True Tongues - Mjs

[Benja32one]

[/B]
TRUE TONGUES
Miles Standford


"And [they] began to speak with other tongues [languages]" [B](Acts 2:4). It is extremely important to draw the scriptural line very carefully at this point. The tongues spoken at Pentecost were: (a) known languages; (b) spoken to God, not man; (c) a sign to the Jews.

TONGUES WERE KNOWN LANGUAGES -- "The multitude came together, and were confounded, because every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, asking one to another, ‘Behold, are not all these who speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?’" (Acts 2:6-8). Here was God's miraculous sign, given through the unlearned disciples in the dialect of each of the sixteen countries and provinces represented at Jerusalem.

A concise definition of New Testament tongues would be: the miraculous ability to speak in an unlearned language. Notice the two elements: (a) the word tongues means actual known languages; (b) these languages were unknown to the speakers.

TONGUES WERE SPOKEN TO GOD -- The Jews from other countries said, "We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11). The disciples, having been baptized into the Lord Jesus and filled with the Spirit, were praising and thanking God for all that He was to them and had done for them in Christ. In their own dialects, the multitude heard of the wonderful works of God.

The drawn line must ever be maintained. Tongues were spoken to God, though a sign to unbelieving men. "For he that speaketh in an unknown [foreign] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God" (I Corinthians 14:2). The fact of the foreign tongues was the sign, not what was expressed by that means. What was said was not a message to men, but to God--praise and thanksgiving. Paul said that the content of speaking in a foreign tongue was the giving of thanks (I Corinthians 14:16, 17).

TONGUES WERE A SIGN TO THE JEWS -- When the Holy Spirit came from the glorified Lord Jesus and filled the disciples on the day of Pentecost, a multitude of devout Jews gathered about them (Acts 2:5). Although Israel stubbornly rejected the Lord Jesus as their Messiah, God in mercy--with judgment pending--gave them a tangible sign, as prophesied in Isaiah 28:11, "For with...another tongue will he speak to this people."

In reference to this same prophecy Paul wrote, "In the law it is written, With men of other languages and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not" (I Corinthians 14:21 22). This is a significant statement, as it is the only mention in Scripture of the purpose of the gift of tongues.

As a nation, the Jews believed not at Pentecost, although many individuals responded to the sign. With patience and love God gave His people every opportunity to turn to their Messiah. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; for with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people" (Isaiah 28:10, 11).

THE TRUE BAPTISM EFFECTS POSITIONAL ONENESS -- In His mercy God extended the sign beyond Jerusalem for a time after Pentecost to include the Samaritans, the Gentiles, and some disciples of John the Baptist, thus gathering representatives of all to be baptized into the Body of Christ. "And ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

As has been cited, our Lord's prayer for the baptism by the Spirit on behalf of the disciples was answered at Pentecost. Another prayer for His own has also been answered. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee...and I in them" (John 17:20, 21, 26).

At Pentecost the Father sent the Holy Spirit to baptize, to unite the Jewish believers to the risen Lord Jesus, as well as to each other as members of the one Body. Then He did the same for the half-Jewish, half-Gentile Samaritans; then also for the Gentiles in Cornelius' house; and later for the group of disciples of John the Baptists. Throughout this dispensation of grace each believer is vitally and eternally incorporated into the Lord Jesus and His Body. "For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body." "There is one body...one baptism." "now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular" (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4, 5; I Corinthians 12:12).

Praise God, we are "all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). This positional oneness was accomplished by the Holy Spirit when He baptized us into the Lord Jesus upon believing. As to the aspect of our condition, or walk, there is all too little oneness amongst believers in general. Practical unity can only be realized as we are controlled by the Spirit who makes real our oneness in Christ, the Head of the Body.

THE TRUE BAPTISM EFFECTS UNITY OF THE FAITH -- It is God's purpose that each of His children progress in spiritual maturity. Only thus will the Holy Spirit have adequate instruments for the building up of the Body of Christ. "And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting [maturing] of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-13, ASV).

THE CHARISMATIC BAPTISM EFFECTS DIVISION :faint -- To err concerning the baptism sets one on the path of deprecated doctrine and glorified experience, at the expense of responsible spiritual growth. "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ" (Ephesians 4:14, 15).

When fellowship is based upon experience it can include anyone--Buddhists, Hindus, Spiritists, New Age, as well as Roman Catholics who testify that their baptism in the Holy Ghost has caused then to more fully love and appreciate their Church, its Mass, and the Mother Mary. Such oneness may be ecumenical, but it is not pneumatological (of the Holy Spirit). "I am profaned among them" (Ezekiel 22:26).

THE LINE -- Never cross the scriptural line. Charismatic fellowship is centered in an experience of error, not in the risen Lord Jesus Christ. Such fellowship excludes all who refuse that experience--it is divisive. "Is Christ divided?" (I Corinthians 1:13).


http://withchrist.org/MJS/line.htm#ChapterIV

[onsolidrock]

Tongues were definitly known human languages. On the Day of Pentecost the Apostles spoke at least 16 different languages. Most likely they spoke a short message one at a time as the Spirit gave them utterance. [Acts 2;4]. Each speaker would have sounded different than the others due to the different languages being spoken. I see no reason why it would have been any different in Corinth. Tongues should not sound the same all of the time.

[hopemail]

so what caused Peter to have to speak up, 'these are not drunk as you suppose'...
What was going on? What were the Pentecosts doing? How were they acting?
that would require he issue a qualifying statment like that to outside observers?

why in the world did Peter bring up the issue of 'drunk' in the first place if all that was happening was some people were speaking different languages?... that has nothing to do with being 'drunk',.... 'drunk' people can't even speak their own language without slurring, let alone one they don't know...
why this reference to 'drunk'? Was it a poor choice of words on Peter's part? Why did Peter even feel he had to offer up a defence if it was obvious to all anyway that some people were simply speaking different languages?...

ever heard of someone running around saying, "they're not drunk, they're not drunk", around people speaking different languages in Central Park on a Sunday?
somethin's not computin here...

[onsolidrock]

so what caused Peter to have to speak up, 'these are not drunk as you suppose'...
What was going on? What were the Pentecosts doing? How were they acting?
that would require he issue a qualifying statment like that to outside observers?

why in the world did Peter bring up the issue of 'drunk' in the first place if all that was happening was some people were speaking different languages?... that has nothing to do with being 'drunk',.... 'drunk' people can't even speak their own language without slurring, let alone one they don't know...
why this reference to 'drunk'? Was it a poor choice of words on Peter's part? Why did Peter even feel he had to offer up a defence if it was obvious to all anyway that some people were simply speaking different languages?...

ever heard of someone running around saying, "they're not drunk, they're not drunk", around people speaking different languages in Central Park on a Sunday?
somethin's not computin here...

Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

These people were the Jews in Jerusalem who also mocked Jesus.

The Apostles were ignorant unlearned Galaliean fishermen that were looked down upon by the Jews in Jerusalem as being inferior. Of course these ignorant fisherman couldn't be smart enough to learn other languages. The Jews did not accept Jesus as their Messiah, why would they accept this event as from God? If they did, then they might have to admit that Jesus was the Messiah. That was unthinkable. They had to come up with some excuse to claim that this was not from God. What better way than to deride the Apostles and make fun of them than to claim that they were drunk?

[hopemail]

"The Apostles were ignorant unlearned Galaliean fishermen that were looked down upon by the Jews in Jerusalem as being inferior. Of course these ignorant fisherman..."

Acts 2:4 says they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and (all) began to speak with other tongues,.. that would be 3000 of them,
and there weren't 3000 Apostles, and the they weren't all fishermen (not even all of the original Apostles were fishermen),...
so, no, that doesn't fit for an explanation

[hopemail]

"Charismatic fellowship is centered in an experience of error..."
Charismatics would probably say such a generalization about them is, itself, error,... which then calls into question the accuracy of the rest of the piece...

[onsolidrock]

"The Apostles were ignorant unlearned Galaliean fishermen that were looked down upon by the Jews in Jerusalem as being inferior. Of course these ignorant fisherman..."

Acts 2:4 says they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and (all) began to speak with other tongues,.. that would be 3000 of them,
and there weren't 3000 Apostles, and the they weren't all fishermen (not even all of the original Apostles were fishermen),...
so, no, that doesn't fit for an explanation

You are right that they weren't all fishermen. My mistake.

They were referred to as Galileans.

Act 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee,

These men were the Apostles.

There were three thousand saved that day, not 3000 that spoke in tongues.

There were sixteen languages spoken. That only took sixteen people. If it was the twelve Apostles then four of them spoke twice.

Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

They in this verse has to refer to those in verse 26. The twelve were all with one accord in one place on the Day of Pentecost.

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven,

Peter plus eleven = twelve.

God is not a God of confusion. 1Co 14:33.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

I see no reason to assume that more than one person spoke at the same time.

[hopemail]

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

"I see no reason to assume that more than one person spoke at the same time."

whereas I read the passage, 'they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues'
as... 'they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues'
not... 'There were sixteen languages spoken. That only took sixteen people. If it was the twelve Apostles then four of them spoke twice.'

[pilgrimian]

so what caused Peter to have to speak up, 'these are not drunk as you suppose'...
What was going on? What were the Pentecosts doing? How were they acting?
that would require he issue a qualifying statment like that to outside observers?

The "Pentecosts"??? Not sure what you mean by that. Pentecost, or Shavuot, had been observed for years and years so calling them "Pentecosts" is meaningless when one knows the full context of Scripture.

The effects of being drunk is different upon everyone. Some get louder...some get somber...some slur words. In looking at the rest of Scripture, and understanding this passage in balance with those, I reckon that the men were so filled by the Spirit that their speech (though in other languages) was full of excitement and euphoric.

why in the world did Peter bring up the issue of 'drunk' in the first place if all that was happening was some people were speaking different languages?... that has nothing to do with being 'drunk',.... 'drunk' people can't even speak their own language without slurring, let alone one they don't know...

That's a generalization. You are equating what you think drunk is with what Peter saw it to be.

why this reference to 'drunk'? Was it a poor choice of words on Peter's part? Why did Peter even feel he had to offer up a defence if it was obvious to all anyway that some people were simply speaking different languages?...

Some of the languages spoken were probably not known by some others...and since it wasn't their mother tongues they thought it was ramblings of drunkenness.

ever heard of someone running around saying, "they're not drunk, they're not drunk", around people speaking different languages in Central Park on a Sunday?
somethin's not computin here...

No, because of Trinity Broadcasting Network this silliness has been put out over the airwaves. Most will just change the channel. Unbelievers (and Paul tells us that tongues is a sign not for believers but unbelievers) generally think tongues is Holy-roller idiocy.

But we've been over this numerous times, Hopemail. I doubt any Scripture will ever change your mind. You will believe what you want to believe regardless.

[Patty T]

These men were the Apostles.

There were three thousand saved that day, not 3000 that spoke in tongues.

There were sixteen languages spoken. That only took sixteen people. If it was the twelve Apostles then four of them spoke twice.

Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

They in this verse has to refer to those in verse 26. The twelve were all with one accord in one place on the Day of Pentecost.

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven,

Peter plus eleven = twelve.

God is not a God of confusion. 1Co 14:33.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

I see no reason to assume that more than one person spoke at the same time.


We know from Acts 1:12-14 that there were 11 apostles, "the women" and Mary the mother of Jesus and His brothers in the upper room. In Acts 1:15 we are told Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about 120). Then they proceed to cast lots for Judas's replacement - which we know was Matthias - who was then numered with the other 11 apostles.

It seems to me that about 120 people were in that upper room when the Holy Spirit gave utterance to "all"!!!

[onsolidrock]

We know from Acts 1:12-14 that there were 11 apostles, "the women" and Mary the mother of Jesus and His brothers in the upper room. In Acts 1:15 we are told Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about 120). Then they proceed to cast lots for Judas's replacement - which we know was Matthias - who was then numered with the other 11 apostles.

It seems to me that about 120 people were in that upper room when the Holy Spirit gave utterance to "all"!!!

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Jesus was speaking to the Apostles when He said this, not to the 120.

The Day of Pentecost was not the same day that the 120 were together.

There were no chapter or verses in the original account. 2;1 follows directly after 1;26. "They" in 2;1 refers to the twelve in 1;26.

The Apostles were referred to as Galileans. The 120 weren't.

Why would it be necessary for 120 people to speak 16 languages?

[Patty T]

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Jesus was speaking to the Apostles when He said this, not to the 120.

Yes, I agree.

The Day of Pentecost was not the same day that the 120 were together.

There were no chapter or verses in the original account. 2;1 follows directly after 1;26. "They" in 2;1 refers to the twelve in 1;26.

The Apostles were referred to as Galileans. The 120 weren't.

Why would it be necessary for 120 people to speak 16 languages?


I have learned that just because things don't seem "necessary" to me, doesn't mean God is in agreement :lol

I looked up the commentary from Matthew Henry about the day of Pentecost. It seems we're really not sure where the apostles were when the Holy Spirit was given - we just know that they were "all" in "one accord" in "one place". I believe this is probably the most important part.

We have here an account of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the disciples of Christ. Observe,

I. When, and where, this was done, which are particularly noted, for the greater certainty of the thing.

1. It was when the day of pentecost was fully come, in which there seems to be a reference to the manner of the expression in the institution of this feast, where it is said (Lev. 23:15), You shall count unto you seven sabbaths complete, from the day of the offering of the first-fruits, which was the next day but one after the passover, the sixteenth day of the month Abib, which was the day that Christ arose. This day was fully come, that is, the night preceding, with a part of the day, was fully past.

(1.) The Holy Ghost came down at the time of a solemn feast, because there was then a great concourse of people to Jerusalem from all parts of the country, and the proselytes from other countries, which would make it the more public, and the fame of it to be spread the sooner and further, which would contribute much to the propagating of the gospel into all nations. Thus now, as before at the passover, the Jewish feasts served to toll the bell for gospel services and entertainments.

(2.) This feast of pentecost was kept in remembrance of the giving of the law upon mount Sinai, whence the incorporating of the Jewish church was to be dated, which Dr. Lightfoot reckons to be just one thousand four hundred and forty-seven years before this. Fitly, therefore, is the Holy Ghost given at that feast, in fire and in tongues, for the promulgation of the evangelical law, not as that to one nation, but to every creature.

(3.) This feast of pentecost happened on the first day of the week, which was an additional honour put on that day, and a confirmation of it to be the Christian sabbath, the day which the Lord hath made, to be a standing memorial in his church of those two great blessings—the resurrection of Christ, and the pouring out of the Spirit, both on that day of the week. This serves not only to justify us in observing that day under the style and title of the Lord’s day, but to direct us in the sanctifying of it to give God praise particularly for those two great blessings; every Lord’s day in the year, I think, there should be a full and particular notice taken in our prayers and praises of these two, as there is by some churches of the one once a year, upon Easter-day, and of the other once a year, upon Whit-sunday. Oh! that we may do it with suitable affections!

2. It was when they were all with one accord in one place. What place it was we are not told particularly, whether in the temple, where they attended at public times (Lu. 24:53), or whether in their own upper room, where they met at other times. But it was at Jerusalem, because this had been the place which God chose, to put his name there, and the prophecy was that thence the word of the Lord should go forth to all nations, Isa. 2:3. It was now the place of the general rendezvous of all devout people: here God had promised to meet them and bless them; here therefore he meets them with this blessing of blessings. Though Jerusalem had done the utmost dishonour imaginable to Christ, yet he did this honour to Jerusalem, to teach his remnant in all places; he had this in Jerusalem. Here the disciples were in one place, and they were not as yet so many but that one place, and no large one, would hold them all. And here they were with one accord. We cannot forget how often, while their Master was with them, there were strifes among them, who should be the greatest; but now all these strifes were at an end, we hear no more of them. What they had received already of the Holy Ghost, when Christ breathed on them, had in a good measure rectified the mistakes upon which those contests were grounded, and had disposed them to holy love.

They had prayed more together of late than usual (ch. 1:14), and this made them love one another better. By his grace he thus prepared them for the gift of the Holy Ghost; for that blessed dove comes not where there is noise and clamour, but moves upon the face of the still waters, not the rugged ones. Would we have the Spirit poured out upon us from on high? Let us be all of one accord, and, notwithstanding variety of sentiments and interests, as no doubt there was among those disciples, let us agree to love one another; for, where brethren dwell together in unity, there it is that the Lord commands his blessing.

[joy4Him2day]

I just want to be on record to say that this personally offends me:

THE LINE -- Never cross the scriptural line. Charismatic fellowship is centered in an experience of error, not in the risen Lord Jesus Christ. Such fellowship excludes all who refuse that experience--it is divisive. "Is Christ divided?" (I Corinthians 1:13).


It is mean-spiritedly written and should be addressed. The division goes both ways and how dare it be emphatically stated that way.........
Charismatics are just as much christian as non-charismatics.......we all get home by the Blood of the Lamb, nothing more and nothing less......
Perhaps I Corinthians 13 would have been a better quote.....

[Benja32one]

I just want to be on record to say that this personally offends me:

THE LINE -- Never cross the scriptural line. Charismatic fellowship is centered in an experience of error, not in the risen Lord Jesus Christ. Such fellowship excludes all who refuse that experience--it is divisive. "Is Christ divided?" (I Corinthians 1:13).


It is mean-spiritedly written and should be addressed. The division goes both ways and how dare it be emphatically stated that way.........
Charismatics are just as much christian as non-charismatics.......we all get home by the Blood of the Lamb, nothing more and nothing less......
Perhaps I Corinthians 13 would have been a better quote.....

Joy......

There is nothing mean-spirited in the truth. Just because you are in sympathy with charismatic belief does not mean the scripture used by MJS is not to be heeded. I have noticed that the test for fellowship and the first question asked by pentecostals is, "Have you been baptised in the holy ghost?" Not "when did you get saved", "when did you close with the offer of
mercy in Christ?" Or "How long have you known the Lord?".........No, when
such doctrines become a test for fellowship, they are out of place. The Holy Spirit is a person Who when received at salvation never leaves and is to be learned to be deferred to in surrender.

The Spirit is not to be glorified:

John 16..........
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you
into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things
soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto
you the things that are to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it
unto you.
15 All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I,
that he taketh of mine, and shall declare it unto you

It is the emphasis on the Spirit by pentecostals which I believe denigrates the believer's position and privilege to major on Jesus and His finished work and soon return. So I see nothing mean-spirited in the man's or my right to publish these truths.
:nod

BTW, Joy....have you read his teaching on the FILLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT?

[joy4Him2day]

Benja: perhaps it would be more appropriate to address the behavior of the charismatic vs the belief........all sects/beliefs contain fanatics and flesh-prone persons.....it is unwise to judge a doctrinal belief solely on the misbehaviour of the people.......
As it is written: the spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet.........
even truths can be presented in an erroneous way, unloving way, deceptive way, wrong-emphasis way, without negating the very truth of their existence......

I believe that it is true in all christian groups, there is one or more that bring shame and disgrace by their behaviour while representing Truth at the same time........we all, represent Christ while speaking "for Him", and for the most part of us, do it badly......

Give room for some personality problems, some who live only in the flesh while finding their way in Truth----not to condone their actions, but to be open to what the Spirit might be doing........

I have known personally too many charismatics with a Holy Spirit (holy spirit) about them to not believe it is Truth----but have also seen what scares you the most about it, and, also, grieve about it........

I don't want to convince you to believe as I do, that is not why I am addressing it.......I just caution your vehemence about its error as all in all.....

I would rather you didn't address it at all, than to emphatically state it as not believing in the Risen Lord, or not being one of His........ :):

[blitzkreig]

I have noticed that the test for fellowship and the first question asked by pentecostals is, "Have you been baptised in the holy ghost?" Not "when did you get saved", "when did you close with the offer of mercy in Christ?" Or "How long have you known the Lord?".........No, when such doctrines become a test for fellowship, they are out of place. The Holy Spirit is a person Who when received at salvation never leaves and is to be learned to be deferred to in surrender.I just wanted to reinforce what brother Ben is saying here.

One of the things which gives me the greatest reasons for concern related to the modern "tongues movement" is how they are used to "divide".


.

[joy4Him2day]

I just wanted to reinforce what brother Ben is saying here.

One of the things which gives me the greatest reasons for concern related to the modern "tongues movement" is how they are used to "divide".


.

And we know who is doing the dividing---for we fight not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers.....

Addressing the fanaticism of the whole thing is correct---scripture saying that the Holy Spirit does not draw attention to Himself, as Jesus is to be lifted up, to draw all men to Him......----

The whole movement has totally been "man-handled" and "tainted" and that is something to grieve........ :(:

I don't even address that part of my spiritual life to anyone, because that is between the Lord and I......however, I will say that recently, I went to a business place that I frequent almost weekly and was confronted by a worker there.......

She asked me what I thought about speaking in tongues because she said that she had been watching Kenneth Copeland show and that a lady was on there talking about how she spends a couple of hours a day "praying in tongues and translating for herself" :freaked and I think the woman actually demonstrated tongues on the air------ :freaked

This is totally showmanship, fleshly, and completely off the wall......THAT is what I think is freaking out Godly people like yourselves----

Maybe its because I was brought up on Charismatic teachings that they don't frighten me, but we have a good understanding about what it is and what it isn't........

But I would not be prepared to "judge" anyone on their belief for or against.....
I just felt grieved when you so adamantly opposed what I have witnessed in very Godly ways.........
that is all I will say about it now.
thanks for listening.

[Benja32one]

And we know who is doing the dividing---for we fight not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers.....

Addressing the fanaticism of the whole thing is correct---scripture saying that the Holy Spirit does not draw attention to Himself, as Jesus is to be lifted up, to draw all men to Him......----

The whole movement has totally been "man-handled" and "tainted" and that is something to grieve........ :(:

I don't even address that part of my spiritual life to anyone, because that is between the Lord and I......however, I will say that recently, I went to a business place that I frequent almost weekly and was confronted by a worker there.......

She asked me what I thought about speaking in tongues because she said that she had been watching Kenneth Copeland show and that a lady was on there talking about how she spends a couple of hours a day "praying in tongues and translating for herself" :freaked and I think the woman actually demonstrated tongues on the air------ :freaked

This is totally showmanship, fleshly, and completely off the wall......THAT is what I think is freaking out Godly people like yourselves----

Maybe its because I was brought up on Charismatic teachings that they don't frighten me, but we have a good understanding about what it is and what it isn't........

But I would not be prepared to "judge" anyone on their belief for or against.....
I just felt grieved when you so adamantly opposed what I have witnessed in very Godly ways.........
that is all I will say about it now.
thanks for listening.
The Apostle Paul addresses this very misbehavior you describe, but also:
1 Cor. 13........
8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be
done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether
there be knowledge, it shall be done away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;
10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall
be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought
as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish
things.
12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known.
13 But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of
these is love.

Paul here is plainly discussing the 1st century gifts, and equates 'prophecy',
'tongues' and 'knowledge'. He states all these shall pass away when 'that which is perfect is come'. That he was referring to the formation of the scriptures is VERY PLAIN. All the gifts were operative until the scriptures were in wide circulation. After that,

ASV Hebrews 1:1 God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in
the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners,
2 hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he
appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;
3 who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his
substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when
he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high;
4 having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath
inherited a more excellent name than they.

The first aorist indicative of 'laleo'means a one time full revelation in His Son. There are to be no further 'revelations' given after Christ, who is described as the 'exact image', (charaktur) of God the Father. This is an old word from 'charasso', meaning to scratch or mark as on a coin. That is that the Father is the impress, so to speak, Christ the image made by that impress. These things are so exact, the writer's reasoning so clear as to the
type of revelation involved, it could be nothing less than that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word of God as in John 1.1-8. He being such, there is no further need for any 'word of knowledge', 'prophecy' (since the written Word became available) or 'tongues'. PERIOD.

Peter writes.....2 Peter 1.....
19 And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye
do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place,
until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts:
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private
interpretation.
21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake
from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

The reason the Word of God resonates in our hearts with such intensity is that we are 'illuminated' to undertand it by the selfsame Spirit Who was in the writers.

Of course....these are just the results of my studying this thing for the last
few weeks.......but the answer is in the writings of Paul, not in the Book of Acts, you see.
:thumb

[blitzkreig]

I did some looking into the phenomena of Glossolalia as it is practised today a while back ... Here is a link for those interested in studying it both from a Behavioral Scientists point of view as well as Scripturally ---> Glossolalia today (http://www.meta-religion.com/Linguistics/Glossolalia/glossolalia_today.htm)

Where the current phenomina differs from Biblical "tongues" during the Acts period, the sign gifts were normally dispensed collectively by the Spirit of God (Acts 2:1-7; 4:28-35; 10:44-46). These gifts were not prayed down, nor were they based upon one’s spirituality. Rather, they were freely given to all believers in accordance with the sovereign will of God (I Cor. 12:4,7,11).

Therefore, they were empowered to perform these wonders simply because it was the operation of God at that time.

The possession of these gifts had nothing to do with the measure of their faith or performance. Surely, the Corinthians were far from being spiritually minded; in fact, many of them were living in carnality. Nevertheless, they were given these miraculous manifestations and in some cases possessed more than one sign gift (I Cor. 12:31 compare with I Cor. 14:23,24,26).

Today of course, they seem to be predominantly bestowed through seminars hosted by Pentecostal churches as well as certain TV preachers.

.

[joy4Him2day]

:):
I cannot think of more to say..............
:hug