Rejection of the Charasmatics and Biblical Literalism

Yes, and their job was to preach this new doctrine to the pagan world. It was brand new and God accompanied it with His power to demonstrate its source. Well I'm now afraid of it. Some is so obviously against the Bible and yet supernatural it has to be demonic. I wish I could remember the best arguments though. I agree that the bit at the end of the love passage doesn't refer to it. But there are other scripture-based arguments. And the fact that these things did NOT continue in the church in itself has to be evidence..

I basically agree with you, but I think you misunderstand what happened at Pentecost. Yes, the assembled Jews from all over the Hellenic world heard the word of God in their own tongue. But there were many languages represented there and they each heard their own language spoken by different speakers. It isn't as if a person from Parthia understood what was spoken to the Cappadocians, etc. So you wouldn't necessarily understand something spoken in tongues if it were in, say, an African dialect. And some charismatics claim that the tongues are real languages, and would be intelligible if someone who spoke that language were present. But it seems odd to me that the language would be spoken when such a person isn't present, which is what happens all the time.

randman If you did not know the language ,please explain how you could consider the unknown language to be "fluent-sounding". Just how do you consider it to be seperate from mere gibberish?

All I can say to this is that it is wrong to assume that what once happened is on the level of a command that it always happen.But I get what you are saying. Since the charismatics claim that they derive this from the Bible, you think if their view is false that it's the Bible that can't be trusted.I just figure they misunderstand the Bible.As for the rest of your discussion about Bible literalism, that's been rehashed so many times here I don't want to get into it. You trust the modern commentators and critics and I don't, and that's part of it. The rest isn't going to get resolved between you and me here and I don't want to get into it.But these are two different subjects. Rejecting the charismatics does not mean for me rejecting Bible inerrancy.

sorry, duplicate.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I do know what Randman means because I've experienced this myself although I doubt the source of it. I simply don't KNOW what the source of it is, and in my case I did NOT experience the presence of the Lord with it. But I not only spoke these sounds that just came tumbling out of me, I also sang them. It was great fun. The "fluency" is in how they just roll off your tongue without the slightest effort on your part or the slightest understanding of what you are "saying" (if indeed you are saying something and who knows?)But the sounds follow a definite pattern. They may be gibberish, I don't know, but they aren't JUST gibberish because they follow a definite sound pattern. Whole "phrases" will repeat. You hear them repeat, although duplicating them consciously would be impossible, at least in the beginning. By now I might be able to duplicate the sounds from memory but I'm not even sure of that. I've tried to put a stop to the whole thing.

Sounds like good scat singing. I think linquists should take a closer look at speaking in tongues: unlike many skeptics, I don't believe it is fakery. I witnessed this often during my childhood, and I understand what you mean about the fluency--the rhythms and intonations of sense are there.I suspect something deeper is happening, perhaps some foundational, musical structure of language emeges during the intensely worshipful state.

---

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01 Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Really, "had no idea?" You weren't in a charismatic church at the time?It just happened to me spontaneously the same way you describe but I certainly knew what it was since I was in a charismatic church.

In the Bible the people heard their OWN languages spoken. There wasn't anything miraculous about the hearing, though there was about the speaking. And there is no hint that the tongue was "intelligible to anyone who hears it" but only to those whose language was being spoken.

It often isn't unambiguous or crystal clear. You trust those who make the best case in your judgment. That's all you can do. But there are some things that are open and shut and obvious to anyone. When someone who had a vision they think was from God and say they were taught something in that vision to tell the church, but what they were taught contradicts what the Bible says, you know their vision wasn't from God. So, if this someone says the teaching was about "Twelve Steps to the Throne of Grace," which is an example from my own experience, but you know that scripture says "come boldly to the throne of grace" then you know there are no intervening steps and that teaching did not come from God.

quote:

---

Hbr 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

---

No, this is an interpretation I have gleaned from many different sources discussing this subject. Why do you think there is only one person? I wouldn't be saying what I'm saying if I didn't think it true, but I *already* told you and am telling you *again* that I don't give my own opinion on these things, but what I've learned from many teachings on the subject by many different teachers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, Paul is not saying that tongues should be intelligible to anyone, and here are the verses. I Corinthians 14:2Note the phrase: "for no man understands him." Clearly, no man could understand this sort of speaking in tongues, right? Verse 6. Obviously, Paul is saying speaking on tongues, unless someone has the gift of interpretation (not translation) says nothing to the people nearby. Why pray in tongues then? I Cor 14:4Did you get that? He that prays or speaks in tongues edifies himself, but to edify the church, one must prophesy which interpreting the tongue is equivalent too, as pointed out elsewhere. Of course, most of the folks that dismiss tongues don't prophesy either.

Yes, thanks. I'm glad someone -- even an agnostic !! --can tell it is not fakery. I know it's not, not my own experience, and I never thought others' experiences of it were either. It doesn't sound fake. That many people just can't be good at making up sound patterns. And I can't see it as a psychological thing either. It's something as you say "deeper" than any of that. The problem for Christians is that something similar happens in the trance states of some pagan rites. Or so I've heard. I suppose I should find out more about that.

No, I grew up occasionally attending the Episcopal church, and had started attending one again, but quit when I realized how very liberal this particular church's theology was, at least with some of the pastoral leadership. But basically I got very little from that church. This was very soon after coming to the Lord.

I don't know. I studied 2 languages, Russian and Spanish, besides my own. It sounded very different from them and from English. It seemed to me more like ancient Aaramaic, but who knows. I just know it sounded very fluent, and had definite meaning, and that I was exalting the things of God or I sensed that was the case.Nevertheless, I didn't understand it's usefulness until much later.

You don't need to be in fear and keep in mind that it only is against your current understanding of the Bible. Love replaces fear and will give you a greater discernment in this area.