|
Post by Alejandro on Mar 19, 2005 1:02:53 GMT -5
I believe that one of God's signs of being baptised in the Holy Ghost is speaking tongues (proper?). Though, I have heard the Holy Ghost can manifest itself later, much later, after ebign baptised (I am not sure how true this is), I know that is just a sign of it, or is it a must?
What do you all believe?
Love, Alejandro
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Mar 19, 2005 22:30:02 GMT -5
Awhile back, I spoke to a person who was at a retreat online witnessing to people through chatrooms, and we happened to be on at the same time and he PMed me because of my usual screen name: Jesusfreak. Well, he believed that you had to speak in tongues to be saved. I do not believe this in the least bit. Paul tells us that we all have different gifts and that not all of us will speak in tongues. So, no. Je ne le crois pas.
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Mar 20, 2005 0:43:17 GMT -5
Tres bien. C'est vrai, mon frere. Although I know there are Pentecostal denominations (or as the Orthodox would say, traditions) that say "If you don't chatter, you don't matter," I agree that there is no indication in the Bible, nor is there witness in the tradition of the Church, that "speaking in tongues" (or "ecstatic utterances", which would describe most modern day occurences of this phenomenon) is the sine qua non of "baptism by the Holy Spirit." It is often argued that the household of Cornelius, the Samaritans, and those who had only been baptized into the baptism of John all manifested the phenomenon of "speaking in tongues", but it could easily be argued that this manifestation only occurred at the inauguration of the Church in each of these distinct people groups, as a sign to the Apostles (you will note that Peter, who have been given a unique position by Jesus Christ, was present in each case). Although Paul lists tongues among the spritual gifts, and indicated that he spoke in tongues more than any among the Corinthian Christians, he does not describe this phenomenon in detail, and does not indicate that it is a gift given to every Christian. Indeed, his words would seem to indicate the very opposite. The modern "tongues movement" traces its beginning to the Azusa Street Mission. Otherwise, the phenomenon was relatively obscure (although at some camp meetings people were known to have "barked like dogs", ostensibly evidencing the exiting of demonic spirits at the command of the evangelist). I find this subjective phenomenology, ill-supported in scripture, to be very troubling. Although I am essentially "charismatic", in that I do not believe that there is sufficient scriptural support for presuming the cessation of gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and words of wisdom and knowledge, I believe that most of the modern charismatic theology concerning these is sketchy and insufficient. God bless and keep you, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by Mysterion on Apr 3, 2005 20:41:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Apr 4, 2005 4:19:17 GMT -5
That is an excellent article. I was looking for what the Orthodox tradition taught concerning tongues. Thank you, Mysterion!
In Christ,
Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by Mysterion on Apr 4, 2005 9:12:13 GMT -5
NP, that essay really heped me get things straightened out concerning tongues. Glad you liked it!
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Apr 27, 2005 13:07:45 GMT -5
I may sound like a broken record, but once again I feel the extreme charismatic view that tongue speaking is necessary for salvation is an addition to the gospel. To be clear, this is not the majority report in pentacostal circles. Not everyone has the same spiritual gifts is the normative understanding. The gospel is "Believe and be saved" as I have noted in other threads (usually in the Catholic section). The only thing in scripture that I see as evidence that a person is indeed one of Christ's sheep is the transformation of their behavior. Their "fruit" is the sign of being born again. If toungues speaking were a requirement for knowing you're one of Christ's sheep I find it strange that John and James did not make reference to it in the clearly stated didactic passages below. These passages speak directly to what is expected to happen after one is converted.
1 John 2:1-6 - My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
James 2:14-17 - What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
And Paul, in his most comprehensive theological work of Romans never makes mention of this. Why? It is because it's by faith that we have peace with God.
Rom 5:1-4 - Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
And finally as to church history, I have read every orthodox work in the Ante-Nicene collection from the first two centuries of the Christian church and there is absolutely no mention of tongue speaking being a sign of salvation as extreme charismatics contest. Church history absolutely militates against extreme charismatic views that make this a requirement of savlation. Almost nobody is in heaven if it's true. I truly feel for all those who have had the peace of their salvation constantly threatened unless they speak in tongues. It doesn't fit into Paul's teaching about having peace with God at all.
Yours In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Apr 29, 2005 2:57:21 GMT -5
Excellent exposition concerning the "necessity" of speaking in tongues, Ron. While not denying the potential existence of the phenomenon of speaking in tongues (God, the Holy Spirit, may certainly give His gifts according to the need of the Church at any given time in any given location), I have doubts, both Biblically and through the record of Church history, that much of what is called "tongues" nowadays bears any relationship to the "tongues" of the early, Apostolic era (i.e. the Church within the lifetime of the apostles). In Christ, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by Mysterion on Apr 29, 2005 12:35:05 GMT -5
Based on my own experiences, I would call alot of what we see in churches that speak in tongues "ecstatic utterances"*, I can't remember if that is covered in that Orthodox article I linked to. These utterances were very common in pagan churches of the 1st century, and could be one of the reasons Paul tried to curtail that practice, among others, so as to lessen the similarities between the Church and pagans.
*The devotee becomes so caught up (raptured) in religious ferver that he/she begins to vocalize almost unconsciously.
|
|