MacArthur and Tongues

[nebula]

I'll give another example I just thought of.

I grew up in a Lutheran Church, but some of us had prayed for the baptism of hte Holy Spirit and had the gift of tongues and raised our hands in worship and all of that.

Anyway, there was a woman in our church who died from Leukemia. She and here husband were Lithuanian immigrants (legalized citizens). At her funeral there was a time where people were allowed to share their memories of this woman. During this time, a Lithuanian woman rose and spoke a beautiful testimony of this woman - in the Lithuanian language (at least those who understood the language were deeply touched). As she was speaking, another woman in the congregation, one of us who had the gift of tongues and all of that, had the urge to share something. So, after the Lithuanian woman was finished, this other woman stood up and testified how the woman we were honoring had done so much to help others immigrate from Lithuania (keep in mind that this was years before the Berlin wall came down, so the country was still under the Soviet Union), providing details and all that.

After the service, as people were talking with each other, one person mentioned how it was a shame no one translated what the Lithuanian woman had said. But then another person, who spoke both Lithuanian and English, said something like, "But it was! The woman who spoke right after her repeated exactly what she had said."

[apothanein kerdos]

I promises you that Biblically it was not beneficial. It violates scripture, Paul says that no more than one or two are to speak and only those with the gift are to speak.

They may think they had an experience, and I'm sure they did, but it was not one given by God. I know that is harsh and seems judgemental, but when something violates the Bible, it simply cannot be good or true.

No - it wasn't the entire congregation speaking to the entire congregation - it was done in pairs. My brother and another spoke in tongues to each other. After the pastor encouraged them to pray for interpretation and they did, my brother gave a prophetic word to the one he was sharing with. He said something to the effect of, "I don't know if it was an interpretation or not, but it was a good word!"

Honestly, there would be a lot less abuses of tongues if more pastors gave training like this.

I still disagree because it's forcing people to do something they may not have the gift of. John MacAurther brings up a very good and valid point; tongues didn't really make its apperance as it is until after the turn of the 20th century. Prior to that, it was merely thought to be the gift of, well, tongues. Such as, a person could go to a Spanish speaking nation, know nothing of the Spanish language, and yet communicate in Spanish to these people. The gift of interpretation was thought to be someone who could hear a foriegn language and understand what was being said. It wasn't until the early 20th century that we began to see it used as a prayer language, baptism of the Holy Spirit, or anything like that. Even historically we don't see it used as a prayer language or anything like that.

I still hold that what the pastor did is not biblical, and Island Rose brings up a very good point. Was it an interpretation or a word? If he didn't get the interpretation but instead gave a word, then tongues was spoken without the interpretation and thus violated the Bible.

[nebula]

I don't care how much studying you do -

you are never going to truly understand the gift until you have and use it yourself.

Same as with teaching . . .

Or preaching . . .

Or riding a bicycle . . .

Or driving a car . . .

Or playing the piano . . .

Or directing a play . . .

[nebula]

FYI -

I've known a few people who, like you, used these very Scriptures to tell how me and others misused out tongues . . .

Until they themselves received the gift and spoke in tongues.

In all cases, they threw their old arguments out the window!

Then they read and studied the Scriptures from their new perspective and realized what Paul was truly saying!

[Kabowd]

FYI -

I've known a few people who, like you, used these very Scriptures to tell how me and others misused out tongues . . .

Until they themselves received the gift and spoke in tongues.

In all cases, they threw their old arguments out the window!

Then they read and studied the Scriptures from their new perspective and realized what Paul was truly saying!

The day anyone throws out biblically sound doctrine because of an experience that contradicts it, is the day they've chosen to ignore truth in favor of their "feelings". This is honestly a very dangerous thing to advocate. I'm not trying to sound harsh, but are you listening to yourself? You've essentially encouraged people to ignore the guidelines that the Scripture gives for exercising their gifts. "I dont' care how much you study" and "wait until you've experienced it".... this isn't biblically sound advice. God designed and desires order, and He doesn't appreciate it when we ignore the guidelines He sets forth ... no matter what our feelings tell us. Even "good" or "moving" experiences can be deceiving and a "spiritual experience" may not be directed by the Lord.

[irini]

I promises you that Biblically it was not beneficial. It violates scripture, Paul says that no more than one or two are to speak and only those with the gift are to speak.

They may think they had an experience, and I'm sure they did, but it was not one given by God. I know that is harsh and seems judgemental, but when something violates the Bible, it simply cannot be good or true.

No - it wasn't the entire congregation speaking to the entire congregation - it was done in pairs. My brother and another spoke in tongues to each other. After the pastor encouraged them to pray for interpretation and they did, my brother gave a prophetic word to the one he was sharing with. He said something to the effect of, "I don't know if it was an interpretation or not, but it was a good word!"

Honestly, there would be a lot less abuses of tongues if more pastors gave training like this.

I still disagree because it's forcing people to do something they may not have the gift of. John MacAurther brings up a very good and valid point; tongues didn't really make its apperance as it is until after the turn of the 20th century. Prior to that, it was merely thought to be the gift of, well, tongues. Such as, a person could go to a Spanish speaking nation, know nothing of the Spanish language, and yet communicate in Spanish to these people. The gift of interpretation was thought to be someone who could hear a foriegn language and understand what was being said. It wasn't until the early 20th century that we began to see it used as a prayer language, baptism of the Holy Spirit, or anything like that. Even historically we don't see it used as a prayer language or anything like that.

I still hold that what the pastor did is not biblical, and Island Rose brings up a very good point. Was it an interpretation or a word? If he didn't get the interpretation but instead gave a word, then tongues was spoken without the interpretation and thus violated the Bible.

I used to belong to a church that spoke in tongues and I eventually did too. I found that when someone spoke out in tongues, someone else was to give an interpretation. I just couldn't accept either as being valid. Who could prove anything and I often found that the interpreter's personal beliefs influenced the interpretation. My ex used to pray for hours in tongues but there was alot of bad fruit in his life. At one point he gave me an album to listen to and on it the singer sang in tongues. The hair on the back of my neck stood up because my ex was singing exactly the same thing this man sang on the album when we were instructed to sing in the spirit/tongues in church. Then I found that he used alot of the same words that the pastor used when speaking in tongues. I don't speak in tongues anymore and I do not feel the Holy Spirit isn't with me because I don't. I pray on a conscious level whereas I found my ex didn't really have to deal with what was in his heart if he just kept repeating the same words over and over again. I'm Greek and I have never heard anyone speak it in tongues. I only hear it when people try to explain agape love, etc. Unfortunately, I saw way too much tongues and very little fruit of the Spirit. So check the fruit is what I say.

[Kabowd]

Oh, and by the way, I've spoken in tongues.... and still believe there is a specific order in which it should be exercised.

[apothanein kerdos]

rolleyes.gif I don't care how much studying you do -

you are never going to truly understand the gift until you have and use it yourself.

Same as with teaching . . .

Or preaching . . .

Or riding a bicycle . . .

Or driving a car . . .

Or playing the piano . . .

Or directing a play . . .

This might be a nice concept on paper, but in practice, especially concerning Biblical theology and doctrine, it does not always work. For instance, Paul wrote about marriage but was single...does this mean we should throw out his scriptures pertaining to marriage? He also wrote about how wives are to submit, yet he was never a wife, he didn't know the experience of being a woman in those times, so under what authority could he use his "study" on the issue to make such a declaration?

Likewise, and Nebula I'm trying to be nice by saying this, I'm getting a bit offended by your pot shots at my attempt to study the Bible. This is the third one you've made in a post where we have been at opposite ends. I have taken the time to be a self learner...this means I only have one year of college under my belt. 80% of what I know I have learned because I have read it and studied it on my own. I do not take glory for this but instead use this as an example to show you that God has done a magnficent work in me. He took someone who almost flunked out of high school and taught him how to have the patience to read, learn, and work through difficult things. Therefore, if you would stop with the pot shots, I would be most grateful. Not because I take it as an attack upon me, but because I take it as an attack upon what God has chosen to do in me. Now this can also be backed up Biblically (the pursuit of knowledge) whereas some of the claims of tongues that are going on in this thread cannot, so don't think about turning this on me.

FYI -

I've known a few people who, like you, used these very Scriptures to tell how me and others misused out tongues . . .

Until they themselves received the gift and spoke in tongues.

In all cases, they threw their old arguments out the window!

Then they read and studied the Scriptures from their new perspective and realized what Paul was truly saying!

I believe we have had this discussion. Biblically, experience does not trump Biblical knowledge. Look to James. James tells us to be doers of the Word, not merely hearers. This is significant in that James is not saying we need to experience scripture in order for it to be true, he is saying we need to put it into practice in order for it to be true. The problem is, if our practice contradicts what the Bible says, then our practice is wrong. Experience is subjective to the person it occurs to whereas scripture is absolute, set out on a certain standard.

THe problem with your idea of scriptural espitimology is that any false teacher is justifiably correct. Take Joseph Smith. I'm assuming that neither you or I have spoken with an angel lately. Though I'm sure we have, he has not made his presense known to us (after all, the Bible says we entertain angels all the time). Joseph Smith, however, makes a claim to speaking with an angel and learning of a new Gospel. Now, my question is, since both of us lack adequate experience on this issue, how in the world can we possibly contradict him? We can say he's wrong, but what if we have a similar experience? Do we place our experience above scripture, or re-interpret scripture because our experience contradicts what scripture teaches? Paul would advocate that the Word is above our practice/experience. In Galatians 1:8 he says that if anyone preaches something contrary to what we have heard, then he is to be eternally condemned. This means that the Word will always be in a higher position than our subjective experiences.

Applying this to what you said, that's wonderful that they had an experience, but I'm sorry; if their current belief in tongues is based on experience and not on scripture, then they are wrong. There is no getting around it. That is the harsh truth of scripture, that our experience cannot contradict it. We are to live scripture, we are to experience it, but that experience can in no way play into our interpretation of scripture.

The day anyone throws out biblically sound doctrine because of an experience that contradicts it, is the day they've chosen to ignore truth in favor of their "feelings". This is honestly a very dangerous thing to advocate. I'm not trying to sound harsh, but are you listening to yourself? You've essentially encouraged people to ignore the guidelines that the Scripture gives for exercising their gifts. "I dont' care how much you study" and "wait until you've experienced it".... this isn't biblically sound advice. God designed and desires order, and He doesn't appreciate it when we ignore the guidelines He sets forth ... no matter what our feelings tell us. Even "good" or "moving" experiences can be deceiving and a "spiritual experience" may not be directed by the Lord.

Exactly, a religion based upon our own feelings makes no sense. Feelings, emotions, all of that is part of the fall. Why are they suddenly valid measuring devices for truth?

I used to belong to a church that spoke in tongues and I eventually did too. I found that when someone spoke out in tongues, someone else was to give an interpretation. I just couldn't accept either as being valid. Who could prove anything and I often found that the interpreter's personal beliefs influenced the interpretation. My ex used to pray for hours in tongues but there was alot of bad fruit in his life. At one point he gave me an album to listen to and on it the singer sang in tongues. The hair on the back of my neck stood up because my ex was singing exactly the same thing this man sang on the album when we were instructed to sing in the spirit/tongues in church. Then I found that he used alot of the same words that the pastor used when speaking in tongues. I don't speak in tongues anymore and I do not feel the Holy Spirit isn't with me because I don't. I pray on a conscious level whereas I found my ex didn't really have to deal with what was in his heart if he just kept repeating the same words over and over again. I'm Greek and I have never heard anyone speak it in tongues. I only hear it when people try to explain agape love, etc. Unfortunately, I saw way too much tongues and very little fruit of the Spirit. So check the fruit is what I say.

charis (h)umin kai eirene apo theou patros emon kai kuriou iesou christou

χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη απο θεου πατρος ημων και κυριου ιησου χριστου

(Apologies for no accent marks, I still hope it makes sense, I offered a transliteration just in case....also, it's from koine Greek, which from what I gather isn't too different from modern, but still has some problems)

[nebula]

The day anyone throws out biblically sound doctrine because of an experience that contradicts it, is the day they've chosen to ignore truth in favor of their "feelings".

No, it was because they realized they misunderstood what tongues were all about.

They realized their intepretations were incorrect.

[nebula]

Likewise, and Nebula I'm trying to be nice by saying this, I'm getting a bit offended by your pot shots at my attempt to study the Bible.

I appologize - I do not mean to discourage you from studying the Bible.

My problem is having seen what study alone did to my college Bible professors. The core of my faith was more attacked by these guys than by any athiest teacher I had in public school. They could tell you how to exigesis Scripture into just another historical litereature. But no one could tell me how to stand on the Word in times of trial.

No, faith should not be founded on experience, but it needs to be relevant to our experience.

Let me try this example: a potter's wheel. All the studying in the world on how to throw a pot won't help you once you get to the wheel and start molding the clay. You see, books can never give you the feel of the clay, nor how much pressure to apply at which points, nor how fast or slow to spin the wheel at a given time. It's a very delicate balance, and only the experience of throwing a pot can teach you how to manipulate that clay. Now, this does not throw out the books, for there are still essential guidelines given there. But that experience gives you a working knowledge. Only with your hands can you make the knowledge relevant.

(I know this because I took a pottery class where we learned how to use the wheel - it ain't easy!)

Pre-studying how to throw a pot gave me a certain understanding on how it worked. After throwing a pot myself, I realized what I thought I understood was not a correct understanding. When I reviewed the lessons, I had a new understanding of the directions now that I knew what the experience was like.

So I say it is with tongues.

Paul's writing to the Corinthians was not a Tongues 101; it was an admonishment. How can you understand the correction if you don't understand the foundation?

Do you understand the foundation?

When the Spirit fell on the disciples at Pentecost, the people thought the disciples were drunk! Think, would merely speaking foreign languages have made people think they were drunk? Or would it be that they were staggering and laughing and acting like fools? Seriously! This is one thing scholars can never tell you - what it is like to be infilled by the Spirit this way.

I know of people who when they first received the gift of tongues, they couldn't speak English to save their lives! You could have opened your Bible and showed them the Corinthians passage that tongues shouldn't be spoken without an intepreter, and they could do no more than shrug their shoulders because they just could not stop speaking in tongues!

People use the Corinthians passage to stifle tongues time and time again. But that was not Paul's intent! The Corinthian church had a disorganization problem which Paul was trying to correct; you can see this in other issues he addressed. Even their use of communion was abused. The church was in serious need of discipline, and so in this area of tongues he needed to put restrictions on them to restore their order - the same as with women speaking in the church.

Paul was not discouraging the use of tongues. Rather, he was encouraging the use of prophecy.

Going back to John MacAurther - in his sermons/teachings about tongues, does he then like Paul emphasize the need for people to prophecy? Did he encourage his listeners to pray for the gift of prophecy? Did he pray for those with the gift of tongues to also receive the gift of interpreting tongues?

Edited June 1, 2006 by nebula