I am currently attempting to dialogue with Nate B (very sharp character) over at Pulpit Magazine about the gift of tongues. My man Phil from Theology Today also had a really good discussion about this. A disclaimer is that I am open but skeptical, or open but extremely cautious, how about I am barely open and super-hyper-extremely cautious. The extreme abuse, misrepresentation of the gift, and current teaching is why. But once again the gift is biblical so I can’t deny it and the age old “when the perfect comes” doesn’t work for me. I believe that argument is at best lazy and at worst condescending as it relates to our reading and understanding the scriptures.
Now in the camp that I roll with this would be the first thing that comes to mind as it relates to the gift of tongues. Something a bit comical! If you turn on Daystar, TBN, or go to the typical hyper-charismatic church service we will see all of the abuses I mentioned above. The clear imperative laid out by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 is “if you gone do it, you better have an interpreter or keep your mouth shut”! This is what the verse would sound like if we were to hear it. The tone is direct and it is authoritative. No questioned asked. The other imperative is “let it be two or three at the most”. I take this very literal and I think Paul wrote it to be taken literally given the tone of the entire chapter and the previous ones.
So as I stated this gift is the second most abused gift in the church today. The first being teaching (turn on TBN and 99% of the people should be stoned before the even touch the stage). I have loved ones praying that God would give them this gift so that they can “be baptized in the Spirit” not realizing that they were baptized in the Spirit upon regeneration. Before you say the sinners prayer you have been baptized as a matter of fact once the Holy Spirit frees you to realize that you need a Savior and that this Savior is Christ Alone you have been baptized in the Spirit. That is a different subject though. Others look with condenscending eyes by saying “you guys ain’t spirit filled” my answer is I believe thus I am Spirit Filled and you think getting super emotional and all bubbly is Spirit Filled then you have misinterpreted the work of the Spirit.
But back to the tongue issue. Now I will say again, I have never experienced any of this gift that I didn’t conjure up on my own. I was the chief tongue talker back when I was 16 and was as powerless as a 25 year old Double A battery when it came to sin. And furthermore what I see today is ludicrous at best maybe even demonic at worst. But I won’t go there either. My question is this: “Is Paul’s use of Isaiah in 1 Corinthians 14 conveying that this gift was a sign to unbelieving Jews alone or ALL non believers?” I am not saying that one function of tongues is not this but what I am asking in the context of 1 Corinthians and especially the 14 chapter and then verse 21 is there even a hint of a Jewish nonbeliever in view here or is Paul doing what he normally does and take OT scripture and apply them to the church? Paul does the same thing in Romans 3 and I have never heard anyone say oh he is only referring to non-believing Jews here when he says “there is none righteous” I am wondering how there is such a huge hermeneutical swing when it comes to 1 Corinthians 14. Is it because our theological presuppositions have pushed us over the ledge? Here are the verses in question:
13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
I am not willing to take this leap but I would love to interact with you all on this. Thanks.
I followed you and Dr. Busenitz’ comments and I have to say you both have good arguments. The Jewish argument is the one that led me out of the whole charismaniac nonsense, however you’ve also raised some interesting points, which have led me to study my Bible a little more on the issue. Should make for some interesting discussion, Bro. Lionel!
Thanks Douglas,
I am on a pursuit to free myself from going to far on either side. I believe this is a verse that is constantly and conistently misapplied to discredit the gift. You already know what the other one is in a the previous chapter.
Hey Lionel,
One thing seems to be clear. If someone speaks in tongues, it should only be to result in conviction of sins, and possibly even immediate salvation of an unbeliever (Jew or not). The person jumping up and down in a service somewhere trying to have “an experience” just makes a mockery of himself and the God he claims to profess. But on the other hand, we can’t deny that there have been cases where someone is in a situation with a non-believer and speaks to them and they don’t know eachother’s language, yet, God speaks and the non-believer is convicted. This is extremely rare i would project, but I think this is a proper description of what speaking in tongues is about and should look like.
No matter which we cut it, it better be glorifying to God–no ifs ands or buts. Amen.
Some would say that speaking in tongues should be only looked at as in people who can learn and use other languages in ministry. While this is clearly a gift and can be used by God to great effect and is, I would say, the more common medium, I do think it cheapens the issue and does not look at the Scripture honestly and entirely. There are clearly other circumstances than someone simply learning a language and going to where people speak it and witnessing. The miraculous can truly come at any time and to any believer God chooses.
All that said, I’m with you in the trepidation on the issue. It has been so abused by the Charismatic movement especially, but also by others of various camps.
Hey Lionel,
this is always a much needed topic of discussion, especially among black folk. But, I think there are a couple of things to keep in mind with the discussion on 1 Cor 14 (and your discussion with Nate)…
1) Context is King…the whole discussion of tongues in 1 Cor 14 must be kept in context of the unit of discussion beginning in 1 Cor 12 focusing on love and edification (And it is important to remember his first statement…”I do not want you to be ignorant…”).
As Nate mentioned…
We go awry, I believe, if we interpret 1 Cor. 12-14 correctly (regarding the gifts) but subsequently miss Paul’s entire point in those chapters (regarding love).
2) Context is King…it is important to consider the whole context of redemptive history and the transitioning between the Old Covenant and the New, as well as the circumstances that surrounded it – i.e. – the judgment of the nation of Israel in God’s presence leaving them.
3) Nate’s elucidation of the cessationist view is not complete…once he brings in some more of the redemptive historical elements it will begin to become much clearer.
4) I agree that 1 Cor 14:21 is talking about a sign for particularly for unbelieving Jews (in the quoted MacArthur commentary it does state that it was for unbelievers but PARTICULARLY for unbelieving Jews) because the nature of the particular prophecy in Isaiah. Also, it is a purpose clause which helps us understand the nature of tongues. But, this all relates to my 2nd and 3rd points and I’ll wait to see if Nate covers those issues in his follow-ups. If not, then I’ll hit on it.
Jude 2-3,
Q
Hi Lionel,
I enjoy your blog…thanks for your thoughtful words. Have you ever read much of Sam Storms at his Enjoying God blog? He is reformed charismatic and I think speaks to many of the issues you have raised here. He has a lot of articles and essays posted.
Many blessings to you!
Jeri Tanner
The question is not tongues. The question is, how do I make the link from what is being done today, equal to Pentecost?
If any one can tell me who is speaking in 1st Corr ch 14. Then scripture will say so and I will conceed. But be carefull when you answer. The article of the person is very important. If you can not tell me who is speaking then your argument is ignorant and mute. For he that speaks in an unknown tongue does not speak to men but to God. Who is speaking to God?
One Pastor Xerxes
If a deaf person spoke in tongues, how would you qualify that knowing that his or her cognitivity was sign language? Would
she then be speaking, knowing that her communication is sign
language? The person has to have the ability to conversate
in an inner speech type: wheather it is sign language, verbal
comunication or various languages, If you can’t tell who,
or what of the essence of the comunication when something comes from your mouth; then you are not speaking. At that point the question becomes interesting. Go back to the Pauline example: not only is the cymbal characteristic to the hearer, it is also to the player or pronouncer. This is very important when attempting to validate what we think tongues
are or is!
Hi All,
I had a man come to my blog the other day and tell me that he received the Gift of Tongues via the laying on of hands. The one administering this was a woman. I don’t believe this is Scriptural due to the requirement that an elder must be a male (1Timothy 3:1-10). You guys have any thoughts on the matter?
PS. I’m on the road for the next three days. I will be reading but I might not have time to respond!
Thanks Guys
Phil
Hey Q,
If context is king which we both agree it is. I still need to see how Jewishness is brought out of the context of 1 Cor 12-14. There isn’t even a hint towards such a view and I do understand your point of redemptive history and all, but my problem is 1 Corinthians 14 is used to prove a cessasionist viewpoint (not to mention 1 Cor 13) and I by the basic reading and basic exegesis of the verses and the entire book can’t for the life of me conclude that this verse is referring to “non-believing Jews” if you can show me how this is the context I would appreciate it. If so answer these questions for me.
1. If you go with this is Paul proving that tongues is a sign for non-believing Jews you must conclude that “prophecy is not a sign for non-believing Jews but a sign for believing Jews”.
2. Next you would have to say “when you come together as the church and a Jew walks in the Jew will say you are out of your mind”.
3. Next “but if all prophesy and a Jew walks in he is convicted by all”
4. And falling on his face the Jew will worship God.
Unless you can clearly substitue Jew for the word unbeliever in these verses you also can’t assume Paul is referring to Jews when he references Isaiah in verse 21. If context is king the flow of thought must remain the same. Thus if I substiute Jew in verse 21 I have to do it throughout. The subject of the non-believer never changes in this flow of thought.
Thanks Jeri,
Yeah I actually have Storm on the siderbar. I don’t visit his site much due to some recent information provided to me by the Co-author of this blog Tyris. But for the most part he does some good stuff. Thanks again.
Hey Pastor X,
The question here is tongues. I am not discussing the benefit of tongues or even if it exists today. This isn’t the point of this post. The point of this post is can I cleary pull from the text that “tongues is a sign for unbelieving Jews” my answer is a big NO!. I can’t for the life of me pull that out of the context. If so for every time Paul uses the word un-believer I have to insert the Nation of Israel (which I use synonymously with Jew).
Hey Pastor X,
The picture was representing the cessasionist view/semi-cessasionist view of tongues today. We think what goes on today may be an inch short of ridiculous.
Hey Phil,
I don’t believe that the Gifts are given by laying on with hands. I think that is a misapplication of the two Acts accounts and that those accounts were more a decleration of the Apostles authority and the Keys of the Kingdom that were given to them. That is why Paul was validated with such an act. His laying on of hands in Acts 19 I think with John’s disciples at Ephesus was to validate his apostleship and nowhere in scripture do you see “elders” laying hands on people to give them gifts of the Spirit. That type of power ceased with the death of John. Secondly I would have him describe his receiving of this gift and the validation by someone interpreting.
By the way the Calvary Church movement does a horrible job with the application of “there must be an interpreter”. They say you don’t have interpret what is being said but you only need to interpret what was going on. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
“They say you don’t have interpret what is being said but you only need to interpret what was going on.”
That sounds like some non-Bible reading man of Gawds excuse for not knowing whats been said (or babbled)
I agree wholeheartedly COP
Brother Lionel,
You said: ” That is why Paul was validated with such an act. His laying on of hands in Acts 19 I think with John’s disciples at Ephesus was to validate his apostleship and nowhere in scripture do you see “elders” laying hands on people to give them gifts of the Spirit. That type of power ceased with the death of John. ”
Gabriel: Just fishing here……but would you please mind expanding your argument, Brah?
Other things worth considering and that I’ve always wondered about: On the point of prophesy, I’ve always wondered what to make of things such as I Timothy 1:18 & the prophecies made about Timothy.
Paul highly valued the gift of prophecy (I Corinthians 14:1), for through prophecy important messages of warning & encouragement…..and Timothy had been set apart for ministry when elders laid their hands on Him (I Timothy 4:14)…and apparently, at this ceremony, several believers had prophesied about Timothy’s gifts and strengths.
“14Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through (A)prophetic utterance with (B)the laying on of hands by the (C)presbytery. ”
Of course, elsewhere it says also that Paul laid hands on Timothy as well (and there are some who say that these are either two different instances or Paul was their in both of them):
2 Timothy 1:3-7
Encouragement to Be Faithful
3I thank God, whom I serve, as my forefathers did, with a clear conscience, as night and day I constantly remember you in my prayers. 4Recalling your tears, I long to see you, so that I may be filled with joy. 5I have been reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also. 6For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.
Others to consider/study:
1 Timothy 5:21-23
21I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.
22Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.
Again, just curious as to what your thoughts were, Brah….as well as the basis for the stance that imparting things died out with the Apostle John when it seemed to be something in I Timothy that Elders did.
Hey Gabriel,
Look throughout the scriptures especially the epistles and show me where someone was given the gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. It only happened twice. Both time in Acts once by Peter and John (Acts
and once by Paul.
To answer your other question is a bit more trickey. But simple if we look at the context. We have to ask a question. What is the gift here? Also is there any other place in scripture that talks about someone “was given a gift through prophecy”. So let me tell you what I see and we can dialogue more about it.
1. In 1 Timothy 4 Paul and the Elders confirmed Timothy called to teach/shepherd the flock of God. He in turn was commanded by Paul not to confirm others in Eldership to hastly. The laying on of hands in order to show confirmation was quite common and still practiced today. The same thing was done to Paul and Barnabbas during their first missionary journey in Acts 13
“3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off”
The gift was already given to Timothy by the Holy Spirit, this gift was confirmed by other leaders as I believe is the call today. If you are called to teach and shepherd God’s people you should be confirmed by other Elders who are proven shepherds. They should vouch for your “calling”.
2. I believe Paul is saying the same thing in 2 Timothy 1. Not that Paul gave him any gift (Paul has no ability to do anything apart from the Spirit) but the gift that is in him, which was confirmed by Paul should be fanned into flame.
3. To answer your last question, there is no such thing as Apostolic succession. There is no biblical foundation for such a statement. Thus they are the foundation of the Church with Christ being the Chief Corner Stone.
So we see that the imparting of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands only happens twice in Scripture. Once by Paul once by Peter and John. Not to mention if we look at the way the narrative is laid out in Acts 8 who was it that were confirmed by the Holy Spirit? Ding, Ding, Ding! The Samaritans. Where was the Gospel to go? Jerusalem, Judea, SAMARIA! So now we see the move of the Holy Spirit from Judea to Samaria. The Great Commission is on the move. It is also beneficial to note that though Phillip could do marveouls signs and wonders, he could not impart the Holy Spirit upon them it took Apostles to do that. So if Phillip couldn’t do it, how can an Elder today do it? Finally I believe Paul’s call as an Apostle (also his gifting taking precedent over Barnabbas and God confirming that He is the Apostle to the Gentiles) is validated with this incident in Acts 19.
So I believe these laying on of hands by Paul, John and Peter are isolated incidents that were never repeated by anyone in the sciptures and never recorded in History. This is my take let me know if this answers your question.
Lionel I think it is the action against the unbelieving Jew.
If you are attempting to use the book of Acts as a pre-opt.
If you are not then I agree, only because of Paul’s argument, what is Paul saying to this idea of Tongues. Are we paralleling his argument or are we. Placing the two incidents as one, are they the same? No UNDERSTANDING OF OLD TESTAMENT DOGMA. God constantly told Israel that another would speak his truth. Notice the text of Acts. When the Holy Spirit fell. The question arises why? Peter as well as the others remaining in the upper room, in addition to who heard abroad, understood fully well the point of transfer. We as believers have what the Old Testament saints looked for. Also every time Tongues were given the unbelieving Jew was present. This is why when Peter proclaimed what had taken place, the response was (what must I do to be saved). Every Jew had an Old Testament understanding of scripture. Dr Walter Martin said In order to qualify a Phenomenon; you must first go to the first point of the Phenomenon. Why did this take place? And if Paul states that the reason, salvation has come to us gentiles, is for the purpose to provoke the Jews to Jealously. Romans ch11 verse 11. However this is not the Idea of 1st Corr ch14 Understand Paul’s argument, his premise is, this is not the initial act of condemnation, why because it is the setting of edification not salvation. We are around believers not in evangelism mode, of gathering the unsaved.
Next he argues the question of the worship of saints and the communicative act though of the intellect of the believer worshiping Christ. Example. Pastor Xerxes in China worshiping and speaking to Christ in my English language
And the Chinese congregation is not cognitive of English.
Then my communication to Christ is unfruitful in that assembly. Some how people get the two confused. Or they
Incorporate a heavenly language? That does not support
The text. So in one place we utilize Salvation, and then incorporate the same in edification, or worship, or in Prophecy. Which becomes insanity? Also UNDISTINGUABLE.
Yes what happens today is borderline blasphemous, and at worst unscriptural, and arrogant at best. WE MUST UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE. Between The Condemnation, The Gift, The Language. The Edification. Good Blog Question.
One Pastor Xerxes
I appreciate the wise words Pastor X, but let me ask a question. You said:
“Also every time Tongues were given the unbelieving Jew was present”
Now I am going to have to challenge this one. Where was the non-believing Jew in Acts 10 and Acts 19? I don’t see that in the text. I see believing Jews in Acts 10 and mixture in Acts 19. I also don’t believe that the True Israel (all who believe in the Messiah thus the seed of Abraham) is a parentesis in God’s plan but the ultimate fulfillment of God’s plan from the foundation of the world. I would love to dialouge with you more on that.
Lionel,
I was raised to consider tongues as a gift whose time has past (“when that which is perfect [the full Bible] is come, then that which is in part shall be done away”), so that is my bias. In studying it out for myself, I would probably place myself in the same place you do–barely open and highly cautious.
The way I look at it, the church at Corinth had so many problems, that I’d be cautious of using what Paul “allowed” them to do or did not condemn them for, as a command that we *ought* to have tongues, or else we’re somehow less of a Christian than others. I think that most (if not all) of the current people who “speak in tongues” are either seriously misguided or self-deluded, or just plain liars. They’re like the Emperor’s New Clothes–everybody around them is speaking in tongues, so they go along in order to fit in or not be different or to keep others from thinking less of them.
When we look at what “tongues” were–they were known foreign languages, and every time except this discussion in 1 Cor., it was definitely someone speaking an intelligible language that they had never learned, and another person hearing in his own language intelligible speech that glorified God and directed people to Christ. Going back to the problems that the Corinthians had–it seems to me that these people were like the modern-day charismatics are–they wanted spiritual gifts so badly that some of them were perhaps even faking it. I could be reading too much into it, but Paul is definitely clamping down on them speaking in tongues. It would be easy to babble and make others think you were really speaking in tongues, because they couldn’t understand what you were saying and prove that you were just talking in nonsense syllables; but a lot harder to preach and prophesy with wisdom and intelligence without a true gift of the Spirit.
In a way, Paul not being physically there at Corinth, he couldn’t prove or judge one way or another. He knew the gift of tongues was a true gift of the Spirit; but whether or not these people truly had this gift or were making it up (the way you said you did at 16), he couldn’t judge from a distance. But it is obvious that he is seriously trying to minimize the practice.
As to your original question–no, I don’t think that “unbelievers” is restricted to Jews only, but all unbelievers.
I’m very much enjoying your blog, and am going to check out some older posts.
Kathy
katsyfga.wordpress.com
hum, very interesting take indeed, lionel…i just happened upon your site as suggested from a recent query i answered on the subject though i didn’t seek to go in great detail..
i shall likely come back here and add to the fodder (when i get home later) if you don’t mind, and appreciate your careful consideration, brotha…
meanwhile, if u get a moment i’d love for you to come by and add to our dialogues as well at http://dilatorydialogue.wordpress.com.
best,
CVT
greetings, friends, do pardon the intrusion (if it is one), but this issue has been a most formidable one for sincere Christians everywhere (including me, one not tempermentally predisposed to hyper-mystical experiences, yet careful not to deny or denigrate those who claim them)
… so lemme just enter in:
first, in its strict interpretation, i suppose, one could argue that tongues were a sign for non-believing Jews, if we grant that the original hearers of such texts were only those conversant with the Hebrew Scriptures (in other words, that these texts are static, and not living)…and that (as some in camps argue) that the manifestation of this gift is something now past, and that NOW it must be something intelligible and the like….not enough room here for all of that…
i will say that for practical purposes in the Christian teaching, the only agreeable thing is that in public settings that which is most profitable is that which EVERYONE can discern as intelligible… now i wasn’t religiously formed in a pentacostal tradition, however, i’m more Jamesian in my conclusion, which is to say that for my friends who were: if the “gifts” of tongues are real to them and, more, effects some temporal positive change in their person, than i shall not impugn any claims of it… (i only am somewhat skeptical o the phenomenon remebering how one friend tried to make my “prayer language” come out by playing with my throat and tellin me to “tarry” or something)
in short, let me say that i’m certainly wary of charlatan stuff on televison…but i am inclined to grant that there are “tongues,” i.e., think of the beautiful black venacular and its ebonics…the languages in our urban centers, often despised, the unique groanings and sounds of our ancestors…
all of these require interpretation and assent, as it were, before any altered consciousness can be realized…
so while the issue is certainly a spiritually abstruse one, intellectual humility helps to mitigate the two extremes of dogmatism and naivete…
well, i’ve taken up too much space here so lemme just stop…i shall certainly visit back often, as–for good or ill–my theological training was at a Reformed Seminary…
and you are right, it’s sorta anomolous to see African American, self-identified “Reformed” folk…lol… though i am reformed (litte “r”)…
one luv,
CVT
oh, and lemme back up and clarify…
it can only be argued as for “non-believing Jews” by text-proofing what Paul adduces in his argument….
but i think it’s rather safe, and correct, i submit, that we can contextualize this text to mean it as a sign for ALL non-believers…
well, you know, even “first for the Jew, then to gentiles”… (cf. Rom 1)….speaking of the gospel more generically…
CVT
Hey brother CVT you said:
“if the “gifts” of tongues are real to them and, more, effects some temporal positive change in their person, than i shall not impugn any claims of it… (i only am somewhat skeptical o the phenomenon remebering how one friend tried to make my “prayer language” come out by playing with my throat and tellin me to “tarry” or something)”
Let me ask a question. How far do you allow that mindset to go. For example there are some nuts in Florida (www.pulpit-pimps.org) that are getting some heaven visions, others have visited hell and others have visited heaven. Some have seen extra arms and legs laying around waiting for people to claim them (this is disgusting in and of itself what if I call down a white arm am I stuck with it?) would you apply the same standard that as long as it effects some positive change that it is okay to preach and practice such things.
This isn’t atagonistic just curious before I proceed.
great question…and no, in tersely trying to respond, of course one has to leave a lot out…(but i rather enjoy the dialogue as well, no worries, brother)
really i was sorta tipping my hand philosophically as it relates to religious experiences and the meanings it brings to those who have them…and so trying to objectively view these mystic experiences more humanistically i tend to be more of a pragmatist vis-a-vis with the “could be” (smiles)…
now the chimerical stuff you describe above of course deserves a lot more scrutiny…but if one believes that Paul was “carried into the heavens with visions” indescribable then one also has to say that these experiences, though exceptional, are not impossible as a matter of faith… (here an indispensible classic is William James’ Varieties of Religious Experiences, as i’m sure you can tell laces my perspective)
i guess the best standard is the fruits of these experiences, right? that’s really the only peremptory standard of judgement for me
…so in what you site above, and in the deplorable cases in TX combines and David Koresh and even George Poppof (currently) who obviously uses the credulousness of often sincere folk for mercenary motives, it’s easy for us to so emphatically: NO…that crap can’t be from the god i’ve come to know…
i suppose my appeal is really an empathy to the sincere folk in these camps. last year, we hosted a symposium with Noel Jones and Robert Frankin on the subject matter and how they deal with these types of issues in humanistic university curricula…so many of my friends have such a difficult time trying to articulate their experiences in institutions averse to them…
and my conclusion, more personally, is well though i’ve never had some of the experiences some of my more reasonable Pentacostal friends say they have,
and so it’s still a case of “maybes” with me…maybe, the way our god constituted us presses us to not be as amenable
maybe, given the intellectual resources we’ve been so blessed encounter there’s no need (according to our distinct calls) for super-communication for us…
maybe, psychologically speaking, there is a certain pychopathic temperament required if we heed to medical materialism…so depending on the methodology one uses, not to mention the diversity of theological ones, the speculations are interminable……
in conclusion, i just think that everything can be contextualized, right? and so as Christians we are to judge-yes–but the challenge is to do so without being judgemental, per se…
cause at some point we all have to wrestle idealogically with stuff…for instance as a Reformed African American Christian, you have had to take issue with Calvin’s predeterminism and sorta exclusivism it foster…similarly, there are things in my Baptist religious heritage that i must confront in seeking to discern who my god would respond (if perchance he were created as me)….
whew…sorry man for my verbosity…lemme try to move on…
and so within all of our religious heritages, we’ve had to transmute the erroneous to arrive at an acceptable truth for us…(which i believe is where Truth lies, namely where god stands in our Christ)…moreover, in my dialogues with some of these brothas and sistas still wrestling with faith and doubt and learning and piety i’ve learn that these things are never just easily answerable…
so it is with the issue of tongues: we can state certain things as to what’s best in teaching other believers like us…but as it relates to some have had, like, revelatory experiences through their mysticism….i’m just not smart enough to negate their description–that is if i also have not observed any resulting deleterious outcomes for them or others they influence…
btw, appreciate your commentary on the blog post….
CVT
CVT you said:
and even George Poppof (currently) who obviously uses the credulousness of often sincere folk for mercenary motives, it’s easy for us to so emphatically: NO…that crap can’t be from the god i’ve come to know…
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
I got you on the experience stuff. That is why I am open. I don’t see a clear case in scripture to say these experiences are antithetical to the scripture but I struggle with the use of it and abuse of it in the local church setting. With that said I do agree if there is no harm then there is no foul. And for the most part the faith of these individuals put us with a more Reformed perspective to shame!!!
yeah, and be sure to know that i agree with you….with so much (ab)use of this doctrine in our churches, it’s hard to find commendable examples…honestly, i’m hard pressed to find one, brotha. nonetheless the willingness to think on these issues at least helps us to be open listening to the varying perspectives…
anyway, good dialoging with you, Lionel, i appreciate your blogosphere minstry, and liked your posting today as well..
all the best in Christ, and until later, i am
sincerely,
CVT
Hi Lionel,
My thesis is that there is a connection between the present “signs and wonders” or the “tongues” movement and Deut. 28:49. Read more here:
http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/doctrine/?p=358
Your post gave me food for thought, as I was thinking along the same lines while writing my post. I think Paul has both Jew and non-Jews in mind, but he was applying Isaiah 28:11 to tongue-speaking, even though the prophecy had fulfillment in Israel’s history only. Here’s where the type (national Israel) is fulfilled in the antitype (the Church).
Just a quick point. You asked if Paul in I Cor. was indicating The Jewish People as the UNbeliever or if this could in fact extend to include all people. Well of course ANYONE Jew or Gentile may or may not be moved to see someone speaking in tongues. However GOD told us in Isaiah 28 (the Prophecy that Paul refers to) the intended target of this sign when he SPEAKING TO ISRAEL said…
“For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to THIS PEOPLE….” I think that is pretty clear that the people this sign is intended for in THAT regard are without question the people of Israel.