Speaking in tongues/prophecy/healing/etc

[Ħ]

What is everyone's view on this?  I was at a service, and there was an altar call for people who wanted to experience baptism of the Holy Spirit and receive these gifts (mostly tongues). 


I used to write it off and sided with the view that spiritual gifts are not meant for today, but I don't there's really a definitive reason not to believe it.  After all, they were in effect at one point, and I can't think of a strong reason why they would stop.  But gifts are something I want to be open about and I wanted to see what people here think of them?

[rumborak]

I always found it somewhat peculiar that God supposedly has his own tongue. Who does he talk to?

rumborak

[Ħ]

The people I've been talking to would say that there is a  language of angels based on 1 Corinthians 13:1. 

I think it may also have something to do with the Holy Spirit interceding for the believer, so maybe it's a language between the Holy Spirit and the Father. (Romans 8:9-11)

[black_biff_stadler]

I was raised pentecostal and as a toddler seeing people speaking in tongues used to frighten me to the verge of, and on at least one occasion all the way to, tears.

[William Wallace]

I was raised pentecostal and as a toddler seeing people speaking in tongues used to frighten me to the verge of, and on at least one occasion all the way to, tears.

I still go to a pentecostal church, and "speaking in tongues" is one point of theology that annoys me. Unless they're actually speaking a real language that somebody else can interpret, they're just babbling.

[Ħ]

I was raised pentecostal and as a toddler seeing people speaking in tongues used to frighten me to the verge of, and on at least one occasion all the way to, tears.

I still go to a pentecostal church, and "speaking in tongues" is one point of theology that annoys me. Unless they're actually speaking a real language that somebody else can interpret, they're just babbling.

I was thinking that too, because Paul addresses that and says that speaking in tongues is unhelpful -- at least to others.  But can it be edifying to yourself?  Is that its purpose?

[William Wallace]

I was raised pentecostal and as a toddler seeing people speaking in tongues used to frighten me to the verge of, and on at least one occasion all the way to, tears.

I still go to a pentecostal church, and "speaking in tongues" is one point of theology that annoys me. Unless they're actually speaking a real language that somebody else can interpret, they're just babbling.

I was thinking that too, because Paul addresses that and says that speaking in tongues is unhelpful -- at least to others.  But can it be edifying to yourself?  Is that its purpose?

My understanding is that it was designed to vindicate the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 14 says that speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers. A foreigner speaking to you in your native tongue, which you know he normally can't speak,  about Jesus would have been convincing, I suggest. But if that's correct, the rabble, rabble version doesn't make sense, and that's why I'm frequently tempted to hurl drumsticks at our worship leader on Sunday Mornings.

[j]

I want to say that another "gift of the spirit" is supposed to be interpretation/understanding or something.  And they're necessary in tandem for the speaking in tongues to be fruitful for anybody.  I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken.

Personally, I never remotely bought into any of that stuff even when I was trying to be a relatively devout Christian.

-J

[Vivace]

I always found it somewhat peculiar that God supposedly has his own tongue. Who does he talk to?

rumborak

Us. 

Also how can an omnipotent being have his own tongue, especially if we are to believe God as first cause of creation? So yeah.. God having his own tongue seems a bit out there, but that's not what the whole idea of "speaking in tongues". The holy Spirit came down onto the apostles and they spoke to each other in tongues but they were able to understand everything. I see it akin to as if suddenly everyone could not only understand every language that was there (which when you realize wasn't very many, there were more dialects than languages in general) but could speak any of the languages and dialects. This notion of just speaking in gibberish in my point of view is not the idea present in the bible as "speaking in tongues".

Prophecies and healings is something I believe in firmly as I have heard (yeah it's second hand account, I haven't witnessed any of this but I trust the source) of prophecies and healings that spark a sense of awe. I especially like the visions spoke of at Fatima that pretty much foretold the assassination of Pope John Paul II. I also firmly believe that prayer does effect others. But these things are pretty much based on faith eventhough they were real events, they is still a possibility of subjectivity with them.

[hefdaddy42]

For the most part, I don't buy it.  And I have been in the presence of it, so I'm not talking about anything I hear or read second-hand.

[Ħ]

I was raised pentecostal and as a toddler seeing people speaking in tongues used to frighten me to the verge of, and on at least one occasion all the way to, tears.

I still go to a pentecostal church, and "speaking in tongues" is one point of theology that annoys me. Unless they're actually speaking a real language that somebody else can interpret, they're just babbling.

I was thinking that too, because Paul addresses that and says that speaking in tongues is unhelpful -- at least to others.  But can it be edifying to yourself?  Is that its purpose?

My understanding is that it was designed to vindicate the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 14 says that speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers. A foreigner speaking to you in your native tongue, which you know he normally can't speak,  about Jesus would have been convincing, I suggest. But if that's correct, the rabble, rabble version doesn't make sense, and that's why I'm frequently tempted to hurl drumsticks at our worship leader on Sunday Mornings.

Okay, I have two questions.  First, is it ever clear that the gift of speaking in other languages was supposed to cease?  Second, based on the "speaking in tongues and angels" verse, is it possible that there are two types of speaking in tongues?

[kirksnosehair]

For the most part, I don't buy it.  And I have been in the presence of it, so I'm not talking about anything I hear or read second-hand.

This is pretty much where I stand on it.  I won't write any more about it because I don't want to offend anyone. 

[William Wallace]

I was raised pentecostal and as a toddler seeing people speaking in tongues used to frighten me to the verge of, and on at least one occasion all the way to, tears.

I still go to a pentecostal church, and "speaking in tongues" is one point of theology that annoys me. Unless they're actually speaking a real language that somebody else can interpret, they're just babbling.

I was thinking that too, because Paul addresses that and says that speaking in tongues is unhelpful -- at least to others.  But can it be edifying to yourself?  Is that its purpose?

My understanding is that it was designed to vindicate the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 14 says that speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers. A foreigner speaking to you in your native tongue, which you know he normally can't speak,  about Jesus would have been convincing, I suggest. But if that's correct, the rabble, rabble version doesn't make sense, and that's why I'm frequently tempted to hurl drumsticks at our worship leader on Sunday Mornings.

Okay, I have two questions.  First, is it ever clear that the gift of speaking in other languages was supposed to cease?  Second, based on the "speaking in tongues and angels" verse, is it possible that there are two types of speaking in tongues?

The standard argument against speaking in tongues today is that the need for it ceased when the Bible was canonized, because there was a written record of the events after that point. I'm inclined to accept that view because nobody actually practices the gift the way it's described in the Bible.

I'm familiar with the second point, too. But I doubt it. What about "tongues of angels" indicates that God is at work when people babble? Finding the modern adaption of speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians 13 requires people to shove their assumptions into the text. Paul also refers to the "tongues of men" earlier, so I think he is simply distinguishing who the speakers are, not that angels have their own languages.

[Ħ]

Ah I see.  Yes, both your points make sense.  Can I ask how you deal with being part of a congregation that supports speaking in tongues? Do you just keep silent?  And what do you think of prophecy and healings?

[William Wallace]

Ah I see.  Yes, both your points make sense.  Can I ask how you deal with being part of a congregation that supports speaking in tongues? Do you just keep silent?  And what do you think of prophecy and healings?

My father is the pastor, so I don't hesitate to bring these sorts of issues to his attention. "Dad,  are these people thinking?" We disagree, but that's how I deal with. I've also been able to organize two debates and start an apologetics class. If I can counteract the spiritual tomfoolery with some critical thinking, staying around is worth it. 

I put prophecy and healing in the same category: possible but improbable today. We had a "prophet" visit a few months ago. He worked like any psychic does, except he claimed his insight came from Jesus. Everything he said was generic or completely wrong, based on what I know about the people he was prophesying over.

Of course, I'm no theologian. I'm willing to be corrected. I just don't see the biblical basis for all this.

[Vivace]

There is no biblical basis for speaking in tongues the way we see it on YouTube or whathaveyou. As mentioned, the way it happened in the Bible and the way people "claim" it happens now are two completely different things. Prophets are basically a foreteller but it must be on a theological perspective. You can test prophesies in exactly the same way you can test a Marian apparition in my opinion. However more to the point there is a biblical basis for prophets but mostly in the Old Testament. Whether or not you include the OT in Sacred Scripture (no reason not to) might determine a person's stance on this. Healing however is hands down, no argument possible, biblically supported. Does it happen today? Again, it is a matter of faith like prophesy. I for one believe in it.

[Ħ]

Healing however is hands down, no argument possible, biblically supported.

This is one thing that I definitely believe at this point.  Biblically, Jesus give us authority to heal, and we see it again and again in Acts.  Also, I think I've witnessed healings.  At this conference I went to this weekend, there was some crazy stuff that I was initially very skeptical of but now I think it is very real.  During a worship session, the pastor told us of visions he had from God about various people in the room.  The guy saw people with neck/back injuries, ankle injuries, asthma, food allergies (even an extreme gluten allergy), and others that I can't remember.  Sure enough, those people were in the room.  We all laid hands on those people and prayed for healing, and after prayer, they went to "test" their affliction.  The person with asthma ran around, the people with food allergies ate that type of food, etc.  People came back to report that there afflictions were gone.  One friend of mine (an unbeliever at the time) had a physical lump on his neck and decided to follow Christ after the lump disappeared.  Initially I figured it was all just a placebo, but then I asked myself if we can really write off such numerous instances of healing as being all placebos.  There was (to my knowledge) 100% accuracy of both the guy who saw visions of people and the healings.  I am seriously going to reconsider this stuff.

[bosk1]

Okay, I have two questions.  First, is it ever clear that the gift of speaking in other languages was supposed to cease?  Second, based on the "speaking in tongues and angels" verse, is it possible that there are two types of speaking in tongues?

I think what WW has said on the subject pretty much sums up my view (which, since I am agreeing with WW, makes me question myself).  And about the "speaking in tongues of angels" argument, I will add:  The context of Paul's discourse when that verse appears is that he is speaking about spiritual gifts in general, and is making the point that "Rather than thinking you are somehow impressive for being able to do this stuff, what you should be doing is learning how to love because love is better than all that other stuff, and is really what you should be doing."  If "speaking in the tongues of angels" is something Christians are supposed to be doing, I just find it odd and inconsistent with how we are otherwise instructed about things we are supposed to be doing if the ONLY verse in the whole Bible that even mentions it is just a passing reference that is part of a sentence that is about a completely different thought.  Nothing telling us how to do it, why to do it, etc. anywhere else.  Just this one out of context (if that is what it means) reference.  Does that sound like something that is consistent with the rest of the Bible?

[William Wallace]

Okay, I have two questions.  First, is it ever clear that the gift of speaking in other languages was supposed to cease?  Second, based on the "speaking in tongues and angels" verse, is it possible that there are two types of speaking in tongues?

I think what WW has said on the subject pretty much sums up my view (which, since I am agreeing with WW, makes me question myself).

Dude, if you keep ripping on me, the band is done. Then, there go your dreams of occasionally covering classic rock tunes for middle age professionals at corporate parties.

[bosk1]

Hush, Triangle Guy.  Our real drummer is coming back from vacation next week.

[William Wallace]

Hush, Triangle Guy.  Our real drummer is coming back from vacation next week.

I'm a pirate. See, you don't have exclusive rights on making things up.

[bosk1]

Curses.  Foiled again.

[Ħ]

Okay, I have two questions.  First, is it ever clear that the gift of speaking in other languages was supposed to cease?  Second, based on the "speaking in tongues and angels" verse, is it possible that there are two types of speaking in tongues?

I think what WW has said on the subject pretty much sums up my view (which, since I am agreeing with WW, makes me question myself).  And about the "speaking in tongues of angels" argument, I will add:  The context of Paul's discourse when that verse appears is that he is speaking about spiritual gifts in general, and is making the point that "Rather than thinking you are somehow impressive for being able to do this stuff, what you should be doing is learning how to love because love is better than all that other stuff, and is really what you should be doing."  If "speaking in the tongues of angels" is something Christians are supposed to be doing, I just find it odd and inconsistent with how we are otherwise instructed about things we are supposed to be doing if the ONLY verse in the whole Bible that even mentions it is just a passing reference that is part of a sentence that is about a completely different thought.  Nothing telling us how to do it, why to do it, etc. anywhere else.  Just this one out of context (if that is what it means) reference.  Does that sound like something that is consistent with the rest of the Bible?

You're right.  I don't think speaking in tongues of angels is expressly taught in the Bible.  I don't think it's inconsistent or contradictory though.  There's enough weird, single-reference stuff that happens in Acts that I'm willing to be open to the possibility of tongues.

[William Wallace]

Okay, I have two questions.  First, is it ever clear that the gift of speaking in other languages was supposed to cease?  Second, based on the "speaking in tongues and angels" verse, is it possible that there are two types of speaking in tongues?

I think what WW has said on the subject pretty much sums up my view (which, since I am agreeing with WW, makes me question myself).  And about the "speaking in tongues of angels" argument, I will add:  The context of Paul's discourse when that verse appears is that he is speaking about spiritual gifts in general, and is making the point that "Rather than thinking you are somehow impressive for being able to do this stuff, what you should be doing is learning how to love because love is better than all that other stuff, and is really what you should be doing."  If "speaking in the tongues of angels" is something Christians are supposed to be doing, I just find it odd and inconsistent with how we are otherwise instructed about things we are supposed to be doing if the ONLY verse in the whole Bible that even mentions it is just a passing reference that is part of a sentence that is about a completely different thought.  Nothing telling us how to do it, why to do it, etc. anywhere else.  Just this one out of context (if that is what it means) reference.  Does that sound like something that is consistent with the rest of the Bible?

You're right.  I don't think speaking in tongues of angels is expressly taught in the Bible.  I don't think it's inconsistent or contradictory though.  There's enough weird, single-reference stuff that happens in Acts that I'm willing to be open to the possibility of tongues.

Me too. But why should we have to rely on such flimsy evidence? There's a good case to make for the Bible's validity, the resurrection, so why would it be different for things like speaking in tongues or prophecy? I would have been convinced if the prophet I mentioned would have turned to me and said, "God says you should stop ripping on Rumborak on DTF for his silly opinions about Christianity." But it's never that specific - just generic cold reading.

[Ħ]

Good point.  But, to be fair, lots (albeit not all) of the old testament prophets were generic.  And not all the prophets had their word transcribed into the Bible...Nathan comes to mind.

[hefdaddy42]

Good point.  But, to be fair, lots (albeit not all) of the old testament prophets were generic.  And not all the prophets had their word transcribed into the Bible...Nathan comes to mind.

Yes, but what the classical prophets did wasn't the same as what these modern neo-psychic "prophets" purport to do.  The classical prophets weren't soothsayers.

[reneranucci]

I am an evangelical Christian, and I would like to express my opinion sucintly: I don't believe most of those signs are operating in the church today. There is a lot of debate about what the Bible teaches, and in light of what I have studied I wouldn't completely disregard any of those manifestations on a priori basis. However, what practically 100% of pentecostal or sign and wonders churches regard as manifestations of the Holy Spirit are so far removed from the manifestations we see in the Bible, that I have to regard them as false.

For example, miracles of healings in the Bible were: instantaneous, clearly visible (as were the ailments), undeniable, complete, permanent, open to the public, and didn't require any paraphernalia or big stages to happen.

Supposed healings we see today are: gradual (if they happen at all), not clearly visible (most of the sickness they pretend to cure are invisible such as headaches, back pain, internal tumors), more than questionable (efforts to verify them by a team of experts are usually fruitless), incomplete or temporary, and done in a confined environment that requires lots of chanting, preparation and hysteria before happening.

But God still has the power of healing, it is the gift of healing what is not operating nowadays in the same way it did when Jesus and the apostles exercised their ministries.

[Orbert]

I've only witnessed speaking in tongues once, but I believe that what happened was genuine.  I don't completely understand it, but there were only the two of us in the room and the guy who did it is someone I would trust with my life.  There are not many people I can say that about, but this man is one of them.  He was my college roommate and later housemate and original lead singer for the band, but he heard the call, and he's been a preacher for over 25 years now.  He had no reason to lie about it, no reason to fake it, and he obviously believed it.  When my own faith is shaky (which happens more often than I'd like), I remember what he showed me, and it helps.

[rumborak]

I don't think anyone is seriously accusing people to fake this thing en masse. That's more the purview of conspiracy theorists.
I think the real crux is, how do you distinguish glossolalia from other altered states of mind, e.g. epilepsy? Epilepsy used to be labeled as demonic possession, who is to say that glossolalia isn't just another (more benign) state of your mind?
I think another untouched issue with glossolalia is also, isn't it theologically troublesome that God can be instrumentized that way? It's almost like a phone booth where you insert money and you can have God or angels talk to (or through) you.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

That's a good point, rumby, and I feel the same way.  When people start babbling their gibberish, they are either full of shit or sincere.  But even if they are sincere (like Orbert's friend), I don't think what is happening is what is described in the Bible.  I think it is a trance state attuned from a religious ecstasy, and the gibberish is the verbal component of it.  I don't think it is from God per se, but it is a side effect of a religious ecstatic trance state, usually self-induced.

Sincere?  Yes.  Real?  Not really.

/my two cents

[William Wallace]

When people start babbling their gibberish, they are...full of shit...

Sincere?  Yes.  Real?  Not really.

/my two cents

Yep.

[yeshaberto]

I agree 100% with the majority of the thread.
I would only add that the tongues of angels is in a context of hyperbole. 

[reneranucci]

That's a good point, rumby, and I feel the same way.  When people start babbling their gibberish, they are either full of shit or sincere.  But even if they are sincere (like Orbert's friend), I don't think what is happening is what is described in the Bible.  I think it is a trance state attuned from a religious ecstasy, and the gibberish is the verbal component of it.  I don't think it is from God per se, but it is a side effect of a religious ecstatic trance state, usually self-induced.

Sincere?  Yes.  Real?  Not really.

/my two cents

As a former church member "endowed with the gift of tongues", I completely agree.

[Jamesman42]

I do believe it is bullshit, and I have always believed that.

[Ħ]

That's a good point, rumby, and I feel the same way.  When people start babbling their gibberish, they are either full of shit or sincere.  But even if they are sincere (like Orbert's friend), I don't think what is happening is what is described in the Bible.  I think it is a trance state attuned from a religious ecstasy, and the gibberish is the verbal component of it.  I don't think it is from God per se, but it is a side effect of a religious ecstatic trance state, usually self-induced.

Sincere?  Yes.  Real?  Not really.

/my two cents

Suppose it is induced by a trance-like state.  Does that mean it's not legitimate?  I don't see the connection you're making.