Speaking in Tongues

The Revival Fellowship centres International

2010-09-01T00:27:00.000-07:00

Visit the forum at revival.aimoo.com

Wally Witnesser: Tongue tied

2010-08-22T05:53:00.000-07:00

Wally Witnesser is a member of the tongue-speaking fundamentalist cult church group 'Revival Fellowship International Centres'. He has a hard sell when he goes cold canvassing the streets for new church members.

Check out the rest of the series at Revival Videos

Why can tongues be proven a learned behaviour? (Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1986, Vol. 95)

2010-08-21T05:47:00.000-07:00

Sixty subjects listened to a 60 second sample of tongues (defined to them as pseudolanguage) and then attempted to produce tongues on a 30 second baseline trial. Afterward, half of the subjects received two training sessions that included audio- and videotaped samples of tongues interspersed with opportunities to practice tongues. Also, live modelling of tongues, direct instruction, and encouragement were provided by an experimenter. Both the trained subjects and untreated controls attempted to produce tongues on a 30 second post-test trial. About 20% of subjects exhibited fluent tongues on the baseline trial, and training significantly enhanced fluency. Seventy percent of trained subjects spoke fluent tongues on the post-test. Our findings are more consistent with social learning than with altered state conceptions of tongues.

Read more

Atheism and Speaking in tongues

2010-03-15T02:54:00.000-07:00

Introduction

2007-07-28T19:11:00.000-07:00

Speaking in tongues or glossolalia is practiced by an estimated 100 to 400 million Christians in the world today and the number engaging in tongue speaking is growing at a massive rate every year. That is approximately 20% of all Christians. At this point I would like to point out that my family made up part of these figures just so you are aware we have had first hand experience with speaking in tongues which is also called glossolalia.

Many Christians believe that speaking in tongues is the fulfilment of the Latter Rain promised in Joel 2:28-29 and that it is the final manifestation of the Holy Spirit before the Second Coming of Christ. It is also commonly taught that you have not received the Holy Spirit and are not saved unless you have demonstrated the gift of speaking in tongues and tongues seems to be the only sought after gift in the tongue speaking Church today.

So what is the real truth about tongue speaking? (or version thereof) Can we go by experience and feelings or do we go by the Word of God? The only way to find the truth to these questions of course has to be the Bible and the Bible alone. There is no other way. Everything we need to know for our Christian walk can be found in the Word of God and if not clearly taught in God’s Word, then we should not follow it less we be deceived. The Bible warns us of this fact many times. In this document we will cover all aspects of speaking in tongues (glossolalia) from the Bible alone. We will not be going by experiences, feelings or so called “physical evidence.” We cannot afford to adopt an interpretation which demands a change in God’s Word. It is our interpretation that should change if necessary to fit the Bible – not the Bible changed to fit our interpretation. Since the enemy can and does counterfeit miracles of God we must follow the scriptures only.

Salvation Through History

2007-07-13T06:29:00.000-07:00

(Extract from Revival Observer, September '97)

Many Revival Centre people are surprised to learn that virtually no one else teaches that 'you must speak in tongues to be saved'. Another major problem is that the teaching has no historical precedent. No one taught it before Lloyd Longfield, and the United Pentecostal Church (compare Jude 3).

What did the early Christians teach about salvation? Go through these quotes, and see what was taught throughout the ages:

A.D. 55 - PAUL AT EPHESUS: "you are saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you - unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day" (1Corinthains 15:1-4)

A.D. 56 - PAUL AT CORINTH: "if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9)

A.D. 98 - JOHN AT EPHESUS: "God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of od, and they abide in God." (1John 4:15)

A.D. 98 - JOHN AT EPHESUS: "Who is it that conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1John 5:5)

A.D. 100 - CLEMENT OF ROME: "we, too, being called by his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever" (First Epistle to the Corinthians, XXXII, 15)

* Note - Clement doesn't even mention tongues in any of his letters

A.D. c.120 - POLYCARP OF SMYRNA: "'we shall also reign together with Him, 'provided only we believe.'" (Epistle to the Philippians, V, 10-11)

* Polycarp doesn't even mention tongues in any of his letters

EARLY 2ND C. - IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: "For, since you are subject to your overseer as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in his death, you may escape from death." (Epistle to the Trallians, II, 1)

* Ignatius doesn't even mention tongues in any of his epistles

BEFORE 165AD - JUSTIN MARTYR OF SAMARIA: "He was crucified, that the rest of the prophecy might be fulfilled. For this 'washing his robe in the blood of the grape' was predictive of the passion he was to endure, cleansing by his blood those who believe on him." (First Apology, XXXII, 2) "And it is written, that on the day of the Passover you seized him, and that also during the Passover you crucified him. And as the blood of the Passover saved those who were in Egypt, so also the blood of Christ will deliver from death those who have believed. Would God, then, have been deceived if this sign had not been above the doors? I do not say that; but I affirm that he announced beforehand the future salvation for the human race through the blood of Christ." (Second Apology, CXI)

* Justin Martyr doesn't even mention tongues in any of his letters

LATE 2ND C. - IRENAEUS OF SMYRNA: "'And daily,' it is said, 'in the temple, and from house to house, they ceased not to teach and preach Christ Jesus,' the Son of God. For this was the knowledge of salvation, which renders those who acknowledge his Son's advent perfect towards God." (Against Heresies III, XII:12ff)

* Irenaeus does make one mention of tongues in his day. He briefly mentions Christians who by "the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God" (Against Heresies V,VI)

You will have noted how early Christians were associating salvation with Jesus, not tongues.

Discussion of the gifts, especially of tongues, by the earliest writers is quite sparse. John MacArthur even writes in Charismatic Chaos, "In the Post Apostolic age there is no mention of tongues". Because of this lack of comment, some writers like John MacArthur (and B. Warfield in the past) have suggested that all miraculous gifts ceased in the first century.

I believe they go too far. In Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church, Ronald Kydd concludes:

"Throughout the first and second centuries, the gifts remained ... we have drawn from virtually every kind of person in the Church. We have heard from bishops and heretics, philospohers and poets, storytellers and theologians. Generally speaking, and of course there must have been exceptions at specific times and places, the Church prior to A.D. 200 was charismatic".

However, even a Pentecostal must agree - there is no post biblical discussion of tongues until Irenaeus, a gap of about a century from 1 Corinthians, and 600 pages of Christian writing afterwards.

What is evident is that the early church COULD NOT have been PRE-OCCUPIED with tongues. The Anchor Bible Dictionary explains, "there is no hint of the practice of glossolalia [tongues] in any [post-Biblical] Christian writing before the middle of the 2d century. Even for the earliest period of Christianity, therefore, glossolalia appears to be at best a sporadic and ambiguous occurence ... therefore [it is] inadequately supported by the data [that] tongues was a normal and expected accompaniment of the Spirit (and therefore, by implication, an essential component of authentic Christianity)"(Vol.6, p.598).

So I believe that tongues probably had a place in the early Church (as Kydd says), but they obviously could not have been of 'first importance', or the pre-occupation. That position was given to Christ alone (1Cor.15:1-4). Remember that in the earliest Church writings, we have only one mention of tongues in 600 pages. How different to a standard Revival Centre 'salvation' talk or pamphlet - tongues, tongues, tongues, tongues!

Non-Christians speak in tongues, too

2007-07-13T06:21:00.000-07:00

Speaking in tongues is much older than Paul.

It comes from the Pythoness of the Oracle at Delphi. How it worked was you made a large donation to the Temple of Apollo and you got the ask the Pythoness a single question. She would the pray to the God Apollo at a fissure at the altar. Recently tested it was found that a mildly toxic gas was, and still is, emitted from this crack in the Earth. The Oracle is over the junction of two earthquake faults. She, the Pythoness, would start dancing around and babbling incoherently. A Priest of the temple would "translate" what the Pythoness had said. She was speaking the speech of the gods and was getting all her information from Apollo.

The Oracle at Delphi started in the 400s BC, when Greece was at its strongest. It continued into the Roman era as if it was a parody of its former self, so the members of the churches of Greece and Asia Minor would have been very familiar with how Delphi worked. It was a shrine of the Greek god Apollo. In response to someone's questions, a priestess would go into a frenzy and start babbling. An attendant priest would then 'translate' the babble into some glittering generalities that could in some way be understood as an answer. Some of the best-known features of Greek philosophy streamed out from the Oracle's early years (for instance, it bred the saying "Know Yourself"); the great Greek philosophers were very good at finding jewels in waste water. The cult of Dionysis used rhythmic music, whirling dances, alcohol and/or herbal drugs, and magic spells to send peoples' souls out of their body (Greek ek stasis ) and into the presence of whatever deity or sub-deity was involved; this too sometimes caused strange sounds.

African animists, too, have long had ecstatic speech in their religions. But, just as glossolalia among Jews marked one as a prophet, glossolalia caused most African animists to foist onto the speaker the role of religious leader or priest, a heavy spiritual and cultural responsibility to lay upon an unprepared person. Wherever they have happened in the past, glossolalia and other extraordinary 'spiritual' happenings have not been, and have not really been allowed to be, a thing 'of the people', which could be a part of the otherwise-normal life of otherwise-ordinary people.

Deep in the gnostic book-hoard at Nag Hammadi, archaeologists discovered what may be the earliest, and perhaps one of the strangest, written instances of glossolalia. (Gnosticism arose at the same time as Christianity, and Gnostics were skilled at melding Christian devotions and spirituality to the un-Christian Gnostic framework -- to use a modern term, they tried to 'co-opt' Christianity.) While modern theologians give the unusual contents at Nag Hammadi much more attention than they deserve, a prayer introduction in *The Gospel Of the Egyptians* is a true attention-grabber. It reads roughly (very roughly) like this :

Ié ieus éó ou éó óua! O Jesus, bond of Yah's righteousness, O Living Water, O Child of Child, O glorious Name! Really truly, O Eon that is, iiii éééé eeee oo uuuu óóóó aaaaa, really truly éi aaaa óó óó! O One That Is, Seer Of the Ages! Really truly, aee ééé iiii uuuuuu óóóóóóóó, You who are eternally eternal, really truly iéa aió, in the heart, You who Are, You are what You are, ei o ei eios ei!

Even the translatable words are very iffy and full of vowels and mixed languages. Like modern glossolalia, it's got a lot of almost-words, divine titles, and 'really truly'. It's almost like a parody, it's so garbled, but it was serious in its intent. The ecstatic speech did not make the book's bizarre beliefs the slightest bit more true.

The Revival Fellowship

2007-07-13T05:18:00.000-07:00

Click on the link to visit the Revival Churches Discussion Forum

Liberated from the Revival Centres in 1985, they pretty much picked up the ball when Lloydy dropped it while he went on his manical genocidal cleansing spree to purge HIS church of its sinful human dross so that he could deliver it clean and perfect as a bride to a very fussy groom (not his actual words fyi). Godfrey, Khulmann and the gang dropped the horse, added a couple more trumpets and decided to be fellowships rather than centres. The meeting format didn't skip a beat and the drinking of various substances was and is still forbidden.

The majority of RFers can still sleep in on a Sunday morning but have to give up most of the P.M. (Prime Mowing time). Say goodbye to the kids on Sunday morning, 'cause you won't get to see them much again until you're safely back at home at 6.30 or so.

They continue to ex-communicate members who infringe on sexual sins and shun ex-members who don't wish to rejoin the ranks. They respect the idea that they're not the only 'true' church and believe that all the tongue-speakers of the earth are truly united in the one super dooper unit. They believe there are only three classes of people on this planet: Christians, worldlies... and Catholics. They hold disdain though for tongue-speaking Christians who don't preach the absolute necessity for tongues.

Their assemblies are still under the thumb of a tight hierarchal system that ensures all the seperate assemblies play by the franchise rules and that every burger has pickles on it and a staff member who will ask, "Would you like tongues with that?" No women are allowed to serve the burgers and the head guys have to wear ties and have a picture of the queen behind their desks.

One's christianality is still determined by an emphasis on physical evidence (ie. speaking in an ecstatic language - tongues) to 'confirm' salvation rather than the concept of walking by faith and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7). You must be completely submerged in water to fulfill the complete ritual. If you leave a hand out of the water during the dunking or get hit by a bus on the way to the river... eternal life hangs in the balance.

What do these churches do to help their communities around them..? the weak, the widow, the fatherless? Like every other Tongue-fixated church, they are only interested in dragging converts back to their halls where everything will come out in the wash. Cancer will go away, homosexuality won't happen, and life will be rosey and sweet forever and ever amen. In short... they do NOTHING for their fellow man.

Revival Centres International

2007-07-13T05:13:00.000-07:00

British Israel - Still in the creed of beliefs (Link to non-racist claim)
Prophesy - Soon return of Jesus (Historicist view of Revelation - not rapturists). Soon did come at about 1997 for many... but soon is now interpreted as some time later, but still very soon.
Punishment for sexual sins - Out of fellowship for life.
Founder - Lloyd Longfield (1948 - Revival title given in 1958). Declared insane by most of his own members in 1995.
Current senior pastor - Simon Longfield.
Female leadership? - No. Women are very rarely even allowed to pray publicly, ie. opening a meeting in prayer. They can use the voice gifts... most are pretty happy to have the pressure off them.
Alcohol? - Not on your Nelly! Do not drink, do not pass go, do not even collect a cold beer after a hot working bee.

Favourite quote from their website -

"there will be no outrageous or wild behaviour and no 'religious theatrics' on the other hand, we don't think you will be bored"
"The word 'pastor' means shepherd. Shepherds in Bible days were not the 'drovers' we see in larger scale farming techniques of today. The shepherd in those days lived in close relation with his flock, putting them first"

MetaReligion

Revival Centre International

This group originated in Australia, and spread abroad.

Like all aberrant bible-based groups they follow the usual practice of only using those scriptures which support their beliefs; wresting verses out of context and ignoring, or explaining away any which are contrary.

A major difference between RCI and other pentecostal churches is in the doctrine which revolves around speaking in tongues. According to them, UNLESS YOU SPEAK IN TONGUES YOU DO NOT HAVE SALVATION. To quote from their pamphlet 'Salvation and the Holy Spirit' . . .

" . . . it is ONLY when the earnest seeker speaks in tongues that we can say with scriptural that he has received the Holy Spirit."
" The baptism with the Holy Spirit is NOT AN 'OPTIONAL EXTRA' in the Word of God. Rather it is God's seal or pledge that we are saved (Eph 1:13-14) . . . The Bible therefore offers no assurance for those who choose to remain outside this freely offered experience . . . We are also warned that 'no other gospel' is to be preached (Gal 1:8). To preach less than the Holy Spirit Baptism for salvation is a disaster."
" There is no salvation outside the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Anything less is not God's plan and IS NOT SALVATION." (emphasis are ours)

As regards 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit' or 'being filled with the Holy Spirit' one only needs to look at Acts 9 to see that Paul the apostle was himself 'FILLED with the Holy Spirit' (vs17) AFTER he had acknowledged Jesus Christ as Lord (vs6); AFTER he had received a further vision from the Holy Spirit concerning Ananias (vs12) and AFTER he was made a 'chosen vessel' unto the Lord (see Acts 9:4-17). This and other passages from Scripture indicate that AFTER being 'born-again' by the Spirit of God, a Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit. But there is no passage that indicates that one must speak in tongues to show that they are saved.

It is also worthwhile to point out that spiritual gifts are to be DESIRED or SOUGHT AFTER (1 Cor 12:28 and 14:11) by the BELIEVER only!

The Christian is warned not to look to supernatural manifestations such as prophecy, casting out demons, wonderful works (healing etc) as the SOLE CRITERIA for proof that a person is a Christian (Matt 7:17-23 shows there will be those who do these things in the Lord's name but the Lord is going to cast them away because they are not His).

The reasons for this warning become clearer when we look at such passages as 2 Thess 2:7-12; 1 Tim 4:1; and Rev 16:14, 19:20. Many will be deceived by miracles and the 'supernatural' because they will be looking at THESE as the foundation for their faith, NOT at the Lord Himself. This emphasis on a physical evidence to 'confirm' salvation is contrary to the injunction to walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7).

In verse 21 of Acts 2, Peter told his listeners how to be saved. In verse37 they cried out "What must we do?". Peter then told them to REPENT and be baptised for (because of) the remission of their sins. Then, Peter told them, they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

IN SUMMARY:-

THEIR BASIC BELIEFS ARE

1. Salvation is only for those who speak in tongues and this is the only way you can know the assurance of salvation.

2. They are the only true church.

3. The 'lost ten tribes' are Britain and the USA (British Israelism).

4. The major part of the book of Revelation has been fulfilled.

THEY ALSO TEACH THAT "goodness in natural terms is a fantasy, a delusion, set before us with its seeming opposite, evil, by the devil. THE TWO ARE INTERCHANGABLE depending on where we view them from . . ."

THAT "even family ties were to be callously disregarded when they impinged on a follower's walk".

THAT there is no forgiveness for the sin of adultery or fornication and that those who sin in this way are to be permanently removed from fellowship.

This organisation is potentially dangerous. It has a particular appeal to those who seek the reassurance of a 'sign' or a supernatural experience before they believe they have salvation.

Former members describe a system of control and manipulation and experience the same post-cult symptoms as those who come from other well known cults such as Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses and Moonies. All indications are that this is a destructive Bible Based cult.

The origins of RCI doctrine

Revival Churches: Revival Fellowship, Revival Centres International, CAI and GRC

2007-07-13T05:11:00.000-07:00

For comprehensive information on the doctrines, beliefs and history of the Revival Fellowship, Revival Centres International, The Geelong Revival Centre and the Christian Assemblies International, click onto the following forum banners. Ask the regulars there a question or two.

The convoluted gospel of speaking in tongues as the primary and necessary indicator for Christian salvation, has been passing on from various churches for half a century now. These followers believe that anyone who calls themselves Christians, but cannot perform the act, is fooling themselves and whoever they talk to. Non-speaking Christians aren't even second-class citizens to them, in fact, they're not even Christians at all, according to their bible interpretation. They think very little of the 'fake' Christians and even less of the 'worldlies' whom they endeavor to save with their select gospel.

Many people who become disillusioned with Revival churches are sometimes forced out for various reasons, eg. legalism or overly controlling pastors. Many of these ex-members find themselves a bit lost and somewhat confused without a group of tongue-fixated church members around them, so they strive to find a church that is similar. Some start up their own. so strong is the elitism and exclusivity of this belief's mindset.

They can often look harmless in comparison to Revival. They implement a lot more modern praise and worship music (but will refrain from any emotional hand raising etc). They sometimes don't have a trumpet in their logo. They claim to have dropped the legalism and rules and etc. Of course, they are too blind to see how legal and divisive the actual tongues necessity gospel is in itself. Usually their meetings are carbon copies of Revival complete with two testimonies, 2 or 3 gift ceremonies, and a catholic based communion ritual.

The argument is convincing and the scriptures dovetail quite nicely when tweaked accordingly. Initiation and approval is given via a random rambling drawl and it is exchanged at every meeting, much like a secret handshake. However, this thread is not a debate on tongues but rather an expose on the churches (no matter how big or small) who are similar to Revival or who have broken off from them without discarding the tongues fixation. Most of these churches don't communicate with each other but do nod politely in their direction when it's acknowledged that, 'at least they have tongues'.

All tongue-fixated church have similarities. The foundation of this salvation criteria leads to many commonalities and

Major groups listed so far:

The RCI - Revival Centres International
The GRC - Geelong Revival Centres
The CAI - Christian assemblies International
The RF - Revival Fellowships
The UP - United Pentecostals

The use of the gifts in a Revival meeting

2007-07-13T05:07:00.000-07:00

The use of the gifts in a Revival meeting

Is it a biblical practice?

Is the decently and in order use of the gifts of the spirit as used by the Revival churches a correct interpretation of how things were intended to be? What does the bible mean by two at the most three*? It sounds like more of a recommendation than a commandment to me. Does it anger God if the gift is used only once or four times? If this is the Holy Spirit speaking, then who is Paul or anyone else to place a controlled restriction on it?

*Interestingly, in the other instances of the use of the number phrase 'two or three' (Matt 18:20 two or three are gathered - John 2:6 two or three firkins) the addition of the second number calls attention to the fact that the first number is not meant to be an exact sum.

It goes like this: One stands up and speaks in an unknown tongue, another stands up and explains what the other just said. They conclude God had something to say, and communicated it this way. Logic asks then, "Why did God have to speak gibberish, then raise someone up to speak intelligently, when all the while He is supposed to be using the pastor to speak to the congregation in the first place?"

Tongues as a prayer language:

We were lead to believe that God gives the gift of tongues so we can pray more effectively but where does it say He has to pray through us in an unknown tongue?

Romans 8:26 reads, "Likewise the Spirit also helps with our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." Observe closely here, "cannot be uttered" Whether in English, or some supposed mysterious language given by God, it says plainly - cannot be uttered.

Tongues to enable witnessing (yes, already covered well in another thread)

Jesus made it clear in Acts 1:8 that the Holy Spirit would enable followers to be witnesses for Him. We read immediately in the second chapter that this is what happened. People were gathered from different regions of the Mediterranean world and spoke many different languages. Yet afterwards, they heard them speak in their own native language! Galileans speaking miraculously as Parathions, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamian, Cretes, Arabians, Egyptians, ... the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2:8-11) The original intent of the language gift was to maximize the efficiency of transmitting the Gospel message.

Context means everything when defining a concept, and the context of the phenomena of 'unknown tongues' here is plainly to communicate the Gospel in a simple, communicative, understandable language to the listeners that surrounded them. Acts 2:6 tells us that they heard them speak in their own language. They didn't hear words they couldn't understand, but benefited by hearing the gospel in their own dialect.

Tongues of angels and men

I've mention recently that the term angels can simply refer to anyone sending a message as the word 'angel' means messenger, but let's unpack it a bit further.

"Though I speak with the tongues of men or angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

Should we read a prayer language into this? Is this the subject Paul was emphasizing? No, he's saying how important is is to be lead by love no matter how blessed with gifts one is. Without love it's meaningless. He is exaggerating to prove a point. Isn't that obvious? He does it again in Galatians 1:8, "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." In other words he's saying: "Sheesh, I don't care if an angel drops down from heaven, don't listen to them if it isn't what I've told you". It's a hypothetical exaggeration here, to make it obvious to the reader, hardly a place to base a doctrine for a prayer language! Some then quote 1 Cor 14 but the entire emphasis of that chapter is in the gift of prophecy where all can be edified by understanding clearly what the speaker or the person praying publicly is saying!

Thought... Why does a prophesy sound exactly like an interpretation?

In verse one he asks us to desire the gifts but most importantly - prophesy. The Greek meaning of prophesy is to both foretell and forthtell, or to preach understandably. The word is propheuo and means to declare truth whether through prediction or not. In verse 5 Paul wishes that they all spoke with tongues. Why? They would be more useful if they all had the ability to cross language barriers. But he prefers that they prophesy unless there is an interpreter. Now this leads to the next question...

It's all right to speak in tongues if there is an interpretation!

First of all, that's not the emphasis here, secondly, what kind of language was being interpreted?

Let's use our imagination here for a sec. Suppose you've been given a 'language' gift from the Lord and you use it in the meeting. Only one problem, no one understands what you just prayed including you! (verse 14) My spirit (i.e. my inward sincerity) was there, but who knows what I said! Over and over again Paul places the emphasis on communicating that all may understand in this chapter. He even uses musical instruments as an analogy.

In verses 27 and 28 Paul states that speaking in tongues is permissible if we have two, and at the most three speak in this fashion. Then, and only then, if one interprets. Let's use our imagination again, eh? The assembly has gathered, and the pastor moves to the pulpit and lo and behold, he's carrying the original Hebrew text! Someone says afterward: "Wow! We heard a message from Hebrew! He sure is gifted having the ability to read the original Hebrew! We sure are blessed, I enjoyed hearing the Hebrew read today in our meeting." The other would respond: "Yeah, but I wonder what he said?" Sound far-fetched? The Roman Catholics have read sermons in Latin for years! Paul is telling them, if you do use a different language, explain it that all understand.

Tongues was explained at pentecost as a gift given to clearly communicate the Gospel in a language that all could understand. It's the same Greek word "glossa" throughout the New Testament and yes, even in 1 Corinthians where Paul found the most problems. Being the same Greek word, why should anyone change the meaning to the way it is being practiced by Revival and their ilk?

Where do they get off implying that all who don't practice tongues are on their way to hell?
Where do they get the revelation to say that one church is better than the other because one practices tongues and the other doesn't?

Not from the bible.

and some more...

A little bit of logic unravels the whole 'gifts' ritual very quickly. ie. The two or three tongue messages TO the Lord are interpreted as messages FROM the Lord. The interpretations are completely similar to the two or three prophesies that come afterward... and are not prophetic at all.

Many Revivalists claim the miracle of the gifts because the one they were about to blurt out had a similar message to the one that got in first. This isn't surprising considering everyone in the community has been listening to the same talks, and talking in the same circles... not to mention the mathematical coincidence effect that there are only so many topics commonly used and that every now and again someone is going to beat you to the punch with a similar message.

Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

2007-07-13T04:13:00.000-07:00

Reply to : Brett [Anonymous]

THERE IS A GENIUNE EXPERIENCE OF MIRACULUOSLY SPEAKING IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE WHEN FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE, AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY.

BUT THERE IS THE REAL THING.

As I mentioned earlier, I will assume that there is a real thing and will not attempt to discredit your experience (at least in these threads...) so please don't feel the need to justify your experience. I accept that. There is no doubt that the bible teaches there is such a thing as speaking in tongues and as we are utilising the Bible in these threads, I have no desire or reason to attempt to contradict the Bible here. Rather I would like to try to discern what the Bible has to say about the role of speaking in tongues in salvation.

WE CANT FIND THE ANSWER IN THE GOSPELS OF MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN BECAUSE THEY DESCRIBE EVENTS BEFORE THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS GIVEN. THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS NOT TO BE GIVEN TILL AFTER JESUS HAS DIED, ROSE AGAIN, ASCENDED AND BE GLORIFIED. SO, WE CANT READ ABOUT PEOPLE RECEIVING THE SPIRIT IN THE GOSPELS, CAUSE NO ONE DID. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

I don't agree with that statement at all. However, as I have said, let's stick with Acts for now and get into that one later on if we need to.

MANY THEOLOGIANS OBJECT TO THIS BY SAYING THAT WE CANT USE ACTS FOR CONSTRUCTING DOCTRINE BECAUSE IT IS MERELY "NARRATIVE". THEY SAY IT JUST A HISTOICAL RECORD TELLING US WHAT DID HAPPEN NOT WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN, SO FOR DEFINING DOCTRINE WE SHOULD ONLY USE SCRIPTURE THAT IS EXPLICITLY "TEACHING" AND NOT NARRATIVE.

BUT THIS OBJECTION IS TOTALLY WRONG BECAUSE IT SAYS IN 1st TIMOTHY 3:16 THAT: "ALL SCRIPTURE IS USEFUL FOR...... DOCTRINE....".SINCE ACTS IS SCRIPTURE WE CAN THEREFORE USE IT TO DEFINE DOCTRINE, SO, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG OR UNSCRIPTURAL WITH CONSTRUCTING A DOCTRINE OF RECEIVING THE SPIRIT FROM THE BOOK OF ACTS. IN FACT, AS I'VE ALREADY SAID, IT IS THE ONLY PART OF THE N.T. THAT YOU CAN DO SO FROM.
Sure. I understand where you're coming from with that. There is little doubt that many use Acts as a place from which to draw doctrine.

WHAT DO WE FIND HAPPENING IN THE BOOK OF ACTS AT THE MOMENT PEOPLE RECEIVE THE SPIRIT? SPEAKING IN TONGUES.

On some ocassions yes. But the point I was making in posting Drew Dixon's article is that this is not always the case. You can ignore that point all you like, but it is still a fact. Not everyone in the book of Acts exhibits tongues at their point of salvation. I know you touch on this later in your post, but whether tongues is always the sign or not (by inference), you simply cannot say that Acts ALWAYS says they spoke in tongues when saved. It's simply not there.

IN ACTS 2, ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST, WHEN THE FIRST DISCIPLES RECEIVED THE SPIRIT, WHAT DID THE NON-CHRISTIAN CROWD SEE AND HEAR THAT SO AMAZED THEM AND CAUGHT THEIR ATTENTION?

DID THEY SEE THE "LOVE" OF THE DISCIPLES? WERE THEY AMAZED COZ THEY SAW THE "PATIENCE" OR "GENTLENESS" OF THE DISCIPLES?
NO. IT WAS TONGUES.

I feel you are looking at these verses as proof-texts for your doctrine, rather than looking at what it actually says. If we are to try to use this a a normative example of someone's salvation then we need to consider a few points.

1. There was the sound of a rushing wind.

2. Tongues of fire appeared over the apostles.

3. The apostles spoke in tongues.

4. People heard these tongues as being their own diverse languages.

So, if your belief that Acts 2 is a normative salvation account then we MUST also expect wind, tongues of fire, and immediate translation of the tongues by someone who naturally speaks that language. But all these things combined NEVER happen doe they? In othr words, ACTS 2 IS NORMATIVE FOR NO ONE EXCEPT THE APOSTLES!!!

But wait! There's more!

Now if I can take this even further and quote Ian Thomason here, who is well versed in Koine Greek,

"When the current versification of the Bible is removed, the artificial division that separates 1:26 from 2:1-4 disappears. What we find is that the antecedent to the verb 'they-were-filled' (as in "...they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues") is héndeka apostólon: the eleven apostles with whom Matthias had recently been added. As is the case with English, the action of the Greek verb effects the subject of the sentence or passage. In this instance, the grammatical subject of the passage is the eleven apostles. The 'one hundred and twenty' of verse 15 cannot function as the subject of the account. As I mentioned earlier, Luke's Greek is very polished. It's clear, then, that he intended to impress upon his readers that the twelve apostles alone spoke the languages ('tongues') at Pentecost." (http://pleaseconsider.info/index_frame.htm?../articles/acts/acts2.htm)

In other words, the others of the 120 did not have tongues of fire upon them nor did they speak in tongues. This is why most religious art depicting the Day of Pentecost only shows the Apostles having this experience.

This is not an attempt by mainstream churches to denounce the tongues doctrine, such was not even heard of when these paintings were done. Rather their tradition reflects the Greek text.

Then further on the account we read that:

The 3000 were baptised and were added to the church

No signs were associated with the believers

Signs were evident, all of which were attributed to and centred on the Apostles

3000 MORE AND NO TONGUES!!!

So what you have here Brett is not a solid proof-text for your Revivalist doctrine at all. Rather it affirms the opposite that not everyone spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost.

As I have said, please don't think this is an attack on your tongues experience. It isn't. Rather it is a challenge to your assumptions and preconceptions (birthed and nurtured in the cult) about speaking in tongues in the Bible.

Glossolalia

2007-07-13T04:11:00.000-07:00

Glossolalia is fabricated, meaningless speech.

According to Dr. William T. Samarin, professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto,

glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly .... Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language (Nickell, 108).

When spoken by schizophrenics, glossolalia are recognized as gibberish. In charismatic Christian communities glossolalia is sacred and referred to as "speaking in tongues" or having "the gift of tongues." In Acts of the Apostles, tongues of fire are described as alighting on the Apostles, filling them with the Holy Spirit. Allegedly, this allowed the Apostles to speak in their own language but be understood by foreigners from several nations. Glossolalics, on the other hand, speak in a foreign language and are understood by nobody.

Glossolalics behave in various ways, depending upon the social expectations of their community. Some go into convulsions or lose consciousness; others are less dramatic. Some seem to go into a trance; some claim to have amnesia of their speaking in tongues. All believe they are possessed by the Holy Spirit and the gibberish they utter is meaningful. However, only one with faith and the gift of interpretation is capable of figuring out the meaning of the meaningless utterances. Of course, this belief gives the interpreter unchecked leeway in "translating" the meaningless utterances. Nicholas Spanos notes: "Typically, the interpretation supports the central tenets of the religious community" (Spanos, 147).

Stuttering gibberish that is interpreted as profound mystical insight by holy men is an ancient practice. In Greece, even the priest of Apollo, god of light, engaged in prophetic babbling. The ancient Israelites did it. So did the Jansenists, the Quakers, the Methodists, and the Shakers.

Do 'tongues' equal the 'Rest' of Isaiah 28?

2007-07-13T03:50:00.000-07:00

For a more detailed

1) The Rest: God spoke of the Rest as something that we absolutely MUST enter. The only scriptural position I could find in response to the ABSOLUTE STATEMENT from GOD was found in Isaiah 28:9-12. This verse placed me in a position where Tongues was the only initial outward evidence to the individual where they could know with scriptural certainty that they had entered this place of Rest. I feel cornered by this statement. If I profess to be in agreement with Hebrews Chapter 4, which emphasises the requirement of entry into the/a Rest. But cannot say amen to "stammering lips and another tongue" where does that leave me.

I thought you said you gave this some study and knew bible history? Let's have a look at the verse: Isa.28:11 "For with another tongue will he speak to this people." As you would know, the Isaiah scripture clearly records the time when the Babylonians came in to destroy and captivate Judah, and by hearing those who spoke in a foreign strange language they would know God's judgement had come. This was the rest and refreshing they were trying to enter but could not because 'they did not hear'... They would not hear. Paul refered to this terrible time in history and reminded his church that the tongues (languages) of the enemy at that terrible time were a sign of their unbelief. Tongues are a sign of God's judgement to unbelievers.

Haven't you and the rest of Revivians ever thought it weird that it says that it's another tongue he will speak to this people. It's not the this people that are actually doing the tongue speaking. It's refering to a normal human language that is different to the native tongue. Amazing how self-centred we can be to imagine that the language we personally speak is the central important one.

1 Corinthians 14 that "tongues are a sign to the unbelievers, tongues are a sign of God's judgment to unbelievers
Isaiah 28:11 "For with another tongue will he speak to this people."

This people were the Jews at Pentecost to authenticate the Gospel they were preaching. When the Northern kingdom were gobsmacked in disbelief they were taken captive by the Assyrians and could not understand the language spoken. Amazing this historical and well known even in Jewish history has been convoluted into the glossalalian theology.

GWM - Why do you think Paul refered to Isaiah 28 when refering to Tongues as a sign to the unbeliever?

Okay... I did cover that but obviously you weren't reading me because I explained what Paul was referrring to when he reminded his church of Isaiah 28... perhaps if I reword it a little for you:

Isa.28:11 "For with another tongue will he speak to this people." - by hearing those who spoke in a foreign strange language they would know God's judgement had come. Paul refered to this terrible time in history and reminded his church that the tongues are a sign of unbelief. Tongues are a sign of God's judgement to unbelievers.

You see, it's all about context. The ones in Isaiah who were speaking in another tongue were the enemy! EEK!!! He wasn't talking about.

See, the funny thing is that Paul was using the story to warn the followers of what would happen if they ignore the gospel message they were preaching. Because he slips in a reference to the enemy using another language, Revivalsists and co slip it into the bag of 'tongues' references.

The following is an excerpt from an exaustive study on the subject, it can be found 'here'.

Okay, given that we'll be touching upon Isaiah 28, I note the remarkable irony of my current situation when I read in the prophet's words (vv. 9 & 10): "Whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from milk, those taken from the breast? For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little." As I hope will become clear, given the current circumstance, that the prophet's words are very ironic indeed! I strongly recommend that you have a Bible handy as you read along with what I've written, so as to follow the flow of the argument that I am attempting to make. So let's hook in!

Mark 16: An Exegetical Essay

2007-07-13T03:29:00.000-07:00

2) The 16^th Chapter of Mark: Mark 16:15-20 gives five signs of believers. These signs were evident with the early church as they have been in my life. The critic would say, "Have you picked up snakes with your hands"??? The answer is no insomuch as physical serpents. I have however seen from scripture that the term "Pick up" can be and indeed should be, given the context "make to doubt". Equally to drink any deadly thing should be "imbibe, take in and keep mentally".

Mark 16: An Exegetical Essay

(paraphrased by Moth -me- without permission of the author)

Revivalists use Mark 16 as a standard 'proof-text' for their Pentecostal experience, but there seems to be some selective reading. For years the RCI has followed pastor Lloyd's unique interpretation that Mark 16 should be read as a parable from verse 9 onwards. See the essay essay, titled "Is it a Parable?" that effectively demolishes that line of argument.

... consulted many commentaries on 'Mark' that were written from the fourth century onwards in an effort to locate anyone at any point in history, who has offered a similar suggestion to that provided by Lloyd Longfield. He was unable to find one. Therefore it should be in question.

Mark 16:15-18

You know the scripture: "...preach the gospel to everyone. The one who believes and is baptised will be saved, but the one who doesn't believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: drive out demons..., new languages..., pick up snakes... unharmed from poison,.... place hands on sick."

Jesus' parting words to his disciples were, "go into the world, and preach the gospel to everyone!" To Christ, the most important thing in the world wasn't that the disciples go into it, but that the gospel was preached: the sole command in the verse is "preach the gospel". I offer that a misunderstanding of the nature of the gospel invariably leads to a misunderstanding of the nature of salvation. History demonstrates that such confusion all too frequently results in a rapid spiral into works-based, human-centric; fear-breeding forms of religious legalism, as such remains the natural religion of fallen human beings.

Ian has a lot of neat stuff here to say about the greek but if I skim over it I'm sure many others will. So I recommend checking the original manuscript to go deeper.

We now arrive at the most disputed portion of this biblical passage: Christ's teaching on the "signs".

Given that Jesus used the Greek plural for "signs" (sēmeia) in our passage, the first question that we need to ask ourselves is simple: how is this word used in (1) the NT record generally, and (2) Mark's gospel particularly? (Moth - more Greek stuff... refer back... I just can't bring myself to soak it in... I just can't) Mark went on further to describe five specific "signs" (note they are plural) that would "accompany" (a future tense, active voice, indicative mood verb) those who "believe" (again an active voice, aorist participle). They are:

(1) that in Christ's name they will drive out demons;
(2) they will speak in new languages;
(3) they will pick up snakes with their hands, and
(4) whatever poison they drink won't harm them; and finally
(5) that they will place their hands on the sick and they will recover.

The RCI understands the majority of these "signs" (numbers 1, 3 and 4) to be somehow parabolic or metaphorical. The RF, on the other hand, apparently accepts the literal interpretation of the majority of Mark's "signs", but understands them to be latent promises to be called upon as required. However, that confuses what Mark signs", with Paul's "spiritual gifts"! The former, however, serves to demonstrate the reality of God to an unbelieving world; the latter serves to build-up an already believing Christian assembly. In reality though, the RF has also attempted to reinterpret away the simple teaching of Scripture because it doesn't gel with the their doctrine.

Because the Revivalist groups universally claim the gift of tongues (itself a biblically defensible position), and because they universally link this particular spiritual gift with the receiving of God's Holy Spirit in the mystery of salvation (itself not a biblically defensible position); they can't simply jettison Mark 16:15-18 due to the difficulties that a straightforward reading of the passage presents them with.

"Yes, all speak in tongues! Well...we do see some people being healed through prayer sometimes. But clearly it's their fault! They must lack faith! Well, no...we'll have none of that demon stuff and nonsense here, and don't even being with the poison-drinking, snake-handling rubbish!"

Unfortunately though, Mark doesn't allow so casual a picking-and-choosing of what one is prepared to accept as valid when it comes to the "signs" that Mark 16 presents. To him, one either accepts the lot, or one rejects the lot. (see original manuscript for the grammatical reasons).

The answer

The RF in particular has assumed two things about Jesus' words at the beginning of verse 17: "these signs shall accompany those who believe". First, that the future tense indicates a promise rather than a prediction. And second, that it's a promise to all believers.

However, given that the statement appears after a conditional sentence (16:16), and given the entire range of subsequent contextual grammatical conditions that Mark presents ("...he that...and is...shall be..."), it's clear that the statement itself should be taken as a prediction rather than as a promise. This is further supported by the fact that each of the six instances of third person plural verbs mentioned with respect to the "signs" of verses 17 and 18, are categorical (or ?generalising') plurals. Categorical plurals separate and distinguish one group, from every other group. This form of plural exists in Greek, as it more easily yields itself to a generic notion: the focus is more towards the action, than it is towards the actor (i.e. "this is the kind of person who does this"). In our text the "signs" serve to distinguish Christian believers as a group, from every other group of people on the planet.

Our current text doesn't teach that all believers will cast out demons through to healing the sick at all. The stress isn't on the notion of promises given to believers it's on the authentication of Christianity as being from God before an unbelieving world. The passage, therefore, teaches that some Christians may speak in tongues. Others may cast out demons. Others still may be involved in the range of supernatural effects that are described, but these effects are simply one part of what it is that demonstrates the uniqueness of the Christian Church as a group separate to and from every other group. The effects?the "signs"?aren't individual promises, they're corporate predictions.

Conclusion

Revivalists collectively appeal to Mark 16:15-20 to authenticate their shared spiritual experience of "tongues", and further, to validate their unique theology that one must speak in tongues in order to be a "true" believer. However, Mark 16:15-20 doesn't reflect or represent the Revivalist theology at all. Each of the Revivalist groups has gone to extraordinary lengths over the years to explain-away the "missing signs", when what has really been missing is a proper appreciation of the passage's true meaning, as it stands. The Revivalist groups, quite simply, have gotten Mark 16 wrong.

A Tongues Misconception - Exposed!

2007-07-13T03:09:00.000-07:00

There is a common misconception that tongues began at Pentecost, and were 'something new'. In fact, there are references to the tongues experience in earlier Jewish literature.

Philo, a Jewish writer contemporary with Jesus, noted a tradition concerning Sinai:

"it was the Father of the universe who delivered these ten maxims, or oracles, or laws and enactments, as they truly are, to the whole assembled nation of men and women altogether ... he at that time wrought a most conspicuous and evidently holy miracle, commanding an invisible sound to be created in the air ... which fashioned the air and stretched it our and changed it into a kind of flaming fire, and so sounded forth so loud and articulate voice like a breath passing through a trumpet ... the power of God, breathing forth vigorously, aroused and excited a new kind of miraculous voice, and diffusing its sound in every direction, made the end more conspicuous at a distance than the beginning, implanting in the soul of each individual another hearing ... the flame being endowed with articulate speech in a language familiar to the hearers." (De Decalogo. IX-XI)

So there was a fascinating tradition of tongues before the Pentecost experience (see also the Testament of Job). Philo's tradition of events at Sinai may even provide an explanation of what the events at Pentecost meant in Jewish thought of the time. Jewish tradition is that Pentecost falls on the same day as the giving of the Mosaic Law at Sinai. Just as Moses mediated the first covenant at Sinai, the Lord Jesus mediated the better covenant at Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:18-24).

Note the similarities of Moses' experience with the Acts 2 experience. There was a new covenant, people of all nations present, a mighty sound, a tongue of fire, and a voice touching each listener personally. It seems that the Lord wrought the same miracle in Jerusalem as was said to have occurred previously at Sinai. There were tongues in the first covenant, and the Pentecostal tongues showed that the Lord had cut a New Covenant.

Because of the tradition Philo explains, many maintain that the Acts 2 tongues were not necessarily meant as a normative sign every time someone received the Spirit. The tongues were a sign of God's new covenant cut with humankind, with comparisons to the Sinai covenant tradition. Tongues are, in fact, a very poor indication of whether someone is saved or not, as is discussed in the next article.

© 1997, All rights reserved. Feel free to copy and distribute any information on this page as you like, but do not alter or sell it without my permission. Unless otherwise indicated, the Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, Copyright 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

Tongues - an Unsound Evidence of Salvation

2007-07-13T03:00:00.000-07:00

"as we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave girl who had a spirit of divination ... Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, 'I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.'" (Acts 16:16-18)

Acts 16 is a deep Scipture - deceptively simple, but one of those scriptures we come across from time to time that is bursting with meaning beneath the surface. Paul was much annoyed with this girl who had a 'spirit of divination'. Let's look at those words. In Greek, she had a pneu'ma py'tho·na, or literally, "a spirit of python". The NRSV Harper-Collins Study Bible notes of Acts 16:

"Spirit of divination, lit. 'a spirit of the Python,' which was associated with the Delphic oracle."

The Python was a mythical beast which guarded the Oracle of Delphi, near Corinth. At the Oracle of Delphi, travellers would congregate to hear a prophecy of the future for themselves or their country. According to some historians, the Pythoness (priestess) would cry out in unintelligible sounds which were interpreted by another person to form ambiguous verses. To have a spirit of the Python would be to be like the Pythoness - it would be someone who was filled with the demonic spirit of the oracle... someone who would prophecy by crying out in unintelligible sounds!

And as such, there is scriptural evidence in Acts 16 for false tongues. That is not to say that all tongues are wrong. While Paul excorcised this slave girl in Acts from the spirit of the Python, he himself spoke in tongues, and was glad of the experience (1.Cor.14:18). What does it tell us? It tells us clearly that there can be false tongues in the world! As Paul also wrote:

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thess 2: 9-10).

What have we learned from the experience of the slave girl? When someone 'speaks in tongues' we cannot be sure that they have salvation, becuase tongues is not a solely Christian phenomenon. According to Professor Maja-Lisa Swartz of the Helsinki University, after her research of the Tanzanian tribes people, "speaking in tongues is nothing specific for the Christian religion. It appears in all religions and is no guarantee for what type of spirit it is that the speaker is speaking for".

For example, John MacArthur writes, in Charismatic Chaos, "Ecstatic speech is a part of many pagan religions in Africa, East Africa. Tonga people of Africa, when a demon is exorcised, sing in Zulu even though they say they don't know the Zulu language. Ecstatic speech is found today among Muslims, Eskimos, Tibetan monks. It is involved in parapsychological occult groups. Did you know that the Mormons, even Joseph Smith himself advocates speaking in tongues? It could be demonic." An Encyclopædia of Occultism says, "Speaking and writing in foreign tongues, or in unintelligible outpourings mistaken for such, is a very old form of psychic phenomenon."

Tongues are, therefore, an unsound evidence of salvation. They can be demonic! Do you say that someone is 'saved' when they speak in tongues? It is a poor test, if even pagans speak in tongues. Are the Tonga people saved when they speak in tongues? Are the Voodoo people, or the Buhhdist monks saved when they speak in tongues?

Tongues is clearly not God's evidence of salvation. And yet, someone can know whether they are saved or not. In 1John 5:13, it is written:

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

How do you know you have eternal life? John doesn't mention tongues. If tongues were the sign that someone was saved, he would have metioned it there. But instead he says about those who know they have eternal life "you who believe in the name of the Son of God"! Recall the comments about testing the Spirits, "test the spirits to see whether they are from God: for many false prophets have gone out into the world ... every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God" (1John 4:1-3). So how do you know you have the right Spirit and eternal life? The answer turns on whether you can "confess Jesus". It is here that the Tonga people, Voodoos, and Buhhdist priests fail.

Perhaps you speak in tongues, and have always thought it was clear evidence of your salvation. Yet, you see now that tongues cannot prove anything.

Praying in the Spirit

2007-07-13T02:58:00.000-07:00

Support for the Revivalist position that 'speaking in tongues' equals 'prayer in the Spirit', is drawn, principally, from two passages: (1) 1 Corinthians 14:13-16 [explicitly], and (2) Jude 19-20 [implicitly]. Of the two, the first is the most frequently presented:

For more information please click 'here'.

Did God confuse languages as a curse or a blessing?

2007-07-13T02:00:00.000-07:00

Let's talk about tongues, baby
let's talk about you and me
Let's talk about all the good things
and the bad things that may be
let's talk about tongues...
-

That was the musical introduction to today's talk on tongues set to the music from the beloved pop song, 'let's talk bout sex'. Of course tongues has nothing to do with sex unless you are a cunning-linguist and if that were actually the 'gift' given at the day of penteconst then we've truly been missing out on something special. Because apparently that is a gift that no man understands... unless gifted.

I was moved to ponder the concept of confusing languages and I think I mentioned earlier my confusion that God rewarded his people of the new testament a language that was confusing to man because only God understood it, yet punished his Old testament people by giving them languages that couldn't be understood by each other.

That lead me to explore the following concepts... which are sort of... confusing.

GE 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.

1CO 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.

----;-P)-----

GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.

GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.

Why were the tongues confused at the Tower of Babel?

Prior to the building of the Tower of Babel, which was approximately 100 years after the flood, the people of the earth spoke one language (Gn. 11:1). When the men of the earth began to build the tower without divine specifications and also to make a name for themselves, Yahweh said: "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech (Gn.11:7)."

They couldn't finish building the tower because they couldn't understand each other's language. This is how mankind began to speak various languages or tongues. Thus, the day of Pentecost is, in reality, the reversal of tongues that previously were confused at the Tower of Babel. At Pentecost men once again began to understand one another form a spiritual sense.
Did the Messiah speak in tongues in His ministry?

During the three and a half years of the Messiah's ministry He spoke parables which are a form of ?tongue' that weren't understood by the people. He didn't speak in another language. The Messiah was born a Hebrew or Israelite and He spoke Hebrew (See the "Did You Know?" section of the Complimentary Issue of the "PLIM REPORT," p. 13). His mission was to fulfill the scriptures (Mt. 5:17-18), which were also written in Hebrew.

Many of the prophets prophesied that the Messiah would speak to Israel in another tongue. Isaiah the prophet wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit: "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people (Isa. 28:11)." The Apostle Paul wrote: "In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith Yahweh (the Lord, 1 Cor. 14:21)." Now one may ask, if the Messiah's native tongue were Hebrew, what did Isaiah mean when he wrote that the Messiah would speak in another tongue.

Worldwide Church of God

2007-07-13T01:53:00.000-07:00

The Gift of Tongues
Historically, the most controversial gift has been tongues. It was controversial on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem; it was controversial a few years later in Caesarea; it was controversial later on in Corinth. Throughout the centuries, small groups of Christians have occasionally spoken in tongues, almost always generating controversy.

Today, millions of Christians speak in tongues. Some are found in Roman Catholic churches, some in liberal mainstream groups, some in conservative evangelical churches, and many in Pentecostal denominations. Even though tongues-speaking has such diverse participants, it is still controversial. So now, I hope to give some perspective on this practice, both to help people who are afraid of it, and those who think too highly of this gift.

The modern resurgence of tongue-speaking is generally traced to the turn of the century. In 1900, Charles Parham and a small group in Kansas began to speak in tongues after studying about this gift in the Bible. In 1906, Parham went to Los Angeles and spoke at the Azusa Street Mission Revival (no connection with Azusa Pacific University), and the movement quickly spread from there.

In the early years, most denominations rejected tongues-speaking as lunacy or demonic, and as one might expect, tongues-speakers left such hostile churches and formed churches in which they were allowed and encouraged to speak in tongues. Thus Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God were formed.

There is no question that many of these Pentecostal churches had numerous theological errors. They made many mistakes in their zeal to follow God. As time went on, they learned more and corrected many of their errors. This is a dynamic that we should well understand.
In the 1960s, another wave of tongues-speaking occurred in more traditional churches. This time, many churches did not ridicule or drive these people away; they were accepted as charismatic sub-groups within the churches. Nevertheless, tongues-speaking is still controversial. Some Christians teach that God simply does not give miraculous gifts to anyone in the church today; yet others still claim that all Christians ought to seek and practice the gift of tongues.

As recounted in his Autobiography, Herbert Armstrong encountered some Pentecostal people in his early ministry, and he found them to be divisive. And after such experiences, he was strongly opposed to tongues-speaking, even though he was strongly in favor of other miraculous gifts, such as healing. The WCG remained opposed to tongues for decades, and if anybody ever spoke in tongues, they kept pretty quiet about it.

But more recently, we have recognized that some Christians do indeed speak in tongues. We have been slower to criticize and more willing to consider the possibility that tongues-speaking may be an authentic gift of the Holy Spirit. Meanwhile, WCG members have visited tongues-speaking churches, and some of our members and ministers have begun to speak in tongues, usually in private.

Knowing how controversial tongues have been in other churches, and knowing our previous dogmatic rejection of tongues, it is no surprise that questions arise when some of our members and ministers begin to speak in tongues, even privately. Due to our lack of experience in this area, it is also no surprise that some excesses have occurred. New-found zeal sometimes carries people further than it should.

Information about Tongues

Since Scripture is our ultimate authority for doctrine and Christian living, it is essential that we understand what the Bible says about tongues. Here I will refer you to our booklet on tongues. Although this booklet is now out of stock, it is still a good analysis of the subject.
For those who want further study on this subject, the booklet has a bibliography of helpful resources, written from several perspectives. I also refer you to the book Are Miraculous Gifts For Today? Four Views, edited by Wayne Grudem (Zondervan, 1996). I will not enter the detailed arguments addressed in the book, but I will simply affirm that I believe that God still performs miracles today. I see no biblical reason to think that he no longer gives anyone the ability to speak in tongues.

However, simply because someone "speaks in tongues" does not mean that he or she has this spiritual gift. As our booklet pointed out, various non-Christians, from ancient pagans to modern Buddhists, have spoken in tongues. Tongues-speaking, in itself, is no proof of anything. (Similarly, non-Christians may also have leadership, service, compassion, teaching and other abilities that are similar to spiritual gifts.)

Some tongues-speaking is also called ecstatic speech, which is a psychomotor function of the brain. In normal speech, two parts of the brain work together. In ecstatic speech, one part of the brain tells the mouth and tongue to speak, but the conscious portion of the brain does not supply any particular guidance for what words to speak, so unintelligible syllables come out. This can happen if a person is startled, for example, or if consciousness is altered in some way.
Also, some tongues-speaking may be done in imitation (perhaps subconsciously) of a respected leader. People who are seeking a particular experience are (like hypnotized people) psychologically very susceptible to suggestions like that.

However, I do not think that all tongues-speaking can be explained in these ways, and I believe that some tongues-speaking is genuinely a gift of God. I also recognize that God sometimes works through observable phenomena, and just because some tongues-speaking has a psychomotor explanation does not mean it isn't a gift.

As I have written before, the psychological state in which tongues-speaking occurs is usually pleasant. It is liberating to get rid of some of their inhibitions. It is encouraging to put oneself in a very responsive state, ready to respond to God working in their lives. Tongues-speaking is not the only way to do this, but it is one way, and it encourages people in their walk with the Lord.
One pastor observed the irony that most Christians can talk about almost any spiritual gift with nothing but praise, but as soon as tongues is mentioned, it has to be accompanied by all sorts of cautionary statements. I agree that this is an irony. All sorts of spiritual gifts can be misused, and cautions can be given for them all. But historically, and in our present experience, tongues causes the most problems and needs the most caution. But still, I affirm that it is one of God's spiritual gifts, and it is therefore good.

I respect and honor Christians who speak in tongues; I respect and honor those who do not. I do not want to quench the Spirit; I do not want to "forbid speaking in tongues" (1 Cor. 14:39).
But I also want to follow what Paul said in the very next verse: "Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way" (v. 40). So let me address how tongues, if used, should be done in an orderly way. Again, since Scripture is our ultimate guide for doctrine and Christian living, let us examine what Scripture says about how tongues should be used.

Biblical Data

First, Paul reminds the Corinthians that God divides his gifts among his people (1 Cor. 12:8-11; 29-30). It is not realistic to expect everyone to speak in tongues — and yet that is what some Pentecostals unfortunately do. This is divisive today, just as it was in ancient Corinth.
When a Christian says, my gift is better than your gift, it is an insult to other Christians, and an insult to God. No one should feel superior about a spiritual gift, since no one deserves any of the gifts. The gifts are given to serve others, not to feel superior to others.

We do not need to seek the gift of tongues. We need to seek God, and let him decide which gift is best for us. Paul says we should seek the "more excellent way"— love (1 Cor. 12:31 and chapter 13)— or the gift of prophecy, which is speaking words of encouragement, comfort and edification (1 Cor. 14:1-4).

Without love, we are spiritually worthless, no matter what tongues we speak. It reminds me of the story of one person who attended a Pentecostal church for several years and became a lay leader in one of the ministries. Eventually it was learned that this leader had never spoken in tongues, and people were shocked that the leader was "deficient" in the Christian experience! Yet the person drew a different conclusion from the situation: speaking in tongues made no discernible difference in the way a person lives. Even after years of being around a person, others simply could not know whether the person had ever spoken in tongues.
My friend Jack Hayford says he speaks in tongues in his prayers every day. That does not impress me, nor does he expect it to. That is not its purpose. Tongues is not a show of spirituality. It is to edify the self, not to impress others (v. 4). If it edifies the self, that's wonderful. If it is done to impress others, it's being used in a wrong way, a carnal way. Paul said he spoke in tongues a lot (v. 18). He knew what it meant to pray in words he did not understand (v. 14). But he also knew that this was not proof of spiritual greatness.
I don't care how often Jack speaks in tongues. What I care about is the way he lives the rest of his time. Does he live and function in love? Does he use his other gifts to edify the body of Christ? Does he walk humbly and give all glory to God? I think he sets a good example in all these areas. His tongues-speaking neither adds to nor takes away from his character as a Christian.

To use another example, I don't care whether you eat cereal or eggs for breakfast. Neither one makes you a better person. But I do care if you exalt your particular preference into a badge of betterness. "Everybody ought to be like me because I like the way I am." Such approaches are divisive and un-Christian. They also miss Paul's point, that God has distributed his gifts among his people and he wants them to work together in their diversity.

The Corinthian Christians had a lot of problems, and apparently the way they spoke in tongues was a problem in the church. Paul told them to stop being proud and arrogant. He told them to stop being self-centered. He told them to grow up and be more sensible (v. 20). But he did not tell them to stop speaking in tongues.

However, he did lay down some regulations, and they were quite limiting. For example: Only one person should speak at a time (v. 27). Church services should not be a competition to see who can talk the most. The Holy Spirit does not inspire more than one person to speak at a time.
Second, people should speak in tongues only if an interpreter is present (v. 28). Incidentally, it is interesting that many people want to speak in tongues, but not many "seek" the gift of interpretation, even though interpretation is of greater value to the church. I think this shows that tongues have been overvalued. Unfortunately, in some churches, tongues are often spoken without an interpreter present. The person simply speaks whether or not an interpreter is there, contrary to the instructions Paul gave.

And what if the speaker doesn't know whether an interpreter is present? Then the speaker ought to remain silent. After all, if the gift is genuine, the speaker should be able to control it (v. 32). God does not bypass a person's willpower. Indeed, part of the fruit of God's Spirit is self-control (Gal. 5:23; 2 Tim. 1:7).

Balanced Approach

One Pasadena church that I know of has an interesting approach to tongues-speaking. People who want to practice this gift may do so — not during the regular church service, but in their own small group meetings. And then there must be two or more interpreters present. The interpreters write down the interpretation, and then they see whether the interpretations match. Sometimes they do, but often they do not, which means that either one or both of the interpreters are mistaken. This cautions us not to be too quick to believe any uncorroborated interpretation — and certainly not if it contradicts Scripture!

It would just be a lot easier if people sought the gift of prophecy — speaking edifying and intelligible words — rather than tongues, which might not help anybody else (v. 5). Tongues and interpretations are often misunderstood. Even prophesy can be misunderstood, which is why Paul advises us, "the others should weigh carefully what is said" (v. 29).

However, even if an interpreter is present, it is simply best not to speak in tongues in the church service. The gift of tongues is for self-edification, not for edifying anyone else (v. 4). It just doesn't make sense for one member to interrupt everyone else and say, "Hold everything. Just wait a few minutes please while I edify myself. Watch me and listen to me, even though it won't do you any good." Tongues, since they help only the speaker, are appropriate for private prayers, but not for public assemblies.

Tongues are also a distraction. Public tongues-speaking almost always focuses attention on the speaker, not on God. Non-Christians are usually put off by tongues-speaking. Some find it quite fascinating, of course, and some even consider it to be proof of divine blessing, but most do not. It is confusing, and if the person realizes that various non-Christians also speak in tongues, it is also inconclusive. People need to be impressed by the gospel, not by unusual phenomena. If the person is convinced by emotional impressions rather than truth, the person has an unstable foundation for belief. Emotions are important, of course, but they should be a response to the gospel, not a substitute for it.

Our Practice

Paul warned the Corinthians not to allow tongues to get out of control in their worship services, since it could confuse unbelievers: "If the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?" (v. 23). It is not surprising, then, that some Christians also consider it inappropriate.

However, Paul had nothing against tongues-speaking. After all, he spoke in tongues himself (v. 18). But he did have a lot to say against tongues-speaking in church assemblies. "In the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue" (v. 19).

That is what we in the Worldwide Church of God prefer. We want intelligible words; we do not want unintelligible words in our meetings. That is why I say that we are not a tongues-speaking fellowship. Some people in our fellowship speak in tongues, and I defend their privilege to do so in private or in small groups where everyone agrees to accept it. Even then, it needs to be controlled according to the scriptural guidelines.

As a fellowship, when we are gathered as a congregation, we do not want tongues-speaking. This is based not on some irrational fear of things we don't understand — it is based on the guidance Paul has given us, guidance we accept as authoritative, as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

If somebody wants to speak in tongues in a worship service, there are other denominations that allow that sort of thing. If they find it to be self-edifying, that's good, but I encourage them to seek and to use some other spiritual gift that will be helpful to others.

I might also add that even some Pentecostal churches do not allow tongues-speaking in church services. Many of them also recognize that it is unscriptural to allow everybody to speak at once, to speak without an interpreter present, etc. If the pastor were giving a sermon, for example, and a person in the audience began to speak in tongues, then the pastor would tell the person, "Lady (or Sir), control your gift. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of prophets. If you cannot control your gift, the ushers will escort you out." Interrupting the sermon would be just as inappropriate as a person trying to sing a hymn in the middle of the sermon. It is good to sing hymns, but only at the right time and place. Similarly, we do not allow tongues-speaking in our regular worship services.

Expressing Joy in Christ

Now, I love our Pentecostal brothers and sisters a great deal. Many of you interact with them in ministerial associations, and you have also come to love them. Many of them have warmly embraced us as fellow-members in the family of God. The Four Square denomination in particular has been helpful to us. I praise their love for the Lord and their love for neighbor. Many of them set an excellent example.

Pentecostal churches are now the fastest-growing segment of Christianity, especially in Latin America, but also in North America, Europe and Asia. I suspect that one reason it is growing is that Pentecostal churches encourage people to express their emotions rather than suppress them. This can be bad, of course, if people's faith is built on emotions, but it is good if those emotions are a genuine response to the good news of Jesus Christ.

If people really understand the depths of their sinful state, of how utterly disgusting it is, and of the greatness of Jesus' sacrifice for us, of how astonishing his grace toward us is, then it is natural to respond with joy and exuberance — and this emotion does not need to be suppressed, though how it is expressed may vary widely from person to person. We have something worth singing about, something to be happy about. Although we may still be in poverty, we have experienced something wonderful in the love of Jesus Christ, and we share it.

Pentecostal churches are generally freer in how they express this joy. Visitors who attend a Pentecostal church are likely to see people expressing joy and happiness because of their faith in Jesus Christ. This example is an effective aid in evangelism and church growth.

Of course, Pentecostal churches are not the only ones who effectively express their joy in worshiping their Savior, and they are not the only churches that are growing, but as a group, they seem to do it more actively than most. Although I do not agree with all their theology, and certainly not the emphasis on the public practice of tongues-speaking, I do applaud them for the things they are doing well.

Scripture is the ultimate authority for what we do. If growth alone were evidence of truth, then we might all become Muslims or Mormons. Experience may be helpful, but it is not authoritative. Experience may even be very impressive, but that alone does not make it authoritative. Even so, it is still very impressive.

Seeking Experience

Consider a not-so-unusual example, a person who attends a Protestant church every week, but rarely (if ever) experiences the presence of God in his or her own church services. He has doubts as to his own walk with the Lord. He wants to have greater assurance that he is making progress. He wants to have tangible, observable evidence that the Lord is with him. Then he attends a church in which the preacher confidently, boldly, dogmatically says that "yes, you can have confidence if you have a certain experience. That will give you the assurance of the presence of God in your life."

The person wants this experience. It doesn't matter whether it is really proof — it is desirable. And once it comes, it is extremely self-authenticating and reinforcing. The person wanted reassurance, was told in a persuasive way that the particular experience would give him that assurance, and then he had the experience, and true enough, he gained assurance! The person becomes sold on the experience and sometimes even becomes an "evangelist" for the experience.

This has happened within the WCG, just as it has happened in other denominations. People who were spiritually yearning, and not completely grounded doctrinally, were overwhelmed by a particular experience. I do not doubt that the experience was powerful and spiritual. It may have been an enormous spiritual boost, or the highlight of one's life. But that does not mean that it is true, or that everyone should have the same experience, or that Christians should be looked down on if they do not have the same experience. The shock treatment that helped one patient is not the right medicine for the next patient.

More Unusual Manifestations

For many years, speaking in tongues was the primary experience promoted in some Pentecostal circles. But in more recent years, more exotic experiences have been promoted — such things as being slain in the Spirit (fainting and remaining motionless for several hours), laughing in the Spirit (uncontrollable waves of laughter), weeping in the Spirit, barking like a dog, or other para-normal activities. These may be called the Toronto Blessing or the Pensacola Blessing or some other blessing. Several prominent speakers, including Benny Hinn, have promoted some of these exciting phenomena.

These phenomena have been controversial, even in Pentecostal churches. The Toronto Blessing, for example, began in the Vineyard church. Some Vineyard churches promoted the blessing; others resisted it, and now they have split into two denominations. But the blessing makes ripples in many other denominations, too, and has affected some WCG members. The Pensacola Blessing has circulated primarily in the Assemblies of God, but it has also affected other denominations, including our own.

I do not doubt that these experiences are extremely powerful. They feel authentic. But they have unfortunately led some astray, away from biblical authority and into an authority that is based on personal experience. As an extreme example, a pastor who has become enamored with a particular blessing may exhort everyone in the congregation to seek this particular blessing (the blessing, it sometimes seems, gets more focus than Jesus does). He may publicly berate those who do not accept the experience. He may call out names or tell people to leave if they don't like it.

This is, to put it bluntly, legalism. (Sometimes it is easy to call things we don't like an insulting term, like "legalism," but I am confident that in this case I am using the term legalism correctly. It is teaching as a requirement something that is not in Scripture.) We've had experience with old covenant legalism. These people are experiencing a completely nonbiblical legalism. Legalism is unfortunately found in many segments of Christianity, and some of these "blessing" people have fallen into a form of legalism, in which they insist that everybody ought to be like them.
Now suppose the whole congregation got touched and remained unconscious for three hours. Would that make them better Christians, better followers of Jesus Christ? Jesus never did anything of the sort. People who are slain in the spirit do not come out any better than they went in. The experience may encourage them, reassure them, but it does not edify the body of Christ and it should not be promoted as normal or preferable. Would these people eventually yearn for something yet more exotic? At least for some, that has been the pattern. Since the experience is not grounded in any objective truth, it does not give people the solid assurance that they seek. Some eventually seek even more unusual "signs."

One of our pastors observed the results of the Pensacola revival at a nearby Pentecostal church. After an initial flurry of excitement, attendance gradually dropped in half. The same manifestations week after week simply did not build the people up. The focus was on what happened to people during church, and not on what they did the rest of the time. The "revival" has driven away half the church!

Many of the "blessing" people are Christians who love Jesus. But as we know from our own experience, it is quite possible to be Christian while also seriously wrong on major doctrinal questions. I do not want to bash and condemn. I do not attack the people, or call them agents of Satan, but I do have the responsibility, as an under-shepherd of Jesus Christ, to warn our members about false, destructive and divisive doctrines. I want to help people avoid the pain and suffering that comes from following religious errors. The truth sets people free, but errors lead people into bondage.

We do not speak in tongues in our worship services, and we do not promote the more exotic "Pentecostal" manifestations.

To use an analogy, what you eat for breakfast is your own business — but no matter how good it tastes to you, do not act like your choice is spiritually better than other people's. Do not try to get everyone to act like you do. If you have a particular gift, be thankful and rejoice, but do not be divisive. Whatever gift you have, use it to serve others, keeping Scripture as your ultimate authority for faith and practice.

Speaking in tongues stories

2007-07-13T01:44:00.000-07:00

One summer night Louie and Mel set to over the issue of speaking in tongues, Louie arguing that this manifestation of the Spirit was to be sought earnestly, Mel holding that it was a miraculous gift given to the early church but not given by God today. I forget the Scripture verses each of them brought forward to defend his position, but I remember the pale faces, the throat-clearing, the anguished looks, as those two voices went back and forth, straining at the bit, giving no ground - the poisoned courtesy ("I think my brother is overlooking Paul's very clear message to the Corinthians?," "Perhaps my brother needs to take a closer look, a prayerful look, at this verse in Hebrews?") as the sun went down, neighbor children were called indoors, the neighbors turned out their lights, eleven o'clock came - they wouldn't stop!

"Perhaps," Grandpa offered, "it would be meet for us to pray for the Spirit to lead us," hoping to adjourn, but both Louie and Mel felt that the Spirit had led, that the Spirit had written the truth in big black letters - if only some people could see it.

The thought of Uncle Louie speaking in tongues was fascinating to me. Uncle Louie worked at the bank, he spoke to me mostly about thrift and hard work. What tongue would he speak? Spanish? French? Or would it sound like gibberish? Louie said that speaking in tongues was the true sign, that those who believed heard and to those who didn't it was only gabble - what if he stood up and said, "Feemalator, jasperator, hoo ha ha, Wamalamagamanama, zis boom bah!" and everyone else said, "Amen! That's right, brother! Praise God!" and I was the only one who said, "Huh?"

- Garrison Keillor, "Protestant," Lake Woebegon Days

For the last 20 years, between 7 and 9 percent of Americans have spoken in tongues - but almost the same percentage said the practice is evidence of demonic possession.
- Bernard Katz, "Quoteline and Commentaries," The American Rationalist, July/Aug. 1998

Michael Trofimov pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in the murder of his father. Trofimov, who had recently joined a religious group, was found was his hands around his father's neck "speaking in tongues and screaming for God." His uncle said, "He was a good young man and then he started going to these [religious] meetings."
- Chuck Shepherd, John J. Kohut & Roland Sweet, More News of the Weird (1990)

True story: A young Pentecostal girl dared her girlfriend in church to shout out some nonsense syllables just to see if someone would stand up and "interpret the tongue." So the girl shouted, "coca-cola, coca-cola, coca-cola" and a church member promptly stood up and "interpreted the tongue" as a message from God.

Years later, I read that when the Coca-Cola company tried selling their brew in China, they discovered that the Chinese symbols that were pronounced, "Coca-Cola," meant literally, "Bite the wax tadpole." So maybe you can get a "message" out of "coca-cola, coca-cola, coca-cola," albeit a stuttering and meaningless one.
- Skip Church

As a former tongue-speaking Christian it wasn't the repetitive nature of many of the syllables I spoke that raised doubts. It was the fact that people in our group would sometimes "speak in tongues" a long time yet the "interpretation" could be quite brief. Or they would "speak in tongues" briefly and the "interpretation" came out long-winded. Folks who loved the King James Bible "interpreted tongues" in King James English, while those who loved other translations of the Bible delivered less Elizabethan-sounding "interpretations." And the messages received via this miraculous discourse were as trifling as the simplest cares and woes found in the Psalms with which everyone in the congregation was familiar - as if God didn't have anything more relevant or specific to say to us. Yet it seemed to me that if God was going to give people miraculous linguistic abilities, He'd have found far better uses to put them to.
- Skip Church

CONVERSATION ON THE "EX-TIAN" LISTSERV:
Rob Berry: I've heard that a trained listener can tell the difference between a New Yorker and a Southerner speaking in tongues, so the "tongues" spoken by an individual reflect the normal language of that individual. And a Japanese person speaking in tongues is not going to have any "L"s in their babbling.

David O. Miller: Actually this is true only for those Japanese who have never studied English. Those who have, consistantry have "L"s whele the "R"s berong and "R"s whele the "L"s berong. And that could totally change the meaning of the babbling couldn't it? Obviously, "uga-bali-raka-fulu" and "uga-bari-laka-furu" are two entirely different things, right?

Revival Centres Internation: The logo behind the logo

I speak in tounges (languages) more than you all

2007-07-13T01:35:00.000-07:00

All I can say is like Paul, I glad that I speak in tounges more than you all

Seems like a pretty arrogant statement from Paul to address 'everyone' at Corinth and make such a bold statement. Sounds really boastful. Perhaps it doesn't mean what Revival churches have said it means. If you don't mind I'd like to put forward another slant into the melting pot for those people who like to explore ideas.
I've heard it said that Paul could have been saying that he spoke in more languages than you all. That sort of information would be more likely to be made known if he was a man who talked to a lot of people of many dialects because as we know, many races and religions were gathered in Corinth. It was a major center of trade and commerce for many peoples from many countries.
The influx of other cultures and people gave the city a bit of a mess and deviations from the gospel Paul was setting up would have likely happened in his abscence. There were church members of varying skills too, from "called to be saints" and some who were "sanctified" and "babes in Christ." etc etc. It was a church in flux.
I hope you can excuse this 'cut&paste' essay, I've tried to paraphrased and culled it as much as possible to make for easier reading, without taking too much meat from the author's intentions. Find the whole text at HERE
I Corinthians 12:13

Here the text usually translated "spiritual gifts" is one word meaning "spirituals,". "Gifts" was first inserted in the King James Version and placed in italics, as they thought it necessary to affirm it's meaning. But Paul wrote of much more than can be brought under the concept of gifts, and so "spiritual matters" is a more accurate translation of Paul's expression pneumatikon.

Paul's concern was towards their understanding of true spirituality (12:1). They had been idol worshippers and are now Christian, but some of their actions are more pagan than Christian. Paul wrote, " They were still being "led astray to dumb idols," They had lapsed into a pagan ritual, being carried away in an ecstasy until they did not know what they were doing. Paul recognized what was happening. Having begun in the Spirit they were operating after a human fashion. This would seem to be the beginning of their speaking in unknown tongues.

This form of ecstatic speaking had become a stereotype, which they claimed was evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Paul's immediate response was that the charisma of the Spirit takes many forms. There is always variety (12:4-6) seen in endowments of different kinds: "the utterance of wisdom," "the utterance of knowledge," "faith," "gifts of healing," "the working of miracles," "prophecy," "the ability to distinguish between spirits," "various kinds of tongues," "the interpretation of tongues" (12: 811). All this is done purposefully because God does not act aimlessly (12:7).

Paul extrapolated further: there are "first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues" (12:28). Not everyone is gifted in the same manner and Paul exhorts the Corinthians to "earnestly desire the highest gifts" (12: 31). When the two concepts are brought together gifts and calling- we find Paul saying that God calls selected people to the services of the church and empowers them by His Spirit. In this way they become gifted prophets, teachers, and the like.

To Paul , the true gift of speaking in tongues must be similar to the other grace gifts - a natural ability to speak, developed and improved and lifted to a new level of effectiveness by the Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit does not ignore human talents nor supplant them by something that is magical or unintelligible, He accepts them when dedicated to Him and causes them to exceed their natural limits of service and effectiveness.

Speaking in "unknown" tongues, then, would not be a true charisma or gracegift of the Spirit. The Corinthian Christians were demonstrating what had doubtless begun as a work of the Spirit but which had slipped into an emotional pattern, more human than divine, and gone out of control.

The More Excellent Way

If ignorance, or immaturity, had been the besetting sin at Corinth, instruction was needed. Paul does this as a means of control and not as a cure... for they were motivated by their own spirit (14:2), emphasizing "unknown tongues" at the expense of the grace gifts. The true evidence of the Holy Spirit is to be found, not in ecstatic speech, but in allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord (I Cor. 12:3) and in manifestations of agape, selfgiving love (I Cor. 13:47). This is why this great essay on love is dropped down in the midst of Paul's discussion of the excesses and aberrations of the Christian faith found in Corinth.

There is no indication that he considered speaking in "unknown tongues" as an overflow of the Spirit or an experience too sublime for normal expression. He emphasizes its failure to demonstrate spiritual maturity. It is a sign of spiritual childhood (14:20), and he calls the Corinthians "babes in Christ" and that they should become men (13:11). When the grace of God through the Holy Spirit touches a man's speech, it comes alive with meaning and effectiveness. It does not turn him inward upon himself, but outward toward others in love.

"Chapter 13, the great love chapter, was composed to meet the problem of 'tongues'. Love is the highest 'way' . . . Love is God's excellent and ultimate way. In contrast, tongues 'will cease' (v. 8). Love is God's endless highway; 'tongues' are a deadend street, leading nowhere."3 I Corinthians 14

St. Paul is not always uniform in his use of words. For instance, the same Greek word (pneuma) is used for the Holy Spirit, the human spirit, and for spirit having the connotation of a mood, quality or inclination. He also uses three different words which are translated "tongues" in most versions of the New Testament. They are dialekton, glossa and phonon. The second is used almost exclusively in the present chapter (14). The last is used to denote mere sound, while the other two are used to denote a language which is peculiar to a people and distinct from that of another. Wherever another meaning is intended it must be seen from the context. Thus glossa always means a language unless another meaning is signified. Paul indicated his meaning in the present usage by offering an analogy to the tongues at Corinth.

When a bugler blows an uncertain military call, the soldiers do not know whether to turn in for the night or fall in for battle (v. 8). From this we draw three premises: the speaking in tongues at Corinth was unintelligible (v. 13), it should not be supposed that glossa as Paul used it always means unknown tongues, and the purpose of speaking should always be communication. Whether in prayer or song (v. 15), praise (v. 17), or in public address (v. 27), one should make use of his mind as well as his inner spirit (v. 15) and it should be done for the purpose of mutual edification (v. 26).

Certain phrases in this chapter have become pillars of the doctrine and practice of unknown tongues. They are: "I want you all to speak in tongues" (v. 5); "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" (v. 14); "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all" (v. 18). "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" (v. 39); "In the law it is written 'By men of strange tongues and by lips of foreigners will I speak to this people' " (v. 21).

That All Speak in Tongues

In what kind of tongues did Paul wish the Christians to speak? Certainly not the kind in which people cursed Christ, neither that which was demonstrated when no one was able to understand what was supposed to be said (14:2), and which the speakers themselves did not understand, because they were advised to pray for the ability to interpret or translate (14:13). Only God could understand them (14:2). Those who prophesied or preached encouraged and edifled the church, while the tongue speaking was consumed upon the speakers (14:34). It is quite evident that Paul wished his converts to use the kind of speech which could be understood.

Praying in the Spirit

Paul's reference to praying "in a tongue" (14:14) is taken by many as evidence that he prayed in a unknown tongue, and Romans 8:26 is used to support the concept that praying in the Spirit and praying in an unknown tongue are the same. But in the first instance Paul is speaking hypothetically, and in the second there is no reference to tongues whatsoever. He emphasized praying with the understanding as well as within one's spirit (14:15).

Did Paul Speak in Unknown Tongues?

"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all." This phrase follows closely upon the statement that, if one expresses his thanksgiving with meaningless emotions, the hearers aren't built up in the art of Christian praise. The exclusiveness of the Corinthian manner of religious expression (unknown tongues) made them feel superior to those who did not speak that way (14:36). And so Paul decided to boast a little for himself You speak in a tongue which no one can understand and are proud of yourselves; but I speak in languages more than all of you; and five words that I speak intelligently to instruct others is worth more than 10,000 words of what you utter unintelligibly for your own sakes.

Paul could say this because he spoke Hebrew, Greek, Latin and probably Aramaic. Also, he had communicated the gospel to multitudes more than all of them put together. And so to credit Paul with speaking in unknown tongues is quite out of keeping with what we know of him and his stress on intelligent speech and the moral and spiritual effects of the Spirit's work. Forbid Not to Speak in Tongues

Doubtless it was not always possible to ascertain in the Corinthian church whether a strange speech was a true language or not, because of the multilingual character of the changing congregation. To forbid all speaking except what the leaders could understand would have been unfair to visitors.

Funny Youtubing Tongues debunkers

2007-07-13T01:29:00.000-07:00

If this guy(the one speaking audibly)-(apparently on the side of the screen-) doesnt and never has believed in Jesus, where is this "tongues" ability from? and then... what if he does become a Christian and want the pentecostal "tongues"? This looks exacly the same as that!How do u know the difference? Is it REALLY THE PROOF of Jesus' Holy SPIRIT living in you?So what do u think of that UPC and Revival and other tongues-for-salvation people?

If this is really an example of mindless "tongues" -(eg- not knowing what u said while u spoke it-)then it looks just like- or even MORE legitimate then a lot of "tongues" Ive seen! If that is really" tongues" and u dont believe in Jesus as your Saviour and never did- then here's proof ( along with Emily's "speakin in tongues" (also on u tube)-it proves that "tongues" is not proof that one has the Holy Spirit from God.

If you like this video clip, watch ehenocha- " I speak in tongues." She raises a totally valid point about "tongues" not necessarily being from God.

LOL I felt something! It sounded like an orgasm in hebrew! FUNNY! And so true. I've always taken "tongues" to mean languages ACTUALLY spoken on EARTH between people. In 'ACTS' the apostles speak in tongues - and the towns folk say something like "Hey, look at these guys, they're speaking my native language, but aren't they simple locals?"

Quite franky, when people speak in tongues they are just being freaky

2007-07-13T01:25:00.000-07:00

Lisa Gerrard uses "her own" language.

2007-07-12T07:48:00.000-07:00

Lisa Gerrard sings in what some christians might call 'tongues'. She sings in her own language - it's that simple!
Lisa Gerrard uses "her own" language.

Lisa Gerrard's lyrics in "Now We Are Free" have no language known to man. She uses her own "language" or glosalalia, similar to what young children use to talk or sing or what some pentecostal groups use to pray. At least this is how LG has described her process in many interviews. She has said she makes up the words as she goes along. Sort of like Jazz vocalists when they scat sing. My impression is that she finds doing this doesn't hamper the listener's ability to add their own experience with the song itself - words get in the way, kind of like now, for example.
I verified this in Lisa Gerrard's homepage.
Her stuff gets a tad repetitive after awhile for some (I myself find it absolutely beautiful, but then I'm a crazy Enya fan) you might recall her stuff in the sound tracks of a few movies - namely "the gladiator'....she from Melbourne originally - imagine her as a 'pub act'....but that's how she started out.
She's not a christian in case anyone wants to know...She borrows her sound from a wide range of ideas..including the arabic styles - yep Muslim culture.

Check it out ...it might intrigue you. I don't think she's singing in the same tongues as the revivalists/penties...but even the Revivalists weren't as weird as some other church groups who encourage singing in tongues. Of course to sing in the spirit (in Chartdoctor's view) would be to sing in tongues as if that's the only way to spiritually sing.
I think its a bloody good example of how the 'act' can be done by anyone who trains themselves in this very unsupernatural and extremely over-rated gift(?)

"The words are in my own internal language, and mean more than I could ever explain,"
The phonemes one uses when one sings, regardless of their meaning, alter the musical shading and tone quality of one's voice. We have to put our tongues in different positions, tighten or loosen different parts of our throats, change the shape of the inside of our mouth, close or open our lips, etc. For example, if I am singing "feet" my voice is going to sound very different than if I am singing "wow" at the same pitch and volume. As a violinist, I can tell you that the angle at which the bow touches the string, the pressure of the violinist's fingers, even the angle at which the instrument faces (or doesn't face) the audience are all used for different musical effects.
Well, a singer's instrument is her body. When she's singing predetermined words, she is limited in how she can alter the timbre and tone quality of her words. For example, she might want the bell-like clarity that can be achieved when producing an "oh" sound, but she if she's singing the word "please," she's just going to have to attempt the best she can with that vowel sound, despite the fact that it's a high, tense, front vowel. On the other hand, if she's not singing predetermined words, but rather shaping the sound the way an instrumentalist does, she's free to sing "oh" went she wants a more clear, open sound, or "ee" if she wants a more constrained, higher tension vowel sound. If she wants an emphatic, staccato sound, she can put in "t" sounds or "p" sounds.

Borat meets friends of mr. jesus

2007-07-12T07:46:00.000-07:00

Non Christian people speak in tongues too!

2007-07-12T07:31:00.001-07:00

The Oracle at Delphi, for instance, started in the 400s BC, when Greece was at its strongest. It continued into the Roman era as if it was a parody of its former self, so the members of the churches of Greece and Asia Minor would have been very familiar with how Delphi worked. It was a shrine of the Greek god Apollo. In response to someone's questions, a priestess would go into a frenzy and start babbling. An attendant priest would then 'translate' the babble into some glittering generalities that could in some way be understood as an answer. Some of the best-known features of Greek philosophy streamed out from the Oracle's early years (for instance, it bred the saying "Know Yourself"); the great Greek philosophers were very good at finding jewels in waste water. The cult of Dionysis used rhythmic music, whirling dances, alcohol and/or herbal drugs, and magic spells to send peoples' souls out of their body (Greek ek stasis ) and into the presence of whatever deity or sub-deity was involved; this too sometimes caused strange sounds.

African animists, too, have long had ecstatic speech in their religions. But, just as glossolalia among Jews marked one as a prophet, glossolalia caused most African animists to foist onto the speaker the role of religious leader or priest, a heavy spiritual and cultural responsibility to lay upon an unprepared person. Wherever they have happened in the past, glossolalia and other extraordinary 'spiritual' happenings have not been, and have not really been allowed to be, a thing 'of the people', which could be a part of the otherwise-normal life of otherwise-ordinary people.

Deep in the gnostic book-hoard at Nag Hammadi, archaeologists discovered what may be the earliest, and perhaps one of the strangest, written instances of glossolalia. (Gnosticism arose at the same time as Christianity, and Gnostics were skilled at melding Christian devotions and spirituality to the un-Christian Gnostic framework -- to use a modern term, they tried to 'co-opt' Christianity.) While modern theologians give the unusual contents at Nag Hammadi much more attention than they deserve, a prayer introduction in *The Gospel Of the Egyptians* is a true attention-grabber. It reads roughly (very roughly) like this :
Ié ieus éó ou éó óua! O Jesus, bond of Yah's righteousness, O Living Water, O Child of Child, O glorious Name! Really truly, O Eon that is, iiii éééé eeee oo uuuu óóóó aaaaa, really truly éi aaaa óó óó! O One That Is, Seer Of the Ages! Really truly, aee ééé iiii uuuuuu óóóóóóóó, You who are eternally eternal, really truly iéa aió, in the heart, You who Are, You are what You are, ei o ei eios ei!

Even the translatable words are very iffy and full of vowels and mixed languages. Like modern glossolalia, it's got a lot of almost-words, divine titles, and 'really truly'. It's almost like a parody, it's so garbled, but it was serious in its intent. The ecstatic speech did not make the book's bizarre beliefs the slightest bit more true.

2007-07-12T07:29:00.000-07:00

INDIGO CHILDREN - STAR LANGUAGE Recently on Safron's show, 'Speaking in Tongues', we saw one of the Indigo Children speak in her 'star' language and the audience was invited to email if they thought they could interpret it. The sound was uncannily similar to your stock standard Revival glossalalia. The rise of the Indigo Children was prophesied at the start of the century by the 'sleeping' prophet. According to the members of this new age belief, increasing in numbers around the world, people everywhere are developing new spiritual languages that has not been taught to them and are even able to understand each other. The response to safron's challenge saw a lot of emails that interpreted the STAR language successfully.

ALIEN ABDUCTEES - AURA LANGUAGE Last week on the show a guest was interviewed who had been an alien abductee. During her abductions, she was taught a healing process that involved making noises of particular frequencies in order to manipulate a person's aura thereby restoring balance and healing the body. Guess what the weird language she spoke in sounded like. Hmmm, perhaps when people are praying in tongues for healing they are actually accessing their own bodies normal aura frequencies.

DOES ALL OF THIS SOUND CRAZY TO YOU? It should! The point is, it that any wacko can do the tongue thing. (no offence to indigo children or alien abductees - you have as much right to your beliefs and experiences as any religion... I just think you're all a little kooky... azyoodo). Many would say that Satan mimics God's miracles (even though there is no biblical example of Satanic tongues), that being the case if believed, then anyone who can speak in tongues needs to undergo further investigation by Revivalists to see if they are actually God tongues or Satan tongues... perhaps you should look for other things in a person (showing love for one another etc... hmmm?). Seems the tongues sign can't really be totally trusted since even E.T. can do it.

Tongues - An Unsound Evidence of Salvation

2007-07-12T07:26:00.000-07:00

By Nick Greer

"as we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave girl who had a spirit of divination ... Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, 'I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.'" (Acts 16:16-18)

Acts 16 is a deep Scripture - deceptively simple, but one of those scriptures we come across from time to time that is bursting with meaning beneath the surface. Paul was much annoyed with this girl who had a 'spirit of divination'. Let's look at those words. In Greek, she had a pneu'ma py'tho·na, or literally, "a spirit of python". The NRSV Harper-Collins Study Bible notes of Acts 16:

"Spirit of divination, lit. 'a spirit of the Python,' which was associated with the Delphic oracle."
The Python was a mythical beast which guarded the Oracle of Delphi, near Corinth. At the Oracle of Delphi, travellers would congregate to hear a prophecy of the future for themselves or their country. According to some historians, the Pythoness (priestess) would cry out in unintelligible sounds which were interpreted by another person to form ambiguous verses. To have a spirit of the Python would be to be like the Pythoness - it would be someone who was filled with the demonic spirit of the oracle... someone who would prophecy by crying out in unintelligible sounds!

And as such, there is scriptural evidence in Acts 16 for false tongues. That is not to say that all tongues are wrong. While Paul excorcised this slave girl in Acts from the spirit of the Python, he himself spoke in tongues, and was glad of the experience (1.Cor.14:18).
...
What have we learned from the experience of the slave girl? When someone 'speaks in tongues' we cannot be sure that they have salvation, becuase tongues is not a solely Christian phenomenon. According to Professor Maja-Lisa Swartz of the Helsinki University, after her research of the Tanzanian tribes people, "speaking in tongues is nothing specific for the Christian religion. It appears in all religions and is no guarantee for what type of spirit it is that the speaker is speaking for".
...
For example, John MacArthur writes, in Charismatic Chaos, "Ecstatic speech is a part of many pagan religions in Africa, East Africa. Tonga people of Africa, when a demon is exorcised, sing in Zulu even though they say they don't know the Zulu language. Ecstatic speech is found today among Muslims, Eskimos, Tibetan monks. It is involved in parapsychological occult groups. Did you know that the Mormons, even Joseph Smith himself advocates speaking in tongues? ...." An Encyclopædia of Occultism says, "Speaking and writing in foreign tongues, or in unintelligible outpourings mistaken for such, is a very old form of psychic phenomenon."

Continued at http://rc.cutlweb.net

Indigo Children speaking STAR language

2007-07-12T07:13:00.000-07:00

On John Safran's talk show they had a guest on who identified herself as an Indigo Child. They are part of a worldwide group of 'New Age' believers that believe mankind has been experiencing a new step in evolution as significant as the time we waddled out of the water and grew legs (yep, that sounds as studid to me as the Indigo Children).

These spiritually enlightened people started morphing into this new stage of evolution around about 1980 and was predicted by the famous sleeping prophet (1920s) as a people who would attain a new spiritual language called STAR Language. They are also very asceptable to seeing your aura and reading your emotions.

This particular Indigo child testifies to recieving a language and when coming into contact with other Indigo children and speaking this new language, the other Indigo children could understand them. Last night on the show John asked her to speak into the camera and he then invited the audience to e-mail in their interpretations to see if there were indigo children who could interpret the language. The challenge was to find people who interpreted the message in the same way.

When she spoke in her STAR language I nearly fell off my seat. It was exactly the same as the "ladashasumdiddy-yar hoolashoola yeekidddiiyaya" we heard every meeting in Revival. It seems that either new agers are being filled with the same Spirit as the Revivalers... or... it's the sort of sound string anyone makes when they pretend to make up a language.

Just thinking.. Robert Deniro did it in 'Cape Fear' too ... and that girl in the movie 'Saved' - they must have the magic language too.. or are they just able actors? ... or Indigo Children speaking STAR.

Is Speaking in Tongues Valid and Biblical Today?

2007-07-12T03:39:00.000-07:00

This study suggests that the gift of tongues ceased a long time ago...

In many 'Charismatic' and Pentecostal churches today we see the phenomena of 'speaking in tongues' whereby people are told that when they are very spiritual and are baptized by the Holy Spirit, this is EVIDENCED by being able to 'SPEAK IN TONGUES' which they say is a 'heavenly prayer language which offers praise to the Lord! Anyone who doesn't 'speak in tongues' if left to feel not as 'spiritual' as those who do speak in tongues! Is this true? Are tongues for today and is it a sign or evidence of being baptized by the Holy Spirit? Or are people being seriously MISLEAD? What does the Bible say about tongues and this so-called 'tongues movement'? As we look at tongues in the Bible we see in Acts 2 in the early days of the Church, tongues appeared as one of the 'sign gifts' that the Lord gave to certain people in which they were supernaturally able to speak in known earthly languages without going to school to learn them. They used this ability to speak the gospel to the foreigners who had gathered at Jerusalem during the yearly Passover. The languages are listed in Acts 2:8-12! It is not some 'heavenly' angel language at all! For example, it would be like me being able supernaturally to speak the German language to a German man so I could give the gospel to him so he could take it back to his people. You see, in the early days of Acts, God was trying to get this new 'Gospel' out to the world. There was no completed bible yet, nor any media outlets such as radio, TV, or even newspapers! God used tongues and other of the 'sign gifts' to bring attention to this new program He was starting...the Church! Once the bible began to be completed (around about AD 60), these sign gifts, including TONGUES, were done away with and CEASED. (1 Corinthians 8-10) With this background, we also see that God gave certain guidelines for the use of tongues in those early church days as described in 1 Corinthians 14. Isn't it strange that charismatic groups today don't even follow these guidelines that Paul gave? We learn several things about the gift of tongues from the Bible when it was present and available during the early years of the church. In the church services in that day, an interpreter MUST be present or the tongues person must remain QUIET! (1 Cor. 14:27, 28)…and only 3 at the most could speak during a service and then only one at a time…and women were not to speak in tongues AT ALL! (v. 34) Do those speaking in tongues in churches TODAY follow these guidelines? If not, why not? Paul indeed said in 1 Cor. 14: 39 to forbid not those who had the gift of tongues to use it because when Paul wrote those words around AD 50 tongues was still present! Tongues did cease according to church history, and now have only come ‘back to life’ in the last 100 years when women preachers in the Holiness movement began to claim to have the gift and claimed it was a secret prayer language only angels and God could understand (yet wasn’t Satan an angel??). This can not be backed up in the Bible, for tongues in Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 12-14 were known earthly languages (see Acts 2:8-10)! Tongues was NOT a sign of “SPIRITUALITY” to other believers, but was a sign to unsaved UNBELIEVERS of judgment to come because the Jews had not obeyed God! (1 Cor. 14:22). Read this verse! It clearly says that TONGUES is not a SIGN to other BELIEVERS of one's spirituality, but it is a SIGN to unsaved, unbelieving Jews that Judgment is coming! Charismatics clearly deny this plain Scripture because it is obvious they imply that speaking in tongues is mark of spirituality! I challenge anyone to look at every instance of tongues in the Bible and you will see it is always a sign to people that because they have disobeyed God, judgment is coming! Tongues is found in 5 instances in the Bible and it is always a sign that the Jews had disobeyed God! Tongues would then come as “foreign languages” as a sign of judgment and dispersion would soon come. Study carefully the following 5 examples and you must agree:
(1) Gen. 9:1; 11:4-8 - Here God instructs the people to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Instead, the people disobey and get involved in Astrology and Occultic worship at Babel and even build a tower for satanic worship. God confounds their languages (sends 'tongues' so to speak) and scatters them throughout the earth. (2) Deut. 28:1-62 -in this passage we see God instructing the people to serve and follow Him. If not he will send foreign armies 'whose TONGUE thou shalt not understand’ (Deut.28:49). This is exactly what happened!
(3) Jeremiah 4:1; 5:3-19 - Here God instructs the people to 'return unto me' (4:1) or He will send foreign language or tongues of enemy nations to scatter and disperse them..a "nation whose LANGUAGE thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say". They were dispersed and taken as slaves to 'serve strangers' in another land! (5:19). This was the Babylonian captivity as told in the Old Testament!
(4) Isaiah 28:10-13 -Here again God warns the people to come back to Him, lest more judgment come and enemy nations speaking with 'stammering lips and another tongue' shall come in judgment and dispersion will follow. We see this did happen and we have the 'lost tribes' of Northern Israel to this day!
(5) Matthew. 11:28, 23:37; 1 Cor. 12-14; Luke 21:24 is the example of tongues in the New Testament. Here Jesus instructs the Jewish nation to go throughout the world preaching the Gospel and making disciples. The Jewish nation as a whole, especially it religious leaders, disobey and even crucify Jesus! Therefore, we see TONGUES in the Book of Acts as a sign of judgment to come to the Jews. Recall in this last example of tongues in the NT, how tongues were spoken and judgment soon came in 70 AD when Roman General Titus destroyed Jerusalem and Israel was scattered as the 12 lost tribes all over the world. Anyone who carefully studies CHURCH HISTORY will have to acknowledge that TONGUES did disappear for 2000 years! Look at the church history books and you will not find examples of people speaking in tongues in the Church! Why? Because this is what the Bible said would happen! In 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 scripture clearly says when 'that which is PERFECT is come, that which is IN PART shall be done away with'. Now, my friend, what is the only perfect thing on this earth today? It is God's Word. Would you agree? When the Bible began to be completed at around the 2nd half of the first century, history testifies that TONGUES did cease! Strangely, tongues did not come back onto the scene until some holiness women preachers, and notably Agnes Osman, began speaking in TONGUES at the turn of this century! And now they claim it was a heavenly 'prayer language' which clearly it WAS NOT in all the examples in the bible before! World-known expert on the occult, Kurt Koch, who had devoted his life to studying the occult and witchcraft, makes the following AMAZING statement about the modern day tongues movement in his book OCCULT ABC p.207: “tongues and the so-called Charismatic Movement are the most dangerous weapons Satan is using against the Christian Camp….” Amazing statement? Consider the following:
(1) The Tongues Movement places ‘EXPERIENCE’ over and above the Bible! If you’ve spoken in tongues…it doesn’t matter what you believe or what the Bible says…to most Charismatics! My friend, the devil can give experiences…(2 Cor 11:13-15; 2 Thess. 2:9-11) and even do miracles!
(2) The Tongues Movement claims to receive visions and tongues messages, which would ‘add to’ the Word of God! If it is not adding to the Bible, why do we need the ‘tongues message’ since we have the Bible in front of us?
(3) The origin and background of the Tongues Movement is saturated with false teaching…as it still is today. The Tongues Movement teaches salvation can be lost; it places women in positions of authority over men and places them as pastors in churches teaching men when the Bible forbids it! (1 Tim. 2:12) It promotes the ecumenical movement and yoking up with pastors and churches that teach false plans of salvation. Charismatic “Tongues” churches are big members of the very Liberal National and World Council of Churches. In the last years WCC meeting prayer was led to the mother goddess “Sophia”!!
(4) It can cause believers without the gift to feel ‘second class’…and has caused many to become discouraged to the point of becoming ‘shipwreck in the faith’ and drop out of church completely…especially if sham and hypocrisy is seen in the ‘leaders’ and those who claim to ‘have the gift’…(1 Tim. 1:19)
(5) It makes tongues speaking the mark of true spirituality, rather than winning lost souls to the Lord! It causes many to miss the true spiritual life and sidetracks people from the main objective of winning lost souls!
(6) The Tongues Movement has lead to indecent activity and even immorality as married women and young girls “roll” in the floor uncontrollably as they are ‘slain in the spirit’, even to the point where “modesty blankets” are needed to cover the ladies! (1 Cor. 13:5)…But most seriously, it can open one up to DEMONIC & OCCULTIC INVOLVEMENT! You’ll notice in 1 Cor. 14:27-34 ones spiritual gift COULD BE CONTROLLED! For someone to be SLAIN IN THE SPIRIT to the point they are unconsciously laying prostate on the floor, to me is OF utmost DANGER if that is not the HOLY SPIRIT doing that! Always in the Bible the Believer had full consciousness and control of himself or herself! There is absolutely NO example of today’s so-called being ‘SLAIN IN THE SPIRIT’ in the Bible except for DEMONIC involvement! We at Gospel Center agree with Kurt Koch’s assessment above and WARN every Christian to STAY AWAY from the modern-day Charismatic Movement no matter how nice and sincere the members of these churches might be! It is wrong. It is dangerous. These folks, we believe, are badly deceived.
(7) TONGUES have left DEVASTATION whenever it has entered a church. A split almost always results with years of work in a Bible-believing church down the drain over night! If you will check one history of Charismatic church in your neighborhood, I challenge you to discover that most were started as a result of a split from a Bible-believing church where heartache and devastation was the result. I dare you to discover most Charismatic churches got their members from another church due to a split the majority of the time, rather than a few believers starting from scratch as most Baptist churches start out! (1 Cor. 1:10) God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) and declares all things be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40)…Two commands which we believe are not followed very closely in most “Tongues” churches today.
We believe it is a shame for Christians to be seeking Spiritual Gifts that are not even available today and neglecting the Spiritual Gift God has given us to use for His Glory! God has given each of us some gift and ability to serve the Lord. We need to get busy using it to serve the Lord instead of seeking something that doesn't exist!

glossolalia

2007-07-10T03:33:00.000-07:00

Glossolalia is fabricated, meaningless speech.

According to Dr. William T. Samarin, professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto,

glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly .... Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language (Nickell, 108).

Glossolalics behave in various ways, depending on the social expectations of their community. Some go into convulsions or lose consciousness; others are less dramatic. Some seem to go into a trance; some claim to have amnesia of their speaking in tongues. All believe they are possessed by the Holy Spirit and the gibberish they utter is meaningful. However, only one with faith and the gift of interpretation is capable of figuring out the meaning of the meaningless utterances. Of course, this belief gives the interpreter unchecked leeway in "translating" the meaningless utterances. Nicholas Spanos notes: "Typically, the interpretation supports the central tenets of the religious community" (Spanos, 147).

Uttering gibberish that is interpreted as profound mystical insight by holy men is an ancient practice. In Greece, even the priest of Apollo, god of light, engaged in prophetic babbling. The ancient Israelites did it. So did the Jansenists, the Quakers, the Methodists, and the Shakers.

There is evidence that while speaking in tongues people experience a sharp decrease in frontal lobe function, the area of the brain that enables reason and self-control. There is also increased activity in the parietal region of the brain, which takes sensory information and tries to create a sense of self relating to the world. Psychiatrist Andrew Newberg, Director of the Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the University of Pennsylvania, studied five African-American Pentecostal women who frequently speak in tongues. As a control activity, Newberg had the women sing gospel tunes while moving their arms and swaying.*

Newberg gave the Pentecostals an intravenous injection of a radioactive tracer that allowed him to measure blood flow and "see" which brain areas were most active during the behaviors. Newberg and his associates published their findings in the November 2006 issue of Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging. During glossolalia, the part of the brain than normally makes a person feel in control was essentially shut down. The findings make sense, says Newberg, because speaking in tongues involves giving up control and feeling a "very intense experience of how the self relates to God."*

Newberg noted that the glossolalia responses were the opposite of those of people in a meditative state. When people meditate their frontal lobe activity increases, while their parietal activity decreases. In meditation, one loses the sense of self while controlling one's focus and concentration.

The Pentecostal movement seems to have originated in the 19th century,* although the Biblical basis for the practice is traced to the Acts of the Apostles. The practice of Pentecostals differs, however, from what is described in Acts. Pentecostals utter gibberish and claim that they are speaking in a language understood by God* but not by other Pentecostals, but in Acts we are told that those present not only spoke "with other tongues" but "every man heard them speak in his own language."

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. [Acts II; 1-11]

This story is supposed to support the notion that such an event really did occur and it was prophesied by Joel that this kind of thing would happen in the last days. There is nothing in Joel, however, that prophesied that, when the last days didn't come as predicted, plan B would be to wait 1900 years and have a revival and claim that when you speak gibberish it is a sign that God loves you.

See also xenoglossy.

Christian glossolalia, properly understood, is voluntary

2007-07-07T05:38:00.000-07:00

I have yet to find the term "prayer language" in either the Bible or in ancient Christian writers.And you would think that people who speak in tongues would have an edge with Biblical languages. But they have the same difficulty that non-glossolalics do.

"So if I'm speaking in a room where no one understands me the only one that could possibly understand me is GOD. Does that fit into the context?"

First thing He'd say is "tone it down. I'm right inside you, not across the room." - 1corinth 14:28

I would suggest that Christian glossolalia, properly understood, is voluntary. This was its practice in the New Testament, where it is seldom if ever characterized as "ecstatic" in the popular sense of the term.In fact, regulations are laid down by the Apostle Paul for the public exercise of glossolalia in which he takes pains to tell people not to exceed three utterances in a tongue because it defeats the goal of the rational edification of those in attendance at gatherings.

Paul gives his own example as one heavily devoted to the practice and discusses how he of his own volition can choose to either speak/sing "in the spirit" or in the vernacular, as it were. You can read about this in First Corinthians chapter 14 if so inclined.

To tie speaking in tongues to the term "ecstatic" clouds the issue in my opinion and we do not typically see "uncontrolled" overwrought tongues speaking in the New Testament.

Full disclosure: I am a charismatic Christian and have been around this for 25 years +. Most people I know who speak in tongues do this voluntarily as and when they so choose and usually tongues is taught to be a volitional act under the control of the speaker who can "turn it on and off" at will.

2007-07-05T02:54:00.000-07:00

Overview:

"Speaking in tongues" forms a major part of Charismatic and Pentecostal Christian life.

There is a common belief among Pentecostals, Charismatics, and some other Christians the Holy Spirit, within the believer, uses glossolalia _1,2(speaking in tongues) as a method of talking to God the Father in heaven. i.e. two Persons of the Trinity communicate through the believer. Some support this concept with the text of Romans 8:26 which says that the Holy Spirit makes intercessions for us with God with groanings that words cannot express. The "groanings" phrase may mean that these intercessions cannot be spoken in the words of a human language, but only when the individual is in a state of religious ecstasy and speaking in the language of God.

Conservative Christian groups generally teach that believers are "saved" or "born again" when they repent of their sins and trust Jesus as Lord and Savior. Some denominations teach that, at the time that they area saved, or slightly later, the believer will be "baptized of the Holy Spirit." One manifestation of this baptism is the gift of speaking in tongues (aka glossolalia).

Author Tom Brown writes: "Theologians often confuse the baptism in the Holy Spirit with salvation. They often regard these two experiences as being the same...The Bible does not teach this. The Bible clearly teaches that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a separate experience from salvation and comes after a person is saved, although it can occur at the time of salvation." ₃

For example: The "SALVATION: Heaven on Earth" web site says: "Anyone who is saved is ready to receive [the Holy Spirit]...[Later] when you are Baptised in the Holy Spirit, you too will speak in tongues." ₄ This gift of "tongues" is considered proof they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. And since only saved believers can be so baptized, speaking in tongues is proof that their religious conversion is a valid one, and that the Holy Spirit is dwelling within them.

Other denominations have different views about "tongues." Some take a neutral view. Some consider it evidence of demon possession, and conclude that the believer needs to be exorcised. Although this phenomenon plays a large role in the lives of many tens of millions of conservative Christians, little attention has been paid to it by the scientific community.

Various interpretations of two key passages in 1 Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 12:4-11: In the King James Version (KJV) of the Christian Scriptures, this passage is translated:

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Conservative Christians who are not Pentecostals often interpret verses 7 to 10 as stating that the Holy Spirit gave different gifts to various Christians, and that no one gift (such as tongues) is given to all believers. Some Pentecostals, particularly those from the United Pentecostal Church, have an alternative interpretation. They believe that there are two distinct types of the "gift of tongues":

In 1 Corinthians 14:22-28:

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
(KJV)

In verse 23, St. Paul refers to the entire church coming together and speaking in tongues. Many Pentecostals interpret this verse literally: that every member of the congregation at Corinth spoke in tongues. Other Christians might consider this as an exaggeration that Paul used for literary effect. He might have meant that too many members speaking in tongues simultaneously would reduce the meeting to chaos. Any non-believers who passed by might think that the congregation was insane. He put an upper limit of three persons speaking in tongues. But if no person with the gift of interpreting was present, then there should be no speaking in tongues.

Beliefs of various Christian denominations:

Various conservative Christian denominations teach different beliefs about the connections among Salvation, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and Speaking in Tongues. See below:

Assemblies of God:

The Assemblies of God is the second largest Pentecostal denomination, with a population of about 2.5 million in the U.S. They teach that when a person trusts Jesus as Lord and Savior the Holy Spirit indwells their body. At this instant, they are saved. They are then guaranteed that upon their death, they will attain Heaven. At this time, the Holy Spirit "...convicts them of sin, [and] convinces them of righteousness..." ₅

God has promised that every believer will receive a second "ministry of the Holy Spirit called the baptism in the Holy Spirit." The results of this baptism is that the believers

	Is helped to lead a holy life.
	Becomes more attached to Jesus Christ.
	Becomes a more effective witness.
	Experiences greater joy in spiritual service.
	Becomes more aware of their mission to the world. ₅
	Receives a "flow of spiritual gifts." ₆
	One automatic gift at the baptism in the Holy Spirit is the ability to speak in tongues. "The baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance..." ₇

This is not necessarily a one-shot event. As believers serve the Lord, there is an consumption of their spiritual power. They interpret Ephesians 5:17-18 "Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit." as instructing believers to seek refilling as needed with the Holy Spirit.

They acknowledge that some saved believers have a "dynamic and life-changing encounter with the Holy Spirit." ₈ Yet, their baptism in the spirit, and the flow of spiritual gifts are delayed. However, they have still been saved from eternity in Hell; they will go to Heaven. The denomination rejects the assertion by some Pentecostals that "Unless you have spoken in tongues you will not go to heaven." ₆

United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI):

The United Pentecostal Church was founded in 1945 by the merger of the Pentecostal Church, Incorporated, and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ. They have a worldwide membership of about 4 million people. They interprets the "birth of the Spirit" and the "baptism of the Spirit" as synonymous terms. It is an emotionally overwhelming experience.

They teach that if a person sincerely repents of sin, and trusts in Jesus as Lord and Savior, that they are saved. At that time, or more likely at some later date, they will be "baptized of the Holy Spirit," and will automatically receive from the Holy Spirit the gift of speaking "in tongues." A main reason why "God chose speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of this spiritual baptism [is that tongues are]...an objective, external evidence that recipients and onlookers can both identify with certainty." ₉

In a World Aflame Press tract ₁₀ on its home page, ₁₁ They state that: "One vital reason why God chose other tongues as the initial sign of receiving the Holy Ghost is that speaking in tongues is an immediate, external evidence. There are many other evidences of the operation of the Spirit of God in a person's life, but it is a matter of time before they are manifest...Another reason why God chose other tongues as the initial sign of receiving the Spirit is that speaking in tongues is a uniform evidence. It applies to everyone, regardless of race, culture, or language."

The UPCI web site states that speaking in tongues is "a uniform evidence" that separates the saved from the unsaved: "At Caesarea all who heard the Word were filled, and all who heard the Word spoke in tongues. If some of them had not spoken in tongues, would the Jewish Christians have accepted their experiences? Clearly not. All twelve men mentioned in Acts 19:6 had a uniform experience. If ten of the twelve had spoken in tongues and the other two had not, would Paul have believed that the two had received the Holy Ghost just as the ten? Certainly not. Paul would not have accepted their experience if they have failed to exhibit the uniform evidence." ₁₆

The UPCI's official creed states that: "John the Baptist, in Matthew 3:11, said, '...He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.' Jesus, in Acts 1:5, said, '...ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.' Luke tells us in Acts 2:4, they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues (languages), as the Spirit gave them utterance. The terms 'baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire,' 'filled with the Holy Spirit,' and the 'gift of the Holy Ghost' are synonymous terms used interchangeably in the Bible. It is scriptural to expect all who receive the gift, filling, or baptism of the Holy Spirit to receive the same physical, initial sign of speaking with other tongues." ₁₇(emphasis ours)

Doug Beaumont, a professor of apologetics, comments: "The UPCI teaches that there are two major evidences of the baptism of the Holy Spirit: speaking with tongues and the fruit of the Spirit. This Spirit Baptism is not considered optional for a believer: '...the new birth, consisting of water and Spirit, was never set forth as being optional or unessential. "Ye must be born again" are the words of Jesus in John 3:7. Until a person is born of the Spirit, he cannot be called a "son" of God.' Thus, speaking in tongues is a gift that all true believers have....the UPCI...make tongue-speaking an essential ingredient in salvation and deny the baptismal formula set out by Jesus Himself." ₁₈

The gift of tongues is considered proof a person has been saved - i.e. that their religious conversion is a valid one, and that the Holy Spirit is dwelling within them.They conclude that if a person does not speak in tongues, then they have not been saved. Perhaps the person had not been truly repentant of their sins, or did not fully trust Jesus as Lord and Savior. For whatever reason, salvation was not achieved. At death, they would go to eternal punishment in Hell with the other 90% or more of the human race who are not saved. This implies that, in the opinion of the UPCI, the vast majority of Christians, and the vast majority of saved Christians will spend eternity in Hell.

Church of God of Prophecy (CGP):

This is a smaller Pentecostal denomination with a membership of about 75,000 in the U.S.

According to author Michael J. Ediger, the founder of the CGP, A.J. Tomlinson, "declare[s] emphatically that no one ever has or ever will receive the baptism with the Holy Ghost without the speaking in tongues accompanying as the evidence." ₁₉

Church of God (Cleveland):

The "Declaration of Faith" of the Church of God (headquartered in Cleveland TN) contains the following statement:

"We believe...In speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance and that it is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost." ₂₀

Although this appears to indicate that a person who does not speak in tongues is not saved, the denomination does not consider that speaking in tongues is a requirement for salvation. Also, it is not a requirement for membership in the church.

The Salvation army:

At least one congregation of the The Salvation Army recommends that glossolalia is not appropriate during public religious services, but is to be encouraged privately. ₁₂

Orthodox Christians

"The Greek Orthodox Church does not preclude the use of Glossolalia, but regards it as one of the minor gifts of the Holy Spirit...it is a private and personal gift, a lower form of prayer. The Orthodox Church differs with those Pentecostal and Charismatic groups which regard Glossolalia as a pre requisite to being a Christian and to having received the Holy Spirit." ₁₄

Other conservative Christian denominations:

Most other conservative Christian denominations teach that speaking in tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit were only given to Christians during the time that the apostles were alive. They ceased permanently in the second century CE. They are not given today. They recognize the same criteria for salvation (repentance and trust in Jesus) as do the Pentecostals. But baptism of the Holy Spirit or speaking in tongues is not expected. In practice, the latter is rarely seen within their churches. Some consider speaking in tongues as evidence of demonic possession.

Liberal Christian denominations:

Many liberal churches doubt the occurrences of many of the miracles discussed in the Christian Scriptures. Some might interpret the 1st century CE experience with tongues to be simple religious myths. Others might interpret the event symbolically.

They generally interpret modern-day speaking in tongues to be a byproduct of a state of religious ecstasy, without any informational content.

Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, and other Secularists would probably agree.

Inter-Denominational Friction over Tongues

As noted above, most conservative Christians believe that the gift of tongues was not given to all believers during the lifetimes of the apostles. They believe that some received the gift of tongues, while others received a gift of administrative competence, the ability to translate tongues, etc. No one gift was given to all believers. No one believer received all of the gifts. They also believe that these gifts were phased out after the time of the Apostles. Some even suspect that people who speak in tongues today may be demon possessed.

But Pentecostals generally feel that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given today to Christians just as they were in the 1st century CE. Further, some Pentecostals say that if a person does not speak in tongues, that they have not been truly saved. Other Pentecostals say that some individuals are saved, but never receive the gift of tongues; the decision is up to God.

Needless to say, these conflicting beliefs about tongues generates much inter-denominational ill will. Members of a Southern Baptist congregation might view members of a neighboring congregation of United Pentecostal Church International speaking in tongues. The Baptists might believe that most believers in that congregation may be demon-possessed. Meanwhile the Pentecostals, noticing that few if any of the Southern Baptists speak in tongues, might conclude that almost none of the Baptists have been truly saved; the vast majority will spend eternity being tortured in Hell without hope of relief.

A sociologist studying the phenomenon of "tongues" might compare Southern Baptists with the UPCI and conclude:

	Both groups of conservative Christians hold very similar beliefs about theology, personal behavior, sin, etc.
	Both agree that the unsaved will go to Hell for eternal punishment, while those who are saved will go to Heaven.
	Both groups believe that salvation requires a person to repent of their sins and trust Jesus as Lord and Savior.
	The vast majority of the members of both denominations believe that they have trusted Jesus and have been saved -- most as children or youths.
	The Southern Baptist Convention does not teach "tongues." Most congregations probably frown on it. Some consider it evidence of demonic possession.
	Pentecostals teach that "tongues" is a gift from God to most people -- or all person -- who is truly saved. Some consider a person who has not spoken in tongues to be unsaved. By this reasoning, almost all Southern Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, United Church members etc are unsaved and destined for Hell.
	Speaking in tongues is almost never found among Southern Baptists. Speaking in tongues is almost universally found among Pentecostals.
	Sociologists might conclude that Pentecostals speak in tongues during periods of religious ecstasy because it is expected of them. However, the individuals might well be unaware of this cause.

When Will/Did Speaking in Tongues Cease?

Circa 55 CE, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:7-10:

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

He appeared to predict, in about the middle of the 1st century CE, that at some time in his future, people will no longer prophecy or speak in tongues. There appears to be no consensus on when this will (or had) happened:

	Pentecostals and Charismatics generally believe that speaking in tongues today is as much a gift of the Holy Spirit as it was during the time of the apostles.
	Most non-Pentecostals believe that the various gifts of the spirit, including the gift of tongues, ended with the death of the last apostle. ₁₃

References:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

Glossolalia: The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible defines glossolalia as: "the ecstatic utterance of emotionally agitated religious persons, consisting of a jumble of disjointed and largely unintelligible sounds. Those who speak in this way believe that they are moved directly by a divine spirit and their utterance is therefore quite spontaneous and unpremeditated."
C.M. Laymon, Ed., "The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible," Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN, (1971), Page 807.
Tom Brown, "Speaking in Tongues," at: http://tbm.org/tongues.htm
"Holy Spirit Baptised with Bible Evidence," at: http://bornagain.port5.com/tongues.htm
"Assemblies of God Beliefs," at: http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_01_distinct.cfm
"Assemblies of God Beliefs," at: http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_02_savedwithout.cfm
The Assemblies of God denominational home page is at: http://www.ag.org/ They have a position paper which deals with the gift of tongues at: http://www.ag.org/info/position/34-4185.htm
"Assemblies of God Beliefs," at: http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_09_filledwotongues.cfm
"The Gift of the Holy Ghost," at: http://www.upci.org/doctrine/Holy_Ghost.asp
Word Aflame Tract "Why did God Chose Tongues?" tract #6108 by World Aflame Press. Available at: http://www.upci.org/tracts/tongues.htm
The United Pentecostal Church International denominational home page is at: http://www.upci.org/
Campbelltown Salvation Army, "Guidelines for Salvationists: Speaking in Tongues," at: http://www.pastornet.net.au/salvcamp/tounge1.htm
"Ellery," "Speaking in Tongues Today-From God?" a contribution to the discussion group "Watchtower Review", posted on 1997-OCT-1 at: http://www.serve.com/larryi/messages/4791.html
Fr. George Nicozisin, "Speaking In Tongues: An Orthodox Perspective," at: http://www.goarch.org/access/orthodoxy/speaking_in_tongues.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Woods/8255/spirit.html
"Why Did God Choose Tongues?," UPCI, undated, at: http://www.upci.org/doctrine/tongues.asp
"The Official Creed of: United Pentecostal Church International UPCI," at: http://www.bible.ca/cr-United-Pentecostal-(upci).htm
"The United Pentecostal Church," at: http://www.souldevice.org/upci.htm
Michael Ediger, "The Church of God of Prophecy," Darkness to Light, at: http://www.dtl.org/dtl/article/c-g-p.htm
Declaration of Faith, Church of God, at: http://www.churchofgod.cc/declaration_of_faith.cfm

Effusion in Ephesus: An exposition of Acts chapter 19

2007-07-03T01:18:00.000-07:00

The website Please Consider is not connected with this blog, neither are its authors, but I would refer you to it for more information on this topic.

This 'Effusion' essay is the fourth, and final essay, in a series that seeks to interact with the book of Acts. Specifically, these four are offered as a corrective to the Revivalist position concerning the direct and (some would argue) indirect ‘tongues’ passages recorded in Luke’s historiography. Consequently it is recommended that Tongues in the Temple, Acts 2:38, The Spirit and Samaria, and Gentiles and Grace be read preliminary to this account, and preferably in that order.

Russell's Teapot

2007-07-02T04:18:00.000-07:00

An Overview of Spiritual Gifts

2007-07-01T23:50:00.000-07:00

Please refer to An Overview of Spiritual Gifts

Tongues in the Temple: An exposition of Acts chapter 2

2007-07-01T13:58:00.000-07:00

Please refer to Tongues in the Temple: An exposition of Acts chapter 2

Fifteen Other Salvation Accounts From Acts

2007-07-01T00:36:00.000-07:00

An Examination of Salvation in the Book of Acts

Introduction

When discussing 'salvation experiences' from the Scriptures, Revivalist groups almost universally focus on a select few accounts from the book of Acts (generally Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10 and Acts 19). These selected texts are then presented by Revivalists in a very specific manner in an endeavour to seek support for their 'all must speak in tongues doctrine'. However, it may surprise some to learn, but there are around 19 salvation related accounts in Acts^[1]. The intent of this article, then, is to provide a summary of these numerous accounts in an effort to gain an overall feel for how the author of Acts intended to portray the essence of 'becoming a Christian' as it related to the early church (for further detail on salvation, see the linked article).

The tongues accounts in Acts

First, it is important to note that there is not a single instance in the Scriptures that describes (or even implies) anyone coming to salvation by 'seeking' for the Holy Spirit until they speak in tongues (neither by an individual or group). Throughout Acts, it is also of note that tongues were never mentioned as an experience to be sought. The movent of the Spirit was presented as either a totally sovereign affair, dictated by the will of the Spirit (Acts 2 & 10), or was given though the authority and laying on of hands of the Apostles as in Acts 8 & 19 (no tongues are recorded in Acts 8, and it is unlikely that the revivalist 'unknown tongue' would have produced the response the Scriptures highlight). It should also be noted that the 'sign' at Pentecost was not (and never was) an 'unknown tongue'. The sign was the fact the twelve Apostles, symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel, spoke in known Gentile languages, declaring the wonderful works of God. This, in combination with the highly symbolic occurrences of wind and fire, were all very significant signs for the Jews of the Dispersion that were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost^[2]. Unknown tongues would have been a pointless exercise that day, a fact which is supported by Paul's less than favourable treatment of 'unknown tongues as a sign' in his Corinthian discourse. For a more detailed study of these Acts accounts, see the following articles (Summary Acts 2,8,10,19 also Pentecost, Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19).

Salvation throughout Acts

Surprisingly, there are around fifteen other 'salvation accounts' recorded in the book of Acts. If we include the four supposedly 'Pentecostal' accounts that are listed above, there are 19 accounts in total. Out of these 19 accounts, on only three occasions are 'tongues' mentioned, all finding their place in a corporate setting. Of course, none are ever specifically described as an 'unknown tongue'. It should also be noted that, for at least one of the these tongues accounts, salvation is not necessarily the context of the passage^[3].

The following list provides a reference to these 15 other accounts, with a brief summary given of the signs associated with each account. As you read through, the developing theme may become obvious.

Acts 2:38-44

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. 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. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Peter explained that the Holy Ghost was a promise, not a requirement to be sought after
Many gladly received his word (which, in its context, was Peters preaching of Christ)
The 3000 were baptised and were added to the church
No signs were associated with the believers
Signs were evident, all of which were attributed to and centred on the Apostles

Acts 4:1-4

And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide. Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

Christ was preached and his resurrection from the dead
About 5000 believed
No signs were associated with the believers

Acts 5:12-14

And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women).

Believers were added to the Lord
No signs were associated with the believers
Signs were evident, all attributed to the apostles

Acts 8:35-39

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Phillip preached Jesus
The eunuch believed on Christ as the Son of God
Upon the eunuch's confession, Phillip baptised him
No signs were associated with the eunuch's conversion

Acts 9:3-19, Paul's conversion

The nature, timing and context of Paul's conversion still causes debate within certain groups. From the Revivalist perspective, Paul's conversion is generally accepted to be either at, or subsequent to, the visit by Ananias in Damascus (this was of course my original position). However, this position suffers from exegetical difficulties on several fronts, the least of which is Paul's own testimony on the matter^[4]. However, even should one still wish to insist that Paul's conversion was at or after the visit by Ananias, it makes no difference to the intent of this article. Paul was neither commanded to receive the Holy Spirit by Ananias, neither did he 'seek' for him, nor were there any external 'spiritual' manifestations such as tongues recorded as being evident. Paul's outward confirmation of the indwelling Spirit was his baptism. A summary of Paul's conversion could be expressed as follows;

Paul was confronted with the reality of Christ on the road to Damascus
Paul believed and became a follower of the risen Christ, even addressing him as Lord, all on the road to Damascus
Paul's sight was restored, assisted by Ananias
Paul was baptised
Paul went and preached that Jesus is the Son of God

Acts 9:32-35

And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda. And there he found a certain man named Aeneas, which had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy. And Peter said unto him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately. And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord.

Peter healed Aeneas
All at Lydda & Saron 'turned' to the Lord
No signs were associated with these believers

Acts 9:40-42

But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up. And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive. And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord.

Peter healed Tabitha
Many believed in the Lord
No signs were associated with the believers.

Acts 11:20-24

And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord

The Lord Jesus was preached
Because the hand of the Lord was with them, a great number believed and turned to him.
Barnabas exhorted them to cleave unto the Lord.
Much people were added to the Lord
No signs were associated with the believers

Acts 14:1-4

And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren. Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles.

Many of the Jews and Greek believed.
Signs were evident, all attributed to the apostles
No signs were associated with the believers

Acts 16:13-15

And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Lydia listened to Paul's preaching
The Lord opened her heart and she believed
Lydia and her household were baptized
She asked if Paul judged her to be faithful, to remain with her
Paul remained.
No signs were associated with the believers

It should be noted that Lydia said to Paul "If you have judged me to be faithful , stay". Now, from the Revivialist perspective, if Lydia had spoken in tongues at conversion, she simply could (should?) have made appeal to that fact for Paul to base his judgement on, just as Revivalists do when promoting their own 'faithfulness'. Lydia's non-appeal to 'tongues' is obvious due to its absence.

Acts 16:27-34

And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

The prison guard asked what he had to do to be saved
Paul instructed him to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ
Paul and Silas spoke to him the word of the Lord
He and his household were baptised
He rejoiced, believing in God
No signs were associated with the believers
Signs were evident, all attributed to Paul & Silas (the earthquake was to set Paul & Silas free)

Acts 17:2-4

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

Paul reasoned and preached Christ and his resurrection
Some believed
No signs were associated with the believers

Acts 17:10-12

And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Paul and Silas preached the word
Those hearing searched for confirmation (from the Old Testament presumably)
Many believed
No signs were associated with the believers

Acts 18:7-8

And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Paul preached to them (presumably Christ, see verse 5)
They believed
They were baptised
No signs were associated with the believers

Acts 19:13-18

Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. And many that believed came, and confessed, and showed their deeds.

Paul was known as a preacher of Jesus
A demon overcame some vagabond Jews, also declaring Paul's authority.
Because of this, the Lords name was magnified
Many believed
No signs were associated with the believers

Putting it all together

Let us now list out 14 of the above accounts where Acts actually 'details' what the converts 'did'.

(In the above summary, I have left out Paul's conversion, as the related text nowhere specifically states Paul's point of believing. However, if one reads Paul's testimonies it is reasonable to infer that Paul saw his own 'point of believing' on the road to Damascus, see Acts 26:19)

We can see from the numerous accounts, the main point that the author of Acts wished to highlight, was that to be a 'believer' was in essence, the result that occurred at a person's point of conversion. In not one instance in all the individual salvation accounts, is there any record of the believers manifesting any spiritual gifting, let alone speaking in tongues. The only 'sign', if one were to call it that, was the new believers desire to be baptised. In not one instance did an individual need to go any further than the act of believing in order to be accepted into the Christian community.

At this point it may also be helpful for some to read the article on Belief, which gives an overview of both the gravity and concept of this word.

Of the 15 accounts, the following is also to be noted:-

1 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized And all that believed were together
2 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed
3 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women
4 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
5 And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord
6 And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord
7 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord
8 And it came to pass..... that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed
9 whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul
10 Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house....he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house
11 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude
12 Therefore many of them believed
13 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized
14 And many that believed came, and confessed, and showed their deeds

Extra detail of the event & outcome is given, including any signs to be noted	7/15
Baptism of the believers was described	6/15
The believers spoke in tongues	0/15
Signs / Spiritual manifestations were displayed by the believers	0/15
The Holy Spirit was even mentioned	1/15*
The Holy Spirit was designated as something that needed to be sought for and received for salvation	0/15

(*twice if one wishes to insist on Paul's conversion as occurring with Ananias. However even this account speaks nothing of an individual seeking for the Spirit and bears no resemblance to the Revivalist practice in these matters)

If one wishes to draw any 'normative' assumptions from the events described in Acts, the only safe assumptions would be as follows:-

Christ was preached, particularly his death and resurrection

People either believed or they did not

Those that believed were often baptised

These people were accepted as fellow Christians

No further 'step' was required

Only those who were professed believers were baptised. This by the way, is not always the case within the Revivalist groups. I have personally heard a number of testimonies wherein people either said they were told they had nothing to lose, so they got baptised, or they didn't really understand what was going on, but they got baptised anyway. Within the RCI, people were often baptised before they spoke in tongues (i.e. before they 'had' the Holy Spirit). This attitude and approach completely misses the point of New Testament baptism and is an error I am sure I was also guilty of over time.

Summary

Taking into account the all the Acts events, there are 19 salvation 'type' accounts in total (for arguments sake I have included the Revivalist view that Pentecost was a salvation account, though it was not). Of the 19, only 3 specific groups spoke in tongues, for very specific reasons and in a very specific manner. Of the 15 accounts that I have listed above, where signs are described, they are attributed to the Apostles / original Disciples. Not a single sign is attributed to a 'believer'.

Tongues was never mentioned as a sign to look for regarding salvation or the Spirit, nor was anybody ever told to 'seek' to receive Holy Ghost for salvation. Paul was told that he may be 'filled', and in Ephesus, they were asked if they had received the Spirit, which task the Apostle completed through the laying on of hands).

Where tongues do occur, they are never the sole 'sign'. Pentecost had wind, fire, praise of God and miraculous known languages. Ephesus had accompanying prophecy, while Cornelius also had Praising of God (yes this was one of the signs, see the text).

Quite simply, the Revivalist picture of unknown tongues as the 'sign' of conversion is completely un-biblical if one wishes to be 'according to the Scriptures' on this topic.

Of course this does not mean that one cannot speak in tongues at conversion or evidence any other spiritual gifting at that time, however, the Bible nowhere maintains that it is to be sought after as a mandatory evidence or 'sign'. To do so diverts people from the true gospel, and is a diversion that can have disastrous long term effects.

If it is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is not the Gospel, no matter how 'powerful' and individuals experience may or may not be. For further reading on what was the 'Gospel' see the article at the following link .

Notes

[1] When terming an account as one of salvation or conversion, the author of Acts almost universally uses the simple description of the person / people becoming a 'believer in' or 'follower of' Jesus Christ and his Gospel. This becomes very clear when all the accounts in Acts are viewed in total.

[2] Historically, Pentecost was one of the major feasts of the Jewish religious calendar. During the first century, it was also widely regarded as the anniversary of the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai. Philo Judaeus, a Jewish contemporary of Jesus who lived at Alexandria in North Africa, wrote on the subject five years before the Christian Pentecost. He expressed the rabbinical belief that the Law was intended to be universal in scope, that it was given by God in the languages of all the nations of the world. Philo also described a number of rather interesting 'manifestations':

"...the heavenly voice sounded forth like the breath through a trumpet...the flame became articulate speech in the language familiar to the audience..."

Straightway we are confronted with a record (most likely) published before AD 30, expressing the Jewish belief that when God presented His Law (the Old Covenant) to Israel, it was with manifestations of (1) breath or wind, (2) visible flame and (3) gentile languages.

The tradition reported by Philo finds a measure of support in the Mishna, a commentary on Jewish religious tradition and belief:

Rabbi Johanan (died early 3rd century): "...the [one] voice [at Sinai] divided into [seven voices and these into] seventy languages [so that all the nations heard in their own language".

It appears, then, that when the 'Old Covenant' was formally confirmed at Sinai, it was with some decidedly 'Pentecostal' phenomena. That similar manifestations occurred at the confirmation of the New Covenant should not surprise anyone. Just as the original Pentecost was preceded by a pledge in the form of a Passover sacrifice, so it was with the New - the sacrificial type being fulfilled in the atoning death of Jesus Christ at Calvary. Therefore, when we read of the fulfillment of Old Testament types in Acts chapter two, we should do so with a Jewish rather than 21^st century Christian perspective. Christians of all genera often fail to do this, to the detriment of developing a biblical theology of the events.

[3] Viewing the events in both Acts 2 (Pentecost) and Acts 8 (Samaria) in relation to a 'salvation' experience, needs to be cautioned. The giving of the Spirit in the manner described in these two accounts, was done for a very specific purpose, and one that simply cannot be considered 'normative' for a Christian conversion. The disciples relationship with Christ and his declaration of them that their names were 'written in heaven' certainly makes it difficult to see them as 'unsaved'. Christ did not command the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for 'salvation', but rather, till they were endued with power from on high, which would enable them to fulfil their special commission. All four Acts accounts should be viewed in the context of the authors declared intention of his writing of the Acts of the Apostles.

[4] Paul's own testimonies provide significant insight as to how and when the Apostle saw his own conversion. In both accounts (Acts 22:1-16, Acts 26:12-20), while trying to explain the legitimacy of his conversion and calling, he all together fails to even mention Holy Ghost (this would be an impossibility from the revivalist perspective. Indeed in at least one RCI assembly, people were instructed to testify not just that they received the Holy Spirit, but that they also spoke in tongues!). Paul's central point in both testimonies was his encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus, and hence, his new direction and appointment in life (Acts 26:16-19). Even when he details the events with Ananias, instead of proclaiming he was 'filled with the Holy Ghost' he highlights the restoration of his sight (Acts 22:12-13). Though the events of Paul's conversion are well detailed, Paul displayed no spiritual manifestations and was not reported to have spoken in tongues at that time. Also, those who would insist that Paul was at that time 'filled with the Spirit' at the hands of Ananias, and hence this was his salvation moment, should exercise some caution as A - God never commanded Ananias to 'fill Paul with the Spirit' (Acts 9:12) and B - The 'filling of the Spirit' is not synonymous with salvation e.g. Acts 4:31 where known believers (including the already 'Spirit filled' and saved disciples), were again filled with the Spirit. This filling resulted not in tongues, but rather a boldness in preaching the Gospel.

New Testament Roots

2007-05-16T03:25:00.000-07:00

The phenomenon of "speaking in tongues" is mentioned several times in the Bible, but Baptists and other Christians disagree on whether such speech is spirit-filled in modern times.

The Bible in Acts 2, for example, describes the followers of Jesus Christ gathering on Pentecost after Christ ascended to heaven, when:

"...suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Most Southern Baptists believe that speaking in tongues also called glossolalia was a unique phenomenon bringing revelations to Christians during biblical times when written revelations didn't exist, says Russell Moore, dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

The New Testament now serves to bring Christians that full revelation instead, he said.

Southern Baptist pastors including Ron Phillips, pastor of Baptist-affiliated Abba House in Chattanooga, Tenn., disagree.

At 41, Phillips says he first experienced speaking in tongues in his sleep at a time in his life when he was discouraged and ready to quit the ministry.

"My wife woke me up and said, 'what in the world were you saying?'" he says. "I didn't know it, but I'd fallen asleep and the spirit started praying."

The spirit-filled language comes out in his private prayers to God, says Phillips, 58.

The Bible, Phillips says, "never says anywhere that the gifts of spirit, tongues or prophesy stops."

"I believe that God's alive and there's a spiritual world we can't see," he says. "It's kind of like a TV set that you've got to tune in to the right channel."

Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics, says Southern Baptists who don't believe in the practice view those who do with some discomfort.

"Those who do not believe in speaking in tongues view those who practice speaking in tongues as babbling incoherently and expressing too much emotion."

-- Anita Wadhiwani, The Tennesseean

Did Our Baptist Pastor Speak In Tongues? Listen and Decide! (Satire)

2007-05-16T03:21:00.000-07:00

Did Our Baptist Pastor Speak In Tongues? Listen and Decide!

An Important Message to Church Members

Freehold, Iowa - Landover Baptist Church Members were officially alerted today that Pastor Deacon Fred remains in stable condition at Landover Baptist's Center for Creation Science Research.

Pastor Deacon Fred was hospitalized after a troubling incident during last Sunday's sermon which involved an audibly manifested gift of the Holy Spirit, thought by intelligent Baptists to have been dormant since the close of the Apostolic Age. Landover Baptist Church security officers rushed Pastor to the Landover Baptist Memorial Hospital so that doctors could perform an emergency all night prayer vigil and the laying on of hands.

Evidential clip: Portion of sermon in question (property of Landover Baptist Center for Creation Science Research until further notice).

Church Secretary, Ida Mae Denkins, reports that her phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from church members who witnessed Pastor's episode last Sunday. "They are extremely concerned about his condition, and that we might be going 'tongues,'" she stated. "Most of the folks calling in were there to witness first hand, what I consider to be the Holy Spirit of God Almighty at work through the sweet, precious lips of Pastor Deacon Fred." Mrs. Denkins further stated (off the record) that she can prove with secular scientific DNA evidence that Pastor has the gift of tongues.

Dr. Jonathan Edwards reports that his team of Creation Scientists will not stop investigating the incident until they find a way to make it fit into their theology. Church members are encouraged to pass the transcript and audio available through this public web-page to family members and friends in hopes that someone in our extended True Christian™ Baptist family has experienced such an event before and may offer some advice.

Please contact Dr. Edwards at the Landover Baptist Center for Creation Science Research if you have any information that may be of assistance. Thank You!

Southern Baptists Debate Over Speaking in Tongues

2007-05-16T03:15:00.000-07:00

By
Audrey Barrick
Christian Post Reporter

Southern Baptist pastors opened debate on speaking in tongues at a weekend conference where a charismatic Baptist sought to educate his fellow believers on the Holy Spirit.

Hundreds of Christians, mainly Southern Baptists, attended "A Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit" in Arlington, Texas, as either skeptics of charismatic practices or as supporters.

After affirming his own conviction that he has been gifted with a private prayer language, Pastor Dwight McKissic of Cornerstone Baptist Church said Pentecost, and the Holy Spirit it celebrates, are largely overlooked in Baptist churches, according to the Associated Baptist Press. And the lack of awareness is a loss for Baptists, he added.

McKissic had triggered the controversial debate within the Southern Baptist Convention on the gifts of the Holy Spirit last year when he spoke of experiencing private prayer language during a chapel service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

While the majority of Southern Baptist leaders do not practice or accept charismatic practices, Baptists are split on the issue and SBC president Frank Page also recognized and let stand the varying interpretations within the denomination.

"[B]ecause I do believe there are varying interpretations, I believe it is okay to believe one way or the other," said Page, months after the chapel sermon.

The Apr. 27-29 conference presented charismatic, continualist, semi-cessationist, and cessationist viewpoints of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

One skeptic of speaking in tongues said exegesis cannot answer the question of the current-day validity of the use of tongues or a private prayer language.
"Two people using the same methods of interpretation can look at the same text and come to completely opposite conclusions. When someone says, 'I'm speaking in tongues and it is from the Holy Spirit,' some people believe them and other people don't, and there's the difference," said Bart Barber of First Baptist Church of Farmersville, Texas, as he presented the semi-cessationist viewpoint (belief that some of the gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased with the early church), according to Baptist Press.

He went further to address the bans on some charismatic practices at the domestic and international mission agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Arguing that the mission boards have not wronged people who practice private prayer language by not funding their missions, Barber explained, "In the process of reviewing a candidate's background, they can come to the conclusion, 'That's not Baptist missions but Pentecostal. If they choose not to fund that, they have not denied anyone's liberty," Baptist Press reported.
The Rev. Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist in Enid, Okla., challenged Barber, saying the International Mission Board policies are too restrictive.

Burleson indicated in his latest blog post that he has seen all spiritual gifts in operation and experienced them first-hand. And although experience, "in isolation from the biblical text, proves little," it still "must be noted, especially if it illustrates or embodies what we see in the biblical text," he wrote.

Amid varying viewpoints, McKissic, who hosted the conference, stressed that the conference was not about indoctrination but about education and fostering understanding between people with different opinions.

"I have a dream that the Baptist family will come together – not as black, Hispanic, Asian and white [nor] as tongue-speakers and not-tongue-speakers,” he said, according to ABP. “I have a dream that we will come together as Christians.”

So. Baptist to Debate Speaking in Tongues

2007-05-16T03:12:00.000-07:00

So. Baptist to Debate Speaking in Tongues

CBN News June 7, 2007

CBNNews.com - Researchers say half of Southern Baptist pastors believe the Holy Spirit gives some Christians the ability to pray in a private prayer language.

The polling was done by Lifeway, the church's own research company.

Lifeway Research Director Ed Stetzer calls that finding "very surprising." The convention's leaders remain split over whether the gift of speaking in tongues exists.

The issue is expected to be debated at next week's southern Baptist convention in San Antonio. Southern Baptists prohibit their missionaries from speaking in tongues.

Watch Low Band

Proposed ban on 'tongues' prayer divides Baptists

2007-05-16T03:01:00.000-07:00

By Anita Wadhiwani, The Tennessean

A move by Southern Baptists to bar enlistment of missionaries who profess to speak in tongues as they pray is stirring some controversy within the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
Leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention's international missionary branch say their vote in November to ban the private practice of speaking in tongues — which they call "private prayer language" — is in line with Baptist traditions and the beliefs of most Baptists.

Southern Baptist ministers opposed to the new directive include those who say they or other Baptist church members have been taken over during prayer by the Holy Spirit and made to utter words in languages they often do not understand.

"Are we now going to set a policy that says if God in his sovereignty gives someone a prayer language, we are now going to disqualify them?" says Rick White, pastor of the 6,000 member Baptist-affiliated People's Church in Franklin, Tenn. "My concern is, who's next?"

The ministers opposing it say the measure stifles free spiritual expression among missionaries in the field and sends a message to Baptists at home that the denomination is dictating how people can pray.

It's a message that potentially alienates Baptists drawn to more spirited expressions of faith at a time when growth among Southern Baptist ranks is stagnating, they say.

"It seems like the denomination is drawing lines more and more narrowly all the time at who can participate in the Southern Baptist Convention, and I think that is going to impact younger generations who want more diversity," White says.

White says he has never had the experience of speaking in tongues but members of his staff and congregation have.

It's the first time speaking in tongues has emerged as such a public controversy among conservative members of the Southern Baptist Convention, who have worked together for years to prevail over liberals to firmly establish the doctrine that the Bible is literally true, according to Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics.

The controversy points to a small but growing tension among Southern Baptists over whether spirited expressions of faith — increasingly popular among Christians here and abroad — are really Baptist.

Southern Baptist worship styles traditionally involve less expression and emotional participation by people in the pews, according to Vanderbilt Divinity School Assistant Dean James Byrd Jr.
There also is disagreement about what the Bible says about speaking in tongues really means.
Those opposed to the notion of modern-day speaking in tongues say that its mention in the New Testament was a unique phenomenon.

Baptists who defend the practice say the gift remains alive in some today, but they also say it's something that people experience in private prayer rather than during church services.

Baptist experts say openly speaking in tongues from the pews is a rare phenomenon that is frowned upon by most in the denomination.

Last month, the chairman of the Southern Baptist International Mission Board, which creates policies for the denomination's overseas missionary arm, issued a public letter to all Baptist pastors and laity explaining the policy decision to bar the private practice of speaking in tongues among foreign missionaries.

Acknowledging the controversy, chairman Tom Hatley said he would ask an internal group to review the decision and he invited pastors to e-mail him suggestions on possible revisions.
Hatley said the decision is designed to ensure uniform spiritual practices among Southern Baptist missionaries, a 5,200-strong international evangelical force that represents the denomination in faraway places as they seek to convert future Baptists.

The policies, he wrote, were in response to concerns about "charismatic problems that could intrude on our mission work."

Charismatic practices include speaking in tongues and are a hallmark of Pentecostal churches, with rapidly growing popularity in nations where Baptist missionaries are at work, as well as within the United States.

While pastors weigh in, the controversy divides Southern Baptist leaders. The president of the International Mission Board says he speaks in tongues during private prayers.

President Jerry Rankin, who works closely with the board that voted to ban the practice that has been part of his spiritual life for 30 years, has not openly criticized the board's decision.
But a dissenting board trustee — Oklahoma pastor Wade Burleson — has done so openly and prolifically on his Internet blog.

Burleson's fellow trustees first moved to oust him from his leadership position, citing "broken trust and resistance to accountability," but later backed away from that.

In March, the board adopted new guidelines for all trustees to "refrain from public criticism" and from "speaking in disparaging terms" of any decision they make.

What is praying in the Spirit?

2007-05-16T02:43:00.000-07:00

Answer: Praying in the Spirit is mentioned three times in Scripture. 1 Corinthians 14:15 says, “So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.” Ephesians 6:18 says, “And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.” Jude 20 says, “But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.” Some Christians understand these Scriptures to be referring to praying in tongues, a view which is not supportable scripturally.

The Greek word translated for “pray in the Spirit” can have several different meanings. It can mean “by means of,” “with the help of,” “in the sphere of,” and “in connection to.” Praying in the Spirit does not refer to the words we are saying. Rather, it refers to how we are praying. Praying in the Spirit is praying according to the Spirit’s leading. It is praying for things that the Spirit leads us to pray for. Romans 8:26 tells us, “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.”

Perhaps the primary reason praying in the Spirit is linked with tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:15. In the context of discussing the gift of tongues, Paul mentions “pray with my spirit.” 1 Corinthians chapter 14 repeatedly states that when a person speaks in tongues, while he/she knows what he/she is saying, since it is spoken in a language he/she does not know, no one can understand what he/she is saying…unless someone interprets for him/her. In Ephesians 6:18, Paul instructs us to “pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.” How are we to pray with all kinds of prayers and requests and pray for the saints if no one understands what is being said? Therefore, praying in the Spirit should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit and according to His will, not as praying in tongues.

The truth about speaking in tongues

2007-05-15T05:29:00.000-07:00

By KARAN MINNIS, Guardian Staff Reporter
karan@nasguard.com

Although outlined by scripture and ordained as a gift by God, speaking in tongues, also known as "glossolalia," a now popular practice within the Christian community, is currently becoming so common that persons are wondering if the blessing truly exists.

This phenomenon, which can be traced to the days of the Apostles, was once usually encountered in Pentecostal Churches, revival meetings, Quaker gatherings and some Methodist groups. However, today, glossolalia is also found in some Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches, and can be considered one of the most talked about phenomenas in Christianity as many people around the world are developing their "given gifts."

And according to Archdeacon Keith Cartwright of St Christopher's Anglican Church in Lyford Cay, the gift of speaking in tongues is a true gift from God that should not be abused or misused.
Explaining that those who receive the gift will always have an interpreter, Archdeacon Cartwright said that "it's no use speaking in tongues if there is not an interpreter, who will be able to translate and repeat what the person is saying.

"The other thing that is most important is that we must emphasize that speaking in tongues is a gift and not everyone has that gift. In fact most people don't. And so what we have to do is, recognize that most people who are believers, those people who practice their Christianity, aren't able to speak in tongues. However, that doesn't mean they don't have any other spiritual gifts."

The Anglican priest said that he has found that some people that do have the gift, have an attitude that it is special, and assume that others are not as special as they are. But he said that they shouldn't.

"People must realize that speaking in tongues is not any more special of a gift than someone who can organize the keeping of the church's yard, or someone who can arrange flowers in the church," the archdeacon said. "Everybody is given certain gifts and that's what I really want people to understand."

In the New Testament, the book of Acts recounts how "tongues of fire" descended upon the heads of the Apostles, accompanied by the miraculous occurrence of speaking in languages unknown to them, but recognizable to others present as their own native language. This phenomenon is variously interpreted either as religious xenoglossia, the speaking of an actual foreign language, or as the gift of interpretation being given to those present: the ability to understand the tongues, each person in his own language.

Some of the Orthodox hymns sung at the Feast of Pentecost, which commemorates this event in Acts, describe it as a reversal of what happened at the Tower of Babel as described in Genesis 11. In other words, the languages of humanity were differentiated at the Tower of Babel leading to confusion, but were reunited at Pentecost, resulting in the immediate proclamation of the Gospel to people who were gathered in Jerusalem from many different countries.

Also in the New Testament some scholars say Paul describes the experience as speaking in an "unknown tongue." Some also say that there are many who believe that all believers have the ability to speak in tongues (Mark 16:16-17) as a form of prayer, based on 1 Corinthians 14:14, Eph 6:18 and Jude 20. However, while occurrences of glossolalia are widespread and well documented, there is considerable debate within religious communities, principally Christian, as to both its status and the extent to which glossolalic utterances can be considered to form language. People are also said to debate its source, in terms of whether glossolalia is a natural, supernatural, or spiritual phenomenon.

According to Rev. Ulric Smith of Zion Baptist Church Shirley Street, the Baptist faith believes in every gift that the Bible declares.

"For us, speaking in tongues is listed as one of the gifts that we recognize," he said. "When I say we, I mean our brand of Baptist.

"Baptist can be found in varying contexts, as they may vary on certain matters of dogma, but not the essentials of Christianity. For example the worship expressions may vary. However, for us, we are not at grievance with speaking in tongues, as we view it as an operation for the Holy Spirit."

Highlighting 1 Cor. 12, Rev. Smith said that when used in corporate worship glossolalia is suppose to be edifying.

The Baptist minister puts it this way: "If it is something that is voiced in such as way that it is drawing the attention of the entire community of faith, not just used by people in their personal prayer, I am referring to if it is done in a way that is calling the entire community of faith, then they will be accompanied by an interrupter to edify."

Stating that this gift has been expressed throughout his church amongst leadership and membership, Rev Smith said that there have been some persons who have been turned off by the gift because of the way it is exercised.

"However, I have found that there is nothing wrong with the gift, but the problem may be in the person's way of exercising the gift that may be the problem," he said.

It is said that some Christians practice glossolalia as a part of their private devotions and that some sections of Christianity also accept and sometimes promote the use of glossolalia within corporate worship. This is particularly true within the Pentecostal and Charismatic traditions, as both Pentecostals and Charismatics believe that the ability to speak in tongues, and sometimes the utterance itself, is a supernatural gift from God.

Adding that the gift of tongues is available to all believers, Apostle Lee Watson of Trinity Assembly 'City of Praise,' said that the gift is just what it is, a "gift."

"According to the scripture, all those who received baptism in the Holy Spirit they spoke with other tongue, with the Spirit of the apostle," she said. "And so we believe that everyone can be blessed with the gift, however, not everyone is. It is a gift and Jesus is the distributor, so everybody can be blessed with such a gift. He [Jesus] says that in the last days I will pour my spirit upon all flesh, and so the gift of the Holy Spirit is for everybody."

Calling it a doorway to receiving the other eight gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are wisdom, knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, working of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, and the interpretation of tongues, Apostle Lee said that when a person is filled with the Holy Ghost they will speak with God and speak in tongues.

Acknowledging that there are some who do not believe in the gift, she said, "I'm not going to argue with them, but if they receive him [Jesus], if they receive the gift of tongues they will see."

It is said that Christians who practice glossolalia typically describe their experience as a regular and even mundane aspect of private prayer that tends to be associated with calm and pleasant emotions. However, this is in contrast to the perception of glossolalia amongst Christians who witness but do not practice glossolalia, and those who have no experience of glossolalia at all.

The Revival Fellowship - Separation Policy

2006-06-06T15:40:00.000-07:00

Anon. was given a copy of each of the policies, one written by BB in Sept 06 and the other by JK in Feb 07. And now another RF pastor is also adding to them? It really scares me for the future of the many good people still in RF - because as the RF become more legalistic, the grace and the blessing of God will be removed from their church. Grace and legalism cannot be found together as legalism totally cancels out grace.

But we can all see this is inevitable. The chasm must divide wider between their organisation and the wider world of Christendom. The Revival churches have an identity that prides itself on separatism and non-compromise. It comes down to a factor that they are putting in the 'too hard' basket - the protection of an invented salvation doctrine, ie. "If you don't speak in tongues you are none of His" (a non-existent scripture that defies the message of the gospel). Deary deary me, the Revivalists have put themselves into a self-perpetuating rut that only takes them further down the funnel of segregation and further along the continuum of (dare I say it) cultism.

Their leaders know what they must do to keep their doctrine pure and undefiled. The unwritten laws of cult-controlling techniques demand that you exponentially cut off outside information to keep the scriptural convolutions believable and yourselves necessarily in-house where the wolves won't get at them. Unfortunately the wolves are simply sheep dogs trying desperately to herd the sheep away from the wolves within their own fences.

If it ain't Revival, it's gotta go. It's a type of genocide you might say, and it shows no sign of stopping because these glaringly dangerous policies will force out the 'thinking' Christians (who can see what's coming) and leave a stronger core of Yes-men among the flock. A flock who are mostly tied in too strongly to their church by friend and family networks. Along with this, a mess of carefully preached doctrines, rules, and fear of the outside 'worldlies' .

The 'tongues' you pivot everything on is a bastardisation of simple bible messages cross-stitched together by well-meaning and intelligent, but ultimately extraordinarily blind-sighted men, confused by what seemed like a good idea at the time. Many of the less hard-core leaders and members will admit that there 'may' be sprinkles of true tongue-speaking Christians in mainstream churches but are unfortunately 'damned' by affiliation and proliferation of a watered down gospel that just won't do for them.

I know where your fundamental allegiance lies. It's caught up in a belief-web of absolutism that this Revival doctrine is a cornerstone of Jesus' message to mankind and the only 'key' criterion that will open the door of the fire-proof Ark that's gonna sweep your version of true Christianity away to safety when the fire comes.But is it True Christianity? Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers. What if we chose some simple criterion? ... giving aid to the poorest people, as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they'd fed the hungry, the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. Revivalists are all for that... as long as the poor people are Revivalists. I'm not saying that every member of a church goes door to door with Happy Meals to hand out, but there was a deep message of a lifestyle that may work better if you put his community plans into action.

Speaking in Tongues

The Revival Fellowship centres International

Wally Witnesser: Tongue tied

Why can tongues be proven a learned behaviour? (Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1986, Vol. 95)

Atheism and Speaking in tongues

Introduction

Salvation Through History

Non-Christians speak in tongues, too

The Revival Fellowship

Revival Centres International

Revival Churches: Revival Fellowship, Revival Centres International, CAI and GRC

The use of the gifts in a Revival meeting

Acts 2 and the 'miracle' of Tongues

Glossolalia

Do 'tongues' equal the 'Rest' of Isaiah 28?

Mark 16: An Exegetical Essay

A Tongues Misconception - Exposed!

There is a common misconception that tongues began at Pentecost, and were 'something new'. In fact, there are references to the tongues experience in earlier Jewish literature.

Tongues - an Unsound Evidence of Salvation

Praying in the Spirit

Did God confuse languages as a curse or a blessing?

Worldwide Church of God

Speaking in tongues stories

I speak in tounges (languages) more than you all

Funny Youtubing Tongues debunkers

Quite franky, when people speak in tongues they are just being freaky

Lisa Gerrard uses "her own" language.

Borat meets friends of mr. jesus

Non Christian people speak in tongues too!

Tongues - An Unsound Evidence of Salvation

Indigo Children speaking STAR language

Is Speaking in Tongues Valid and Biblical Today?

glossolalia

Glossolalia is fabricated, meaningless speech.

Christian glossolalia, properly understood, is voluntary

Overview:

Various interpretations of two key passages in 1 Corinthians:1 Corinthians 12:4-11: In the King James Version (KJV) of the Christian Scriptures, this passage is translated:

Beliefs of various Christian denominations:

Assemblies of God:

United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI):

Church of God of Prophecy (CGP):

Church of God (Cleveland):

The Salvation army:

Orthodox Christians

Other conservative Christian denominations:

Liberal Christian denominations:

Inter-Denominational Friction over Tongues

When Will/Did Speaking in Tongues Cease?

References:

Effusion in Ephesus: An exposition of Acts chapter 19

Russell's Teapot

An Overview of Spiritual Gifts

Please refer to An Overview of Spiritual Gifts

Tongues in the Temple: An exposition of Acts chapter 2

Please refer to Tongues in the Temple: An exposition of Acts chapter 2

Fifteen Other Salvation Accounts From Acts

An Examination of Salvation in the Book of Acts

Introduction

New Testament Roots

Did Our Baptist Pastor Speak In Tongues? Listen and Decide! (Satire)

Southern Baptists Debate Over Speaking in Tongues

So. Baptist to Debate Speaking in Tongues

CBN News June 7, 2007

Proposed ban on 'tongues' prayer divides Baptists

What is praying in the Spirit?

The truth about speaking in tongues

The Revival Fellowship - Separation Policy

Various interpretations of two key passages in 1 Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 12:4-11: In the King James Version (KJV) of the Christian Scriptures, this passage is translated: