 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Baptism in the HS and Tongues | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 8/6/2002 1:26 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Shell,
Can't say I blame you for moving to Bethel, under the circumstances. Now about that park across from NCU...was that guy me?
mmmm...Brandon Blake...now that you mention it... I just remember those Canadian guys from NCU...they were always the ones getting into the most trouble!
Shell
Edited by - shell on 08/06/2002 6:33:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/6/2002 1:53 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
mmmm...Brandon Blake...now that you mention it... I just remember those Canadian guys from NCU...they were always the ones getting into the most trouble!
Shell
(coughing...ahem...looking around...sweaty palms)
Ummm....that wasn't me  Gotta go now...
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/6/2002 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon BLAKE? I know you! Didn't you got to CBC? Does the name Anita Qualls (that's her maiden name) mean anything to you? Music major, CBC, '79 to '82. She's my wife. I'm Tom Belt. Ring a bell?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/06/2002 11:26:38 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 8/7/2002 3:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
(coughing...ahem...looking around...sweaty palms)
Ummm....that wasn't me Gotta go now...
Brandon
Oh boy...now I wasn't talking about that kind of trouble. Didn't this thread start with talking about the Holy Spirit...now I feel really bad.
Shell
Edited by - shell on 08/07/2002 08:54:32 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
sboese
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 8/7/2002 4:29 AM (GMT -6) | | (holy) love covers a multitude of sins...
I wonder if the AG will ever re-consider it's stance on initial physical evidence, and move more towards a charismatic/ neo-pentecostal position?
any thoughts?
Of course I realize bringing the issue up brands me a heretic in some camps. Oh, wait, I am pro-open view, that's already done.
slippery slope, maybe Ill become UCC...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/7/2002 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Shell said:
quote:
Oh boy...now I wasn't talking about that kind of trouble.
I was thinking totally innocent stuff here my dear.  I mean, just holding hands on campus would have been a major no, no right?
Tom,
I am THE Brandon Blake. But I didn't go to CBC. I did go to visit and stay on campus for a deaf conference once. In '79 to '82 I was still in High School. Hmmm...give me more info maybe?
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 8/7/2002 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I was thinking totally innocent stuff here my dear. I mean, just holding hands on campus would have been a major no, no right?
Yeah but I was referring to off campus...I was just thinking I had really made this conversation digress...anyway it was great for a few good laughs!
You're a good sport.
Blessings,
Shell
Edited by - shell on 08/07/2002 10:48:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 8/7/2002 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Shelby,
by all means...take back control of this thread.
Shell
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/8/2002 2:48 AM (GMT -6) | | BBB: while I agree with you that there is no "apparent intrinsic connection" to "charismata in general" or actually "specifically", would it not be safe to say that because of the intrinsic relational nature of OT and the intrinsic relational or experiential nature of Pentecostalism, that that is where the connection would be?
Doc: But I don’t see any intrinsic connection between the view that the future is partly open and the view that the gifts of the Spirit are for today. Most open theists I know are NOT charismatic, and most charismatics I know are not open theists. Perhaps there is on some level a connection between RELATIONAL theism and Pentecostalism. But even here, most Calvinists want to argue that their view of God is relational, and some (though not most) believe the gifts are for today.
NOW, for something a wee bit different. I have a thesis I want to put forth for your consideration.
People are inherently social and want to be accepted and approved by the social group they belong to. In environments where tongues (or any other behavior) is given a status (e.g. NOW you've got "the Holy Ghost"), there is a subtle -- or sometimes overt -- presurre on people to speak in tongues. The result is that sometimes people, with all the sincerity in the world, make themselves "speak in tongues." They've likely heard it before. They know what its suppose to sound like. They WANT very badly to have it. And so, for some, they eventually imitate it and convince themselves its the real thing. They don't have the genuine gift, but they convince themselves that they do.
This perhaps explains why some "tongues" one sometimes hears from people is -- well, a bit bizzare. One lady I knew used to sound like a humming bird (one vibrating sound at various levels of intensity) and would over several minutes get herself worked up to a pitch, at which point she would end with some gasps of air, several subtle sqeeks followed by a long sigh. One almost wanted to offer her a cigarette.
It just didn't seem authentic. In fact, in this prayer group it became quite a distraction.
One harmful effect of putting any sort of status on any of the gifts (which, in my view, is what the initial evidence doctrine does) is that it puts presurre on people. And the result is that some things that pass as "tongues" today are not genuine.
Thoughts?
Doc
(I can just hear some people reading this thread thinking to themselves, "How can I get the kind of tongues THAT lady had? "-- a la "Harry Met Salley" "
I
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
sboese
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 8/8/2002 4:20 AM (GMT -6) | | hahahahaha
ok so we all have stories of people wanting something that gives status. Indeed that is an essential part of human social interaction.
But I would say in the AG where in an average church less than 50% have had this experience the pressure is in the opposite direction. I think we must always remind people that the on-going mystical expereince of fellowshiping with the love of God is an active choice, and that spiritual language is part of that fellowship. Along with silence and contemplative prayer.
Pentecostals also have a big thing with volume and extravagence in worship. Non-verbal communication in worship is just as important or more so than the verbal.
Speaking in tongues is a definite move eastward in Christianity-- getting back to the issues that pentecostals bring to western theology. Unfortunately we do not have many great pentecostal theologians who are willing to step out of modernistic theological categories.
rambling
later all
shelb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/8/2002 4:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Doc: But I don’t see any intrinsic connection between the view that the future is partly open and the view that the gifts of the Spirit are for today. Most open theists I know are NOT charismatic, and most charismatics I know are not open theists. Perhaps there is on some level a connection between RELATIONAL theism and Pentecostalism. But even here, most Calvinists want to argue that their view of God is relational, and some (though not most) believe the gifts are for today.
Correct. I don't see any connection between a partly open future and the view that the gifts are for today either.
However, I would like to not define this by numbers. The reason I see the connection between open theism and Pentecostalism is that the open view doesn't deal only with EDF and a partly open future. Doesn't it also deal with God's immutability and impassibility as well?
For i.e. Calvinist's want to argue that their God is relational based on the their doctrine of God being both transcendent and immanent. However, because of the seemingly and in my opinion contradictory view of God's immutability and impassibility, it short circuts the relational aspect in their theology--the immanent aspect.
Whereas, Pentecostalism is so experientially oriented it taps into the immanent and therefore non-immutabilty and non-impassible aspects of God's being or theistic theology or what have you.
quote:
One almost wanted to offer her a cigarette.
I says, "Throw her a pack of Camels..." ,  !
This story kind of reminds me of the story that D.A. Carson told in his book, "Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14", where he quoted a passage from the Bible in Greek and this lady "interpreted" it as something totally different. How embarrassing. But I agree with you. There should be no "status" or "ranking" of gifts. Not simply because of the harmful effects. But because they are all from the same Spirit! The Spirit doesn't consider one more important or of a "higher ranking" than others!? Sheeesh...
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
sboese
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 8/8/2002 4:34 AM (GMT -6) | | I do not believe your AG pentecostal would ever view IPE doctrine as ranking of the gifts. In fact I would argue that most of us would say that this is a sort of gateway, and if you stay stuck on it you're missing the point which again is supernatural power for witness and the outflowing of all other charimata.
This just happens to be a very personal and private gift. Whereas the others are manifestations of God's love through the person to another and even a non-believer in the marketplace.
Tongues is not a "higher" gift, it is a common gift available to all. It is an egalitarian gift, as the others are also-- didn't Paul say we are to earnstly seek these charismata? And esp. prophecy (although maybe not nec. the "personal prophecy" stuff--more the empowered proclamation).
...
CHI ALPHA CAMPUS MINISTRIES= CAMPUS CRUSADE W/O THE CRUSADE and on STERIODS
| | Back to Top | | |
|
sboese
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 8/8/2002 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/8/2002 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey all,
Doc said: "One harmful effect of putting any sort of status on any of the gifts (which, in my view, is what the initial evidence doctrine does) is that it puts presurre on people. And the result is that some things that pass as "tongues" today are not genuine."
Doc, particularly within the AGs, but in any charasmatic group, I can't think of anything that disturbs my heart more than the idea that many of those who think they're speaking in tongues simply may not be. I was one of them!
I remember as an early Four Square convert, back in the late 70s, when the emphasis on tongues in that demonition was close to the AGs emphasis of it today. I thought I had the baptism. It turned out that I was only trying to fit in. The scary part of it was how easy it was to have fooled myself; the even more scary part about it is that I knew deep, deep down that something--something just wasn't right about my experience. So I know from first-hand experience what it is to go through all that.
Today, as I look at and hear folks within the AG church (I was attending one here just recently on a regular basis), I can't help but feel that much of the demonstration of tongues is emotion and not the real McCoy. I don't think I'm wrong either. Please, ya'll, don't hammer down on me, I'm just given it to you as I feel the truth of the matter is from my perspective. There's too many subtle hints that it's not genuine: exact sounds by two or three in the room; the same rolling of the tongue and articulation; the stammering and stuttering, etc. It's painful to listen to, because if it really isn't the real McCoy, then these folks may be in for a painful awareness of truth one day. The fact that tongues is one of the easiest--if not one of only maybe one or two gifts in total--that can be easily mimicked, this only heightens the reality of what I'm saying here, if what I'm saying is true.
And, for what it's worth, I'm still waiting for something more in my own life, something of the Babtism with the Spirit, in a manner that will allow me to know that I know that I know that I have what the early church had, what Peter said: "The promise is unto you...unto all that are called of the Lord."
So, for the Baptism!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/9/2002 3:08 AM (GMT -6) | | BBB: I understand your point about the link between pentecostalism and the open view on God's immutibility etc... But your point then is simply that the open view is the only logically consistent relational theism, which I of course agree with. But in this sense I think I could make the case that the open view is "connected" not just with pentecostalism, but with the way all Christians live their life. All Christians relate to God as though the classical view of God was wrong.
To Starkman: Thanks for the testimony. Personally, I wouldn't try to "know that I know that I know" that my experience is the same as the NT's experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. I can't even know that MY experience is the same as YOURS or anyone elses. I 'd encourage you to be content seek ingGod with all your heart and let come what may.
I believe in "the baptism of the Holy Spirit." But if this is held up as a sort of peak experience to be sought after, it can set in motion a train of thought where people keep thinking "if only I can cross this threshold, then I'll be...." I don't believe there is such a breakthrough experience. When Paul talks about being filled with the Spirit, he talks about it as an ON-GOING thing. "Don't be drunk with wine, but be being filled with the Spirit". I think its pretty much equivalent to "continually be on fire for God" or "continually be yeilded to God." Our goal should be to BE this, continually. But whether or not our experience is exactly what Paul or Luke -- or Tom, Dick and Harry -- experienced is unknowable.
Just my thoughts
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/9/2002 3:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But whether or not our experience is exactly what Paul or Luke -- or Tom, Dick and Harry -- experienced is unknowable.
Hey Doc, I resent that statement! I'm sure writerdad does too (Harry?).
Anybody "Richards" out there?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 8/9/2002 6:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
Have you looked at the secular studies of tongues from sociological and psychological perspectives? I read a few when I was avoiding working on my dissertation. I think there was even part of a PBS special that covered it about 4 years ago.
The conclusion in many of them is that it is indeed possible to 'fake' a language. Most interesting to me, social groups tend to have "tongues" that sound alike. The sociologists concluded that people learn the basic phonemes from listening to others in their peer group and then repeat them back to each other, occasionally adding in other things. From their view, all people who speak in tongues were merely 'faking it' and doing so in fairly well established patterns.
It was interesting for me since I had almost never hear anyone speak in tongues, but started when I was about 15 when I was out doing chores and praying.
What I always wanted to see was a CAT-scan study where brain activity would be measured while someone spoke in tongues. Was the language center of the brain engaged? Wouldn't it be interesting if it weren't being used yet the person was 'speaking'?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/9/2002 6:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc: "When Paul talks about being filled with the Spirit, he talks about it as an ON-GOING thing. "Don't be drunk with wine, but be being filled with the Spirit". I think its pretty much equivalent to "continually be on fire for God" or "continually be yeilded to God."
Starkman: Yeah, by all means! That's what I go after everyday. I just don't want to miss the ability to curse magicians, bring down fire from heaven, snear at the wicked--you know, all that good stuff! (Sheesh! I tell ya).
Kiddin' ya'll,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/9/2002 9:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
BBB: I understand your point about the link between pentecostalism and the open view on God's immutibility etc... But your point then is simply that the open view is the only logically consistent relational theism, which I of course agree with. But in this sense I think I could make the case that the open view is "connected" not just with pentecostalism, but with the way all Christians live their life. All Christians relate to God as though the classical view of God was wrong.
Righto. All Christians believe in relational theism and live as though the classical view is wrong. And in this sense, then, open theism is not "connected" to pentecostalism. However, because of their views on immutibilty etc, they are not "open to" open theism, at least theoretically. This is where pentecostals certainly would be and therefore, I would think that pentecostalism, because of it's experiential and relational aspects would really mesh with open theism more so than your "average theist."
I also agree whole heartedly with the second part of your response to Stark. Really, though, in one sense, other than possible harmful effects from "crowd control," what does it matter if I believe in a "subsequent experience" of the Holy Spirit? I'm at least open to the possibility of the Spirit being active in my life with the manifestations of the gifts, whether they are the "showy ones" or not. I say this mostly in response to those who would make an issue out of whether we should experience it or not. I mean, what's the big deal? What is really important here? That I have this "second blessing," subsequent experience? Or whether I don't have this exeperience, but the Spirit is still manifest in not only my only life but in the community of saints? Is not the end the same?
Lastly, I am now totally convinced Tom has Mad Cow Disease. Poor guy.  Or maybe it's the Spirit! Hmmmmm....
Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War | | Back to Top | | |
|
sboese
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 8/10/2002 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | I think it would accurate also to say that most pentecostals would agree that Paul's command is to keep being filled with HS.
That said, I also think we need to look at how the 'Distinctive Doctrine' of subsequent HS baptism plays out on the ground.
I believe that the purpose of the emphasis more than anything, is to encourage people to live a life of the experience of God. In particular focusing on relationality in the person and work of the Holy Spirit.
Pentecostal agree with the Eastern Orthodox believing must of the western church has supressed the role, person and work of the Holy Spirit both in liturgy (corporate worship) and in the individuals life.
The Baptism in the HS is intended to cause people to evaluate their relationship with God's empowering Presence and to ask, "I am letting the Lord and Giver of Life, the Holy Spirit guide and work with me in living out the Kingdom purposes in my world?" The key that is stressed, over and over is that these charismata, these physically tangible, empirical (even if you will) manfestations of God's outrageous love via the Spirit are to be power for witness.
This isn't so much about the individual receiving as it is giving. Being inward and outward focused. So much of Christianity is all about me. The Spirit reorients one towards the needs of the world.
The open view of God creates for Pentecostals a theology backdrop that doesnt presupposed a closed and determined world. This meshes with our pragmatic and relational view of God and His spirit. The problem is most Pentecostals want a relational Holy SPirit and determined God the Father. Very strange theology mix with a great deal of paradox (of course, being one who affirms the OV I think it's just plain contradictory and makes God evil or a liar in Scripture).
Shelb
| | Back to Top | | |
| 45 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:26 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|