geisha779

The Gift of Tongues in the Post Apostolic Church (A.D. 100-400), by Cleon Rogers Cleon Rogers was around in the 60's when the charismatic movement was gaining traction. He was one of the first to speak up about the problems coming from this movement. http://www.faithfulp...olic_Church.pdf

Paul quotes Isaiah 28 because part of the purpose of tongues was to speak to Israel through the tongues and lips of other men. God had His purpose for tongues in blessing and judgment. It was a big deal. Maybe, there is real significance to why it is SIT ....... Speaking in languages. God is never random. Too add: I am trying not to be too specific here, but, Chockfull made the point that SIT is never referred to in the Bible in the same sense as a language in the same context that other languages are referred. . . The account in Isaiah is specific. God was going to use the Babylonians to discipline Israel, it was judgement for their intense disobedience. They would be disciplined in a language they didn't understand. What would be the significance of a people who were chosen and separated out by the law and their language, being corrected in a foreign language they didn't understand? How would this be significant to SIT? Reasonable people can disagree about what was understood at the house of Cornelius, but they were heard to be praising God by the Jews there. This is significant because these were gentiles being added to the church. These tongues with Cornelius were a sign to the Jews. Someone knew they were praising God, and it was not something that the Jews would have just assumed and went along with. Gentiles were now included . . . . . . this was shocking and maybe a bit of an affront to them. Peter had to defend what happened. Just some thoughts.

It matters to me. Jesus warns against vain repetition in prayer so, I would like to know about SIT vs free vocalization. That is not a doctrinal statement, but a personal one concerning one of the reasons it is important to me. . . . . . . .

Who is saying that God can't.. . . how would that be right? Our God is in heaven He does whatever He pleases. I know it is a long and sometimes technical thread, but generally, people are not questioning God's authority or power. What is being challenged is what people are calling SIT now opposed to what they did in scripture.

JAL should host a show called World's Wackiest Cults. The man is like a game show host for speaking in tongues. As much as we like to distance ourselves now.....this is an example of VP's inner circle. This is the guy tagged to teach the Way Corps and was an example of a responsible mature spiritual Christian? He was considered one of the better teachers. That....is frightening. Did anyone miss the part where he threw Christians under the bus again concerning all their error about SIT? With all his talk about the benefits of tongues. . . . this guy has only lost sanity in the last 40 years. He is still promoting false doctrine. Again, he has claimed SIT is the proof that one is saved. Well, if it is proof than it must be provable. God is not unreasonable. Christians know they are saved by this..... Jesus is Lord.....not even that we make Him Lord....Jesus is Lord. If we don't know this and desire proof "in the senses realm" then we are not saved. Simple. JAL is dangerous to seeking people. We don't pay for the Holy Spirit.....Simon wanted to do that and Peter told him to let him and his money rot. Yet, we can't test God by expecting tongues to produce a language? God just overlooked that we paid money to learn how to SIT for proof of Him, as if Jesus isn't enough. He overlooked that we were following a false gospel, worshiping a book, and believing VP was his mouthpiece on earth while axing to absent His Son? This God doesn't mind? Must be a law He can't get around. Sorry for the derail.... it was just a bit of comic relief. Back to Samarin. :)

People SIT on TBN all the time, we have it on You tube.....SIT if consistent with scripture should produce a real language, so what is the problem? Someone, somewhere, should recognize them all basically. I don't understand why this is not happening all over the place and the norm. What is the big mystery? Unless it is not real? If you can't speak in tongues....look this guy will help you to do it. I dare you to watch it. <iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eFUz1Ve7WeE" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

I am not the one saying SIT is a private prayer language. The nature of prayer is conversational.

I will regret this....I absolutely know it. Glossa is not conversational by design? How so? You fault him for rejecting firsthand claims and then for accepting them.....which is it? Something, can have a phonetic resemblance to a language and not be defined as a language. Why is this problematic for you?

Raf, Are you appealing to the study simply because Samarin is an expert....have you done this? Have you said it is true because he says so? To be honest, I have skimmed a few posts. Is that what you think, it is true because he says so? Have you examined it with painstaking patience? What page are we on? Pointing out that he is an expert and may have a better understanding when someone with hubris will not consider beyond a certain scope is not an appeal to authority...it is a favor. There is more than sufficient evidence to believe his claims are true. To reasonable people that usually does suffice. You have proved your point. Chockfull has the right to dismiss anything he wants......but I think it is beginning to border on the absurd.

Yes, I appreciate that, but that sounds like an appeal to a misleading authority having you retrace Samarin's findings to see if they are justified. An appeal to authority fallacy is when some one who is appealed to is not an expert or is shown to be bias or prejudicial isn't it? The Nizkor Project has a great definition...... You, Chockfull, or I cannot validate, justify, or disprove Samarin's conclusion....barring any glaring inconsistencies we don't have all the needed tools. This is why we have things like peer review and defense of dissertation. Chockfull, you, or I are free to read a study and discuss what we feel its merits and detraction's might be....but we do so with limited understanding. It is just a discussion among novices. Albeit more proficient after reading Samarin, which I think is the point of such a study. Well done for bringing this to light....it has helped to educate me and others, it is probably something I would not have stumbled upon myself.. . . . but, what we let educate us or what we push against and what we decide to believe is based on the individual. There are way too many factors to settle the issue except for us as individuals. Your presentation has spoken to me and it has clarified things which need clarification and for that I am grateful, but I think you are absolutely correct.....you will not be able to prove your argument to everyone's satisfaction. That doesn't mean you haven't already proven it. You have.

Is it an appeal to authority "fallacy" when someone is in fact a legitimate authority and there is a consensus of expert opinion? I don't think so...doesn't there need to be "significant" dispute among experts? Doesn't the expert need to shown bias or prejudicial? How does appealing to a classic and highly regarded study, an actual expert linguist, and a consensus of opinion constitute a fallacy? The "fallacy" seems to be relying on our own limited understanding in a specific and highly concentrated field like linguistics to refute their claims. I am just saying, I don't think that what has happened here qualifies as an appeal to authority "fallacy". It is an appeal or reliance on authority.....we can't be experts in everything and part of how we learn is to lean on experts and studies. At least in my world it is...... Now reading back I can't find where someone claimed this....I thought I read it? Just an aside, many Pentecostals and charismatic types teach there are actually two kinds of tongues. One for corporate worship and one for devotional private prayer. Just thought that was interesting. . . . and convenient.

I need to mention, in case there is some confusion, that I have not said it is wrong to pray in tongues in ones own private life. I have gone out of my way to say a persons prayer life is their business. How could I possibly have an issue with someone's prayer life? Am I going to need to say it again if we explore the verses related to using tongues in private prayer? Probably. I have simply been postulating questions concerning the verses people use to promote the notion that SIT is meant for private worship. There are very few verses and we have no clear instruction, other than how to conduct ourselves in the assembly. Paul makes conflicting statements about the efficacy of tongues, which when read in light of context may say something other than what happens when we pull one or two verses from their context. This is not an uncommon question or discussion. It goes on in theological circles often. Remember, the "ethos" of my experience with tongues speakers is TWI and more recently with some on another thread. This contributes to what I am willing to dismiss and plays a part in what I will explore, but experience doesn't make something true. We should have all learned that from our time in a cult. It is worth exploring and considering and that is simply all I am doing. <iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1w79aoTwFJk" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

Ironically, in TWI we used them as a marketing tool. I am stumped. It seems to be one of the clearer purposes for SIT....Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers. Apparently God didn't have an issue with people hearing them 2000 years ago.... as is evidenced by the accounts in Acts. I am not sure why He would hide them now because someone actually wants to hear and understand them. If something is actually the proof then it has to be able to be proven.

The questions I am asking myself now about tongues in private prayer are related to the anecdotal evidence of modern tongues and specifically related to TWI. These are all answered succinctly in the acknowledgement that modern tongues are not the same as biblical tongues. End of those questions. The other questions I have revolve around the diversity of the one body and the working of the Holy Spirit . . . . Paul goes to great lengths to explain this in light of love. Tongues appear to be considered the least of all gifts, but if it is for private worship then it would seem to not be so. I don't think for a minute Paul is speaking against tongues, but he seems to be going to lengths to downplay their importance. None of the other gifts are for private use. I don't think the text bears out that everyone can manifest tongues and I think it is saying it is at God's discretion. I have more questions about the important role it plays in private worship the more I consider. I did once accept this as the case btw and I am not completely discounting it. In a perfect world I think it could work out. My favorite bible teacher, whom I greatly respect, DA Carson, explains that tongues in scripture were meant for private prayer, and I am not dismissing the possibility....I am trying to understand how that would work. Either way, I don't think modern tongues qualify as tongues so the point to me is kind of moot. I am just examining the theology. With Romans 8 I definitely don't see that as SIT. I could wax long and boring on that....but it is clear that the creation does not literally groan, we are not literally groaning, and likewise the Spirit groans but these surpass words. Tongues are supposed to be words and I don't believe the Spirit waits on us to speak before making intercession. That whole chapter is pointing to the finished work of Jesus Christ and God's plan of redemption. I don't believe we can insert ourselves into that. It was done for us and nothing we can do will add to it. I understand that some do believe that it is referring to SIT, but maybe there is an even greater meaning behind it? I am trying to let the text speak for itself and it is a challenge not to bring preconceived ideas to it. Lots of questions, but so far, it has been a faith building exercise in seeking the answers.

Concerning the tongues of Angels.....with the occurrences of Angels speaking in scripture, and we do have at least one or more in Revelation of them speaking to each other, it is always a known and understood language. They are even given the gospel to proclaim to all languages. Hebrew has traditionally been considered the divine language. Paul also may have considered Hebrew as the language of heaven. I am not sure on that, maybe someone else might know how Paul would have viewed Hebrew. It is fascinating that Hebrew is the only example we have of an essentially dead language being resurrected to everyday use and in a relatively short period of time. I think that is more miraculous than modern tongues where no one knows what is being uttered. Why would there be more than one language of Angels? According to scripture, we have more than one language because God wrought confusion at the of the tower of Babel. It was meant to restrain the people. Something like 70 languages? Pentecost is often described as a reversal of Babel where people were not restrained by language and people of different languages came together in Christ. Tongues being meant as a sign or witness. There are accounts where tongues are not mentioned in relation to salvation. Where they are mentioned, it is generally when new groups of people were entering the church and tongues were serving as a witness or sign. It is only when we get to Corinthians that we hear of prayer and of tongues used in the assembly. Do we have any examples of tongues being used privately for worship? I am genuinely asking. Paul is answering questions about their misuse and I am familiar with Corinthians. It is probably a good idea to reflect on other ways God has used language in scripture and the OT verses we have concerning tongues. Is Paul just quoting Isaiah 28 for the prophecy or is that account relevant in other ways. That account speaks of God's judgement. I think it is all relevant.

I should mention that chapter 7 is all about the options and the choices Paul is giving the Corinthians in response to their specific questions. Paul prefers men remain unmarried, which would be the same thing as celibate. It is better to marry than to burn. People do take this celibacy "wish" as a command and actually take a vow of celibacy. Does that make it a command because people read it that way?

As an actual linguist and someone who dedicated some time to the effort and the field.... Samarin may possibly have some understanding of how exposure to another language may be influential in a persons language skills. Published how many years ago now? I imagine this classic work and respected study which has become somewhat an authority on the matter has been reviewed a few times now. There may be things that appeared assumed, but in reality are not. . . . we do it all the time when we assume things about our readers, and when we don't go into detail, but understand the truth behind something we state as a reason. Just because he didn't go into the details of how exposure to a second language might work....that doesn't mean it is an unlearned or unreasonable assertion.

I like that....and chaos Christianity! You do have a way with words, a lovely heart and very cute grand-kids. How do you worship a God you don't know right? He is immutable. We can know his attributes, they are articulated in scripture. One of the best books I have ever read and read and read is The Knowledge of the Holy. A.W. Tozer goes through the attributes of God one by one. It gets pretty heady at times, but, the subject matter demands it. Steve, it is online if you want to take a peek. Really awesome read. . . . if you Google it..... it is the first thing to come up! Let me know what you think if you do have time to look at it.

Why would that thought not hold water? I think that is what he is doing.....while not disparaging tongues themselves he is trying to get them to seek other things. Love through the edification of the body. It makes sense that when he says he wishes they all spoke in tongues he isn't saying they all should or even could. I wish things for people all the time, but it doesn't mean the reality will bear it. He just spent all that time telling them about love and how it is patient, kind, and does not seek its own. Why bring this up at all unless it was an issue and he was addressing it? He does go on about it. It is curious that he would encourage them in seeking love and each others needs and then the next minute command them all to go for it when it appears that was the problem in the first place. Makes him sound manic. When he says he wishes all men were celibate like himself....I don't read that as a command or even a realistic wish. Similar language. It is interesting that we have a few accounts in Acts....and then the Corinthians who made a mess of it being corrected....but none of the other Apostles even mention it. If it is so important....I wonder why isn't it all over scripture? I think it probably says more about the tongue itself than SIT. The Corinthians had a really gifted church, but Jerusalem was trying to survive. It doesn't seem to be spread throughout all the churches. False teachers do seem to be spread around, that is a common theme in the NT. They were everywhere causing trouble.....including Corinth. . . . .

[quote name='Raf' date='18 October 2012 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1350592617' post='547260 And where do the phonetic similarities come from? The native language of the SITter. He's talking about the quality of the stuff we're making up, not declaring it to be a hidden, unknown or secret language Moore mentions this....I think from the same study? An English speaker using elements of English. . . albeit rearranged would cause the vocalization to have elements of a language, but more similar to a child who has not yet learned to arrange words and sounds in a communicative manner? If someone already mentioned this.....sorry. The subconscious and inhibition are powerful tools in persuasion. The exceller sessions were probably great for improving the quality of what we were producing. We were encouraged to improve. It was tied into so much of our spiritual well being and ability to be effective. You had to be built up to receive revelation! Daddy's cookie jar and all that.

I know there is a forum for everything imaginable.....I have been casually looking at ex-charismatic / ex-Pentecostalism forums as time permits. Their stories are not all that dissimilar to our own, and there is rampant abuse out there. The internet is littered with blogs and testimonies of ex-charismatics. There are support groups and they extend to family and loved ones affected by this movement. I am sure there are ex-Christian forums too. Got it. What I was looking for, and I really didn't look that hard, is someone who said that they believed they were genuinely SIT, but walked anyway. Haven't found one yet. It doesn't mean they are not out there, but in general people admit to faking it or have come to realize it was not genuine. The idea that SIT now is something other than biblical tongues is not unique to this thread or to the scholars.....I just didn't realize how common it is for people to leave their charismatic experience somewhat wounded.

Right, and I applaud the caution, but like you I found her interesting to read. She does appear to be highly regarded, but that is not my area or my interest, so I am not familiar enough either. With Moore and with Goodman, I somewhat shut down when the possible influences that could be associated with SIT were discussed. With Moore, I immediately shut down when he mentioned the outside possibility of demonic influences. It was too reminiscent of TWI. Yet, working from my experience in TWI, I think about what influences may have meant for me personally by shutting down my reasoning skills so frequently and for sustained periods of time. We were encouraged to SIT often in TWI....it was like a challenge and pinned to our spiritual well being. I was a good do bee. Waysider often brings up a good point. While I was "freely vocalizing" for "leadership" or specifically what I wanted or for the ministry and its so called spiritual goals.....it may have been influential in my lack of resistance to persuasion. There is really a whole myriad of things to consider in how SIT in TWI may have introduced influences into my life. I hold to the notion that TWI was a packaged persuasion which ran contrary to my better judgement. This is evidenced by the drastic change in my personality and my basic concepts of morality. VP's insistence on tongues for every PFAL grad and the focus and importance placed on SIT could be a defining characteristic of that package. The idea of demonic influences is a doctrinal question, better left for another day, year, or decade. Is what isn't of God immediately demonic? I don't know. I am finding more not less to consider. I don't want to hang my denial or assent on a very few verses of scripture I may or may not be understanding correctly. I have already done that. I won't hang it on one persons opinion either, but combined all this evidence does begin to bring things into focus for me.

For me personally, it has been interesting to familiarize myself with the history of the modern tongues movement, Holiness Movement or Charismatic Movement, however we choose to term it. When did it start? Who were its proponents? Who fostered this Movement? Who is Agnes Ozman? Who now is continuing this tradition? TBN answers that last question. Although that is a weak attempt at humor, there is some truth to it. People like Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, and Benny Hinn are all proponents of modern tongues. Jan and Paul Crouch who founded the network both big advocates of modern tongues. I was interested to learn that early Mormons, along with Joesph Smith practiced a form of SIT. All the relevant information we have, and there is plenty, begins to paint a picture. How we view that picture or how we let the information influence us is totally up to us as individuals. I can understand more now why VP was attracted to this movement, albeit peripherally. He was a master at adopting a theology, and somehow making it as coming directly from the Almighty to his ears, but he borrowed heavily from the Word of Faith movement and appeared to be attracted to the spectacular and mystical. Another interesting consideration for me has been the psychology associated with the modern tongues movement....which has been studied at length. The information is readily available. Reading about Felicitas Goodman and her examination of Pentecostal churches in Mexico was interesting. Again, this is just information available to us to help us determine how we proceed from TWI. For some, there is no questioning, for others there is a struggle. I get that. I am just putting out there that there is a wealth of information to consider if we are so inclined.

I forgot to mention that Mark Moore is also a Christian. . . . .he is a professor of New Testament Studies and Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation. Since there are different types of literature in scripture, it is important to able to identify these along with the methods used in their communication. Hermeneutics also teaches us how to interpret scripture grammatically, historically and contextually. As a teacher, Moore is not only trained in the methods we use to interpret scripture but, he has spent his life and career teaching them in service to the Lord. I just finished his book Fanning the Flames, Probing the Issues in Acts. There were a few things I found problematic in his exegesis. For me, a caviler dismissal of his assertions really doesn't serve me well, as they are based on my limited study of hermeneutics and my more limited knowledge of relevant historical and scriptural data. They are things I am willing to give further consideration before I declare them untrue. In other words, I am more than willing to concede that he may possibly have a more in-depth and clearer handle on how we are to interpret scripture. I don't believe he has ever been in a cult. There is nothing that would lead me to believe God has not been at work throughout his life and that he is not filled with the Holy Spirit. The information Moore has researched about tongues and his exegesis is on his website and Raf has posted a link in the doctrinal forum if anyone is interested in reading further. There are some other articles and studies posted as well. Moore has spent years researching these things and I found his approach is almost an affront in its honesty and he has an endearing willingness to consider as many angles as possible. Bible.Org....which was originally associated with Daniel B Wallace. . . . also has some wonderful bible studies on the issue of tongues. Wallace is also a Professor of New Testament Studies and a very highly regarded theologian.

This bible study may interest some....what is helpful to remember is that Paul is answering a series of questions submitted by the Corinthians, and although we are not privy to the questions, we can with some confidence piece together what they were asking. It appears that in this section 12-14 he is answering more than just a basic question about tongues, rather he is addressing the issue of coveting tongues and what true spirituality means. It seems the Corinthians were confusing the spectacular nature of SIT with the meaning of mature spirituality. Something else to maybe keep in mind is that VP borrowed heavily from the word of faith movement where things are often taken literally when they are not meant in that way. One more thing to thank him for. http://bible.org/art... Third, the gift of tongues is not some form of direct communication with God, as was undoubtedly thought of by the Corinthians and is often thought of today as well. People today often appeal to 14:2 in support of such a contention. This reading of the passage is fallacious for it is not Paul's point in v. 2 to affirm that the speaker has some mystical direct communion with God. His point is that since the tongues speaker (i.e., without an interpreter) speaks words that no one else can understand, he ends up speaking only to God, that is, only God can understand. To everyone else he speaks mysteries. Support for this idea cannot be garnered from 14:4 or 14:14-15 either. In each of these cases, uninterpreted tongues is the issue and only the speaker is edified. He may be encouraged well enough, as is anyone who exercises their gift. He may even be more so since his gift tends toward the spectacular (i.e., the ability to speak a foreign language without having studied it). But, his immaturity has lured him toward a fascination for the miraculous at the expense of the needs of his own brethern. This is carnality, not genuine spirituality (3:1ff). Fourth, tongues is not an uncontrollable phenomena. With the exhortation in 14:40 and the statement of confusion in 14:33 we may be sure that there was chaos in the Corinthian assemblies in the exercise of the gifts. But Paul says very clearly that a person has the ability to control its (i.e., tongues) expression in their gatherings. They should speak each in his own turn and not at all if there is no interpreter. Fifth, there were those in Corinth who claimed as many do today that all men should speak in tongues. Appeal is made to 14:5. There Paul says that he wished that all of them spoke in tongues. But, how can he be taken literally, when he has just finished arguing at length in chapter 12 against the Corinthian reductionism that everyone must speak in tongues. No, he boldly proclaimed that the Spirit had given varieties of gifts and that not all had the gift of tongues. If all did have the gift, how could someone fill the spot of the ungifted (i.e., without the gift of tongues), as according to his argument, they did (cf. 14:16)? What then is the need for an interpreter in the assembly? The reason Paul says this is that if all speak in tongues he could be guaranteed, because of their selfish state, that everyone would get edified, the very thing for which he is arguing. In the end though, uniformity is not the design of the Spirit (12:11).