 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Miracles, the Supernatural and Charismata | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 4:29 PM (GMT -6) |   | Page 2 >>
RevivalTheology
05/16/01 2:51 PM
Miracles, the Supernatural and Charismata
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just wanted to back up a bit from the other topic (which
seems to have gotten somewhat out of hand) and iterate some of
the major points I (and I believe Writerdad) have been trying
to make, and maybe some that we have not been trying to make.
First of all, we have not been denying that miracles
occur. While we may object to the application of the term miracle to many of the experiences people have presented, we do not a priori deny the existence and possibility of the miraculous.
We have not advocated a cessationist view vis. the charismata as described in 1 Cor. 12 (at least I have not). While certain cessationist arguments do make a certain amount of sense, for me they are founded upon the same faulty assumption concerning the charismata that leads to Pentecostal and Charismatic doctrine. More on that later.
We have not denied that there is an emotional or experientialaspect to true religion. When one is properly worshiping God in Spirit and in truth, the emotions may, but not necessarily,be profoundly affected. Emotions are like the caboose on the train, they follow where the engine leads. For me, the engine is the evidence, faith follows the evidence with emotions following on behind.
What I do assert vis. the charismata as listed in 1 Cor. 12 is that for the most part they are not supernatural manifestations in the sense intended by modern Pentecostal or Charismatic theology. While two of the charismata mentioned appear to be supernatural in the sense of miraculous (gifts of healing (note the plural) and the "effecting of powers" ("miracles" is not in the Greek; the word is "dunamis", which raises some interesting questions in and of itself)), I would assert thatthe rest of the charismata need not be considered any more "supernatural" than the "gifts" of service, giving or mercy enumerated in Romans 12. This to me is the faulty foundation upon which both Pentecostal and Cessationist doctrine concerning the charismata rests.
God is giving charismata, graces, to the Church, which
consist not so much of "powers" or "abilities"
bestowed upon individuals, but of the individuals themselves to the body of Christ. Thus, a "word of wisdom" is not an ability imparted to me to practice, but a grace given to the Church through me consisting not of supernatural revelation, but of Spirit illuminated application of scriptural truth for a given situation. A "word of knowledge": the expounding of doctrinal truth. "Prophecy", exhortation concerning the will of God. "Faith" need not necessarily be understood as a special enduement to perform the miraculous but, as Wesley points out, "...may here mean an extraordinary trust in God under the most difficult or dangerous circumstances." And while "discernment" is certainly a "gift" to the Church, it need not be considered supernatural revelation either. Paul writes in Philippians, "And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ;"
"Tongues" is obviously the most controversial of the charismata, but I assert that it is not supernatural either,not a "language miracle", but that rather the use of one's native language amidst a congregation of a different language. Here, Zerhusen is most instructive. However, this is not new interpretation, for it follows commentators such as Luther, Calvin, Barnes and Hodges.
Calvin's comment on "tongues" is instructive where he writes "The Corinthians were giving undue attention to the gift of tongues, because it was more showy. For it is the case that, when people hear somebody speaking in a foreign language, they are unusually moved to wonderment.... It means a foreign language...."
Thus "interpretation of tongues" is extemporaneous translating of the message, prayer, praise, exhortation, given in the foreign language. As Barnes further points out, those who "had the power of speaking with eminent ability in a foreign language -- they ought to desire to be able to interpret,
so that they would be intelligible to the people whom they addressed in the church." He continues, "the power of speaking foreign languages and the power of interpreting, were not always united in the same person -- as appears from chap. 12:10."
So, while I think a case can be made for the cessation of miracles as a whole, I am not making that case. I unequivocally assert, however, that Pentecostals and Charismatic do not, nor can they, make the case that miracles and supernatural manifestations are
to be normative of the Christian experience - either now or that they were in NT times.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/16/01 5:22 PM
RE: Miracles, the Supernatural and Charismata
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a couple of questions Revivaltheology:
1) If the gifts are natural abilities, why does Paul 3 times say we should seek (gk.lit. be zealous for) the gifts?
2) If tongues is ones own native language, how can Paul say that the one who speaks in a tongue "does not speak unto people" (I Cor 14"2)?
3) If tongues and the interpretation of tongues is natural, how can Paul say one who has the gift of tongues should pray that they may receive the gift (a gift?) of interpretation (I Cor 14:13)?
4) If tongues is a natural ability, how can Paul admit that he himself doesn't know what he is saying, or singing, when he speaks or sings "in the spirit" or in tongues (14:14-17).
5) If the gifts are innate abilities, why does Paul express these gifts as a word of wisdom, a word of knowledge, etc...
6) If tongues is ones native language, used for preaching, why do we find no example of this in the book of Acts? (CF. ESP. ch.10, 19).
7). If tongues is as you say, how is it that Paul has to warn the Corinthians not to all speak in tongues at the same time, lest someone think they are mad (I Cor 14:23)?
8) If the word of knowledge is a natural gift, as you say, how is it that I and a number of people I know have on occasion a supernatural ability to know things they could never know on their own, given for the purpose of supernaturally directing people, revealing things that need to be revealed, etc...? This is not hearsay, RT: trust me, I've done it, I've seen it, and it is supernatural!
peace brother
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
yeshua
05/16/01 11:20 PM
RE: Miracles, the Supernatural and Charismata
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put Dr. Boyd!!!
I agree.
Peace
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
05/17/01 7:06 AM
RE: Miracles, the Supernatural and Charismata
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Doc, you wrote:
Just a couple of questions Revivaltheology:
Well, by my count you've got eight questions, which is quite a bit more than a couple. I wonder if that's significant? Also, just about all your questions are answered in the Zerhusen articles. I would especially recommend you read The Problem Tongues in 1 Corinthians. That being said, I'll try to answer your questions briefly.
1) If the gifts are natural abilities, why does Paul 3 times say we should seek (gk.lit. be zealous for) the gifts?
This question is predicated on the premise that Paul is encouraging seeking gifts. The word "gift" is not in the passage at all, but Paul writes "dzeloute de ta pneumatika ", "covet" or "run after" the spirituals. I would contend that Paul's emphasis on the "pneumatika" has never been about "gifts", but about being a "spiritual man" versus being a "natural man", a contrast he had first made in 1 Cor. 2. The problem with the Corinthians is that they were "psuchikos de anthropos", "natural men" when they should have been "pneumatikos", comparing "spiritual things (pneumatikos) with spiritual (pneumatikos)" (1 Cor. 2:13). When 1 Cor. 12 and 14 are really taken in the context of Paul's earlier discussion in the same book, he is again contrasting their carnal behavior with spiritual behavior. He has presented them the "more excellent way" in 1 Cor. 13 and now commands them in 14:1 "Pursue (imperative) love and desire the spiritual things (pneumatika - as opposed to psuchikos?), especially that you may prophesy." What we see indicated throughout Chapter 14 is that to be spiritual (and loving) is to seek to excel to the edification of others (v. 12. ) Seeking personal edification in the context of the church is not being spiritual and rather than something Paul is approving of, it is a practice that he is actively discouraging throughout the chapter.
2) If tongues is ones own native language, how can Paul say that the one who speaks in a tongue "does not speak unto people" (I Cor 14"2)?
Because if you speak in a foreign language in the midst of an assembly that doesn't understand you, you're only speaking to God, and not to men; to men you're speech is "mystery" or "secret." Zerhusen is especially good on this point, but Calvin and Hodges also make good points.
Calvin declares:
The Corinthians were giving undue attention to the gift of tongues, because it was more showy. For it is the case that, when people hear somebody speaking in a foreign language, they are unusually moved to wonderment.... It means a foreign language....
And Hodges writes:
If a man comes to me speaking a language which I cannot understand, no matter how polished or significant that language may be -- he is a barbarian to me, and I to him [I Cor. 14:] vs. 10-11.... He who had the gift of tongues, should pray for the gift of interpretation -- as without the latter gift, however devotional he might be, his prayers could not profit others [I Cor. 14:] vs. 13-14.... The gift of tongues...was the gift...of speaking in foreign languages.... The speaker with tongues was in a state of calm self-control. He could speak, or be silent [I Cor. 14:]14,28.... What he said was intelligible to himself, and could be interpreted to others....
He who speaks with tongues, speaks not to men but to God.... 'No man understandeth' him...does not imply that the sounds uttered were in themselves unintelligible, so that no man living (unless inspired) could understand them.... The meaning is not that no man living, but no man present could understand. It is not the use of the gift of tongues that he censures, but the use of that gift when no one was present who understood the language employed....
Dr. Boyd Continues:
3) If tongues and the interpretation of tongues is natural, how can Paul say one who has the gift of tongues should pray that they may receive the gift (a gift?) of interpretation (I Cor 14:13)?
Doc, I'm betting you're writing this without looking at the passage, right? The verse reads "Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue (language) pray that he may interpret." Now, if you have ever preached in front of an assembly that doesn't understand your language, you will know that interpretation is a special ability. Not everyone can do it. Further, "interpretation" is never specifically called a "gift", if you want to press it. It is certainly an activity of the Spirit, part of His graces to the Church, but not some supernatural possession. If tongues and interpretation of tongues operate the way Pentecostals describe, why would Paul write "But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God." See, you must know beforehand that someone is there who can interpret. Further, if there is no interpreter, the "tongue speaker" is speaking to himself as well as God. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 14:11 "Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. " If this doesn't imply natural languages, I don't know what would. In addition, looking at verse 21 we see tongues is certainly not referring to some supernatural, unknown language, but the languages of Israel's surrounding nations.
4) If tongues is a natural ability, how can Paul admit that he himself doesn't know what he is saying, or singing, when he speaks or sings "in the spirit" or in tongues (14:14-17).
He doesn't say that, Doc. Remember, this whole discussion is in the context of the assembly, the congregation. So Paul is saying, "If I pray in a tongue in the midst of the congregation my spirit, my innermost man prays (a person who knows multiple languages will tell you the language of the spirit, of the mind - do we need to go over how these terms are used interchangeably in the NT? - of the inner man is the mother tongue), but my intellect is unfruitful. In other words, my intellect bears no fruit among my hearers. Zerhusen quotes Thomas on this point:
A decision upon its meaning centers in akarpos ("unfruitful") whether the adjective is passive in sense, meaning the speaker himself receives no benefit, or active in sense, meaning his nous provides no benefit to others...The view that assigns akarpos a meaning of "produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process"... is not convincing, because akarpos does not mean "inactive." It is a word for results and does not apply to the process through which the results are obtained. The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners.
Next, the Doc asks:
5) If the gifts are innate abilities, why does Paul express these gifts as a word of wisdom, a word of knowledge, etc...
Well, the Greek is "logos sophias" and "logos gnoseos", which we could also translate as "wise teaching" and "knowledgeable teaching." Or, perhaps the answer is simply that they're called "words" because they're spoken? Of course, what does this do to the typical Charismatic doctrine that Holy Spirit inspired "words" are "rhema", while the written word is "logos"?
6) If tongues is ones native language, used for preaching, why do we find no example of this in the book of Acts? (CF. ESP. ch.10, 19).
No, no, no, Doc. I never said they were to be "used for preaching", although they can be. Besides, we do find an example of them being used for preaching, Pentecost! The crowd heard them "declaring the wondrous works of God." This could be preaching, prayer, praise, etc. As for your other references, you might wish to be more explicit as to your point.
7). If tongues is as you say, how is it that Paul has to warn the Corinthians not to all speak in tongues at the same time, lest someone think they are mad (I Cor 14:23)?
I'm tempted to simply point out that different people shouldn't be talking in a service at the same time, unless speaking or singing the same thing, even if they're speaking the same language and leave it at that. But knowing Charismatic practice, I guess that wouldn't cut it, huh?
However, this seems hardly difficult to understand. We're not talking about these tongue speakers all speaking the SAME language, but multiple languages. So, if you have someone speaking Spanish, and another speaking Korean, and yet another speaking Italian, that would be mass confusion wouldn't it? And if a Greek, who thinks anyone who doesn't speak Greek to be a barbarian anyway, were to walk in on such a scene, would he not think they were all mad?
8) If the word of knowledge is a natural gift, as you say, how is it that I and a number of people I know have on occasion a supernatural ability to know things they could never know on their own, given for the purpose of supernaturally directing people, revealing things that need to be revealed, etc...? This is not hearsay, RT: trust me, I've done it, I've seen it, and it is supernatural!
Now here you've got me Doc, because quite frankly I have believed that I've done it too. Amazing phenomenon, huh? But, then, psychics even do it over the phone. How do you explain that? I actually believe that people are far better at reading physical and other unspoken cues then they realize. There may also be a certain intuitive sense at work., also. A friend of mine has suggested a reading of Gavin de Becker's "The Gift of Fear", which apparently postulates an intuitive nature that everyone has to sense danger. One thing I know, the more you attempt to "read" people this way, the better you get at it.
So, we may simply be deluding ourselves as to how "supernatural" these events are. Doc, I've seen people miss it as many times as they hit it. And I also know that people hate to disappoint others, especially when they're perceived to be "spiritual" and wanting to help. But even if it is strictly supernatural, it doesn't necessarily mean it is the charisma that Paul is talking about. We should not interpret scripture by experience, but experience by scripture, reason and tradition. I mean, what about those psychics, or other religious traditions that claim supernatural revelation?
Now, I've already spent more time on this than I really have, was not nearly as brief as I had hoped and haven't really done all these questions the justice they deserve. Zerhusen, among others, anticipates just about all of this in his works and does a better job than I have at explaining it. Further, we haven't even touched on any of the empirical studies done on "tongues" as practice by Pentecostals and Charismatics show them not to be languages.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
pneumatika
05/17/01 9:02 AM
Cessationism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a thorough critique of cessationism, I would like to recommend a book by Dr. Jon Ruthven entitled On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on Post-biblical Miracles(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield University Academic Press, 1993)
There is a chapter available on-line at Ruthven's website:
http://home.regent.edu/ruthven/cess.html
For more resources defending the gifts of the Spirit for today, please see the Pneuma Foundation at: www.PneumaFoundation.com
--that Pneumatika guy
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
05/17/01 9:45 AM
Not: Cessationism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pneuma guy, please note that what I am asserting is not cessationsim. While I believe a credible biblical and theological case can be made for the cessation of the NT offices of Apostle and Prophet, I do not believe that the charismata lend itself to the same argumentation, nor is it needed.
Lest anyone be confused, I am not arguing for the premise that the charismata have ceased, but that the nature of them have been radically twisted into something other than what Paul meant by Pentecostal/Charismatic theology. While this may be a tact Pentecostals and Charismatics are unfamiliar with in recent times, it is not something new, but follows the historical interpretation of these passages by Church fathers, Reformation leaders and biblical expositors of the 19th Century.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
05/17/01 12:54 PM
Meph's Take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's something.
First, I want to give some example to explain how I'm understanding Zerhusen, and then I'll make comments.
I'll try to place this in context. This is the way I would see it occuring. Let's say that we are in a American church in Houston, Texas. In that church, we have people who all speak diverse languages but ALL of them speak some manner of English...at least enough to be basically understood. In other words, English is the COMMON language. Now, let's say that the pastor speaks ALL of the languages represented in the church fluently. Now, what would happen is that a Vietnamese-American would stand up and say "I have a language and I want to share it" When allowed, he gets up and begins speaking in perfect Vietnamese. He's really going at it too. Now it just so happens that there are one or two other people in the congregation who understand Vietnamese very well besides the pastor. They are much more adept at English, so they have very little problem contextualizing and translating from Vietnamese to English. After so many phrases, then one of the 2 people begin to translate in very good English what was just said. A word of praise, adoration, or exhoration is given. Everyone is edified. The Vietnamese-American guy got to speak his mind, the other people got to use their gifts of being bilingual, and EVERYONE got blessed by the word. If there was no person in the crowd who could interpret for the Vietnamese dude, he would have had to hold his piece.
One more example. In a couple of my theology classes, I had a Korean student who became a good friend of mine. Anyway, his English was discernable, but often VERY rough. Sometimes it would be obvious that he would be reaching for certain words to express his opinion. I recall one time the teacher called on him to pray. Because of his difficulty with the language, the teacher said that it was ok for him to pray in his NATIVE tongue, if he so chose. My friend prayed the first half of the prayer in his language and then the second part in English. The change in passion and fluidity was not overwhelming but distinctively noticeable. He was able to pray much more easily in his own language. Now this situation had happened once before in one of my classes, such that the individual prayed the ENTIRE prayer in her native language...and we didn't know what she was saying until she said "Amen" at the end.
THe concepts above seem to me to be what Zerhusen is saying essentially. And, looking at his argument, I'm inclined to find it very plausible. To me, his thesis appears to reconcile much more of the data in I Corinthians 14 than any other attempt I've heard. Moreover, it more easily reconciles the data about the natural languages being perceived in Acts 2. I can see how Paul encouraging people to worship in their own primal languages while at the same time wishing to promote utilization of ALL the giftings of the church. It makes good sense, especially with the context of Paul's theme of edification.
There is a book called "The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts" by Max Turner, especially his Chapter 17: Tongue Speech Today. He is VERY honest about the linguistic findings about glossalalia and notes the distinction between glossolalia and xenolalia. (Think you'd like it, Revival.) What I really like about it is that Turner is honest about glossalalia, however he does NOT disparage the phenomenon of ecstatic speech itself! He believes that it does serve a purpose of sorts. With this conclusion, I am also inclined to agree. I've liked his take for a while now.
*****************************
Now this is what I want to say.
1. I can see what Revival is trying to say about not denying the miraculous.
From what I understand, Revival is basically trying to say that the Scriptures may be misinterpreted by Pentecostals and Charismatics to validate ecstatic speech, when that is not the intention of the text. Revival is not denying the EXISTENCE of the miraculous. He is denying that what most P/Cers call "miraculous" or "NT tongue-speech" are indeed those things. See the difference? Moreover, it should be noted that even Zerhusen says that he believes that the gifts of healings and miracles were also at operation in that time. So don't get it twisted and say that Zerhusen was ANTI-miraclous.
2. Zerhusen's argument is NOT cessationist, per se.
For those of you who are worried that cessationists and anti-Charismatics would have a field day with this, don't bother. Zerhusen's argument merely suggests that modern day tongues is NOT the same as the tongues spoken of in the Bible. THAT'S ALL.
3. Ecstatic speech should NOT be ruled out as unedifying to the Body of Christ!
If Zerhusen's thesis is taken, one can ONLY say that NT "tongues" are not today's glossalalia. One can say that modern day tongues is not biblically justified IN THAT MANNER. This is NOTHING to say about the worth of ecstatic speech in worship, praise, or prayer. (Again, see Turner) What I see far too much of is the disparging of ecstatic speech PER SE as being nonsensical and good for nothing. To me, this rings of prideful religious institutionalization. It's one thing to say that modern day "glossalalia" is not NT "tongues". It's a whole other thing to say that, just because of that fact, it is of NO use to God or the church. I think that this is what many Christians are doing...and it sucks. I believe that God can and does use ecstatic speech by believers. I believe ecstatic speech is very useful in the context of worship WHEN PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED. For more ideas on this check out "Fire From Heaven" by Harvey Cox.
4. People should really give Zerhusen's stuff a hearing.
Bottom line, Zerhusen raises some good questions and proposes a very plausible hypothesis for the reconciliation of the data. I invite everyone to really read and think about the argument being presented. I realize that there is a lot at stake, primarily for Pentecostals and Charismatics. To say that Zerhusen's stuff may be correct is to tacitly say that a WHOLE lot of previous Pentecostal exegesis on the subject has possibly been in error. But as I ALWAYS say, I figure this whole thing is supposed to be about truth. We are to seek truth wherever it may be found and at whatever cost.
At any rate, this is my take. Comments?
Sir Mephistopheles, the Truth Zealot
PS: I think I'd better place an thought here. I don't agree completely with Zerhusen on his Acts 2 take. Though I understand, Zerhusen's points, it seems clear from the text that the AMAZEMENT was seen in the ability of the Galilean people to articulate the bold proclamation of God IN THEIR NATIVE TONGUES. This could easily be understood as the linguistic nuances withing languages. Think about a Northerner from Wisconsin all of a sudden speaking, without warning, speaking PERFECT Creole or Georgian southern drawl. Same thing may apply with Pentecost, but I don't think Zerhusen notes this. And this can very WELL be considered miraculous. Therefore, I do believe that the Pentecost event was miraculous. Just figured I'd note this.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/17/01 12:44 PM
RE: Not: Cessationism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMONS!!!!! DEMONS I tell you. I just had this nice wonderful sound irrefutible response to RT and then my computer blanket out because my battery was dead and I didn't realize it was unplugged! SHOOOOT.
I'm not rewriting all this, but the gist of my response was to ask RT a couple more questions about this view. Such as
a) If tongues is ones own language, how can Paul say he does it alone MORE than the Corinthians.? Is Paul simply saying he talks alot?
b) Where is the evidence that Corinth was linguistically segregated? My info says all citizens spoke Greek and were bi or tri-lingual on top of that. If so, the problem the RT interpretation of I Cor. 12 and 14 presupposes wouldn't exist.
c) How can you PRAY for the ability to interprete -- unless the interpretation is a supernatural thing?
d) If you CAN'T interprete what you're saying to a congregation, then presumably you can't understand what the congregation is saying. So what the heck are you doing in that church?
e) ON your interpretation of I Cor. 14:14 in which you say that "unfruitful" = socially useless: why does Paul contrast praying and singing with his understanding with praying and singing with his spirit? And then, in verse 16, he says that if he tries to bless "with his spirit" noone can say Amen because no one understands him (indeed -- Paul doesn't understand himself. He speaks mysteries. cf. I Cor. 14:2.).
f) If tongues is a natural language, how can Paul claim i) it is a gift that ii) not everyone has! (ICor12:28).
Now RT, I know you're getting tired of this debate. And I promise after this I will TRY to shut up. But I'm very curious as to why you believe this. I 've come to respect your theological mind over the last few months, on the one hand, but this position you are defending strikes me as entirely implausible. Hence I'm asking out of serious curiousity.
Blessing brother,
I greet thee with the sacred
come-see-my-maroon-bowtie
and-a-ride-my-economy-Yamaha
Enough for now.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/17/01 12:54 PM
RE: Meph's Take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good balanced response Meph. I haven't read the Zerhusen article, but if RT represents him accurately this is notcessationism, by any means. Your analogy helps ot make clear the kind of situation we have to envisage to render the Zerhusen thesis plausible -- but I don't know of any evidence that the Corinthian situation was like that. Also, so far this thesis hasn't answered some of the questions I've posed.
I have read Turner's work, however, and found it interesting. IF RT and Zerhusen are correct, I might still affirm xenolalia as an acceptible form of prayer and worship. But I'd at heart be very dissappointed.
And I'd still be wondering how to explain those wonderful instances where I myself have experienced a word of knowledge, a prophetic word, a gift of healing, and discerning of spirits.
Glosso-doc-lalia
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/17/01 12:56 PM
oooops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just realized
My promise to RT to shut up on this topic
lasted for a whole 90 seconds!
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
05/17/01 12:59 PM
By George I think he's got it!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph, you have hit the nail on the head!
As for the edificative nature of modern "glossalia", well, I am not one that necessarily consigns it to the demonic nor do I view it as a destructive practice, in an of itself. Several essays that I have read, including excerpts from William Samarin's monumental work as well as some psychological assessments of glossaliacs, all note positive elements in the lives of practioners.
That being said, "tongues" is quite often a divisive issue (and despite the protestations of tongues speakers, that divisiness frequently stems from the attitude of spiritual arrogance displayed by many), to the extent that any positives would seem to be outweighed by the negatives. I'm sure much more could be said about this aspect. I wonder if the practice of "tongues" is not somewhat delusional and if any delusion indulged in can ever ultimately be a positive thing.
In any case, I appreciate you taking the time to read Zerhusen with an open mind!
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
05/17/01 1:31 PM
RE: RE: Not: Cessationism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc wrote:
Now RT, I know you're getting tired of this debate. And I promise after this I will TRY to shut up. But I'm very curious as to why you believe this. I 've come to respect your theological mind over the last few months, on the one hand, but this position you are defending strikes me as entirely implausible. Hence I'm asking out of serious curiousity.
Doc, its not so much that I getting tired of it, but that it takes a lot of time (you should appreciate this fromwhen Meph was bugging you to answer all his questions - its easier to ask them then it is to answer them. However, answering does help my own cognition of the issues, so it is a valuable exercise.
So, while I might take the time to answer the other questions you asked, I might not and seriously encourage you, Doc, to read Zerhusen for yourself. The work is quite scholarly and well documented.
Further, it is not implausible at all. In fact, I do not see anything that you, or anyone else on this forum (or Donald Gee for that matter), have offered that refute the biblical, theological and empirical evidence that I have offered. Anecdotes are all well and good, but as I have pointed out time and again (to which no one has repsonded) Mormons, JWs, Hindus, Buhdists and bunches of others all testify to similar types of subjective experiences - what makes yours any more credible than theirs?
Further, after witnessing this stuff for more than 20 years, off and on, as a participant and a leader, I realized that it had no influence on what really mattered in the life of a professing believer - persevering in holiness. The scriptures don't say without spiritual manifestations no man shall see the Lord, but "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." I believe the whole Pentecostal and Charismatic movement not only don't have, for the most part, much emphasis on holiness, but have substituted experiences for righteousness. If I speak in tongues, then I must be approved of God, somehow, even though I persist in my sin. If I fall under the Spirit, I am "blessed" of God, even though I persist in my sin. What I have discovered, Doc, is that it doesn't matter a hill of beans if you "worshipped" God for 6 hours straight, "prophesied", spoke in "tongues", "fell out" in the "Spirit" laughing, or had your emotions "healed" - if you don't love your wife, if you don't "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly" with the Lord your God! I got sick of "noisy gongs" and "clanging brass" and pretending that I saw miracles where no miracles occurred. I got sick of winking at sin in the name of "love" and "ministering" in the Holy Ghost. I got sick of evangelistic preaching that ignored the proper function of the law to bring men to repentance and offered a cheap grace, easy believism Gospel of "God's got a wonderful plan for your life" (lets tell that to Peter, who was crucified up side down; or all those saints who were covered in pitch and set on fire to light Nero's circuses!!).
So, I started studying the scriptures again and realized that all those nagging questions about scriptural interpretation that non-Charismatics would bring up and I would dismiss as them simply not understanding spiritual things, they were on the mark. 1 Corinthians was never intended as a pattern for the Church - it was a rebuke to a bunch of carnal, un-spiritual professing believers who couldn't see the truth about themselves.
To me, Charismatic religion is a dead end pursuit, substituting sensuality (of a religious kind) for true righteousness. I sipped at that cup too long and I hate to see others make the same mistakes I did.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
05/17/01 1:52 PM
Answers, answers, answers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc, read both of Zerhusen's articles, for I promise you he does have answers for your questions. Of course, whether you accept them or not is another matter. For me, I began looking at him when I asked the question of another former P/Cer what he thought we had been doing all those years when we thought we were speaking in "tongues", and what did the bible mean when it talked about tongues.
I didn't accept the "demonic" tag, and he pointed me to Samarin and Zerhusen. Later, I pulled out an old book that I had had for twenty years, from the mid-seventies, that presented a number of balanced essays on the Charismatic movement, both pro, con and simply analytical. I had never read the con or analytical stuff before, they weren't "spiritual." Honestly, I wish had read it when I first got it!!
I'll try to tackle those additional questions later when I get a chance. A friend of mine is working on a full blown treatise on the subject and hopes to have it ready in a couple months. If will combine the research he's done, much of Zerhusen's argumentation, as well as a little of Samarin's and others.
As to experiences - well, eye witnesses acounts are considered by the police to be the least reliable evidence as to what really happened at a crime scene. I am convinced, as I wrote before, that many human beings are better at picking up non-verbal cues in others (those who study body language would tell you almost everything we do communicates something) and we may have a certain intuitve sense at work. Further, and we cannot be afraid to examine this possibility, the mind is so susceptable to filtering experiences based on our beliefs and even creating them. Hence we have people who swear they have dreams that come to pass in the future. Now, for those of us holding to an open view, that is problematic at best. If the future doesn't exist, how can people dream it and then it come to pass? The thing is, inevitable they don't recognize the correlation until after the event. This signifies to me that the mind is at work conforming the memories to the event or to the expectation.
Oh, and I thought it was "unti my bowtie, ridin my enconomy honda"!
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
05/17/01 6:14 PM
RE: Okay, more answers!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc wrote once again:
the gist of my response was to ask RT a couple more questions about this view
Doc, you know everytime you ask me a "couple of questions" there are six or more of them? Man, can I borrow a "couple" of dollars from you?
a) If tongues is ones own language, how can Paul say he does it alone MORE than the Corinthians.? Is Paul simply saying he talks alot?
Well, I oversimplified my explanation of what tongues is to make it easier to understand. I would more technically assert that "tongues" is any language other than the one common to the congregation in which one is in. In other words, if I am in an english speaking congregation, speaking English isn't "tongues". However, suppose I know English and Spanish, and I am in a German speaking congregation where an interpreter knows Spanish. Spanish isn't my mother tongue, but I would be speaking in "tongues" (it really is better to translate it as "languages") if I spoke in Spanish so that the interpreter could translate for me (I would also be speaking in "tongues" if I spoke in English, but it would be "unfruitful" to do so, since I know no interpreter to be present.).
b) Where is the evidence that Corinth was linguistically segregated? My info says all citizens spoke Greek and were bi or tri-lingual on top of that. If so, the problem the RT interpretation of I Cor. 12 and 14 presupposes wouldn't exist.
Let me offer this passage from Zerhusen:
Because of its geographical location and its commercial prosperity, the city of Corinth in Paul's time was a highly multilingual environment. This is admitted by scholars of all persuasions; as Gordon Fee puts it, "the phenomenon of different languages would also have been commonplace in a cosmopolitan center such as Corinth" (664). From the opposite end of the theological spectrum, Robert Thomas writes.
"Barbarians" was a general designation for those of the first-century world who were ignorant of the Greek languages. The city of Corinth abounded with such visitors. Thus the illustration was full of meaning for these residents. Most of them doubtless were familiar with the frustration of encountering another intelligent person with whom it was impossible to converse. Visitors from other linguistic backgrounds could not comprehend the Corinthian speech any more than the Corinthians understttod theirs [128].
This means that for many in Corinth, Greek was not their first or native language. Instead, they spoke a non-Greek language as their first or native language, and Greek was a second language for them. Vern Poythress also sees this possibility: "A Corinthian tongue-speaker might speak in a human language unknown to the whole assembly, but known somewhere in the world" (133). A. Robertson and A. Plummer point out the frustration that Corinthians may have experienced:
All kinds of languages met at commercial Corinth with its harbors on two seas, and difference of language was a frequent barrier to common action. Moreover, it was well known how exasperating it could be for two intelligent persons to be unintelligible to one another [310].
Doc goes on to ask:
c) How can you PRAY for the ability to interprete -- unless the interpretation is a supernatural thing?
First of all, let's quote the verse: "Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret." Paul doesn't say "ask for the ability", he writes "pray that he may interpret." He's not praying for an ability he doesn't have, but for help to do what he can do well. Doc, you ever pray for doctors' "hands" when you visit people in the hospital? Zerhusen points out:
This question shows linguistic naivete, because as Crystal observes, translating is one of the most difficult tasks imaginable:
It is sometimes said that there is no task more complex than translation--a claim that can be readily believed when all the variables involved are taken into account. Translators not only need to know their source language well; they must also have a thorough understanding of the field of knowledge covered by the source text, and of any social, cultural, or emotional connotations that need to be specified in the target language if the intended effect is to be conveyed. The same special awareness needs to be present for the target language so that points of special phrasing, contemporary fashions of taboos in expression, local (e.g., regional) expectations, and so on, can all be taken into account [344].
Doc asks the fourth in his "couple of questions":
d) If you CAN'T interprete what you're saying to a congregation, then presumably you can't understand what the congregation is saying. So what the heck are you doing in that church?
Some of the points made in the answer to the previous question apply here as well. My wife can understand French, Italian and Spanish quite well (she had to take them all as part of her voice major), but she doesn't speak any of them well enough to interpret from English into them. This is a common experience, we even have jokes about the foreigner trying to relate something in English "how you say…" So, while everyone may have been able to understand Greek, and even speak to some extent, that is not the same as being able to freely interpret.
e) ON your interpretation of I Cor. 14:14 in which you say that "unfruitful" = socially useless: why does Paul contrast praying and singing with his understanding with praying and singing with his spirit? And then, in verse 16, he says that if he tries to bless "with his spirit" noone can say Amen because no one understands him (indeed -- Paul doesn't understand himself. He speaks mysteries. cf. I Cor. 14:2.).
Doc, he doesn't say he doesn't understand himself, he says no one else understands him. Zerhusen is again instructive:
Paul says that should he speak in one of these non-Greek languages (without translation) his spirit will be praying (i.e., he will be speaking from the "heart"), but his mind will not be producing fruit in others (they will not be edified by speech which is unintelligible to them).
Paul begins with the words "What should be done then?" "He answers his own question, replying that all worship activities (which he represents with two examples: "prayer" and "singing") be done "with the Spirit and with the mind." Again, modern scholars read in modern psychological categories that were completely foreign to Paul's dyadic-oriented thinking. Paul is saying in v 15 that all worship activities should be "from the heart" (i.e., "with the spirit") and also "intelligibly" (i.e., "with the mind"). Paul then shifts to another negative example in vv 16-17. If someone praises God from the heart ("with the spirit") unintelligibly (i.e., "without the mind" [implied]), "the one occupying the place of the unlearned" (i.e., the person not knowing the particular language) cannot even assent to the prayer of the language-speaker ("how will he say the 'Amen' at your giving of thanks, since he does not know [what you are saying])". Paul says the language-speaker may give thanks well ("For you truly give thanks well"), but because the language is unintelligible to the other person, that individual is not edified ("but the other is not built up").
Once more into the fray the Doc goes:
f) If tongues is a natural language, how can Paul claim i) it is a gift that ii) not everyone has! (ICor12:28).
First, show me where Paul says it's a "gift"? He doesn't. Even so, is every "gift" of the Holy Spirit to the Church "supernatural." Of course not, even Fee says of "helps" and "adminstrations"
"The sixth and seventh items (lit. 'helps' and 'guidances'), which are deeds of service, are noteworthy in three ways: (a) they are the only two not mentioned again in the rhetoric of vv 29-30; (b) they are not mentioned again in the NT; (c) they do not appear to be of the same kind, that is, supernatural endowments" (618-19).
Additionally, where does Paul say "tongues" are something not everyone "has"? What Paul says is that not every speaks in tongues. You see Doc, you're eisegeting the verses rather than even reading them directly. Your presuppositions color your view of them to the extent that you don't quote them accurately from, I assume, memory. This is common when we allow our theology to determine how we interpret scripture rather than vice versa.
The Church is graced, or "gifted", with various kinds of languages because she needs them – we all don't speak Greek, or English, or Hebrew., but some believers do and need to be ministered to, and have the opportunity to minister.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/17/01 11:26 PM
Just a little thank you.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just wanted to drop a brief thank you for all I am learning. Revival, the articles are great. I love the food for thought. Doc, thanks for the great questions...you can ask for the average man. Mephi, your post was right on! Thanks...and you guys keep it going. Hey, Doc, think you could answer my question from the other place? Why do you think the gifts are as prevalent today? Later guys...Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
glamdring777
05/17/01 11:59 PM
Thanks :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muy Bien!!
(translation: Very Good!!)
Estoy alegra (I am happy)
Muchos Gracias (many thanks)
glamdring
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
05/18/01 6:42 AM
You're welcome!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
usted es agradable
vous êtes bienvenu
Sie sind willkommen
siete benvenuto
você é bem-vindo
Now for the interpretation, you are welcome!!!
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/18/01 3:49 PM
RE: You're welcome!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revival, I am glad to see you are staying true to your view of tongues...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/18/01 5:58 PM
RE: Answers, answers, answers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RT wrote:"Oh, and I thought it was "unti my bowtie, ridin my enconomy honda"!"
aha! Here is the source of all your problems RT. See, you had been taught false tongues. My "come see my maroon bowtie an ride my economy yamaha" is much smoother.
Thing is, RT, I am mostly in agreement with everything else you said about beubg tired of cheap grace, carnival christianity, shouting matches, etc...
Regarding the use of tongues among non-Christian people, that I'm inclined to think is merely "ecstatic speech."
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/18/01 6:36 PM
RE: RE: Okay, more answers!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your patient responses RT.
I think you made your case (or Zehusen's case) very well. Its an entirely new position to me. It's not at all what JW's and/or dispensationalists have been advocating. I have reread I Corinthians 12-14 three times slowly, assuming your perspective, and to be honest, I can't make it plausible to myself. Of course, this could be because I've read these chapters the other way for twentyseven years. Against my initial impressions, however, you have peeked my interest enough to motiviate me to now at least check out the Zerhusen article when I can.
Now, I said I'd try to shut up... but the position intrigues me, so I have questions. Don't feel obliged to respond, RT... for I'm sure my questions are addressed in Zerhusen. But I'm thinking out loud and in public, inviting others to join in if they want. So let me wonder out loud....
I) RT asked: "show me where Paul says it's [tongues] a "gift"? He doesn't."
Doc: Paul opens this section by saying "there are varieties of gifts" and then he lists the gifts that are given in vs. 7-11. Tongues is mentioned in verse 10. He says the Spirit gives these. (This is an example of what I mean, RT, when I say I can't make your reading plausible. How could one say the Spirit gave you the gift of speaking in a language different from the congregation you're attending? How is this a manifestation of the Spirit (vs. 7)? I'm sure Zerhusen answers this, but I can't right now see it.)
2) RT askes : "where does Paul say "tongues" are something not everyone "has"? "
Doc: In verse 29 of Chapter 12, as you know, Paul rhetorically asks "do all speak in tongues." Now, in your view Paul is simply saying that not everyone speaks in a language foreign to the congregation they're in. But this strikes me as odd. The context of the verse is where Paul says "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second proehtes....various kinds of tongues..." (vs. 27-30). How on earth has "God appointed" people to speak in languages foreign to the congregation, how is this a gift that in any sense parallels "apostles" "prophets" etc..? This doesn't sound like a blessing... its just a problem, it seems, that needs interpreting.
3) Another thing I'm still wondering about -- but which Zerhusen addresses, I'm sure -- is how Paul can contrast his "speaking in tongues more than all of you" with " in the church" (14:18) -- if indeed "tongues" is nothing more than speaking in church in a language the congregation doesn't understand. It seems to me (not having read Zerhusen) that Paul is contrasting what he does in private (when he speaks to God and no man understands him, 14:2)with what he does in church. This contrast doesn't seem possible on the RT interpretation.
4) Another thing: how come Paul contrasts speaking in tongues with PROPHECY through chapter 14? Shouldn't the contrast be between those who speak in tongues and those who speak in the language the congregation understands?
5) Finally, I can sort of see how the Zerhusen interpretation might square with Acts 2 where people here disciples speaking in their native language (though I can't see how this is a manifestation of the Spirit, as the text suggests, for it seems that the "tongues" and "hearing" is as supernatural as the tongues of fire, Ac 2:4f). But I can't at all square it with Acts 10:44-48 and 19:6. In Acts 10 Peter explicitly sites the fact that Gentiles are speaking in tongues as evidence that they've received the Holy Spirit. If tongues is simply speaking in a language different than the congregation, how is it evidence that the Spirit has come on people...
Many other questions have I, but I don't have the time to ask them, and RT doesn't have the time to answer them... so I leave off now to ponder the topic, read Zerhusen, and maybe come back to this at a later date. Thanks RT for all your input and gracious style.
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Go To Page 2 >>
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:53 AM (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 |
|
|