Paul has rules for gentile conversion- no idol worship , no eating food sacrificed to idols , avoid sexual immorality, etc. He does accept ,however, speaking in tongues. This was not a first century Jewish custom, but he is fine with it. As far as I know it is 100 percent pagan. Why was it so readily accepted and counted as one of the gifts of the Spirit? Scond and third century Church Fathers barely mention it.
Great question.
He was able to find scriptural precedent for it.
The Spirit in the Hebrew Bible would come upon people (Numbers 11:25-29; I Samuel 10:5-11; 19:20-24).
There are those verses that as a Pentecostal I held so dearly:
Isaiah 28:11-12 (that Paul quotes in I Corinthians 14:21)
Joel 2:28-29 (that Peter quotes in Acts 2:16-18)
You might be interested in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** both of which are worth reading.
I have read very little of the Church Fathers but am certainly interested in what their views were regarding tongues. In doing so, I came across a few sites that look of interest:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Hopefully, I’ll have a chance to read them over the next few days.
You might be interested in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** both of which are worth reading.
I am, thanks! This work is being done.
I wonder if what Paul regarded as ecstatic speech was in any way similar to what we now know as glossolalia? You find this sort of practice in almost all mystical traditions. Hindus do it. Buddhists do it. Gnostics do it. Country Southern Baptists didn’t do it. But that’s because mysticism begins in “mist”, is centered on the “i” and ends in schism. We were only allowed to get a little choked up when George Beverly Shea sang ** you do not have permission to see this link ** at a Billy Graham revival meeting.
I wonder if what Paul regarded as ecstatic speech was in any way similar to what we now know as glossolalia?
I just glanced at the two PDFs in Post 3 but certainly the second believes they are not the same:
“…it is safe to conclude that the Pentecostal phenomena prevalent over the past century is not the same as that of the early church. Instead it is of recent origin in the history of Christianity.”
But then again he’s coming from a position where he needs to say that. Tongue talking is just not done in civil places!
Everyone it seems has their own axe to grind. Consider, for example, the remarkable ** you do not have permission to see this link **under The future of speaking in tongues in Renewalist churches in the Gift of Tongues Project. Although it’s all worth reading, here’s a snippet:
In short, this peculiar doctrine is extinguishing on its own. The quiet deemphasis is a backdoor for the many church institutions founded on this doctrine to abandon it and move ahead to new directions without controversy and shame.
I’ll see what I can find out there and try to determine as best I can whether or not what Paul was talking about is the same as glossolalia. Once I do, I’ll post what I’ve found.
Soon after graduating from a Pentecostal Bible School and making my way (thankfully!) into an accredited Baptist college, I read ** you do not have permission to see this link **which was quite good.
Although I’m still trying to make sense of Paul’s view of tongues and how it compares to Modern Pentecostalism and have lots to read on it before I come to any sort of conclusion, I’d like to briefly bring up cessationism.
I can’t help but think that the authors of the links I provided start with a conclusion and worked backwards. Tongues ceased early on. What we see today and what we saw sporadically through history was different than what occurred in the early church.
I suppose I see cessationism as a way in which people are able to explain why we don’t see what is recorded in the early church.
I suppose I see cessationism as a way in which people are able to explain why we don’t see what is recorded in the early church.
Yeah that was the approach my people took when trying to explain why we didn’t speak in tongues. It fit in with our view of what’s called Dispensationalism, the idea that there are different divinely orchestrated ages of time and different aspects characteristic of each age. We live in the ‘Church Age’ which supposedly will continue right up until the Rapture. This idea is behind a lot of the ‘End Times’ mythology.
Paul is clearly comfortable with visionary experience and ecstatic utterances. My question is whether this was specific to Paul’s view or did all Jewish apocalypticists include this behavior in their practice? What about Jesus? Did he and his followers encourage this kind of experience? If so it would explain a lot. If you’re already spent a lot of time having visions of spiritual realms then seeing Jesus after his death no longer seems much of a stretch.
It fit in with our view of what’s called Dispensationalism, the idea that there are different divinely orchestrated ages of time and different aspects characteristic of each age. We live in the ‘Church Age’ which supposedly will continue right up until the Rapture. This idea is behind a lot of the ‘End Times’ mythology.
One of my favorite books during my first year or so in the Church was ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Paul is clearly comfortable with visionary experience and ecstatic utterances. My question is whether this was specific to Paul’s view or did all Jewish apocalypticists include this behavior in their practice? What about Jesus? Did he and his followers encourage this kind of experience? If so it would explain a lot. If you’re already spent a lot of time having visions of spiritual realms then seeing Jesus after his death no longer seems much of a stretch.
I’ve found some good resources that I’m starting to explore. Hopefully I’ll be able to come up with some reasonable answers.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)