kind of miracle "tongues".

For many years I used to accept the common held understanding that when Acts 2 spoke about the 120 speaking in tongues that the content of what they were saying was supposed to be an evangelistic message. A few years back I realised that Luke did not refer to tongues in this way but that they were instead words of praise and thanks that were being directed toward the Father and the Father alone. The only difference between the tongues of Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12, 13 & 14 is that the crowd were able to gain a glimpse as to what was being said as the Holy Spirit chose to use human languages and not angelic tongues - after all, the Day was about the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Church of God.

Now we don’t know if the 120 were in an Upper Room or within one of the Temple courts but I could not imagine what the 120 were saying would have been easily understood by the apparent thousands who were within the immediate vicinity; this means that no matter what the 120 were saying that the crowd would have struggled to make out what was being said. Then we have the problem that the 120 were speaking with heavy rustic Galilean accents and as they would have had no idea what they were saying, then each one of them would have stopped to breath (as we do) and regularly failed to apply correct emphasis with some of the words. This means that it would have been very hard to understand what was happening as their speech would have been extremely disjointed.

 

[rakovsky]

I think only a preterist has a legitimate case not to believe in it being the same thing.

I do not like preterism, but there is a logic to it. If the atonement wasn't finalized until 70 AD, and then revelation was largely fulfilled then, then there would be a dispensational argument as to why tongues ceased.

And really to them, we would try to get them off of preterism before we convince them of tongues.

Yet from scripture, to believe that tongues and other gifts passed away not as part of God's plan revealed in scripture, but just as a common sense argument, then really that's a bad position.

Common sense says Christ can't be raised from the dead after 3 days. So if common sense were our guide, then most of the rest of scripture fails along with tongues.

A lot of people who are against gifts quote this verse: 1 Corinthians 13:10

But if a person reads that with a high degree of self-honesty, they'll realize the context is talking about when prophecy ends during the millennial kingdom. Zechariah 13:4 - where prophecy ceases, but it is not yet.

And 1 Corinthians 13:12 - For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

"but then" referring to that day when perfection has come. That day will be marked by no longer seeing through a mirror dimly, but by "I shall know just as I am also known."

Not many people claim to know as God knows them, which is to know perfectly. So that day has not come.

So then preterism is the only sort of construct I know of which attempts to legitimately argue against gifts like tongues. Arguing against preterism is a mess, though, and I generally wont bother.

I understand the issue you are raising, Razare. Nowhere does it clearly say (to me at least) that "the speaking in tongues will end with the apostles" or something quite like that.

The overall issue though is that faithful Christians in 300 AD up to now had to deal with the reality of the leaving of some miraculous things that they had in the 1st century, and had to think of explanations for them.

Take for example Jesus' appearances. Why did Jesus have to leave instead of just staying after the resurrection and making his kingdom? Why did he not come back in the apostles' lifetimes? When he was here, why did he basically only appear to a bit over a dozen apostles, and then not in a way to the 500 that has left us with detailed accounts in the nonChristian records? After the Ascension, John received a detailed visitation by Jesus and the Revelation, but besides that, what happened to Jesus' appearances? Basically, mainstream Christians have been left with a narrative where Jesus rose, made limited appearances except for the now-mysterious appearance to 500, and then basically left. If signs like the resurrection appearances and speaking in tongues were important to produce faith, why did Jesus stop appearing to people.

The same kind of issue goes with Jesus saying that we can resist poison miraculously as Christians and handle snakes in Mark 16. The mainstream Christians of 300-1500 AD didn't reject that anyone could ever speak in tongues or get visited by Jesus again, but then needed to think up reasons why even for very sincere heartfelt believers who spent their lives in missions or under persecution extreme signs like visitations and immunity to poison were now extremely rare.

We are left with a situation where Jesus ends in Mark 16 saying that Christians will speak in tongues and have other gifts, but he doesn't give a cut off time, and then prayerful, faithful Christians in later generations are faced with a reality where certain signs are extremely rare if ever occurring.

So I don't know how to definitely prove that Christians should or shouldn't be having these extreme experiences, getting visits, handling snakes, speaking in national languages, etc

 

[rakovsky]

I could not imagine what the 120 were saying would have been easily understood by the apparent thousands who were within the immediate vicinity; this means that no matter what the 120 were saying that the crowd would have struggled to make out what was being said. Then we have the problem that the 120 were speaking with heavy rustic Galilean accents and as they would have had no idea what they were saying, then each one of them would have stopped to breath (as we do) and regularly failed to apply correct emphasis with some of the words. This means that it would have been very hard to understand what was happening as their speech would have been extremely disjointed.

I don't see quite the same problem. I can imagine that God gave them a miraculous ability to speak in other languages and then they spouted off this language all at once, with breathers like you mentioned.

Getting back to the main question though, I understand what you are saying- you feel the Holy Spirit in you and you feel close to God and the train of phonetics is part of your praise. But you can sincerely feel that this is what you are going through, but mainstream Christians, maybe 95% of sincere Christians, could say that you are just having a positive prayer to God filled with the Spirit and then expressing it in a stream of chaotic phonetics without what you are doing actually being a real miracle "gift". It's like when people clap, shout or jump in ecstasy because they are inspired by God. It doesn't mean to mainstream Christians that the clapping is actually a miracle or a real miracle "sign", they just see what charismatics have today as just an ex-contemporaneous emotional and mental outburst.

I don't know how I could prove to them differently.

 

[Biblicist]

Getting back to the main question though, I understand what you are saying- you feel the Holy Spirit in you and you feel close to God and the train of phonetics is part of your praise. But you can sincerely feel that this is what you are going through, but mainstream Christians, maybe 95% of sincere Christians, could say that you are just having a positive prayer to God filled with the Spirit and then expressing it in a stream of chaotic phonetics without what you are doing actually being a real miracle "gift". It's like when people clap, shout or jump in ecstasy because they are inspired by God. It doesn't mean to mainstream Christians that the clapping is actually a miracle or a real miracle "sign", they just see what charismatics have today as just an ex-contemporaneous emotional and mental outburst.

I don't know how I could prove to them differently.

Even though almost 19 centuries have passed since the completion of the Scriptures and the beginning of what we often refer to as being the return to the Full Gospel at the commencement of the last century; and that it had been over 1600 years since the arrival of the Dark Ages where the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit within the church was hardly welcomed, I have no doubt that Corinth and the other churches who encountered the Full Gospel say even 20 years after Pentecost could have asked much the same thing.

As Paul’s letters were intended for the Church up until the return of the Lord, you have to ask yourself why Paul, who was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not see any need to explain how the church in later decades or centuries was supposed to connect their ability to pray in the Spirit with the early church of the first decade who did so.

As the Holy Spirit is our inner witness to the truth and that God’s Written Word is the truth, then how can so many millions of Believers be deceived, for that matter, I could never imagine the Father allowing such a situation to occur. As for me and many millions of others, we are simply prepared to accept God’s Written Word as being the same today as it was in the first few decades and to believe that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth.

 

[rakovsky]

Biblicist, I am not dismissing your personal feelings out of hand, but trying to think how best one would prove that the modern Charismatics have the same exact experience as the Corinthians. I can see that this is a valid argument - you feel sincerely inside that this is what God is making you experience, and why would od allow you to be confused about that?

You write:

As the Holy Spirit is our inner witness to the truth and that God’s Written Word is the truth, then how can so many millions of Believers be deceived, for that matter, I could never imagine the Father allowing such a situation to occur. As for me and many millions of others, we are simply prepared to accept God’s Written Word as being the same today as it was in the first few decades and to believe that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth.

I understand that one would not expect a situation to occur where many people were wrongly but sincerely thinking that they were having holy experiences in the spirit.
However, we have to face the fact that millions of sincere people really do feel that they are being led in the spirit to something that is not for real. One example of that is when two groups of Protestants feel that the spirit leads them in opposite directions. The Calvinists that hold closely to Calvin's teachings and to Presbyterian Confessionalism accept Infant Baptism, while there is a movement of believers who came out of the Calvinist heritage who teach that infant baptism is wrong. Many in both sides of this debate feel that the Spirit is leading them to their respective positions.

Another example might be the Crusades, when medieval Christians felt that they were being led to attack the Muslim hordes, while during the Crusades they in fact launched wars on fellow Christians.

So sometimes it happens that a person sincerely feels that God is leading them to something when many other Christians on the outside would feel that in fact they are not being led there supernaturally by the Spirit.

It's not that I prefer for believers to be confused about what they are experiencing, it just looks like sometimes it happens.

 

[Biblicist]

Biblicist, I am not dismissing your personal feelings out of hand, but trying to think how best one would prove that the modern Charismatics have the same exact experience as the Corinthians. I can see that this is a valid argument - you feel sincerely inside that this is what God is making you experience, and why would od allow you to be confused about that?

The question you are asking probably falls within the realm of literary reception theory, where you are asking if we contemporary Pentecostals and charismatics are viewing the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, with the ability to be able to pray in the Spirit, as being the same as that of the early Church. As we can legitimately refer to the Scriptures as being a collection of literary works, if we place your question within this paradigm then your question is certainly valid.

Reception theory, be it historical or literary, addresses how a specific people group will interpret a specific literary work or element of history through specific cultural filters or through a filter that is based on a common set of shared group expectations. Here’s where the Continuist will diverge from the cessationist as the Continuist will read the Scriptures through a set of shared experiences (be they real or not) whereas the cessationist will read the Scriptures through a shared paradigm of an accepted and well entrenched lack of experiences.

Even though I am thoroughly convinced that the Pentecostal and charismatic stands on the high ground when it comes to the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, this does not mean that all of our viewpoints and expectations, which themselves are a part of this reception theory have produced doctrines that are fully in line with the Scriptures. This means that reception theory can be both good and bad but thankfully as Christians we have both the Written Word of God and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.

As I mentioned in my previous posts, it is important to recognise that neither the Holy Spirit nor Paul would fail to detail any potential issues for the Church of later years when it comes to the shared experiences of those within the Church of the first few decades. I could not imagine for a second that the manner in which the Holy Spirit works through the contemporary Believer, be it praying in the Spirit, wisdom, knowledge, faith, healings, powers or discernment that they could be any different to that of the early church – it simply makes no sense as it would undoubtedly undermine the veracity of the entirety of the Scriptures.

You write:

I understand that one would not expect a situation to occur where many people were wrongly but sincerely thinking that they were having holy experiences in the spirit.
However, we have to face the fact that millions of sincere people really do feel that they are being led in the spirit to something that is not for real. One example of that is when two groups of Protestants feel that the spirit leads them in opposite directions. The Calvinists that hold closely to Calvin's teachings and to Presbyterian Confessionalism accept Infant Baptism, while there is a movement of believers who came out of the Calvinist heritage who teach that infant baptism is wrong. Many in both sides of this debate feel that the Spirit is leading them to their respective positions.

Another example might be the Crusades, when medieval Christians felt that they were being led to attack the Muslim hordes, while during the Crusades they in fact launched wars on fellow Christians.

So sometimes it happens that a person sincerely feels that God is leading them to something when many other Christians on the outside would feel that in fact they are not being led there supernaturally by the Spirit.

It's not that I prefer for believers to be confused about what they are experiencing, it just looks like sometimes it happens.

You've raised some good points but they are better directed more to the Gospel message itself where some could challenge us by saying that as there have been so many denominations and even divergent views within each of these denominations, that it must imply that it would be impossible for us to ever know what is truth. But this is more a sympton of the fallen and frail human heart as man will always overlay his (ours - yours - and my own) views upon God's Word.

 

[rakovsky]

The question you are asking probably falls within the realm of literary reception theory, where you are asking if we contemporary Pentecostals and charismatics are viewing the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, with the ability to be able to pray in the Spirit, as being the same as that of the early Church. As we can legitimately refer to the Scriptures as being a collection of literary works, if we place your question within this paradigm then your question is certainly valid.

Reception theory, be it historical or literary, addresses how a specific people group will interpret a specific literary work or element of history through specific cultural filters or through a filter that is based on a common set of shared group expectations. Here’s where the Continuist will diverge from the cessationist as the Continuist will read the Scriptures through a set of shared experiences (be they real or not) whereas the cessationist will read the Scriptures through a shared paradigm of an accepted and well entrenched lack of experiences.

Even though I am thoroughly convinced that the Pentecostal and charismatic stands on the high ground when it comes to the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, this does not mean that all of our viewpoints and expectations, which themselves are a part of this reception theory have produced doctrines that are fully in line with the Scriptures. This means that reception theory can be both good and bad but thankfully as Christians we have both the Written Word of God and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.

As I mentioned in my previous posts, it is important to recognise that neither the Holy Spirit nor Paul would fail to detail any potential issues for the Church of later years when it comes to the shared experiences of those within the Church of the first few decades. I could not imagine for a second that the manner in which the Holy Spirit works through the contemporary Believer, be it praying in the Spirit, wisdom, knowledge, faith, healings, powers or discernment that they could be any different to that of the early church – it simply makes no sense as it would undoubtedly undermine the veracity of the entirety of the Scriptures.


You've raised some good points but they are better directed more to the Gospel message itself where some could challenge us by saying that as there have been so many denominations and even divergent views within each of these denominations, that it must imply that it would be impossible for us to ever know what is truth. But this is more a sympton of the fallen and frail human heart as man will always overlay his (ours - yours - and my own) views upon God's Word.

Biblicist,
Let me give you an example that will address the two issues you've discussed - Reception and divergent doctrines to which people feel guided.

(A) In the Lutheran/Orthodox/Catholic communion, its participants believe that Christ's own body is present in the bread itself. Lutherans adhere to Sola Scriptura and use the tools of literary analysis to show this about the communion, but I think that they would say that the Spirit also guides them in this direction. When they take communion, they feel inspired and feel as if they are actually taking in Christ's body.

(B) At the other extreme, Quakerism teaches that communion meals like in the Last Supper are a so called "outward sign" of people's spiritual unity with each other. Quakers do not have ritual meals for communion, they just consider normal, loving meals with their family to be this experience. They believe that the spirit has led them to do this. Zwinglians and American Baptists are like the Quakers in a way. They do have ritual meals for communion that they take very seriously, but they have a view of "memorialism". Memorialists don't think that believers actually commune with Jesus any closer than at any other time of prayerful fellowship. They also commonly believe that the spirit has led them to this teaching.

So in both cases (A) and (B), the believers sincerely feel that the Spirit has led them to their respective opposing teachings, and in both cases they propose that their experience has been the same experience that occurred in the Bible. Lutherans and Catholics consider the Last Supper and Eucharist to have Jesus actually in the food, while Quakers and Baptists consider the meals and rituals to only be outward signs. They both think that their rituals are repetitions of what happened in the Bible, but such a view contradicts the other's view.

Similarly there are two common views of what happened in Corinthians - one view is that what Charismatics experience with a stream of incomprehensible phonetics is the same experience; another view is that the Corinthians were speaking national languages like in Acts 2, and that Charismatics are mistaken just like Lutherans would say that the Quakers/Baptists are about what exactly happened at the last supper. So until we have cleared up whether the Corinthians spoke national languages in 1 Cor 14, it is hard to say whether Charismatics experience the same thing, because just sincerely feeling that someone has experienced the same phenomenon as happened someplace in the Bible doesn't mean necessarily that he/she has.

So Biblicist - I understand what you are saying, you feel inspired and are sincere, feel God's work and power in you, leading you etc. But it's also a fact that many people have felt this sincerely when I think you and I would agree that in some cases this is not what happened. One example I think is the "burning bosom" of Mormonism. There are sincere believers in Jesus who don't know (I think) the real, secret teachings of Mormonism and then meet Mormon missionaries and sincerely pray and feel "burning bosom" of Mormonism. Later on some of them realize what is going on and leave Mormonism. Personally, I feel repulsed at how people feel that the spirit leads them to Mormonism just like you probably do. I am not interested in thinking that sincere Christians end up in Mormonism.

It just seems to me that if we go by our sincere prayerful feelings alone, then we can easily end up in wrong directions. It seems to me a real problem or risk. The way that the Orthodox/Anglicans/Catholics/Methodists try to address this risk is by teaching prima scriptura - that both Tradition and the Bible are foundations of religion, so people should avoid diverting from these traditions and from what the Church teaches.

In any case, my first goal in this thread is seeing whether Charismatics and Corinthians experienced the same thing. And I am sympathetic to saying that they did because Charismatics feel sincerely that it's the same thing, but my difficulty is that just because someone sincerely feels they had the same experience doesn't mean that they do, nor does feeling led in that direction.

Still, i will add what you said to the OP.

 

[Biblicist]

Biblicist,
Let me give you an example that will address the two issues you've discussed - Reception and divergent doctrines to which people feel guided.

(A) In the Lutheran/Orthodox/Catholic communion, its participants believe that Christ's own body is present in the bread itself. Lutherans adhere to Sola Scriptura and use the tools of literary analysis to show this about the communion, but I think that they would say that the Spirit also guides them in this direction. When they take communion, they feel inspired and feel as if they are actually taking in Christ's body.

(B) At the other extreme, Quakerism teaches that communion meals like in the Last Supper are a so called "outward sign" of people's spiritual unity with each other. Quakers do not have ritual meals for communion, they just consider normal, loving meals with their family to be this experience. They believe that the spirit has led them to do this. Zwinglians and American Baptists are like the Quakers in a way. They do have ritual meals for communion that they take very seriously, but they have a view of "memorialism". Memorialists don't think that believers actually commune with Jesus any closer than at any other time of prayerful fellowship. They also commonly believe that the spirit has led them to this teaching.

So in both cases (A) and (B), the believers sincerely feel that the Spirit has led them to their respective opposing teachings, and in both cases they propose that their experience has been the same experience that occurred in the Bible. Lutherans and Catholics consider the Last Supper and Eucharist to have Jesus actually in the food, while Quakers and Baptists consider the meals and rituals to only be outward signs. They both think that their rituals are repetitions of what happened in the Bible, but such a view contradicts the other's view.

Similarly there are two common views of what happened in Corinthians - one view is that what Charismatics experience with a stream of incomprehensible phonetics is the same experience; another view is that the Corinthians were speaking national languages like in Acts 2, and that Charismatics are mistaken just like Lutherans would say that the Quakers/Baptists are about what exactly happened at the last supper. So until we have cleared up whether the Corinthians spoke national languages in 1 Cor 14, it is hard to say whether Charismatics experience the same thing, because just sincerely feeling that someone has experienced the same phenomenon as happened someplace in the Bible doesn't mean necessarily that he/she has.

So Biblicist - I understand what you are saying, you feel inspired and are sincere, feel God's work and power in you, leading you etc. But it's also a fact that many people have felt this sincerely when I think you and I would agree that in some cases this is not what happened. One example I think is the "burning bosom" of Mormonism. There are sincere believers in Jesus who don't know (I think) the real, secret teachings of Mormonism and then meet Mormon missionaries and sincerely pray and feel "burning bosom" of Mormonism. Later on some of them realize what is going on and leave Mormonism. Personally, I feel repulsed at how people feel that the spirit leads them to Mormonism just like you probably do. I am not interested in thinking that sincere Christians end up in Mormonism.

It just seems to me that if we go by our sincere prayerful feelings alone, then we can easily end up in wrong directions. It seems to me a real problem or risk. The way that the Orthodox/Anglicans/Catholics/Methodists try to address this risk is by teaching prima scriptura - that both Tradition and the Bible are foundations of religion, so people should avoid diverting from these traditions and from what the Church teaches.

When I came to the Lord as a 16 year old, other than what I had been taught as a child in an Anglican church where my parents took me for a while, beyond this limited exposure, I had absolutely no knowledge of the Scriptures. So when I became Born Again within an Evangelical cessationist setting everything was new so I had to start from scratch.

This was before the days of satellite or Christian television so unless we were to come across a good book most of us seemed to do what we had always done and for this new Christian my views were initially being conditioned by what I was receiving as a part of my communities own inherited reception theory. As I began to read the Scriptures, it did not take long to notice that there appeared to be a huge disparity between what I was observing within the church around me and what I was beginning to see within the Word. As I had no understanding of what a Pentecostal or a charismatic was, it was only after I started to purchase some Christian books that I began to realise that there were many Christians experiencing the things that I was reading about within the Scriptures.

So, was it the Holy Spirit who opened my eyes or was it that I was so new to things of the Lord that I was less inclined to be blinded by human tradition, which in itself is a set of preconditioned theories, or what we would deem to be an aspect of reception theory where a group of people believe something merely because others within their community have done so for decades or even centuries?

As this question cannot be easily answered from within either a theological framework or even logically, I would hold to the position that we gain our primary information from the Written Word where the Father has seen fit to reveal his Will to the Church through all the ages. Of course the Pentecostal and charismatic has the added benefit in that as we can (or should be able to) pray in the Spirit, where various individuals can prophesy, minister healing through the Spirit etc, then of any Christian community we should be the ones who are better able to hear from the Spirit – at least in theory where we only need to point to how so many regularly fall for the antics of these so called television ministries and as for Todd Bentley and his cronies, many should be hanging their head in shame.

This means that unlike many others, I would never say “The Holy Spirit told me so” which in my view is simply a cop-out for many where they simply want to believe what they want to believe, whereas as I have a strong interest with Pneumatology I regularly purchase the better commentaries on First Corinthians (14 hardcopy monographs so far) along with numerous specialist electronic articles and books and I have finally purchased the complete set of Craig Keener’s massive four volume work on the Book of Acts as well. As Keener has assembled most of the better opinions on each portion or passage within Acts, this helps me to be aware of most of the common understandings of a particular passage.

In any case, my first goal in this thread is seeing whether Charismatics and Corinthians experienced the same thing. And I am sympathetic to saying that they did because Charismatics feel sincerely that it's the same thing, but my difficulty is that just because someone sincerely feels they had the same experience doesn't mean that they do, nor does feeling led in that direction.

Still, i will add what you said to the OP.

This leads me back to your primary question where I can unequivocally say that the Scriptures are adamant that the normative application of tongues is within angelic or inarticulate tongues, where the Day of Pentecost was a unique and unrepeatable experience which in itself demonstrated that tongues has no value with reaching out to people groups where the missionary/apostle does not know the language.

If we were to assemble 50 unchurched individuals where we asked them to read through Paul’s writings in First Corinthians 12, 13 and 14 and asked them once they have done this as to the nature of tongues, I would be very surprised if any of them would say that tongues were anything else but angelic/inarticulate utterances. The only way that anyone could believe that New Testament tongues were supposed to be in human languages was if they hold to their own religious communities understanding.

If you wish, we can address the Scriptures within 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 along with Acts 2.

 

[rakovsky]

When I came to the Lord as a 16 year old, other than what I had been taught as a child in an Anglican church where my parents took me for a while, beyond this limited exposure, I had absolutely no knowledge of the Scriptures. So when I became Born Again within an Evangelical cessationist setting everything was new so I had to start from scratch.

This was before the days of satellite or Christian television so unless we were to come across a good book most of us seemed to do what we had always done and for this new Christian my views were initially being conditioned by what I was receiving as a part of my communities own inherited reception theory. As I began to read the Scriptures, it did not take long to notice that there appeared to be a huge disparity between what I was observing within the church around me and what I was beginning to see within the Word. As I had no understanding of what a Pentecostal or a charismatic was, it was only after I started to purchase some Christian books that I began to realise that there were many Christians experiencing the things that I was reading about within the Scriptures.

So, was it the Holy Spirit who opened my eyes or was it that I was so new to things of the Lord that I was less inclined to be blinded by human tradition, which in itself is a set of preconditioned theories, or what we would deem to be an aspect of reception theory where a group of people believe something merely because others within their community have done so for decades or even centuries?

As this question cannot be easily answered from within either a theological framework or even logically, I would hold to the position that we gain our primary information from the Written Word where the Father has seen fit to reveal his Will to the Church through all the ages. Of course the Pentecostal and charismatic has the added benefit in that as we can (or should be able to) pray in the Spirit, where various individuals can prophesy, minister healing through the Spirit etc, then of any Christian community we should be the ones who are better able to hear from the Spirit – at least in theory where we only need to point to how so many regularly fall for the antics of these so called television ministries and as for Todd Bentley and his cronies, many should be hanging their head in shame.

This means that unlike many others, I would never say “The Holy Spirit told me so” which in my view is simply a cop-out for many where they simply want to believe what they want to believe, whereas as I have a strong interest with Pneumatology I regularly purchase the better commentaries on First Corinthians (14 hardcopy monographs so far) along with numerous specialist electronic articles and books and I have finally purchased the complete set of Craig Keener’s massive four volume work on the Book of Acts as well. As Keener has assembled most of the better opinions on each portion or passage within Acts, this helps me to be aware of most of the common understandings of a particular passage.


This leads me back to your primary question where I can unequivocally say that the Scriptures are adamant that the normative application of tongues is within angelic or inarticulate tongues, where the Day of Pentecost was a unique and unrepeatable experience which in itself demonstrated that tongues has no value with reaching out to people groups where the missionary/apostle does not know the language.

If we were to assemble 50 unchurched individuals where we asked them to read through Paul’s writings in First Corinthians 12, 13 and 14 and asked them once they have done this as to the nature of tongues, I would be very surprised if any of them would say that tongues were anything else but angelic/inarticulate utterances. The only way that anyone could believe that New Testament tongues were supposed to be in human languages was if they hold to their own religious communities understanding.

If you wish, we can address the Scriptures within 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 along with Acts 2.

I like your idea of giving the bible to the un churched and asking their opinion on tongues.
I think that if they read the story of Pentecost and the times when Paul spoke to foreigners successfully with tongues, that they might be divided on what tongues meant on 1 Cor 14.

When I was a teenager I assumed that 1 Cor 14 was about Charismatics' tongues. But maybe I was associating it with Charismatics on my own because I was the one who drew the mental connection, not something in the text.

 

[Biblicist]

I like your idea of giving the bible to the un churched and asking their opinion on tongues.
I think that if they read the story of Pentecost and the times when Paul spoke to foreigners successfully with tongues, that they might be divided on what tongues meant on 1 Cor 14.

Rakovsky, you have somewhat intrigued, where has Paul mentioned (or even hinted) that he ever evanglised in tongues or for that matter that he even suggested that such a thing was possible?

When I was a teenager I assumed that 1 Cor 14 was about Charismatics' tongues. But maybe I was associating it with Charismatics on my own because I was the one who drew the mental connection, not something in the text.

If nothing else, 1Cor 14:2 should put to rest any notion that when we pray to the Father in the Spirit that the Spirit supposedly speaks in a known human language. Throughout 1Cor 14 Paul goes to great pains to explain that as tongues are always inarticulate and that no man is ever able to understand what is being said, that this is the primary reason why we must limit tongues to three occassions in our meetings and especially that we are never to allow uninterpreted tongues to occur.

 

[rakovsky]

Rakovsky, you have somewhat intrigued, where has Paul mentioned (or even hinted) that he ever evanglised in tongues or for that matter that he even suggested that such a thing was possible?

Hi B!

I could be wrong about that. I read that it happened in Acts, but now when I go to check the verses , out of what I found, I don't find it specified if their tongues were national ones.

 

[Razare]

I understand the issue you are raising, Razare. Nowhere does it clearly say (to me at least) that "the speaking in tongues will end with the apostles" or something quite like that.

The overall issue though is that faithful Christians in 300 AD up to now had to deal with the reality of the leaving of some miraculous things that they had in the 1st century, and had to think of explanations for them.

I get it. To me, it boils down that their was a lack of circulation of scripture. If someone reads scripture enough, it's all there. That the church as a whole became dumb on doctrine is probably related to prophecy anyhow.

The former and the later rain is sometimes mentioned, but I prefer the later temple shall be more glorious than the prior. Haggai 2:9