TheGift 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.
Thanks for posting the link to that article. Will definitely give it a read.
I prefer posting articles rather than books (this is, after all, an online reading room). But if we're going to post books, let's at least post Amazon links or something so that we can direct people to where those books are available.
I'm ok with the derail, but yeah, what you posted belongs on the main thread. You should repost it there.
I'm okay with keeping it here, but I was hoping this thread would be linking to articles and books, and maybe describing them.
Those interested in proving the life, death and resurrection of Christ might find great value in the works of Lee Strobel (Evidence that Demands a Verdict; The Case for a Creator; The Case for Christ). Interesting works, all.
Wanted to add the link to Amazon's Lee Strobel page, in keeping with my own request.
I also see that I confused Lee Strobel with Josh McDowell (Evidence That Demands a Verdict). Here's McDowell's page.
I don't really know anything about this site or author.....what I found interesting is that you can find the same argument against modern tongues put forth by many, many different Christians. I thought this take on prayer mentioned in 1 Corinthians was interesting. I am not really offering this article for more than consideration as an interesting read......I didn't vet the website...it is not offered for debate just perspective. It may already be on here, but I didn't see it . . . . . if it is posted somewhere.....take two!
Interesting take, but I quickly lost count of the number of times I was disagreeing with this guy.
I feel like I went from New York to Los Angeles by taking a Concord jet for a two or three hour flight, where he went from New York to Los Angeles by taking a boat to England, a train to France, a bicycle to Yemen, a camel to Afghanistan, walking to Pakistan, a prop plane to Hong Kong, a pogo stick to Beijing, a slingshot to Tokyo and swimming to Los Angeles. Sure, we reached the same place. But dang.
What interests me is that many other Christians have the same concerns about modern vs. biblical tongues. Those of us questioning are not lone rangers.....it wouldn't matter if we were, but it is good to hear others concern as well as our own IMO. This one is a long article as it goes through all the gifts, but scrolling down to SIT we see the author makes some familiar comments. These questions appear to be pervasive. They are reasonable concerns and do lead to reasonable conclusions. http://bible.org/art...spiritual-gifts This author doesn't seem knowledgeable of the studies conducted.....but, he is aware of Pentecostals reluctance to be tested.
My link only gets as far as bible.org and using the site search feature and looking for The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, John F Walvoord will get you the rest of the way. I don't know why my links to this site fail???
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Some excerpts....................
Though some writers have distinguished between the instances in Acts, which were clearly known languages, and the experience of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 12-14 , there does not seem to be adequate basis for this distinction. The same expressions are used in both places. The term "unknown tongue" (1 Cor 14:2. KJV) is inaccurate, since the word "unknown" is not in the original. There is no evidence that those who exercised the gift of tongues spoke languages that were unknown to men, though there is reference to the theoretical possibility of speaking in the tongues of angels (1 Cor 13:1). The instance in Acts 2 was clearly in known languages. The recognition of a known language is essential to any scientific confirmation that genuine speaking in tongues has taken place. If those speaking in tongues had only babbled incoherent sounds, this would lend itself to fraudulent interpretation which could not in any way be confirmed. Therefore it is assumed that speaking in tongues in the Bible was a genuine gift, that it involved speaking in existing languages unknown to the speaker, and that actual communication took place in such experiences. So genuine speaking in tongues in the New Testament cannot be explained as simply hypnosis or psychological emotionalism; it has to be recognized as a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If speaking in tongues was truly exercised, however, in the early church, and if under proper regulation it was beneficial, the question still remains whether a similar experience can be had by the church today. Because it is almost impossible to prove a universal negative in an experiential matter such as this, especially in light of many who claim to have exercised the gift, a practical line of approach is to first examine the question whether the Scriptures themselves indicate that speaking in tongues was a temporary gift and then, on the basis of the total evidence, to ask what one should do in light of the claims of many that they have a gift of speaking in tongues today
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The only passage in the New Testament that deals theologically with the gift of tongues is found in 1 Corinthians 12-14 . In the Corinthian church, plagued with so many doctrinal and spiritual problems, it is rather significant that three chapters of Paul's epistle to them are devoted to expounding the purpose and meaning of tongues, giving more attention to this problem than to any other that existed in the Corinthian church. The chapters were written to correct and regulate speaking in tongues rather than to exhort the Corinthian believers to exercise this gift. In light of the fact that none of the other epistles or New Testament books apart from the Book of Acts deals at all with this subject, it would seem apparent that speaking in tongues, though it existed in the early church, was not a major factor in the church's evangelism, spiritual life, or demonstration of the power of God. It seems to have been prominent only in a church that was notoriously unspiritual (cf. 1 Cor 1-11 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Since Poythress is being discussed I thought I would post this critique.... http://teampyro.blog...orta-gifts.html I am not familiar with the author, but I am very familiar with the site Pyromaniacs. If you like reading Spurgeon you have probably already visited their page. If I am remembering correctly, Phil Johnson, who contributes heavily to the site, was once caught up in the Pentecostal movement. He has since moved on and has spoken about his involvement in a moving testimony if anyone is interested in looking for that bit. I think the testimonies of deliverance from the Pentecostal movement can often be more compelling than the studies. Phil Johnson is associated with John MacArthur....who quite frankly has always unnerved me a bit. I am not a fan of John MacArthur at all. Having said that, MacArthur does do a sermon on SIT that is pretty good. I obviously don't follow him when he claims modern tongues are demonic, but he does a good job with the scriptures that deal with the OT references IMO. I held off listening to it because I really don't like his style or lecturing tone. This one isn't too bad, but really, take it for what you want. He actually confirms what I am starting to see in scripture, but I am not endorsing John MacArthur, just offering it for consideration.
I have not really commented on Poythress but I am familiar with him. He is a respected theologian, but he is often challenged on this particular topic and exegesis....I can't understand why he handles the scriptures the way he does on the topic of SIT. However, that is not how he approaches other topics and he has some interesting perspectives and teachings. He is one of the good guys IMO.
I don't "agree" with him either, geisha, for a host of reasons too many to list here. Agree has become a funny word for me lately, but I wouldn't assign it to my perception of what he's saying about some of this stuff, his direction is away from "what" speaking in tongues actually is IMO. But it's interesting reading, as you noted.
I neglected in all this discussion to include on this thread a link to Samarin's article and Poythress' article, which have dominated the other discussion.
Recommended Posts
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
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks for posting the link to that article. Will definitely give it a read.
I prefer posting articles rather than books (this is, after all, an online reading room). But if we're going to post books, let's at least post Amazon links or something so that we can direct people to where those books are available.
Thx.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Wanted to add the link to Amazon's Lee Strobel page, in keeping with my own request.
I also see that I confused Lee Strobel with Josh McDowell (Evidence That Demands a Verdict). Here's McDowell's page.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I don't really know anything about this site or author.....what I found interesting is that you can find the same argument against modern tongues put forth by many, many different Christians. I thought this take on prayer mentioned in 1 Corinthians was interesting. I am not really offering this article for more than consideration as an interesting read......I didn't vet the website...it is not offered for debate just perspective. It may already be on here, but I didn't see it . . . . . if it is posted somewhere.....take two!
http://bible-truth.org/TonguesWhatisGoingOn.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Interesting take, but I quickly lost count of the number of times I was disagreeing with this guy.
I feel like I went from New York to Los Angeles by taking a Concord jet for a two or three hour flight, where he went from New York to Los Angeles by taking a boat to England, a train to France, a bicycle to Yemen, a camel to Afghanistan, walking to Pakistan, a prop plane to Hong Kong, a pogo stick to Beijing, a slingshot to Tokyo and swimming to Los Angeles. Sure, we reached the same place. But dang.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
What interests me is that many other Christians have the same concerns about modern vs. biblical tongues. Those of us questioning are not lone rangers.....it wouldn't matter if we were, but it is good to hear others concern as well as our own IMO. This one is a long article as it goes through all the gifts, but scrolling down to SIT we see the author makes some familiar comments. These questions appear to be pervasive. They are reasonable concerns and do lead to reasonable conclusions. http://bible.org/art...spiritual-gifts This author doesn't seem knowledgeable of the studies conducted.....but, he is aware of Pentecostals reluctance to be tested.
My link only gets as far as bible.org and using the site search feature and looking for The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, John F Walvoord will get you the rest of the way. I don't know why my links to this site fail???
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Some excerpts....................
Though some writers have distinguished between the instances in Acts, which were clearly known languages, and the experience of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 12-14 , there does not seem to be adequate basis for this distinction. The same expressions are used in both places. The term "unknown tongue" (1 Cor 14:2. KJV) is inaccurate, since the word "unknown" is not in the original. There is no evidence that those who exercised the gift of tongues spoke languages that were unknown to men, though there is reference to the theoretical possibility of speaking in the tongues of angels (1 Cor 13:1). The instance in Acts 2 was clearly in known languages. The recognition of a known language is essential to any scientific confirmation that genuine speaking in tongues has taken place. If those speaking in tongues had only babbled incoherent sounds, this would lend itself to fraudulent interpretation which could not in any way be confirmed. Therefore it is assumed that speaking in tongues in the Bible was a genuine gift, that it involved speaking in existing languages unknown to the speaker, and that actual communication took place in such experiences. So genuine speaking in tongues in the New Testament cannot be explained as simply hypnosis or psychological emotionalism; it has to be recognized as a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If speaking in tongues was truly exercised, however, in the early church, and if under proper regulation it was beneficial, the question still remains whether a similar experience can be had by the church today. Because it is almost impossible to prove a universal negative in an experiential matter such as this, especially in light of many who claim to have exercised the gift, a practical line of approach is to first examine the question whether the Scriptures themselves indicate that speaking in tongues was a temporary gift and then, on the basis of the total evidence, to ask what one should do in light of the claims of many that they have a gift of speaking in tongues today
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The only passage in the New Testament that deals theologically with the gift of tongues is found in 1 Corinthians 12-14 . In the Corinthian church, plagued with so many doctrinal and spiritual problems, it is rather significant that three chapters of Paul's epistle to them are devoted to expounding the purpose and meaning of tongues, giving more attention to this problem than to any other that existed in the Corinthian church. The chapters were written to correct and regulate speaking in tongues rather than to exhort the Corinthian believers to exercise this gift. In light of the fact that none of the other epistles or New Testament books apart from the Book of Acts deals at all with this subject, it would seem apparent that speaking in tongues, though it existed in the early church, was not a major factor in the church's evangelism, spiritual life, or demonstration of the power of God. It seems to have been prominent only in a church that was notoriously unspiritual (cf. 1 Cor 1-11 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Since Poythress is being discussed I thought I would post this critique.... http://teampyro.blog...orta-gifts.html I am not familiar with the author, but I am very familiar with the site Pyromaniacs. If you like reading Spurgeon you have probably already visited their page. If I am remembering correctly, Phil Johnson, who contributes heavily to the site, was once caught up in the Pentecostal movement. He has since moved on and has spoken about his involvement in a moving testimony if anyone is interested in looking for that bit. I think the testimonies of deliverance from the Pentecostal movement can often be more compelling than the studies. Phil Johnson is associated with John MacArthur....who quite frankly has always unnerved me a bit. I am not a fan of John MacArthur at all. Having said that, MacArthur does do a sermon on SIT that is pretty good. I obviously don't follow him when he claims modern tongues are demonic, but he does a good job with the scriptures that deal with the OT references IMO. I held off listening to it because I really don't like his style or lecturing tone. This one isn't too bad, but really, take it for what you want. He actually confirms what I am starting to see in scripture, but I am not endorsing John MacArthur, just offering it for consideration.
I have not really commented on Poythress but I am familiar with him. He is a respected theologian, but he is often challenged on this particular topic and exegesis....I can't understand why he handles the scriptures the way he does on the topic of SIT. However, that is not how he approaches other topics and he has some interesting perspectives and teachings. He is one of the good guys IMO.
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GVSLc0cqlZM" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rMWD5mWxMSo" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3mBKzQN8RS4" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Apologies for being a lazy contributor - this may already be posted. Do you all use this site's e books? (it may already be in a previous link)
http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PoythressVernInTheBeginningWasTheWord.pdf
I don't "agree" with him either, geisha, for a host of reasons too many to list here. Agree has become a funny word for me lately, but I wouldn't assign it to my perception of what he's saying about some of this stuff, his direction is away from "what" speaking in tongues actually is IMO. But it's interesting reading, as you noted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No apology needed, Socks.
I neglected in all this discussion to include on this thread a link to Samarin's article and Poythress' article, which have dominated the other discussion.
Here's Poythress: http://www.frame-poythress.org/linguistic-and-sociological-analyses-of-modern-tongues-speaking-their-contributions-and-limitations/
Here's Samarin: http://philosophy-religion.info/handouts/pdfs/Samarin-Pages_48-75.pdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.