Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

[CS1]

Neither did Paul seek a human language linguistic expert/interpreter to understand his so-called "babbling nonsense".
Neither can, to this day, one be found since "he who speaks in tongues does not speak to men(all the nations/languages in the world)
for he speaks to GOD and no one understand him." = 1 Cor 14:1

Search the world over with every linguistic expert you can find = no one will understand that which belongs to God.

Peace

FYI Brother a linguist is not an expert on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. They are a secular humanistic approach to explaining spiritual things which they cannot understand if they are not born-again. Like listening to an atheist preach the gospel. The human intellect is unlearned because the Linguist approach is from the flesh(human reasoning) not discernment from the word of God.

 

[CS1]

it is not that those disagree with the Pentacostel perspective it is they have no answer to the question asked of them concerning the text. Just stick with the word of God. ask them Please show me where tongues have stopped in the word of God or not for today?
they result to :

• modern tongues theory
• linguist of secular humanism
• no biblical support for the position they hold to
• insults, mocking , scoffing
• say their experience was bad and God told them it was false yet not one Biblical response to the questions.

 

[DavidTree]

Sounds like you're dead right.

No, dead right are religious people who, seemingly are on the 'right' but are still dead in their sins.

i am ALIVE RIGHT = Ephesians 2:1-10

and if yo are in Christ then you also can Rejoice in the Holy Spirit and in TRUTH

"love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the Truth" = 1 Cor 13:6

 

[DavidTree]

FYI Brother a linguist is not an expert on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. They are a secular humanistic approach to explaining spiritual things which they cannot understand if they are not born-again. Like listening to an atheist preach the gospel. The human intellect is unlearned because the Linguist approach is from the flesh(human reasoning) not discernment from the word of God.

FYI(2) - Praise the LORD Brother - i know, and the very reason why i wrote that post which you, by the Spirit bear witness and agree.

 

[TDidymas]

Firstly, if you were in the P/C movement for 25 years, you should easily know the difference between a pentecostal church & a charismatic church, because they are not alke as many suggest. With 25 years, you of all people should know the 2 groups don't belong together explained as a singular group. Either you know they're different because you went to them both, or you don't know because you didn't go to both.

THERE IS NO P/C MOVEMENT.

I also know you're not the only one to say they've been to both, & yet still call them them both a p/c movement.
Why do you think that is?

I've also read this whole OP & noticed the same guys steering left & right to never agree with, for instance, DavidTree & shittum recently as well as others in the last couple of pages. First it's this, then it's that, then simply pull off into left field driving off the road.

Very little seems to be nailed down by you guys. Since there's no p/c single movement out there anywhere, I must conclude the worst. This is all a hoax. An empty argument just to see how long we will endure until somebody snaps.
I've seen this happen before. It usually ends up with a good member of a chat site banned because of bad behavior, as well as a pentecostal group given a bad name before it's over.

I strongly suggest that good members dust off their feet with this absolutely useless OP & mark those who made it so & have nothing else to do with them. I know my patience is growing thin with them.

These discussions are for hashing out the details in order to get clear about what the Bible means by what it says. If people can't be corrected about their interpretation of scripture, it's their problem.

So you say "This is all a hoax." - that's what the OP is actually about, saying that the Pentecostal movement is a hoax. It's called a "movement" because that's exactly what it is. It started in the 19th Century, and then turned into the Charismatic movement in the '60s, as people in other denominations got sucked in. That's why I call it the P/C movement, because that's what it is. It's distinguished from mainstream Christianity by this one thing - tongues. If not for that, there would be no Pentecostal denominations nor would there be a Charismatic tongues controversy in the churches.

And this is the reason why I put it all together that way, because it's all tied together by the belief in modern tongues. Just because there are differences in doctrine and practice between the Word of Faith, Pentecostal, Apostolic, Assembly of God, Holiness P., Charismatic Catholic, etc. (ad infinitum) denominations, doesn't mean they aren't part of the same movement, the "tongues" movement. Or whatever you want to call it - a rose is still a rose by any other name.

And why is your patience growing thin? If this OP was as useless as you say, then why the hubbub? 74 pages of debate and no end in sight. Seems to me if your patience is thin, you shouldn't be responding here. But in my experience, there are very few tongue talkers willing to hold an intelligent conversation. Perhaps this is what is wearing your patience thin? Sometimes I'm tempted with that.

As far as nailing things down, that's what I'm trying to do here. So far, there has been only one person defending the tongues movement that has been mature enough to read and understand what I'm saying. It's my hope and prayer that others will do the same, even if they are only reading and not posting.

 

[TDidymas]

No, dead right are religious people who, seemingly are on the 'right' but are still dead in their sins.

i am ALIVE RIGHT = Ephesians 2:1-10

and if yo are in Christ then you also can Rejoice in the Holy Spirit and in TRUTH

"love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the Truth" = 1 Cor 13:6

I do rejoice in the truth and in the Spirit. I wholeheartedly agree with 1 Cor. 13:6.

But my response to you was because you seemed to be very dogmatic about your belief, as if you don't want to talk about it. As if spewing religious jargon was going to intimidate me. Was that your intention?

 

[TDidymas]

LOL one who says they have spoken in secular tongues for years "modern Tongues " which is a made-up word. But God told you it wasn't HIM.

Precisely, and IMO all modern tongues are the same thing. It's "modern" because the movement started in the 19th Century. And it's "modern" to distinguish it from "Biblical" because it's not the same thing.

 

[TDidymas]

My tongues is exactly as described in the NT. and I am not alone, not by a long chalk. Both tongues and interpretation.

All you can say is that your own experience was fake.

We all do this, we all carefully evaluate our experience against scripture to see whether it measures up. We do it with salvation and the new birth. We want to make sure our experience is the same as Peter's.

How about the tongues, visions, interpretations, prophecies etc. There is plenty stuff out there that simply does not square up with scripture. So we must weigh and discern. The gifts are subject to the judgement of the assembly as to their genuineness.

Just the same as when someone testifies to their salvation, a wrong testimony stands out like a sore thumb. We know.

Yet, many people looking from the outside of the movement are saying there's something wrong with the picture. So it's a sore thumb. Just because it gives you pleasure to suck on it, doesn't make it authentic. Numerous times I requested some evidential proof (beyond someone's anecdote), but no takers. It leads me to believe that the resistance is confirmation that it is not authentic.

 

[TDidymas]

No what is arrogant is for you to be able to say from thousands of miles away, never having met a person or heard them that their experience is fake.

Your experience was fake so you think everyone else is a fake.

Yet I was told it wasn't fake, I've heard many speaking the same gibberish, every youtube video of tongues is gibberish (not language), no one claiming to have the authentic gift will submit it for examination, among other things, tells me it's all the same, so it's all fake.

 

[Amanuensis]

Did you miss the point? He didn't say his mind was unfruitful for 20 years.

I won't contend for the 20 year statement.

I am using logic. We can safely assume that he did not speak in tongues before Anaias laid hands on him. We can assume that is when he received the gift because that would match the repeated pattern we see in other accounts. We know that it was approximately 20 years between that laying on of hands and the writing of the letter to the Corinthians. This can be traced by reading the introductions in most study bibles to the book of 1 Corinthians where dates are giving for the writing and how they came up with that by things mentioned in Acts and Paul's other statements that give us a timeline for his ministry.

I think it is safe to assume that Paul was speaking in tongues during all those 20 years between the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit and his writing the letter to Corinth. I think my point is valid. During all the time that Paul spoke in tongues, or sang in tongues his understanding was unfruitful. At the time of his writing that had not changed. This makes the theory that he was speaking in a known language that someone could have identified very doubtful in my opinion.

I understand that you see it differently but I think it requires changing the plain natural reading of the text into something highly unlikely to make it say differently. At the end of the day each person has to decide what would be the closest as to what Paul was intending us to understand by this statement.

Did he mean that his understanding 'would be unfruitful if it was not for the fact that he was able to interpret it'?

Or did he mean that his understanding was unfruitful but he did it anyway (no interpreter) because his spirit prayed?

I believe he is saying that is understanding was unfruitful and you seem to be saying that it was not unfruitful.

I think my interpretation is more honest and you are the one that is trying to make Paul say something quite different such as "my understanding is fruitful, but if I did not interpret it would be unfruitful" At least that is what I think you are saying. And I find that kind of interpretation to appear to be highly suspicious of a forced bias rather than an honest interpretation.

Now I don't want to put words in your mouth so if I misunderstood, my apologies for doing that.

If his understanding was unfruitful, whether he had been praying in tongues since Anais laid hands on him (approx 20 years) or whether he had been praying in tongues (spirit) (1 Cor 14:14) only a few years, the fact is that he said he prayed in tongues more than all of them, yet in the church, he would rather speak in a few words they understood, leads one to assume that this majority of speaking in tongues he did out of the church. Otherwise "yet in the church" does not convey the contrasting meaning we assume is intended.

 

[DavidTree]

I do rejoice in the truth and in the Spirit. I wholeheartedly agree with 1 Cor. 13:6.

But my response to you was because you seemed to be very dogmatic about your belief, as if you don't want to talk about it. As if spewing religious jargon was going to intimidate me. Was that your intention?

Awesone, we can fellowship in His Spirit together by rejoicing in the Truth = His Word is TRUTH.
i never spew religious jargon but those who deny the EXACT Representation of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, in fact do.

Which is why, we must agree on "it is written" without adding to or taking away - amen

 

[kaylagrl]

Then why do you keep responding? Are you demanding the "last word"?

TD you insult me, you judge my intent and my heart and then say you have no reason to apologize. Now you're accusing me of trying to get the last word. Is there any Christlike spirit in you, anywhere? Because if there is I haven't seen it here. You tell me not to go away upset, then taunt me by saying you don't need to apologize, now you're accusing me of wanting the last word. Is it because I'm female that you think you can say whatever you want, not apologize then bait me? Show me where you've shown a Christlike spirit. If you can, then you can have the last word. smh

 

[kaylagrl]

Awesone, we can fellowship in His Spirit together by rejoicing in the Truth = His Word is TRUTH.
i never spew religious jargon but those who deny the EXACT Representation of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, in fact do.

Which is why, we must agree on "it is written" without adding to or taking away - amen

I wouldn't bet on that...

 

[TDidymas]

I won't contend for the 20 year statement.

I am using logic. We can safely assume that he did not speak in tongues before Anaias laid hands on him. We can assume that is when he received the gift because that would match the repeated pattern we see in other accounts. We know that it was approximately 20 years between that laying on of hands and the writing of the letter to the Corinthians. This can be traced by reading the introductions in most study bibles to the book of 1 Corinthians where dates are giving for the writing and how they came up with that by things mentioned in Acts and Paul's other statements that give us a timeline for his ministry.

I think it is safe to assume that Paul was speaking in tongues during all those 20 years between the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit and his writing the letter to Corinth. I think my point is valid. During all the time that Paul spoke in tongues, or sang in tongues his understanding was unfruitful. At the time of his writing that had not changed. This makes the theory that he was speaking in a known language that someone could have identified very doubtful in my opinion.

Our paths diverge here. I disagree with your assessment. Paul clearly stated "I will pray in the Spirit, and pray with my mind also." He would not have said this, if it wasn't both his experience and his practice. Therefore, your statement doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I understand that you see it differently but I think it requires changing the plain natural reading of the text into something highly unlikely to make it say differently. At the end of the day each person has to decide what would be the closest as to what Paul was intending us to understand by this statement.

Did he mean that his understanding 'would be unfruitful if it was not for the fact that he was able to interpret it'?

Or did he mean that his understanding was unfruitful but he did it anyway (no interpreter) because his spirit prayed?

I believe he is saying that is understanding was unfruitful and you seem to be saying that it was not unfruitful.

I think my interpretation is more honest and you are the one that is trying to make Paul say something quite different such as "my understanding is fruitful, but if I did not interpret it would be unfruitful" At least that is what I think you are saying. And I find that kind of interpretation to appear to be highly suspicious of a forced bias rather than an honest interpretation.

Now I don't want to put words in your mouth so if I misunderstood, my apologies for doing that.

If his understanding was unfruitful, whether he had been praying in tongues since Anais laid hands on him (approx 20 years) or whether he had been praying in tongues (spirit) (1 Cor 14:14) only a few years, the fact is that he said he prayed in tongues more than all of them, yet in the church, he would rather speak in a few words they understood, leads one to assume that this majority of speaking in tongues he did out of the church. Otherwise "yet in the church" does not convey the contrasting meaning we assume is intended.

I think you misunderstand Paul's argument. He is putting himself in the shoes of the Corinthians who are in error, and he is using logic to convince them that they should change what they are doing. It's a type of role-play. An example is this: "If I read the scripture with bias, I won't understand what the apostle meant by what he said. But instead, I will observe all the text, and draw into my mind what is written." In this example, I'm playing the part of someone who can't understand what they're reading, because they are reading with bias, and I'm trying to convince them to change the way they're reading the text.

But the whole paragraph from 14:13-19 is the church setting. For you to insert the idea that he speaks in tongues with his mind unfruitful outside the church is an out of context idea.

 

[TDidymas]

TD you insult me, you judge my intent and my heart and then say you have no reason to apologize. Now you're accusing me of trying to get the last word. Is there any Christlike spirit in you, anywhere? Because if there is I haven't seen it here. You tell me not to go away upset, then taunt me by saying you don't need to apologize, now you're accusing me of wanting the last word. Is it because I'm female that you think you can say whatever you want, not apologize then bait me? Show me where you've shown a Christlike spirit. If you can, then you can have the last word. smh

It was a question, but you take it in the worst possible way, as a judgment and insult.

But since you demand that I show you a Christlike spirit, where is yours? Jesus commanded us all to forgive our brother (or sister) from the heart. Where is your forgiving spirit? (I've yet to see it).

 

[TDidymas]

Awesone, we can fellowship in His Spirit together by rejoicing in the Truth = His Word is TRUTH.
i never spew religious jargon but those who deny the EXACT Representation of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, in fact do.

Which is why, we must agree on "it is written" without adding to or taking away - amen

Ok, so how then do you explain the obvious difference between modern tongues and Acts 2?

 

[Amanuensis]

It's a ghost elephant, because I don't see a problem with it. Obviously, when Paul talked about a language being unknown, he has received a report that someone in the service (probably more than once) spoke in tongues, and no one in the congregation understood it. Very possibly, he experienced it himself during his missionary journeys. So the obvious solution is that God gives an interpretation (translation) miraculously to someone in the congregation, so that the message could be understood.

But the problem I have with P/C practice is not the procedure, but the gift itself. Because it's not a real gift. It's a human ability, that is, it's of the flesh (human psyche, not sinful nature). They get the procedure right, because it's clearly stated in the text. But I don't believe in the so-called gift, and I don't believe in the so-called interpretation. IMO all that is play-acting (albeit sincerely believed).

And I don't believe that the apostles spoke gibberish, and the crowd heard their own intelligible languages. That's B.S. IMO. God doesn't make someone hear something different than what was said. The devil does that. An interpretation or translation is not saying something different than what is said, because what is said is an actual message conveyed, not gibberish. Therefore, in the scripture, an interpretation is an actual translation of the message spoken in tongues. But in contrast, modern tongues is gibberish, and the so-called interpretation is something out of someone's imagination.

And just because you happened to get the same idea as someone else, doesn't prove anything. That happens often in normal conversation.

Ok. Setting aside the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues for a moment. What is your idea about how the gift of prophesy worked in the 1st Century charismatic church like Corinth or as we see it in other examples in Acts?

In 1 Cor 14 we are given an example of what it looked like:

24But if all are prophesying and some unbeliever or outsider comes in, he is convicted by all and is called to account by all. 25The secrets of his heart will be revealed, and as a result he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, “God is really among you.”a

29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should evaluate. 30But if something has been revealed to another person sitting there, the first prophet should be silent.

Using your logic you would also doubt the validity of these that had the gift of prophesy because it is not miraculous in your opinion.
Something was revealed to them and they waited until the timing was right and it was not interrupting another person and spoke it out. In some cases it might simply be edifying to all that hear it. In your logic you would be thinking "Yeah, they just made that up" that's not real."

Or what if someone fell on their knees in repentance and said that what the prophesy said exposed the secrets of their heart and they know that God is in you. What then? Would it be believed because it matches the biblical pattern, or would you say that it was just coincidence and does not prove anything.

If speaking in tongues and interpretation turns out to be the same as prophesy, then ask the Lord for prophesy and use that gift. When you do use that gift then how do you think it will work? Just like these examples it will work like this:

Something will be revealed to you in your mind by the Spirit but with experience you will be able to tell the difference between your own thoughts and what the Spirit is prompting you with. However it is still in your control and you can speak or be silent.

Why would the gift of prophesy which Paul said was better for mutual edification work like this but tongues and interpretation of tongues require a higher level of miraculous proof for you?

What miraculous proof would you require to accept the prophesy as biblical? The text says that something is revealed to them and they speak in order taking turns and the others evaluate it. If that is a biblical pattern for prophesy it should be sufficiently biblical pattern for tongues and interpretation of tongues.

This idea that it can't be someone just saying something that they believe God revealed to them, because that could be just their imagination therefore it is not the real thing does not apply to prophesy does it? Are you following me?

 

[CS1]

Precisely, and IMO all modern tongues are the same thing. It's "modern" because the movement started in the 19th Century. And it's "modern" to distinguish it from "Biblical" because it's not the same thing.

no, it did not the movement started in Acts chapter 2 the term Modern tongues is not used in the text.

 

[CS1]

Yet, many people looking from the outside of the movement are saying there's something wrong with the picture. So it's a sore thumb. Just because it gives you pleasure to suck on it, doesn't make it authentic. Numerous times I requested some evidential proof (beyond someone's anecdote), but no takers. It leads me to believe that the resistance is confirmation that it is not authentic.

again the word of God is very clear, Jesus speaking in Mark chapter 16, John chapter 20:22, and Acts 1:8 with 1cor chapter 12 through 14. no need to talk about hurt thumbs only the word of God.

 

[Amanuensis]

Our paths diverge here. I disagree with your assessment. Paul clearly stated "I will pray in the Spirit, and pray with my mind also." He would not have said this, if it wasn't both his experience and his practice. Therefore, your statement doesn't have a leg to stand on.



I think you misunderstand Paul's argument. He is putting himself in the shoes of the Corinthians who are in error, and he is using logic to convince them that they should change what they are doing. It's a type of role-play. An example is this: "If I read the scripture with bias, I won't understand what the apostle meant by what he said. But instead, I will observe all the text, and draw into my mind what is written." In this example, I'm playing the part of someone who can't understand what they're reading, because they are reading with bias, and I'm trying to convince them to change the way they're reading the text.

But the whole paragraph from 14:13-19 is the church setting. For you to insert the idea that he speaks in tongues with his mind unfruitful outside the church is an out of context idea.

So you are thinking that Paul is saying something like " If I pray in the spirit in tongues, and did not have an interpreter my spirit would pray but my understanding would be unfruitful, but if I pray in tongues and then I also interpret it, my spirit prays, and my understanding is fruitful so I will pray in tongues for a while, and then I will stop and interpret it. and then I will sing in tongues, and then I will stop and interpret it, that way my spirit and my mind are praying" ... or something to that effect?


I think he is being rhetorical as you suggest by the way he starts with "if I pray...." but his point is being made to imagine him doing so, and so as we imagine him doing so, he paints a picture of a man who prays and sings in tongues.

And when he does this that he knows full well that his spirit is praying. That it is edifying to himself. Things are getting prayed for in some mysterious invisible way and his mind does not know what exactly is being prayed for but the Spirit is interceding on his behalf.
And then he will pray in his normal language whatever that may be Greek, Hebrew, whatever and he knows exactly what he is praying about and singing about. But that it is not interpretation of what he did when he was praying in the Spirit. That seems to be the best interpretation to me, not based on Pentecostal bias but on the text and the context. So far.

I have a lot more study to do so I expect to learn more things I have not noticed yet.

Many readers of this post will be familiar with F.F Bruce. He was not a pentecostal. He is a favorite among many evangelical denominations who are opposed to the theology of the Pentecostal or Charismatics on this topic. However he was a brilliant and honest scholar who knew his Koine Greek and was a textual manuscript expert as well. Here is his interpretation on the Holy Spirit praying through us from Romans 8:26

The Spirit himself intercedes for us. He is called the disciples’ ‘advocate’ (paraklētos) in John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 (see also note on verse 34, below). Cf. Ephesians 6:18, ‘Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication.’ When believers pray ‘in the Spirit’, the Spirit himself intercedes on their behalf. (See p. 57.) With sighs too deep for words. ‘Through our inarticulate groans’ (NEB). The noun stenagmos, like the verb stenazō (used in verse 23), may denote either sighing or groaning. Speaking to God in the Spirit with ‘tongues’ (1 Cor. 14:2) may be included in this expression, Bruce, F. F.. Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) (p. 175). InterVarsity Press

Paul meant in 1 Cor 14:14 that he knew something about praying and singing in the Spirit with tongues. I don't think we can take that away from his point, though he was being rhetorical in the delivery of his point.