Posted on 03/04/2006 10:57:37 AM PST by Full Court
orthodox theology bump
Amen, for the only sign we need.
If men don't believe the resurrected body of Jesus Christ, they'll believe anything or nothing.
I enjoy reading your comments whenever I see you in the forum, but I am especially thankful to get pinged to them!
Sorry, I didn't see that side of your comment :)
No problem
We all have our days. :>)
If God was not to speak to people in prophecy and visions after the Lord's First Coming, why did the Apostles give us rules for dealing with prophecy and (by extension) visions?
**You're right - God is not mocked. Unfortunately, it's the pentecostals and charismatics that practice this sort of out of control pagan spirituality that mock Him.**
Pagan spirituality? Out of control? Well shame on the unspiritual pastors that permit, or even encourage such behavior. But if it is God moving on souls, careful, you could be fighting against Him.
**I guess that's why that denomination has the highest dropout rate of any Christian church.**
As for the dropout rate (wherever that stat is to be found): "few there be that find it". The parable of the sower is indicative of a majority that starts to live for God, but doesn't continue to.
Many cannot take even the slightest persecution. Up until the age of 28, I was the member of a mainstream protestant denomination. There was no persecution to speak of in that church, also little holiness in living. In twenty-four years since I left (to be born again the Bible way) their membership has dropped to less than half. The church I belong to has grown almost fourfold.
Sad to see so many FReepers bashing Pentecostals.
They are without a doubt the most reliably culturally conservative sect and usually walk the talk.
I am SBC myself but attend a Pentecostal service on occasion and revel in it.
Speaking in tongues is not my way but some of them are so incredibly faithful, it's hard to just brush off.
Folks here bashing it might ought to go see out a real serious Pentecost church first.
just my take...very few of them are dead assemblies
I don't believe that anyone is bashing anyone personally. It's just a difference in doctrinal beliefs.
Just because they shake, rattle and roll, that doesn't mean it's "alive."
If I wanted all that, I could still be hanging out at Rolling Stones concerts.
Now, I will say that some old time pentacostals are very moral people no doubt.
But the Benny Hinn type shennigans I can do without.
Your kind words are not forgotten by this Pentecostal.
Thanks and Lord bless,
Zuriel
Thanks forthe ping. Enjoyed reading over your profile.
I am a YEC also.
not many are Benny Hinn....he is a charlatan.
My pleasure.
I attend Cornerstone in nashville at times
Maury Davis, pastor.....no phony ....I can promise anyone that
"if you're waiting to understand before you follow God, you could wait too late.....follow God and you will begin to understand"
Yes, but most of them support Benny Hinn.
If the Charismatics stopped showing up at Hinn events, he'd be out of business.
Nice article you posted, Race.
Thank you for the ping.
I'm on the same page with both of you.
"just my take...very few of them are dead assemblies"
Not just YOUR take!
I love their lively services!
I'm SB through and through, and that won't change.
But, I have always enjoyed the Pentecostal services.
A PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGE?
March 6, 2006 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist
Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron,
MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for
instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing
or changing addresses, see the information
paragraph at the end of the article) -
Pentecostals and Charismatics often teach that
there are two types of tongues described in the
New Testament: the "public language tongues" of
Pentecost and the "private prayer" tongues of 1
Corinthians 14:4 -- "He that speaketh in an
unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that
prophesieth edifieth the church." Some call this
distinction "ministry tongues" and "devotional
tongues."
Early Pentecostal leaders understood that
biblical tongues were real earthly languages.
They even thought they would be able to go to
foreign mission fields and witness through
miraculous tongues without having to learn the
languages. Those who attempted this, though,
returned bitterly disappointed!
"Alfred G. Garr and his wife went to the Far East
with the conviction that they could preach the
gospel in 'the Indian and Chinese languages.'
Lucy Farrow went to Africa and returned after
seven months during which she was alleged to have
preached to the natives in their own 'Kru
language.' The German pastor and analyst Oskar
Pfister reported the case of a Pentecostal...
'Simon,' who had planned to go to China using
tongues for preaching. Numerous other Pentecostal
missionaries went abroad believing they had the
miraculous ability to speak in the languages of
those to whom they were sent. These Pentecostal
claims were well known at the time. S.C. Todd of
the Bible Missionary Society investigated
eighteen Pentecostals who went to Japan, China,
and India 'expecting to preach to the natives in
those countries in their own tongue,' and found
that by their own admission 'in no single
instance have [they] been able to do so.' As
these and other missionaries returned in
disappointment and failure, Pentecostals were
compelled to rethink their original view of
speaking in tongues" (Robert Mapes Anderson,
Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of
American Pentecostalism).
The conclusion was soon reached that their
"tongues" were not earthly languages but a
"heavenly" or special prayer language; and those
are the terms we have heard frequently at large
Charismatic conferences, such as those in New
Orleans in 1987, Indianapolis in 1990, and St.
Louis in 2000. The tongues that I heard in these
conferences were not languages of any sort, but
merely repetitious mumblings that anyone could
imitate. Larry Lea supposedly spoke in tongues in
Indianapolis in 1990, and this is a key example
of what is being passed off for tongues in the
Charismatic movement. It went something like
this: "Bubblyida bubblyida hallelujah bubblyida
hallabubbly shallabubblyida kolabubblyida
glooooory hallelujah bubblyida." I wrote that
down as he was saying it and later checked it
against the tape. Nancy Kellar, a Roman Catholic
nun who was on the executive committee of the St.
Louis meeting in 2000, spoke in "tongues" on
Thursday evening of the conference. Her tongues
went like this: "Shananaa leea, shananaa higha,
shananaa nanaa, shananaa leeaS" repeated over and
over and over.
If you think I'm making fun of these people, you
are wrong. This is taken directly from the
audiotapes of the messages. If these are
languages, they certainly have a simple
vocabulary! My children had a more complex
language than that when they were still toddlers.
Michael Harper says: "In the short history of the
Charismatic Renewal speaking in tongues has
become rare in public, but continues to be a
vital expression of prayer in private (These
Wonderful Gifts, 1989, p. 97). He says this type
of "tongues" is "a prayer language: a way of
communicating more effectively with God" (p. 92).
He claims that this experience "edifies" apart
from the understanding: "Modern Western man finds
it hard to believe that speaking unknown words to
God can possibly be edifying. ... All one can say
is 'try it and see'. I can still remember today
the moments when I first used this gift, and the
immediate awareness I had that I was being
edified. This is one of the most important
reasons why the gift needs to be used regularly
in private prayer" (These Wonderful Gifts, p.
93). Harper says he is mystically aware of being
edified even though he does not know what he is
saying. He also says this "gift needs to be used
regularly" and is therefore something important
for the Christian life.
To prove his point he simply invites the
skeptical observer to "try it and see," reminding
us that experience is the Charismatic's greatest
authority. (The "come and see" approach creates a
new problem, though, for the Bible never says to
"try tongues" or to seek after tongues and never
describes how one could learn how to speak in
tongues. In the Bible, speaking in tongues is
always a supernatural activity that is
sovereignly given by God.)
Even some that do not claim to be Pentecostals or
Charismatics have this experience. Jerry Rankin,
head of the International Mission Board (Southern
Baptist), says he speaks in a "private prayer
language" and contrasts this with the practice of
"glossolalia."
"I do have a private prayer language, have for
more than 30 years. I don't consider myself to
have a gift of tongues. I've never been led to
practice glossolalia, you know, publicly, and I
think the spiritual gifts clearly in the didactic
passage of the Scriptures are talking about the
public uses, edification and gifts in the church.
... I've never viewed personally my intimacy with
the Lord and the way His Spirit guides me in my
prayer time as being the same as glossolalia and
subjected to that criteria. ... I just want God
to have freedom to do everything that He wants to
do in my life and I'm going to be obedient to
that" ("IMB president speaks plainly with state
editors about private prayer language," Baptist
Press, Feb. 17, 2006).
It is a wonderful thing to desire to do God's
will wherever that leads, but He will never lead
contrary to His own Word in the Scriptures. For
the following reasons we are convinced that the
Bible does not support the doctrine of a "private
prayer language."
FIRST, PAUL SAID THE TONGUES SPEAKER EDIFIES
HIMSELF (1 Cor. 14:4). That would not be possible
unless the words could be understood, because
throughout the fourteenth chapter of 1
Corinthians Paul says that understanding is
necessary for edification. In verse 3 he says
that prophesying edifies because it comforts and
exhorts men, obviously referring to things that
are understood to the hearer. In verse 4 he says
that tongues speaking does not edify unless it is
interpreted. In verses 16-17 he says that if
someone does not understand something he is not
edified. Words could not be plainer. If there is
no edification of the church without
understanding, how is it that the individual
believer could be edified without understanding?
This is confusion. The word "edify" means to
build up in the faith. Webster's 1828 dictionary
defined it as "to instruct and improve the mind
in knowledge generally, and particularly in moral
and religious knowledge, in faith and holiness."
The words "edify," "edification," "edified," and
"edifying" are used in 18 verses in the New
Testament and always refer to building up in the
faith by means of instruction and godly living.
For example, in Ephesians 4 the body of Christ is
edified through the ministry of God-given
preachers (Eph. 4:11-12).
SECOND, IF THE TONGUES OF 1 CORINTHIANS 14 IS
DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF ACTS 2, THE BIBLE NEVER
EXPLAINS THE DIFFERENCE. We leave "tongues" in
the book of Acts (the last mention is in Acts
19:6) and we do not see them again until 1
Corinthians 12-14. If the "tongues" in this
epistle is a different type of thing than the
"tongues" in Acts, why doesn't the Bible say so?
THIRD, PAUL SAYS THAT TONGUES ARE AN EARTHLY
LANGUAGE (1 Cor. 14:20-22). If tongues were some
sort of "private prayer language," why would Paul
give this prophetic explanation of it and state
dogmatically that it is an earthly language? He
does not say that some types of tongues are
languages and others are not.
FOURTH, IN 1 COR. 14:28 PAUL SAYS THE TONGUES
SPEAKER SPEAKS BOTH TO HIMSELF AND TO GOD. "But
if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence
in the church; and let him speak to himself, and
to God." This means that he can understand what
he is speaking. Otherwise, how could he speak to
himself? Does anyone speak to himself in "unknown
gibberish"?
FIFTH, IF THERE WERE A "PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGE"
THAT EDIFIED THE CHRISTIAN'S LIFE IT WOULD BE
VERY IMPORTANT AND THE BIBLE WOULD EXPLAIN IT
CLEARLY AND CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS USAGE AS IT DOES THE
USE OF TONGUES IN THE CHURCH. Further, a "private
prayer language" that helped the Christian to be
stronger in his walk with Christ would doubtless
be mentioned in other places in the New Testament
in the context of sanctification and Christian
living. In fact, though, it is never mentioned in
such a context. The apostles and prophets
addressed many situations in the New Testament
epistles and gave all things necessary for holy
Christian living, but they never taught that the
believer needs to speak in a "private prayer
language" in order to have spiritual victory.
SIXTH, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT TONGUES-SPEAKING
COULD BE A NECESSARY PART OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE,
BECAUSE PAUL PLAINLY STATES THAT NOT ALL SPEAK IN
TONGUES (1 Cor. 14:29-20). Some will ask, "Why,
then, does Paul say, 'I would that ye all spake
with tongues'" (1 Cor. 14:5)? We answer that Paul
was not saying that they all did speak with
tongues or that they all could speak with
tongues; he was merely expressing a desire that
the exercise of spiritual gifts be done and that
it be done right. Paul is looking upon tongues
when it is interpreted as another form of
prophesying and both were effective in edifying
the church, and his burden was to see the church
edified in every way. He said, "I would that ye
all spake with tongues, but rather that ye
prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth
than he that speaketh with tongues, except he
interpret, that the church may receive edifying."
Note that the apostle exalted prophesying above
tongues, but the Charismatic movement focuses on
tongues more than prophesying.
SEVENTH, ALL OF THE NEW TESTAMENT'S INSTRUCTION
ABOUT PRAYER TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT PRAYER IS A
CONSCIOUS, WILLFUL, UNDERSTANDABLE ACT ON THE
PART OF THE BELIEVER AND THAT HE IS SPEAKING TO
GOD IN UNDERSTANDABLE TERMS. We see this in
Jesus' instructions about prayer. "After this
manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in
heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us
our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us
not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the
glory, for ever. Amen" (Matt. 6:5-13). We also
see this in Paul's instructions about prayer
(i.e., Rom. 15:30-32; Eph. 6:18-20; Col. 4:2-3;
Heb. 13:18-19). There is not one example of a
prayer recorded in Scripture that is anything
other than an individual speaking to God in
understandable terms. In fact, Christ forbade the
repetitious type of "prayers" that are commonly
heard among those that practice a "private prayer
language." "But when ye pray, use not vain
repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think
that they shall be heard for their much speaking"
(Mat. 6:7). Yet I have oftentimes heard "prayer
tongues" that sound like this: "Shalalama,
balalama, shalalama, balalama, bubalama,
shalalama, bugalala, shalalama...." Whatever that
is, it is not New Testament "tongues" and it is
not New Testament prayer.
EIGHTH, EVEN IF WE WERE TO AGREE THAT 1 COR. 14
REFERS TO A "PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGE," IT WOULD
NOT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE LEARNED OR
IMITATED. Whatever is described in 1 Corinthians
14 is a divine miracle, but this is contrary to
the Pentecostal-Charismatic practice whereby
people are taught to speak in a "prayer
language." This brings us to our final point.
NINTH, THE PRACTICE OF LEARNING HOW TO SPEAK IN
TONGUES THAT IS POPULAR AMONG PENTECOSTALS AND
CHARISMATICS IS UNSCRIPTURAL AND DANGEROUS. If we
were to agree that there is such a thing as a
"private prayer language" and that it would help
us live a better Christian life and if we were to
accept the Charismatic's challenge to "try it and
see," the next question is, "How do I begin to
speak in this 'prayer language'?" A chapter in
the book These Wonderful Gifts (by Michael
Harper) is entitled "Letting Go and Letting God,"
in which the believer is instructed to stop
analyzing experiences so carefully and strictly,
to stop "setting up alarm systems" and "squatting
nervously behind protective walls." He says the
believer should step out from behind his "walls
and infallible systems" and just open up to God.
That is a necessary but unscriptural and
exceedingly dangerous step toward receiving the
Charismatic experiences. Having stopped analyzing
everything with Scripture, the standard method of
experiencing the "gift of tongues" or a "private
prayer language" is to open one's mouth and to
start speaking words but not words that one
understands and allegedly "God will take
control." Dennis Bennett says: "Open your mouth
and show that you believe the Lord has baptized
you in the Spirit by beginning to speak. Don't
speak English, or any other language you know,
for God can't guide you to speak in tongues if
you are speaking in a language known to you. ...
Just like a child learning to talk for the first
time, open your mouth and speak out the first
syllables and expressions that come to your lips.
... You may begin to speak, but only get out a
few halting sounds. That's wonderful! You've
broken the 'sound barrier'! Keep in with those
sounds. Offer them to God. Tell Jesus you love
Him in those 'joyful noises'! In a very real
sense, any sound you make, offering your tongue
to God in simple faith, may be the beginning of
speaking in tongues" (The Holy Spirit and You,
pp. 76, 77, 79).
This is so grossly unscriptural and nonsensical
it would not seem necessary to refute it. There
is absolutely nothing like this in the New
Testament. To ignore the Bible and to seek
something that the Bible never says seek in ways
the Bible does not support and to open oneself
uncritically to religious experiences like this
puts oneself in danger of receiving "another
spirit" (2 Cor. 11:4).
Thanks for the article from Bro. Cloud. He's someone I really respect. A good friend of ours works with Bro. CLoud producing all his videos and handling other state side work for him. My friend just got back from Nepal helping Bro. Cloud set up a TV station.
Evangelicals support Hinn too.....and other fakirs.
Finding fault with religion in order to condemn it is quite common amongst idealistic youth.
I did that as a teenaged hellion. "Oh, so and so is a hypocrite therefore I condemn the entire congregation or denomination"......that was my excuse for not being terribly faithful till I realized I was just looking for excuses for myself.
I would not condemn speaking in tongues just cause Benny Hinn blows on folks
Nor would I hold all Pentecosts at fault because of Hinn or speaking in tongues.
I have been right next to someone erupting into tongues right after 30 minutes of praise and I believe they felt what they uttered as well as I believe whoever felt compelled to interpret felt it too.
It is unusual for me no doubt but I can feel the Holy Spirit in that house of worship......it is unmistakable....the praise, the adoration and the need....folks are there to be fed....not just preached to (which is fine).
And let me tell you.....there is no nuance or ambivalence in a southern Pentecost church about right and wrong.....abortion, homosexuality, Islam and other immoral behaviors or ideologies and the politicians that support them. They tell it just like it is.....this is not apostate "Be Nice/Good deeds only" Christianity.
None....whatsoever.....and I find that so wonderful. It's nice to be surrounded by faith and folks who have no qualms about addressing right and wrong in today's world....speaking in tongues or not.
and, there are others besides Pentecostals who at least believe in speaking in tongues. Very Paul oriented.
all that said....I am no holy roller...a believer but not as pious as I should be....always have been but no scholar or preacher but I have found that as I have gotten older that the church was right to worry about immorality and that we as a culture live in times that sure look providential.....I'm an Isaiah sort of guy these days.
Amen!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.