Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
  • Announcements

    • GT

      Log in changes   08/07/2016

      With the upgrade there is no longer separate login ids and display names.  Your login ID is now your display name.
excathedra

speaking in tongues

Recommended Posts

excathedra    123

question for bible people

last night i was beyond desperate for help and i spoke in tongues

--

then i was thinking about people (old friends) in way offshoots i have asked to pray for me. more than a few of them asked me to tell them specifically what i wanted them to pray for. i said god knows.

i guess i'm confused and this is more than one topic

but is getting "clear and concerned" a requirement for someone praying for you?

i'll add more later, but i appreciate your input

love,e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz    131

To the best of my understanding, praying is simply a person having a conversation with God about the things that are on the person's heart. Praying isn't for God's benefit. He knows what's on our hearts far better than we do. Praying is for OUR benefit. It's a chance for us to get honest with God about what's on our hearts so He can help us understand what to do with it.

People who think they can use prayer to operate God like a vending machine are fooling themselves.

I think Paul's letters indicate that he prayed in the Spirit for people. I think the people who received those letters understood what he meant from the personal example he set while he was with them. But he didn't give a detailed explanation of what he meant in the letters. We can't know for certain.

When people ask me to pray for them, I do. Usually a brief request that God bless them in whatever way they need to be blessed. Sometimes I speak in tongues for the person in my private prayer life, but I don't try to use mental imagery to pray for anything specific, unless they've asked me to pray for some particular aspect of their life, and even then, I don't try to "get clear and concerned." It seems to me that speaking in tongues is just about ALWAYS an expression of heartfelt gratitude. So that's the attitude I try to develop when I speak in tongues.

I hope this helps you, excathedra! If you've got more questions, ask away!

Love,

Steve

Edited by Steve Lortz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
newlife    27

Hi Ex.......

I think being clear and concerned is a concept....but whether or not it's in the bible....couldn't tell you.

But I do know it's not a prerequisite for prayer. I ask people to pray for me and the answer is usually sure I will. Some do ask what I want prayer for and I tell them. But, If they didn't know and they prayed that's enough.

God hears our prayers and knows our hearts.

I'll pray for you!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
socks    64

Requirement? No.

Family, friends I trust, I might.

Sometimes it's a burden to the other person to know a lot of details.

But no, there's no biblical requirement which is why Romans 8:26 and 27 say what they do.

People are curious animals though, always sniffing around. It's in the blood I guess. "No harm in asking" in either case. Could be harm in answering though.

So someone says "well what's wrong honey? Yes, I'll pray for you How can I help? Is there anything I can do?"......that's fine.

There's no imperative from the "Word of God" however to reveal specifics when prayer is requested.

I do pray "in the spirit", and often. Speak in tongues. Don't make it a Jesus or the wall kind of thing.

I have made an effort to separate the basic foundational things of "faith and practice" in my life from the people and the sources from which they come. It doesn't matter who or how I learned it from - some things I've learned from seeing what's WRONG as much as what's right. I give recognition to everything and everyone past, present and future that have come through my life however, even the dimwads and darfishes that I'd just as soon throw tomato sauce on and might given time and oppportunity. Yeh, I'm a tweeze. I'm fine with that.

Some I could have done without but in a way those two verses in Romans also speak to that part of life - where I would pick and choose this way and that, perhaps God would see it differently. Can't change it now, either way that's for sure.

So pray, in the spirit, speak in tongues, think well and positively, send the best mental and emotional messages you have into the ether. Cant' hurt.

There's no imperative from the "Word of God" however to reveal specifics when prayer is requested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
excathedra    123

oh thank you so much y'all (i'm from new jersey but i did live in nashville)

what do those 2 romans verses say?

again, thank you. i still need prayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz    131

oh thank you so much y'all (i'm from new jersey but i did live in nashville)

what do those 2 romans verses say?

again, thank you. i still need prayer

Romans 8:26&27

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Love,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naten00    1

question for bible people

last night i was beyond desperate for help and i spoke in tongues

--

then i was thinking about people (old friends) in way offshoots i have asked to pray for me. more than a few of them asked me to tell them specifically what i wanted them to pray for. i said god knows.

i guess i'm confused and this is more than one topic

but is getting "clear and concerned" a requirement for someone praying for you?

i'll add more later, but i appreciate your input

love,e

I don't know if this is "off-topic" or not since you said it was more than one topic but... Looking over this thread made me ask since never being in "the way". People in the way call it a manifestation where in church they call it a "gift" or "the gift"...

I am trying to understand the distinction...

Any help?

If off topic just let me know if you were not going in this direction

Thanks

Nate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waysider    658

Nate

According to Way Theology, the gift is holy spirit (Yes, that's lower case.) which is "Christ in you". The gift is then made known in the senses realm by the actions of the recipient. Those actions are called manifestations. There are 9 of them. (according to Way Theology) They are speaking in tongues, tongues with interpretation, prophesy, word of knowledge, word of wisdom, discerning of spirits, faith, miracles and healings. If you have the gift, you theoretically possess the ability to manifest any and every one of these. Personally, I don't buy it but, since you asked.....

BTW.....This is all basic stuff you can find in the book Receiving the holy spirit Today, which is a work that Wierwille plagiarized from J.E. Stiles and E.W. Bullinger.....HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naten00    1

Nate

According to Way Theology, the gift is holy spirit (Yes, that's lower case.) which is "Christ in you". The gift is then made known in the senses realm by the actions of the recipient. Those actions are called manifestations. There are 9 of them. (according to Way Theology) They are speaking in tongues, tongues with interpretation, prophesy, word of knowledge, word of wisdom, discerning of spirits, faith, miracles and healings. If you have the gift, you theoretically possess the ability to manifest any and every one of these. Personally, I don't buy it but, since you asked.....

BTW.....This is all basic stuff you can find in the book Receiving the holy spirit Today, which is a work that Wierwille plagiarized from J.E. Stiles and E.W. Bullinger.....HERE

Has anyone done any work countering there view on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
socks    64

Most of the theological dogma - call it doctrine for want of a better word - defines the nine things listed in 1. Cor. 12 as "nine gifts of the spirit" that are given individually by God, issued "severally" as He wills.

I note the "severally" because it highlights the translation and contextual nuances that are involved - today, the average person reading that word would assume it means more than one, several this or that - as used in the Bible it has the meaning of "separately" and even "individually". The ESV renders it so: All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

Me, I don't fault anyone's efforts and give high marks for showing and trying but I don't think much has come out of the ex-Way community on this particular topic that's much different than what's already out and about despite the fact that the cost to learn their ex-Way versions of it has gone up quite a bit and consistently so, over the years.

One Gift/Nine Manifestations isn't a widespread interpretation, so most of what you read on the topic of 1 Cor. 12 is going to be counter to that. A good middle ground is EW Bullinger, which will certainly show you ground zero of the textual work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz    131

Has anyone done any work countering there view on this?

Hi, Nate! Hope to meet you soon, but I'm laying out of school this coming semester recuperating from a massive overdose of potassium I inadvertently underwent trying to reduce my blood pressure.

I don't know if any ex-wafers have done any studies on the person and work of the Holy Spirit since leaving TWI, but I am studying it as part of the preparation for my thesis.

I am currently re-reading Baptism in the Holy Spirit by James D.G. Dunn in an effort to help get my brain back up to speed (mental therapy, when I first got out of the hospital, I would get ocular migraines when I tried to read), and when I'm done with that, I'm going to read Perspectives on Spirit Baptism which includes Reformed, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Wesleyan and Catholic responses to Dunn's analysis.

Wierwille taught that Adam was originally a three-part being: body, soul and spirit. When Adam sinned, his spirit died. Since then, human beings have been born merely body and soul. Salvation consists of God planting a new spirit seed in a person, and that spirit seed is "the gift of holy spirit". Wierwille taught that we are to draw a distinction between the Holy Spirit, simply another name for God the Father, and the gift of holy spirit, the seed of a new spirit planted by God in a person. This doctrine was often abbreviated as "the gift and the Giver."

According to Wierwille, there are as many different "gifts of holy spirit" as there are Christians, because each one is an individual gift to an individual person, but each gift is the same thing, the seed of a new spiritual life. The "manifestations," as waysider listed them, were taught as things that evidenced outwardly in the "senses realm" the internal reality of the presence and power of the "gift of holy spirit."

More later...

Love,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naten00    1

Hi, Nate! Hope to meet you soon, but I'm laying out of school this coming semester recuperating from a massive overdose of potassium I inadvertently underwent trying to reduce my blood pressure.

I don't know if any ex-wafers have done any studies on the person and work of the Holy Spirit since leaving TWI, but I am studying it as part of the preparation for my thesis.

I am currently re-reading Baptism in the Holy Spirit by James D.G. Dunn in an effort to help get my brain back up to speed (mental therapy, when I first got out of the hospital, I would get ocular migraines when I tried to read), and when I'm done with that, I'm going to read Perspectives on Spirit Baptism which includes Reformed, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Wesleyan and Catholic responses to Dunn's analysis.

Wierwille taught that Adam was originally a three-part being: body, soul and spirit. When Adam sinned, his spirit died. Since then, human beings have been born merely body and soul. Salvation consists of God planting a new spirit seed in a person, and that spirit seed is "the gift of holy spirit". Wierwille taught that we are to draw a distinction between the Holy Spirit, simply another name for God the Father, and the gift of holy spirit, the seed of a new spirit planted by God in a person. This doctrine was often abbreviated as "the gift and the Giver."

According to Wierwille, there are as many different "gifts of holy spirit" as there are Christians, because each one is an individual gift to an individual person, but each gift is the same thing, the seed of a new spiritual life. The "manifestations," as waysider listed them, were taught as things that evidenced outwardly in the "senses realm" the internal reality of the presence and power of the "gift of holy spirit."

More later...

Love,

Steve

Thanks Steve... I will be looking forward to it. I see a people in the way post often about how it is a manifestation rather than a gift....

(off-topic 2 secs) I am going over JC isn't God right now as you know so I don't have the time to dig into it. I just published my newest blog on John 8:58 and ended with an interesting point to myself. I may post it here in a few days. I am going to do my thesis on something surrounding the Greek Philosophical and Historical impact on the New Testament writings. IF you are able to have visitors or make it to campus to visit lets get some coffee. I would love to hear your story! I can bring some food and leave out the bananas!

Back on topic...

That seems to get very deep. If you find some quick quotes and facts I can look at showing factual differences it would be great if you could send them my way..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz    131

Part of the confusion over what is and what is not a gift has resulted from the King James translators using "spiritual gifts" to translate the Greek word pneumatikos (= "spirituals" or "spiritual matters") in I Corinthians 12 and 14. The KJV seems to indicate that certain things are "gifts" when the Bible doesn't really say any such thing.

Another factor comes from the use of the word charisma, seemingly as a term of art exclusively by Paul. Charismatics seem to use charisma indiscriminately as a synonym for doron.

I believe "the gift [doron] of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38 is, indeed, the Spirit itself that was first poured out when the Day of Pentecost had fully come, but not that the gift was the same thing, nor poured out for the same reasons, as Wierwille taught.

Love,

Steve

Edited by Steve Lortz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twinky    387

I note the "severally" because it highlights the translation and contextual nuances that are involved - today, the average person reading that word would assume it means more than one, several this or that - as used in the Bible it has the meaning of "separately" and even "individually".

"Severally" in its ancient usage meant "separately" - ie severed, separate, cut off, from the other aspects; individually.

It's part of a phrase which nowadays is encountered mostly in legal documents: people might be "jointly and severally" liable for something - a contract, a lease, a mortgage, whatever. "Jointly" means together with the other people who have signed the document. "Severally" means separately, solely, individually. And the liability will be for the whole of the contract, debt or whatever.

When a person is "jointly and severally" liable for say a legal contract, in case of default the other party to the contract (let's call him Z) can go against (sue) any of the people who signed the legal contract if there is a breach of contract. Usually Z would go against all of A, B, C and D all at the same time; but Z doesn't have to do that; Z can go against any of A, B, C and D. Each one of these is "severally" (individually) responsible for the entirety of the debt. They're not each responsible for a half or a quarter, however many of them there are - they're each responsible for all of it.

If A is dead, his whole legal responsibility continues on his estate and on B, C and D. If B is bankrupt, his legal liability falls on A's estate and C and D. If C is a minor and not legally allowed to enter a contract, his liability falls onto A's estate and D (That's because A B C and D were jointly liable, B's liability is extinguished by his bankruptcy, and C was never legally liable, being a minor).

Even if A, B, and C are all alive, of age and financially stable, Z can still choose to sue only D and doesn't have to sue A, B and C at all. (That's "severally" liable - a severed responsibility for the entirety of the liability.) Of course, D if he has any sense will immediately join A, B and C in the same proceedings so that they are jointly liable with him - which is why Z usually sues them all in in the first place.

In this sense, just as there is a separate individual responsibility to fulfil the legal obligation, "dividing severally as he/it will" emphasises the personal, individual, entire spiritual package which each person receives. It's not a "part" of the gift - it's the thing itself in its entirety. The very same as is given to everyone else.

That's not at all from a PFAL perspective. That's from the perspective of a lawyer of many years experience who had a specialty in litigation and contract law. Joint and several liability is something a law student learns about in the first term. As a practising lawyer, it was something that had to be explained very carefully to clients about to embark on any kind of legal contract. Again, they're not each responsible for a half or a quarter, however many of them there are - they're each responsible for all of it.

In fact, when coming to that part in PFAL, I understood immediately that everyone got everything. I very much doubt that VPW had that anything like that perspective on it, whatever angle he came at it from.

Lesson over. Back to the bunfight.

Edited by Twinky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naten00    1

Part of the confusion over what is and what is not a gift has resulted from the King James translators using "spiritual gifts" to translate the Greek word pneumatikos (= "spirituals" or "spiritual matters") in I Corinthians 12 and 14. The KJV seems to indicate that certain things are "gifts" when the Bible doesn't really say any such thing.

Another factor comes from the use of the word charisma, seemingly as a term of art exclusively by Paul. Charismatics seem to use charisma indiscriminately as a synonym for doron.

I believe "the gift [doron] of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38 is, indeed, the Spirit itself that was first poured out when the Day of Pentecost had fully come, but not that the gift was the same thing, nor poured out for the same reasons, as Wierwille taught.

Love,

Steve

I am apart of the Assemblies of God for the time being I don't know what will happen when going to AU... What they teach, every believer has "the gift of tongues" at the time of conversion of their new birth.. In any since everything is a "gift" just like faith. It seems to be more semantics when looking at the two different doctrines closely...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waysider    658

Here it is in a nutshell, Nate. The Way teaches that the new birth is the gift. Anyone who has the gift has the latent ability to operate all 9 manifestations. (according to The Way.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz    131

I am apart of the Assemblies of God for the time being I don't know what will happen when going to AU... What they teach, every believer has "the gift of tongues" at the time of conversion of their new birth.. In any since everything is a "gift" just like faith. It seems to be more semantics when looking at the two different doctrines closely...

The Church of God Reformation Movement (Anderson, Indiana) grew out of the Wesleyan Holiness movement of the late 1800s. The movement's "selling point" was that denominational divisions are man-made and disruptive of the one body of Christ, the Church of God. In the last 130 years or so, the movement has divided a number of times, and come to a more realistic assessment of its own status as a denomination. The movement has avoided creeds and statements of faith, producing a unique attitude toward the Bible... a conservative respect for the Bible, but the movement has never been fundamentalist, and does not agree within itself as to biblical inerrancy. The last kerfluffle over that issue was around 1980, and everybody agreed to disagree. Some of the professors still active were involved with that controversy, so a person needs to get to know where his professors stand on various things, because they don't all agree.

There was a controversy over speaking in tongues back around 1960. I've talked with some of the profs who were young pastors back then. The School of Theology does not officially hold with Pentecostal doctrine, but there are congregations within the movement that DO practice speaking in tongues. And there are individual ministers who hold just about every opinion possible.

It seems to me that the attitude of Christianity in general to the gift of Holy Spirit is a lot like the blind men and the elephant:

The Blind Men and the Elephant

John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,

At once began to bawl:

"God bless me! but the Elephant

Is very like a WALL!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, "Ho, what have we here,

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me 'tis mighty clear

This wonder of an Elephant

Is very like a SPEAR!"

The Third approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Thus boldly up and spake:

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant

Is very like a SNAKE!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee

"What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain," quoth he:

"'Tis clear enough the Elephant

Is very like a TREE!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: "E'en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can,

This marvel of an Elephant

Is very like a FAN!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Than seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant

Is very like a ROPE!"

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

I think everybody is partially right in their interpretation of the gift of Holy Spirit, but none of them are complete. That is something I intend to correct in my thesis.

Love,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JumpinJive    0

I think everybody is partially right in their interpretation of the gift of Holy Spirit, but none of them are complete. That is something I intend to correct in my thesis.

Good luck with that. My heart is with you but I can't get my head to believe that we'll ever get to the point where our interpretation of the gift of holy spirit is complete.

I'm currently following a discussion on a message board of the Church of God Abrahamic Faith, a group that I thought was tightly knit. They can't agree among themselves on even just tongues, much less all the rest. I may have to borrow that poem and post it for them. :)

I do agree with your statement: "When people ask me to pray for them, I do. Usually a brief request that God bless them in whatever way they need to be blessed." I do that as well. I don't believe God requires any more than that and I'm not convinced we do either.

Best to all,

-JJ

Edited by JumpinJive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz    131

Good luck with that. My heart is with you but I can't get my head to believe that we'll ever get to the point where our interpretation of the gift of holy spirit is complete.

I'm currently following a discussion on a message board of the Church of God Abrahamic Faith, a group that I thought was tightly knit. They can't agree among themselves on even just tongues, much less all the rest. I may have to borrow that poem and post it for them. :)/>

I do agree with your statement: "When people ask me to pray for them, I do. Usually a brief request that God bless them in whatever way they need to be blessed." I do that as well. I don't believe God requires any more than that and I'm not convinced we do either.

Best to all,

-JJ

You're right that I was overstating my case about completeness. What I should have said was that I want to draw out as many of the implications of Acts chapter 2 as possible and show how they relate. I am currently reading Baptism in the Holy Spirit by James Dunn and Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views which contains Reformed, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Wesleyan and Catholic responses to Dunn's position. It seems to me that all of them regard "the gift of the Holy Spirit" to be something other than the Spirit that was first poured out in Acts chapter 2. I think this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding as to WHAT salvation actually is.

Thanks, JJ!

Love,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JumpinJive    0

I'd be interested in hearing about that, Steve! I think the issues have been confused and confusing for quite some time, maybe back to the beginnings.

-JJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz    131

I'd be interested in hearing about that, Steve! I think the issues have been confused and confusing for quite some time, maybe back to the beginnings.

-JJ

You're right, JumpinJive! It goes deep and back a long way. One of the things I've found reading different peoples' perspectives on Pentecost is that they agree one of Luke's main concerns in the book of Acts was "salvation," but none of them actually examine what Luke's definition of "salvation" was. Mainly because Luke never defines what he means by "salvation" in the book of Acts. Luke defines "salvation" in Luke 19:18-30 and 20:27-36. "To be saved" means "to receive the Spirit of resurrection life in the age to come." When God raised Jesus out from among the dead, Jesus received the promise of the Father, the Spirit of resurrection life (Ezekiel 37:14). This enabled Jesus on the Day of Pentecost to pour out the promise of the Father (Joel 2:28-32),the EARNEST of the Spirit of resurrection life in the age to come.

This is not going to be an easy paper to write...

Love,

Steve

Edited by Steve Lortz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×