Adrian Warnock gamely throws down the gauntlet regarding tongues, and I'm going to have a bash at answering, briefly, a couple of his arguments.
Re:Romans 8:26. I'm not entirely sure how this can ever be used for tongues - groanings that cannot be uttered does rather preclude the idea of uttering language, be it gibberish or Italian.
My understanding of it is that when we don't know how to pray as we ought to, the Spirit helps us by helping us to pray. Many times I have come to a place of wordlessness, but I knew that my heart was still composed in prayer. I suppose that rather sounds like experience of the Holy Spirit, and we cessationists aren't supposed to believe in that ;-)
1 Corinthians 14:9 doesn't sound like a commendation to me. Russian is fairly unintelligable to me, but it's still an actual language.
1 Corinthians 14:4 - when does scripture ever exhort us to have unfruitful minds? In the broader context, my understanding of this passage is simply about the proper administration of the sign-gifts. This verse isn't a descriptive of a normative personal prayer language.
1 Corinthians 14:26 - I'm not sure I know of the cessationist argument that says that 'tongues are only for evangelism'. The argument, as I understand it, is that tongues were one of the 'sign gifts' that had a confirming, legitimizing purpose for the gospel. This would be rather a positive, upbuilding thing for the church, wouldn't you say?
Luke 11. You make a confusing argument there. Scripture promises that God will give good gifts to his children, and so when people pray for tongues and speak unintelligable words, it must be a good gift from God, because God has promised good gifts.
The only alternative you present is that God has given a bad gift of nonsense language.
Could it not just be that God hasn't given them the gift at all, because that particular gift is no longer appropriate?
An analogy - My children may well ask me for babyfood when they are 11. I'm not going to give them a snake instead, that's for sure, but I won't be feeding them babyrice, either, because it's a foundational food that they just don't have a need for anymore.
7/25/2006
A few answers for Adrian.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Good reasoning.
After reading something by John Stott, I came to the conclusion that I should pray for an interpretation even when using 'tongues' privatley. I was very bothered by the fact that other Charismatics did not like that idea at all and seemed to prefer praying in tongues they could not understand.
I am glad I do not feel the need to pray in unknown tongues any more.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
I've responded to Adrian's post over at his blog. I thought his post was very good, but then I am a convinced continuationist (what a clumsy word that is!)
I'm a cautious charismatic. I've seen the loony fringe, and it's baaaaaaad. However, bad practice does not cancel out the goodness of the original gift. Misuse does not add up to an argument for cessationism, methinks.
So I remain cheerfully unconvinced of the cessationist position, while totally admiring fine biblical teachers like John Stott.
:)
Misuse certainly doesn't mean we should disregard something. Plenty of crazy people quote bible verses to prove abhorrent things, but I'm still happy to quote the bible :-)
It isn't misuse that convinces me of the cessationist position, however. I have spoke in tongues, prophesied, had pictures and the whole thing. I wasn't never what I would term a completely 'out there' charismatic.
My belief now is based on what I consider to be the most consistent scriptural understanding of the purpose of something like tongues.
Very good points, well-said as usual, dear sister Libbie.
Well, the purpose of tongues in Acts 2 is clearly evangelistic: "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" (v.11) The disciples were gifted supernaturally to speak in real languages they didn't know.
The gift of tongues as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 seems to be slightly different, a private prayer language to God that the Corinthians were over-indulging in the context of corporate worship. The Apostle endorses the gift but counsels much godly caution in the exercise of it.
How would you now regard your practice of these things, Libbie? Do you regard it all as a big exercise in delusion?
I must add that I've never prophesied in my whole life. (I have heard some pretty daffy 'prophecies' though.) Nor am I much given to pictures.
But I do pray in tongues. Privately. And sometimes when praying for others, but I make sure they are comfortable with it.
Hello, Philippa,
May I ask you a question?
You said that you sometimes pray for others in tongues but you make sure they are comfortable with it before you do it.
If praying in a tongue is praying in the Spirit, then wouldn't that be quenching the Spirit? What does that look like?--you're praying along and the Spirit begins to move on you in such a way that you desire (?) to pray in a tongue but your mind tells the Spirit--hold on, let me check if this person can receive what You are going to say?
I am not trying to be difficult--I just don't understand how it is that a gift given by the Spirit of God for evangelism must be managed or discerned by an imperfect, sinful person based on the comfort level of the hearer.
Well, I would say that your first example is precisely what I meant in terms of a sign - it certainly had some evangelistic purpose, but it was also a fulfillment of prophecy and so on.
I wouldn't have said that Paul is talking about a personal prayer language in 1 Cor, though. I would understand that passage to be about the misuse of public tongues, and not about private tongues at all. To be honest, I've yet to find much scripture that convinced that a private language actually exists.
All the instances in 1 Cor that seem to be describing it look, to me, like criticisms from Paul.
My best friend prays in tongues and often tries to gently coax me back to it.
Do I think I was deluded? Probably to some extent. I believe that it was a combination of peer-group pressure, learned behaviour, and large element of wishful thinking on my part. I didn't deliberately 'fake' it, and as far as I was aware at the time, I was truly speaking in tongues. But with hindsight, I believe it was mostly psychological.
Kim from Hiraeth,
Sure, no problem.
I obviously didn’t make myself very clear, for which apologies. As I've already said, I don’t believe that the gift of tongues as described in 1 Cor 14 is the same evangelistic gift given in Acts 2 (which, as Libbie points out, is also a fulfilment of prophecy). I’ve often prayed for people in a pastoral context. Sometimes, when I am praying with a person, I will pray gently in tongues as we wait upon God together, but I want to make it absolutely clear that I am NOT praying for that person specifically in a tongue. The gift is given to praise and glorify God. Praying in the Spirit is a deep matter, which might involve tongues but doesn’t have to. Certainly praying in tongues, as far as I’m concerned, is not an ecstatic, uncontrollable frenzy.
Libbie,
All the instances in 1 Cor that seem to be describing it look, to me, like criticisms from Paul.
Yes, because the most charismatic church in the NT was using the gifts so irresponsibly. But what do you make of 1 Cor: 14: 18, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you?” Of course he goes on to say, “I would rather speak five intelligible words in a tongue to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue”, which is a stern reminder to the charismatically convinced to value preaching and teaching just as much, if indeed not much more, than the more ‘exciting’ stuff.
Do I think I was deluded? Probably to some extent. I believe that it was a combination of peer-group pressure, learned behaviour, and large element of wishful thinking on my part. I didn't deliberately 'fake' it, and as far as I was aware at the time, I was truly speaking in tongues. But with hindsight, I believe it was mostly psychological.
Fair enough. I’ve no intention of coaxing or persuading anyone of my particular views. I’ve been on the receiving end of auto-suggestion myself. It’s easy to be taken in by it. When I pray in tongues, I am not overtaken by some uncontrollable Dionysian frenzy. We pray with our hearts and our MINDS.
Good discussion so far. Good stuff to read and ponder. Difficult subject "tongues". I appreciate your honest thoughts Libbie. They help. I have basically had the same experience.
What changed me was where Paul said, "I will pray and sing with my understanding".
Some seperate devotional prayer and public prayer, but I don't see that in the context.
Also, I would say our Lord is our greatest example of how to pray. If we imitate Him in our prayer life, we'll be in His will for sure.
One thing I wish someone would explain is what is the gift of interpretation? I don't get this gift, and does anyone know anyone who has it?
Philippa, thanks for taking the time with this.
I don't have a problem with Paul thanking God and being positive about tongues. Tongues and other sign gifts were wonderful sign of God's hand on the fledgling church. As an apostle, it makes sense that he would have spoken in tongues many times - given that one of the reasons for the sign gifts was to validate the ministry of the apostles.
Regarding what you said about Dionysian ecstasy, I did want to point out that my speaking in tongues was rarely in this mould, though it did happen on occasion in worhsip services. Mostly it was a deliberate speaking out in prayer, private or otherwise. I just wanted to say that to illustrate that I do understand that people who speak in tongues are not wild-eyed crazies :-)
Well, no more than I am normally, anyway..
I just wanted to say that to illustrate that I do understand that people who speak in tongues are not wild-eyed crazies :-)
That's quite alright, Libbie, I haven't got the impression from your posts that that's what you thought! :) I was overstating my case a wee bit, I think.
Well, no more than I am normally, anyway..
LOL!
Donsands,
On the very few occasions on which I've heard interpretation of tongues, in a worship service,
I was impressed by the clarity and carefulness of the respective speakers, who gave a measured interpretation of what had been said.
Also, I would say our Lord is our greatest example of how to pray. If we imitate Him in our prayer life, we'll be in His will for sure.
Amen to that.
Nicely succinct post - thanks Libbie. I've linked you at Intellectuelle as well as Dan and Adrian, so people can follow it.
Thanks Libbie for alerting me to Adrian's comments on his blog. I left a comment there.
I am grateful for your sincere and thinking response to him. Beging a Charismatic you would expect me to urge you to be cautious. You evidently do have very genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit, which you are choosing not to use. I appreciate your honesty. I do not believe in a "private gift." I see nothing of the sort in Scripture. The "gift of tongues" may be used privately as stated in 1 Cor. 14. However, it is not separate for private use -- and different for public us. Much is involved here that I will not attempt to state on this comment. I just urge you to not pack any gift away. He has great purpose for all of them.
Thanks for posting.
Iris
Thanks for responding, Philippa,
"I’ve often prayed for people in a pastoral context.Sometimes, when I am praying with a person, I will pray gently in tongues as we wait upon God together, but I want to make it absolutely clear that I am NOT praying for that person specifically in a tongue. The gift is given to praise and glorify God."
I'm still not sure how this fits with your former post. If it is, as you say re: 1 Corinthians 14, a private prayer language, then isn't praying with it in the presence of another person "public?"
"Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up."
Paul goes on to say that tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. This adds to my confusion as to why 1) you would pray in tongues when praying with another believer (especially since you say you have never prophesied and as far as I can tell do not claim to have the gift of interpretation) and 2) why you would need to know whether this person is comfortable with speaking in tongues before you engage in it.
I realize that these questions may have been addressed elsewhere as it seems this is a conversation that is taking place over a period of time and across several blogs, but I am new to it, so I may be asking questions you've addressed elsewhere.
Thanks, Libby, for allowing me to ask these questions in your comments. If you'd rather I didn't continue in this vein, feel free to let me know that!
IMHBCO (In My Humble But Correct Opinion), the Spirit does the uttering, not us, and He does it to the Father on our behalf.
Personally, I rather like the Bible's model outlined in Acts 2, ie: a person speaks in his language and the hearers hear in theirs.
What a miracle!
My charismatic aquaintance told me that she speaks in tongues regularly and every now and then she feels Satan trying to trick her by telling her she is just pretending.
I said, Are you sure its Satan?
Why do we have to "decide" about the issue of tongues?
I've yet to see definitive scripture indicating that Peter was a fool, or that his response to "What shall we do"(after they were pricked in their hearts) came with an expiration date.. indeed.. the whole cessationist argument seems to relegate all of Peter's sermons on the subject to the dustheap.
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom (upon this rock will I build my church), and Peter never, ever preached a different message than Acts 2:38... so why would we ever consider changing things?
It seems to me.. that the foundational words of Peter are being totally ignored by most churches. The issue of cessation is moot if you accept the simple message that Peter gave in Acts 2:38-39, Acts 10:43-48, Acts 11:13-16, Acts 15:7-9 (in 11 and 15.. he ties it back to the original outpouring BTW). If any Disciple had this figured out.. it had to be Peter. So.. WHY ignore his message? He even says in Acts 2:39.. this promise is unto you, your children etc.. He had just finished explaining to the crowd that what they had "heard and seen" was the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus..., so only by contortionist methods can that use of "promise" mean anything except a reference to speaking in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost.
For those who haven't read it recently.. here's his answer to that all important question "what shall we do?".
Act 2:37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.
First... The churches changed to baptizing in the "titles" rather than the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.. (something never done in the Bible btw.. NT churches baptized in Jesus name)
Later, they changed the nature and in some cases even the necessitiy of baptism, the definition and application of repentance.
The Catholic (and most Protestant) church moved away from the association of speaking in tongues with the initial receiving of the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The move from associating the infilling of the Spirit with receiving the Holy Ghost has led to people thinking that if tongues aren't related to receiving the Holy Ghost.. then why would anybody want them unless to prophecy with. (hence.. Cessationism) Problem is... there simply isn't contextual scripture to support the idea that receiving the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost wasn't consistently evidenced by speaking in tongues (which wasn't always or even usually interpreted BTW).... nor is there contextual scripture to support the idea that the Early Church experience of speaking in tongues WHEN infilled with the Holy Ghost had an expiration date.
All Cessationist arguments seem to fail in three important ways.
1. They don't address Acts 2:38-39 and Peter's role in establishing Church doctrine.
2. They don't use contextual scriptures. I consider it to be faulty logic to use Pauls words to say "it causes confusion", or "it doesn't edify", without acknowledging Paul's many other references to speaking in tongues.. and how he preached exactly the same message as Peter (repent, be baptized in Jesus name and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (which they did and spoke in tongues too).
3. They rely on post-Biblical works of men (councils, opinions, writings) to "prove" the cessation of gifts. This one disturbs me the most... I fail to see why the words of any man should outweigh the words of Peter in the Bible.
To wrap this up... although it's just a personal experience... I KNOW that I've spoken in tongues, and that it happened without being influenced or coerced. I was six years old, our small church was very quiet and conservative for an Apostolic Pentecostal assembly.. they didn't think children COULD get the Holy Ghost before age 12. I'm not sure I ever saw or heard somebody speaking in tongues, although I'd heard people mention that phrase. However.. I was filled with shame from my sins (lying, stealing, disobedience, hatred) and a hunger for God to fill me and change me. So... one evening, I went to the altar... nobody else was at the altar.. they thought I was playing. I had learned Acts 2:38 in Sunday School.. so I told God I repented and was sorry for all the bad things I'd done.. then.. since I couldn't get baptized (I was only six.. the pastor wouldn't baptize til 12), I skipped that and asked for the Holy Ghost and Jesus to come in my heart. When I finished.. I just lifted up my hands and said "Thank you for the Holy Ghost".. and immediately felt something incredible fill me up... it was like my soul was instantly scrubbed clean and made to dance.. then.. I began to speak clearly in another language... I'm not sure how long I prayed.. it was awhile.. all alone at an altar. Finally.. I realized I needed to tell somebody, so I ran to my pastor's wife and told her... she didn't believe me. She made me kneel down and pray again.. after rebuking me for "pretending or making fun"...and while she crossed her arms and leaned back... I raised my hands again and immediately felt the Spirit again.. and was speaking in tongues again. She stopped me and made everybody else come around.. and again.. I raised my hands and felt the Spirit.. and that wellspring of living water... that's what speaking in tongues feels like.. just pouring out of an abundance of His Spirit in my heart!.
I think that church was shocked to it's core... I wasn't "supposed" to be able to speak in tongues so young.. but it was obvious to everyone that I wasn't faking, hadn't been coached, and that it was of God.. so they permitted me to get baptized in spite of my age. Why am I telling you this? Because it matters. I had never been coached or even encouraged to think about speaking in tongues. The closest thing to coaching was my memorizing Acts 2:38. If the Word of God can bring about speaking in tongues and a transformed heart in a little 6yo girl... then it's still good enough for me at age 31. I don't need to worry about what church doctrine is or is not. If it's not in the Bible.. then it's not for me.
I don't deny that false works etc exist... but I emphatically deny that what I experience everytime I speak in tongues is a false work, or a demonic work, or anything except the promised Comforter at work in my heart.
Libbie. Adrian W, is a nice guy and a fine Christian. But he is a theological lightweight.
The trouble with all charismatics (and I married one who left it all behind) is that they would prefer the latest fax from God rather than the one he sent 2,000 years ago and is fresh and relevant today as ever (and will continue to be as long as we hear =, obey and apply it).
Callign yourself a Reformed charismatic is like being a dyslexic and entering a spelling bee championship. No chance.
Of course, the charismatics will claim God told them (personally) different.
I must away...haven't done my carpet time today. Charismatism is simply libebralism by the back door.
One further thing to above - I don't actually blog at the blogger site. And I have a news ite as of today at www.petercglover.com
ramblingrose,
The Apostolic Pentecostal Church, is this the denomiantion that T. D. Jakes is joined with?
If so, do they hold to the doctrine of the Triune God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit?
Post a Comment