Speaking in Tongues and Gifts of the Spirit Still available???

[First and the Last]

22 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

Another question.  As far as I understand , 1901 was when the so called revival of speaking in tongues took place in LA.  Before that period, was the speaking of tongues dormant or ?.  Enlighten us please as to the medieval centuries, before and after.  Is there  any witness of these events.   

Plain and simply shortly after the Apostolic age the Church stopped focusing on receiving it or shut it out completely.

Historical Accounts and Reasons

Consolidation of Church Doctrine:

After the apostolic age, the early Christian church focused on consolidating doctrine and combating heresies. The emphasis shifted towards establishing a unified, orthodox theology, particularly through the ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea in 325 AD). The miraculous gifts of the Spirit, including speaking in tongues, were less emphasized during this period.

Rise of Institutional Church Structure:

As the church became more institutionalized and structured, the spontaneous and charismatic expressions of faith, including glossolalia, were viewed with suspicion. The focus was on order, liturgy, and the sacraments, which left less room for charismatic practices.

Montanism and Its Rejection:

In the 2nd century, Montanism, a movement led by Montanus, emphasized prophecy and speaking in tongues. The mainstream church eventually deemed Montanism heretical due to its extreme practices and claims of new revelations. This association with heresy likely discouraged the continuation of speaking in tongues within the broader church.

Medieval Mysticism:

During the medieval period, there were reports of ecstatic and mystical experiences among certain saints and mystics, but these were not widespread or systematically encouraged by the institutional church. The dominant theological and ecclesiastical authorities often viewed such experiences with skepticism.

Reformation Focus:

The Protestant Reformation (16th century) focused on correcting doctrinal errors and abuses within the Catholic Church. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized the authority of Scripture and doctrinal purity over charismatic experiences. While the Reformation sparked many spiritual renewals, speaking in tongues was not a primary focus.

Enlightenment and Rationalism:

The Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries) brought a focus on reason, science, and skepticism towards supernatural phenomena. This cultural shift further marginalized charismatic practices within Christianity, including speaking in tongues.

Revival in the Modern Era

Topeka, Kansas (1901):

The modern revival of speaking in tongues is often traced back to January 1, 1901, when Agnes Ozman, a student at Charles Parham’s Bible school in Topeka, Kansas, spoke in tongues. Parham and his students had been studying the Book of Acts and praying for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which they associated with speaking in tongues.

Azusa Street Revival (1906):

The Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, led by William J. Seymour, was a pivotal event in the Pentecostal movement. Starting in 1906, this revival featured widespread speaking in tongues, along with other charismatic manifestations. The revival drew people from various backgrounds and led to the spread of Pentecostalism globally.

[other one]

Speaking in Tongues and Gifts of the Spirit Still available???

 

As for intercessory prayer, I can say yes and often not something that was asked for.

[warrior12]

1 hour ago, First and the Last said:

If you speak in tongues and someone else interprets, you may find that the interpretation resonates with what you sensed in your spirit. Though you might not understand the exact words spoken in tongues, the interpretation should align with the overall sense or burden you felt from the Holy Spirit. Conversely, if you interpret your own tongues, you might experience a sudden clarity or understanding of the message, which you can then share. It’s important for the church to exercise discernment and maintain order during these spiritual manifestations, with leadership providing guidance to ensure the messages and interpretations align with Scripture and the Holy Spirit's direction for the service.

Then again, are the two , the speaker and the interpreter ever agree totally ?.  I would think the holy spirit would allow the one who is speaking to understand what he is speaking, or else what is the use.  Cause ,then it leaves the Church to fully accept the interpreter words to be the word of God.  Let's say the person interprets a message that has contents that can cause life changing matters and he doing it with false motives, then that could be disaster.  

If the speaker and the interpreter are in full agreement, not by sensing or things like that, but their reception of the message are fully received, then people can testify of those truths right here at worthy.  As it is, the dependence of the interpreter for the message is the only one.   

The sensing of spiritual agreements as you mentioned , is that written in scripture, or is it your experience and those of others too. 

Remember the best or the top leaders of the pentecostal movment has been found out to be in serious errors before, so who are to guard the guards.   

[First and the Last]

1 hour ago, warrior12 said:

Then again, are the two , the speaker and the interpreter ever agree totally ?.  I would think the holy spirit would allow the one who is speaking to understand what he is speaking, or else what is the use.  Cause ,then it leaves the Church to fully accept the interpreter words to be the word of God.  Let's say the person interprets a message that has contents that can cause life changing matters and he doing it with false motives, then that could be disaster.  

If the speaker and the interpreter are in full agreement, not by sensing or things like that, but their reception of the message are fully received, then people can testify of those truths right here at worthy.  As it is, the dependence of the interpreter for the message is the only one.   

The sensing of spiritual agreements as you mentioned , is that written in scripture, or is it your experience and those of others too. 

Remember the best or the top leaders of the pentecostal movment has been found out to be in serious errors before, so who are to guard the guards.   

I have an exposition on 1 Corinthians Chapter 14 on Tongues and Interpretation found here: 

 

In the context of Pentecostal beliefs regarding speaking in tongues and interpretation, the alignment between the speaker and interpreter is crucial for the accurate communication of spiritual messages. According to biblical teachings, these gifts are intended to edify the church and should ideally be exercised with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 12-14 emphasize that these gifts should be used for building up the body of believers. Specifically, he instructs that if someone speaks in tongues, they should pray for the ability to interpret, or someone else should interpret so that the congregation can benefit. This underscores the importance of alignment between the initial message and its interpretation for the spiritual benefit of those present.

Ideally, both the speaker and the interpreter are believed to be led by the Holy Spirit, ensuring that the message and its interpretation are in harmony. However, human fallibility means that errors can occur. To mitigate this risk, Pentecostal churches often rely on several safeguards. These include accountability structures within the church leadership, such as oversight by a plurality of elders or external denominational bodies. They also emphasize the importance of discernment among believers, encouraging the congregation to test the spirits and compare any message with biblical truth. This process helps to confirm the validity of spiritual messages and interpretations, ensuring they align with the teachings of Scripture and contribute to the spiritual growth of the church community.

[Marilyn C]

3 hours ago, First and the Last said:

Plain and simply shortly after the Apostolic age the Church stopped focusing on receiving it or shut it out completely.

Historical Accounts and Reasons

Consolidation of Church Doctrine:

After the apostolic age, the early Christian church focused on consolidating doctrine and combating heresies. The emphasis shifted towards establishing a unified, orthodox theology, particularly through the ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea in 325 AD). The miraculous gifts of the Spirit, including speaking in tongues, were less emphasized during this period.

Rise of Institutional Church Structure:

As the church became more institutionalized and structured, the spontaneous and charismatic expressions of faith, including glossolalia, were viewed with suspicion. The focus was on order, liturgy, and the sacraments, which left less room for charismatic practices.

Montanism and Its Rejection:

In the 2nd century, Montanism, a movement led by Montanus, emphasized prophecy and speaking in tongues. The mainstream church eventually deemed Montanism heretical due to its extreme practices and claims of new revelations. This association with heresy likely discouraged the continuation of speaking in tongues within the broader church.

Medieval Mysticism:

During the medieval period, there were reports of ecstatic and mystical experiences among certain saints and mystics, but these were not widespread or systematically encouraged by the institutional church. The dominant theological and ecclesiastical authorities often viewed such experiences with skepticism.

Reformation Focus:

The Protestant Reformation (16th century) focused on correcting doctrinal errors and abuses within the Catholic Church. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized the authority of Scripture and doctrinal purity over charismatic experiences. While the Reformation sparked many spiritual renewals, speaking in tongues was not a primary focus.

Enlightenment and Rationalism:

The Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries) brought a focus on reason, science, and skepticism towards supernatural phenomena. This cultural shift further marginalized charismatic practices within Christianity, including speaking in tongues.

Revival in the Modern Era

Topeka, Kansas (1901):

The modern revival of speaking in tongues is often traced back to January 1, 1901, when Agnes Ozman, a student at Charles Parham’s Bible school in Topeka, Kansas, spoke in tongues. Parham and his students had been studying the Book of Acts and praying for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which they associated with speaking in tongues.

Azusa Street Revival (1906):

The Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, led by William J. Seymour, was a pivotal event in the Pentecostal movement. Starting in 1906, this revival featured widespread speaking in tongues, along with other charismatic manifestations. The revival drew people from various backgrounds and led to the spread of Pentecostalism globally.

Also, the Welsh Revival from where I get my heritage. The 5 fold ministries of Christ was received by some and the clarification of truth came to Australia in the early 1930`s. My grandparents came and were part of that group - Apostolic Church. 

I have spoken in tongues for over 50 years and know that the Holy Spirit strengthens my spirit as I pray. 

[First and the Last]

1 hour ago, Marilyn C said:

Also, the Welsh Revival from where I get my heritage. The 5 fold ministries of Christ was received by some and the clarification of truth came to Australia in the early 1930`s. My grandparents came and were part of that group - Apostolic Church. 

I have spoken in tongues for over 50 years and know that the Holy Spirit strengthens my spirit as I pray. 

Some also believe that the 5 fold ministry also stopped after the Apostolic Age. Here is more clarity for those who don't know.

Ephesians 4:11, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers,"

Highlights the diversity and unity within the body of Christ through the distribution of spiritual gifts and ministries. These roles are seen as divinely appointed to equip and edify the church, each serving a unique function in the spiritual growth and maturity of believers. Apostles are often viewed as foundational leaders, establishing churches and providing overarching guidance. Prophets speak God's truth and revelation, offering direction and correction. Evangelists focus on spreading the Gospel and winning souls to Christ. Pastors shepherd local congregations, providing care, teaching, and spiritual leadership, while teachers instruct and deepen believers' understanding of biblical truths. Together, these ministries work harmoniously to build up the body of Christ, fostering unity, spiritual maturity, and effective ministry, ultimately fulfilling God's purpose for His church on earth.

[LaMonte]

4 hours ago, First and the Last said:

I have an exposition on 1 Corinthians Chapter 14 on Tongues and Interpretation found here:

I see you are using “1 Cor 14:1-33”, what about the rest of the chapter. 

      1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”.

      Why is this a commandment of the Lord? In 1 Tim. 2:11-14 he tells us why, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

      2:12 When Paul says: I do not permit a woman to teach, he is speaking as inspired of God. This does not represent Paul's own personal prejudice, as some say. It is God who decrees that women should not have a public teaching ministry in the church. The only exceptions to this are that they are permitted to teach children (2Ti 3:15) and young women (Tit 2:4). Neither is a woman to have authority over a man. That means that she must not have dominion over a man but is to be in silence or quietness. “William MacDonald”

[First and the Last]

7 minutes ago, LaMonte said:

 

I see you are using “1 Cor 14:1-33”, what about the rest of the chapter. 

Look again all 40 verses are there.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law 35. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Is understood within its historical and cultural context. We must recognize that this directive was specific to the cultural norms and issues of the Corinthian church in the first century, where disruptions and disorder during worship services were a concern. Today, we affirm the active participation of women in the church, including roles in ministry, teaching, and leadership, as evidenced by other scriptural examples where women prophesied, prayed, and played significant roles in the early church. The emphasis is on maintaining order and respect within the worship setting, aligning with the principle that God is not the author of confusion but of peace. Thus, this verse is interpreted not as a blanket prohibition against women speaking in church, but as an instruction to maintain orderly worship practices, with recognition of the valuable contributions women make in the life and ministry of the church.

[Marilyn C]

46 minutes ago, LaMonte said:

 

I see you are using “1 Cor 14:1-33”, what about the rest of the chapter. 

      1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”.

      Why is this a commandment of the Lord? In 1 Tim. 2:11-14 he tells us why, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

      2:12 When Paul says: I do not permit a woman to teach, he is speaking as inspired of God. This does not represent Paul's own personal prejudice, as some say. It is God who decrees that women should not have a public teaching ministry in the church. The only exceptions to this are that they are permitted to teach children (2Ti 3:15) and young women (Tit 2:4). Neither is a woman to have authority over a man. That means that she must not have dominion over a man but is to be in silence or quietness. “William MacDonald”

The English translations don`t do the meaning justice. It means not to cause an uproar, and not to dominate. Always best to check the Greek.

Otherwise, women would have to go out to the hallway to sing, pray out loud, give a testimony, read God`s word out loud etc etc. So, you can see that would be nonsense. 

[LaMonte]

Sorry this is not about culture, first of all, it was a command from the Lord, not Paul.

Second of all Timothy tells us why in 1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” You never interpret scripture by the culture you live in, you interpreted scripture by the context around the verse. This is taught from Genesis to revelation. 

In our society, you're right everybody's equal. But when it comes to the scripture, even the son of God was under the authority of his father. Jesus said in John, I and my father are one, but they were not equal when it comes to authority. Like in his prayer in the garden, he said not my will but your well be done.