Category: speaking in tongues | Page 8

Informational post on speaking in tongues #9

This is just a little informational post on the subject of speaking in tongues, shared as some food for thought. This addresses the doctrine of ‘initial evidence’ as taught by the United Pentecostal Church.

If speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Spirit (I am speaking of Oneness Pentecostal teachings here), then why do so many also expect continued evidence after one initially speaks in tongues? (Note: I know that all Apostolics do not practice or believe the above in regard to the necessity of ongoing tongues.)

As mentioned in a prior post, we never see again that those who spoke in tongues in Acts 2, 10 & 19 ever did it a second time. And yet many proponents of this teaching not only expect to see this happen initially, but also expect to see its regular continued use.

How many have been told to ‘pray through’ after doing something wrong or seemingly wrong or if you left their church for awhile? To these people, ‘pray through’ means to pray until tongues come again. They want proof that God’s Spirit is yet inside you. Maybe you need it yourself, too. There is no faith at all in this, proof is demanded. It is as if some believe God’s Spirit regularly hops in and out of believers.

Not only is there the thought to ‘pray through’ to tongues, there can also be things said from the pulpit like, “If you haven’t spoken in tongues in the past week (month, etc.), you had better check yourself!” Why? Where is faith? Do believers lose God so easily? Is God’s Spirit so fickle that at the slightest wrong, He up and leaves?

Things like these and more mean that the teaching is not simply initial evidence. It is really initial AND ongoing evidence to them. They have a need for a sign that they, and others, are still okay with God. This is not walking by faith or standing on God’s promise to never leave, nor forsake, believers.

Think about it. If tongues are indeed ‘initial evidence,’ why then is there such a push for the necessity of continuing to speak in tongues, especially when it is never found in scripture? When did you ever read Paul pressing believers to ‘pray through’ again till they spoke in tongues? When did Peter ever teach that if you haven’t spoken in tongues in a month that you’d better find out what is wrong? These doctrines are not taught, or seen as examples, in the Bible.

So, I say tell it like it really is. They don’t mean just initial evidence—they really mean initial AND ongoing evidence throughout your entire walk with God.

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Informational post on speaking in tongues #8

This is just a little ‘did you know’ informational post on the subject of speaking in tongues, shared as some food for thought. It goes along with a previous blog where I stated, “Did you know that there are only three instances in the entire book of Acts where it is said that believers spoke in tongues? They are Acts 2, 10 and 19. (Acts 8 cannot be included as it never once mentions tongues…)”

I believe Acts 8 should not be included in the list of passages in Acts which show believers speaking in tongues simply because it never once mentions it happening. It is not good practice to assume or read into the scripture and base doctrine upon that assumption. Do you really want what you believe and teach to be based on assumptions?

Even United Pentecostal General Superintendent David Bernard, in The New Birth, admits that this is assumed when he writes on page 231, “The account of Acts 8 of the Samaritans who received the Holy Ghost does not explicitly mention speaking in tongues; it gives no description of signs of their Spirit baptism. …It is logical to assume that this sign was speaking in tongues.”

So why is this assumed? It is based upon two thoughts:

1) Simon in Samaria and he offered the apostles money to have the ability to lay his hands on people so they would receive the Holy Spirit. It is said he would not have done so if nothing visible happened.
2) In the three instances previously mentioned, the believers spoke in tongues after the Spirit came upon them.

Let’s briefly look at these.

Something that is often overlooked is that before the two apostles joined them, Simon had been following Philip all around Samaria. There were paralyzed and lame people healed. Some were possessed and had unclean spirits cast out. Though Simon had bewitched many with his magic, he was impressed by these miracles and signs. He was obviously seeing much more than he had ever done. He had not healed or delivered those people. The NASB says that Simon was “constantly amazed” at what he witnessed.

In this, and considering what Peter said to him after he offered the money, it isn’t surprising that this happened. Simon had just seen a lot of miracles and the laying on of hands may have just been the icing on the cake, so to speak, which prompted him to offer money. Did something happen when Peter and John laid hands on the people? I do not argue against that. Yet we do not know with any certainty what occurred as Luke was silent on the matter. Perhaps they spoke in tongues. Perhaps something else happened.

In Acts 2 and 10, it is clearly stated that they spoke in tongues. Yet in Acts 19, it mentions both speaking in tongues and prophecy, without mentioning if all spoke in tongues and all prophesied, or some did one and some did the other.

Since we have only two instances in Acts where tongues are seen and one where tongues and prophecy are mentioned, is it wise to assume and teach that in Acts 8 it must have been speaking in tongues?

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Informational post on speaking in tongues #7

This is just a little ‘did you know’ informational post on the subject of speaking in tongues, shared as some food for thought. It goes along with a previous blog where I stated, “Did you know that there are only three instances in the entire book of Acts where it is said that believers spoke in tongues? They are Acts 2, 10 and 19.” In this segment, we will look further into Acts 19.

Did you ever wonder why little attention is often paid to a portion of Acts 19:6 in Pentecostal type churches? Are you even aware that the men in Ephesus prophesied or do you only recall speaking in tongues being mentioned? Should one be emphasized more than the other in the passage?

After the Holy Spirit came upon these men, scripture mentions speaking in tongues and prophecy, without specifying if all spoke in tongues and all prophesied, or some did one and some did the other. We have no way of knowing how it happened from the text. It is usually assumed by Pentecostals that all twelve spoke in tongues, but we do not really know. Have you ever pondered this?

Is it not interesting that both speaking in tongues and prophecy are mentioned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 as being gifts of the Spirit? Have you ever considered that all speaking in tongues is this gift and nothing else?

Acts 19:6:

And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. KJV
Then when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in other tongues and prophesied. NLT
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. NASB
When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. NIV

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Leaving Church

Over the past few years, I’ve looked at several of the various oddities within this church, the conservative movement I was a part of, and Pentecost as a whole. No one would answer my questions for a long time. The answer was always to go ask the pastor. When I asked the pastor I was told that I was rebellious or thought I was smarter than him. I was expected to accept what was preached as gospel, and never look to the gospel or the God of the gospel for answers beyond the pulpit.

I hope these are anomalies- that they are not common in Pentecost. But the more I have read, the more I realize that I’m not alone in my experiences.

For a long time I refused to consider leaving the church, because they preached Jesus name baptism, Holy Ghost, and holiness of dress. But questions about other teachings started creeping into my mind. After two separate incidents, a year apart, when I was accused and charged guilty of something without being given a chance to explain (or in the second case to even know what they were talking about), I started looking into the scriptures more thoroughly. I stopped reading the Bible, but if something seemed strange, I’d reference the passage and read it in several versions if need be.

Several things began to disturb me:

The belief that the pastor was always right, and that he could not be questioned.
The concept that if the pastor said to do something, it must be done.
Preference of one person over another.
Letting down on standards held for decades, while still arguing that others (who used the same reasons for letting down on other things) were wrong.
Making women lesser saints.
Not allowing women to be as involved.
Catch phrases that demanded a shout.
Rebukes for not shouting on catch phrases, or not shouting enough.
Meaningless songs with a few words repeated over and over and over and…

It’s sad, really. I didn’t want to leave, and I never thought I would stop believing certain things. I’ve wondered if I would have been better off if I’d left months or years ago when the problems started. I miss my church friends, but there weren’t that many of them. I miss church activities to a degree. But I’m not sad to leave.

I wonder what will happen now, where I’ll go or what I’ll do. Will there be a church I feel comfortable in? Where? When? Should I take time off from church or plow back into it? Should I go to a Oneness church or just let that go? Will I ever be able to marry now that I’ve left? Will I put too much emphasis on a new pastor, following the old, ingrained rules?

There are no answers to these questions, but I’m satisfied. At first after leaving I crammed on books about exit and spiritual abuse. I don’t feel like doing that now. Maybe I should- I’ve been told it takes years to work through the problems. Maybe I just wasn’t treated that badly, or maybe its just that somewhere I still believe that I’m not leaving God just because I walk out the doors of a particular church.

In that particular way, I feel miles ahead of the ministers and saints I’ve talked to. Almost all of them think I need a pastor and need this church. Not so. I need God. And my pastor is not my god, and my church is not my god. My God fills the universe, but also stepped into time and was crucified to a cross… and rose again. His grace is sufficient, and I’ll trust Him.

Informational post on speaking in tongues #6

This is just a little ‘did you know’ informational post on the subject of speaking in tongues, shared as some food for thought.

When it comes to speaking in tongues, have you ever considered how things were in the New Testament times?

As mentioned in my previous blog, there are only three instances in the entire book of Acts where it is said that believers spoke in tongues.

Consider that none of those who are recorded in Acts as speaking in tongues had been previously taught about the subject. They were not instructed to expect to speak in another language. Not one person is seen as telling, or being told, that believers must/will/should speak in tongues. Do you find that to be in contrast with Pentecostal churches today?

Another interesting point to ponder is that you never hear of the believers in Acts speaking in tongues again after they initially did. I realize for some this is difficult to believe or grasp. Yet you will find no mention of Peter speaking in tongues a second time. There are no passages about Philip, John, James, Andrew, Thomas, Matthew or Mary speaking in tongues after the day of Pentecost. Cornelius, as well as his relatives and friends, are never observed as speaking in tongues again after Peter’s visit.

Is that not interesting considering the emphasis on tongues today? Either it never happened again with these Christians, or all the authors of the New Testament felt it was unimportant to mention. Does this not pique your interest and merit further thought?

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.