Jude 2

I've been studying this topic and my inquiring mind wants to know what the jude'sters think about it.

If I should give another option, let me know.

Kenya, I can think of a couple other options, but you may not be interested in hearing from people of that type of believing:

*I believe speaking in tongues was relevant during New Testament-times only and is no longer a valid practice (I've heard that a lot)

and

*I don't believe that speaking in tongues is a valid practice, then or now, it's a psychological phenomenon (people are kidding themselves- that kind of thing).


Or some such wording to that effect. And again, you may not want the participation of those types of believers/non-believers.

You might add some other options that would fall between the "Always accompany" or indwelled at conversion options

Pastor Bill wrote:You might add some other options that would fall between the "Always accompany" or indwelled at conversion options

Give me an example.

These "forced choice" polls need a "None of the above." or "OTHER." option.

None of those adequately or accurately define my view.

Pastor Gary wrote:These "forced choice" polls need a "None of the above." or "OTHER." option.

None of those adequately or accurately define my view.

Sorry. Forgot about that option.

So what would your response/option say, Pastor G?

LOL, okay, this one will be mine, if you add it....

At one time, I believed it was the evidence of being indwelled by a third/part of God, called the Holy Spirit, the last in a three step process.

Then, later, I believed it was just one of many manifestations of simply being born again, and there was no three part process.

Now, I'm really really not convinced it's valid at all. Then, or now.


I'm undecided.

I had chosen the "Always accompanies" option because that was closest, but I can't say it is completely accurate.

I do feel that the indwelling of the spirit is separate from salvation (and was biblically unless you feel the disciples were unsaved till the day of pentecost)

And I do feel that tongues is an initial evidence, but I can't say that it is the only evidence. I do believe that one aspect of speaking in tongues is release of control, and that is hard for many people. This is one of the reasons I think tongues is seen as evidence (and even used as evidence biblically) because it shows a release of control to God.

BUT this is not Evidence to prove to someone else, I know I received the indwelling the night I first spoke in tongues, but it wasn't for anyone other than me (as a matter of fact, I was alone in my dorm room, having only attended a pentecostal church a couple of times, so it wasn't mimicing or tradition)

Where the problem lies is in two things.

1 people try to use it as evidence to prove to others how spiritual they are, and in fact just get more fleshly. and

2 tonguesis the least of the gifts, too many people don't want to grow from there, they want to elevate tongues (and other sign gifts) to be most spiritual and throw wisdom, knowledge, and discernment out the door.

The fact is tongues is of God, and has it's purposes, but as always Man tries to go to excesses and has really messed things up at times.

One other thing that tends to get forgotten.

The purpose of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

It's power to minister and leading to follow, not proof for your opinions or support for your pride.

Kenya wrote:So what would your response/option say, Pastor G?

Of late I have discarded much of the excess and lunatic-fringe of pentecostal practice, mostly as a reaction to the zoo called TBN and some of the insanity I have witnessed that was blamed upon the Holy Spirit.

BUT -- (listen closely, AmyDawn! ha ha) -- I do not want to make the mistake of a pendulum swing from pentecostal wackiness to jaded skepticism. The old argument is valid: if there were no real experience there could be no counterfeit.

Where I am right now:
• Tongues are a valid expression of religious ecstasy.
• Tongues have been WAY overemphasized in modern pentecostalism in direct contrast to Paul's teaching in 1st Corinthians--- it is apparent that Corinth had the same misplaced emphasis.
• Not everything that vocalizes incomprehensible syllables is tongues.
• Tongues seem to be a separate level of Spirit-enablement and comes subsequent to salvation.
• None of us completely understands this stuff the way we wish we did.
• I have experienced tongues and sometimes speak in tongues, though not nearly as often as some of my more pentecostal friends.

Pastor Gary wrote:• Tongues seem to be a separate level of Spirit-enablement and comes subsequent to salvation.

Supposing some day I say I believe it the validity of any of it, I agree with this (above), except to add/clarify --- it doesn't imply a different experience in addition to being born again. Perhaps it comes with more believing, but I wouldn't agree it's a different "stage" or a "part two" or "part three" of anything.

And you did say "a separate level"... so maybe we're saying the same thing.

Jaded skepticism???? Who, me?

Maybe you should change my user name to Jade.

Pastor Gary wrote:

Kenya wrote:So what would your response/option say, Pastor G?

Of late I have discarded much of the excess and lunatic-fringe of pentecostal practice, mostly as a reaction to the zoo called TBN and some of the insanity I have witnessed that was blamed upon the Holy Spirit.

BUT -- (listen closely, AmyDawn! ha ha) -- I do not want to make the mistake of a pendulum swing from pentecostal wackiness to jaded skepticism. The old argument is valid: if there were no real experience there could be no counterfeit.

Where I am right now:
• Tongues are a valid expression of religious ecstasy.
• Tongues have been WAY overemphasized in modern pentecostalism in direct contrast to Paul's teaching in 1st Corinthians--- it is apparent that Corinth had the same misplaced emphasis.
• Not everything that vocalizes incomprehensible syllables is tongues.
• Tongues seem to be a separate level of Spirit-enablement and comes subsequent to salvation.
• None of us completely understands this stuff the way we wish we did.
• I have experienced tongues and sometimes speak in tongues, though not nearly as often as some of my more pentecostal friends.

That is pretty much where I am, although, I do leave foom for people who "receive" the spirit at conversion without the awareness of a "separate level". We are currently studying and discussing that issue in our men's Bible Study. The Naz. teach a "separate level" that they used to call "sanctification" but now are more and more referring to it as "being filled".

Thanks for the concise statement.

If the Bible is to be taken as truth, there are a least four ways that the Holy Spirit can come to indwell. One, with Jesus "the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him." Two, "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her Womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." Three, Jesus breathed on the disciples, John 20:21,22. Four, Pentecost. This is the only example where tounges (and they were known languages of the world) is mentioned. Based upon this , personally I don't believe that it is necessary to speak in tongues to have the Holy Spirit indwelling in you.


Your brother in Christ,
TW

p.s. If speaking in tongues is necessary for the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, should we also expect to see a tongue of fire upon their heads?

I've shared how I see it before, and most here will disagree. Since this is our topic, though, I'll share briefly and hope I don't come across as being a poopy-head.

In a nutshell, I do not believe that the tongues of the NT are unintelligible or non-language utterings. I believe the Bible clearly shows that they are human languages only.

With the book of Acts as the historical guide to "tongues", each instance is clear: real, human languages were spoken. The Acts 2 description of the day of Pentecost includes crowd reaction. Acts 2:4 says they spoke "with other tongues" (glossolalia). The crowd discussion in vss. 6 and 8 says they heard the tongues/languages (dialektos, which means vernacular or dialect). The only common sense, plain conclusion is that Acts 2, the foundational point of the whole tongues phenomenon in Scripture, discusses human languages not known by the speaker, but which the Holy Spirit gave the ability to speak.

There are no other scriptures that contradict that basic foundational fact that "other tongues" were human languages. In Acts 11, Peter describes the experience of the Gentiles in Acts 10 as being identical with the day of Pentecost experience of the Jews in the upper room in Acts 2. And, in Acts 19, the description of the events assumes the reader is familiar with the events mentioned in Acts 2, 10 and 11, and there is no evidence from the text to suggest that any other meaning besides what has already been common through those events described earlier in Acts would apply. Since there is no textual reason to change understanding of "tongues" from common human language to something else, the burden lies on the advocate of another position to show that something different occurred here.

That's it, as far as actual narrative descriptions are concerned.

Now, when we move to mentions of it topically in 1 Corinthians, we are faced with Paul's use of hyperbole to make a practical point that has gotten, in my view, used as a door to understanding something that Paul did not intend. Paul writes that, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." (1 Cor. 13:1-3).
His point: Without love, everything else is zero; everything else hinges on love, period. But, the "angels" reference should not be taken as a teaching on the source of tongues or the type of tongues. Nowhere else does Paul delve into that topic, and the context here doesn't suggest it. No, here Paul employs a similar device to one he used elsewhere: using angels as an extreme example of an impossibility in order to make the point in bold print.

Look at Galatians 1:8, 9. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Judaizers had infected the Galatian believers with fleshly, false requirements added to the gospel message. That Paul only meant to emphasize that NO ONE should be believed, but rejected, if he preaches the Judazing gospel is clear in two ways here: Internally, Paul repeated the point in v. 9 and did not include the "angels" reference. Externally, there is no biblical evidence that angels engaged in teaching activity in the NT.

Paul's reference to "angels" in 1 Corinthians 14 should be similarly viewed. First, internally, Paul elaborates on the nature of tongues as being earthly. "Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you." Emphasis added by me. He parallels the tongues of his reference early in the discussion to "all sorts of languages in the world", and says that they all have meaning. Internally, it is clear that Paul never intended that "tongues of angels" refer to some other-worldly language.

Externally, the Scripture never gives an example, in all of the angel-human interactions, of an angelic tongue. When an angel spoke, the message was clear, non-ecstatic, to the point, and pretty short and sweet.

So, if the tongues are human languages, the question becomes "To what end were they given?" In Acts, the evangelistic purpose is clear. In 1 Corinthians 14:22, Paul states that, "Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers." What else but the gospel of Christ would be spoken for the benefit of unbelievers? I can't say, because I wasn't there. But, it is consistent with Acts that the message be the basic repent, believe and be baptized formula, or something thereabout.

In a nutshell, I do not believe that the tongues of the NT are unintelligible or non-language utterings. I believe the Bible clearly shows that they are human languages only.

I have read some historical accounts that indicate that the early pentecostals also believed that tongues were unlearned foreign languages.

Some thought they were speaking Chinese, Greeek, etc. until speakers of those languages were present and rejected that notion.