musterion
Well-known member
What response do you get when you say that to charismatic Catholics?
Speaking in Tongues a Stupid Practice and Probably "Annoys God."
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
glorydaz
Well-known member
Only you could ask so sweetly. :thumb:
Yes, please do.
Anything humans do or have that connects them and expresses with their own spirituality towards God does not annoy God.
musterion
Well-known member
I agree with the view that tongues were primarily a sign of warning of impending judgment against unrepentant Israel, right out of the O.T.
The priestly sacrificial cult of the Aaronites was only one tradition found in the Bible. The more ancient tradition (that Jesus and John the Baptizer followed was that of a God of mercy who demanded repentance and not a blood sacrifice) is also in the text. Jesus quotes God as Hosea believed when he (Jesus) talked of a God who "demanded mercy not sacrifice."
And since (in my view) the Bible is a human product that has many different and diverse inspired interpretations of the divine and the sacred, it is going to be a fool's errand to find out what "God really wants" for the answers are different enough to provoke strong differences of opinion among all who come to these forums.
If you peel back the meaning of the spiritual event among the early Christians during Pentecost as recorded in Acts we clearly have a divine sign that the various groups of the early Jesus movements found a way to understand their brothers and sisters and were then able to think of themselves as a united front.
1. I was speaking to a pentecostal just a couple of days ago, and he told me that his pastor told him, and I quote, "of all of the spirits of the holy ghost to ask for, this one is probably the most selfish."
I subsequently was informed by a Catholic associate of mine with strong so called "charismatic" tendencies that it is necessary to "practice" speaking in tongues.
Were they mistaken?
2. Say it's the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" if you want, but what grounds could you possibly have to believe that? I looked up the wikipedia page on the pentecostal practice of glossolalia, and the linguistic consensus seems to be: pentecostals are babbling unintelligible nonsense (no offense intended in my saying this).
So, I know on three grounds that the Holy Ghost would never do such a thing:
A. Glossalalia fails at being language (linguistically proven, if I am surmising correctly)...whereas, if the Holy Ghost wished for someone to speak in a language he doesn't know, I'm pretty sure that linguistic act would be a successful one. If the Holy Ghost wishes to produce a linguistic act, then He will produce a linguistic act. Since there is no linguistic act in glossalalia, we can safely reason that the Holy Ghost is not acting to produce one.
B. Even if it succeeded at being language, it fails at communicating either to the person who is committing or receiving the linguistic act, which is, of course, contrary to the nature and purpose of linguistic acts.
C. Even if one or two persons who ordinarily wouldn't understand the linguistic act are empowered to understand the linguistic act, this is superfluous, whereas God does not act in superfluities.
Read the whole passage. What it's describing isn't glossalalia. What it's describing there is xenoglossia (i.e., speaking an actual foreign language that the speaker doesn't actually know). In the subsequent passages to which I'm sure you'll make reference, we must assume that the Biblical authors are referring to xenoglossia, not glossalalia (i.e., the pentecostal practice).
Here, you must understand that I mean no offense. My point is as follows:
Sodomy contravenes the nature and natural purpose of the sexual act. It's a commission of an inherently fecund act which renders that very act sterile.
A lie is the commission of an assertion (i.e., the expressing that one believes that x is true), and so to express one's mind, in order to do the opposite.
Likewise, what we are here describing is the commission of a linguistic act with the expressed purpose of not communicating. I won't go so far as to say that it's a sin. However, it most certainly doesn't come from God.
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
I don't speak in tongues and I am not Catholic. It is accepted and practiced by charismatic Catholics at Franciscan University in Steubenville Ohio. To the best of my knowledge the Vatican endorsed them doing so.
1. The charismatic movement in Catholicism is a fairly recent thing. I don't know very much about it, and given its historical "newness," so to speak, I'm distrustful of it. :idunno:
2. As in many cases, it's possible that the charismatic Catholic and the Protestant simply may mean different things by "speaking in tongues." The practices may be different. I'm not as familiar with the charismatic Catholic practice.
Again, there's a question of what is meant by "speaking in tongues." The biblical sense of that term is "speaking in [foreign] languages." That's presumably what is meant by Catholic authors who talk about it.
That's not what pentecostals mean.
I'm not entirely sure what charismatic Catholics mean by it.
Why don't you try to find out?
There is a principle, or general rule of thumb you might consider, and that the following addresses.
Proverbs 3:
1. My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
2. For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
3. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:
4. So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.
5. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
So long as we go by the school of "what makes sense to me" we will only come up with and or agree with "what makes sense to me" and it will - "because it makes sense to me" - "from where I look at things."
And therein lies the beginning of a problem.
For that is all that will be - one's own wisdom in one's own ignorance - the ignorance that because a thing "makes sense to me," it is therefore "right."
Romans 12:
1. Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Apparently, while it is all fine and wonderful for people to want to humor one another, on the other hand, just as apparently, it appears that throughout Scripture, the Scripture takes great issue with God not being worshipped "according to knowledge" of His Word on the worship issue to begin with.
The whys and wherefores needing to be understood; not subscribed to merely because a thing appears to make sense to one, or feels right.
1 Corinthians 12:
1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
Prior to their conversion, the Corinthians had worshipped whatever it was they had worshipped "not according to knowledge" of what is actually behind such worship, but from the fact that they were "ignorant" of the actual mechanics behind all that.
In other words, in their ignorance of how things work - of the fact that they were led by their emotions in their own notions as a result of their ignorance - they had worshipped dumb idols; idols which; though they "felt better afterwards" were simply dumb idols - their own notions of worshipping "the Creator."
The very core of Paul's problems with them having been their worship as Believers now "not according to knowledge" rather; to what their fleshly mind determined as to what's what.
1 Corinthians 3:
1. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
What is this issue here - this carnal perspective of theirs?
Their allowing themselves to be led by their own notions of what was what.
Its the same today - the carnal mind deciding in its ignorance what's what.
"The Jews require a sign," 1 Corinthians 1:22.
Writing when Paul was - back when God was turning from His sign people, Romans 9-11, while using signs among the Gentiles, Romans 15, to provoke Israel to the fact of His turning from them, and "their diminishing" from before Him as His people, the Apostle of the Gentiles reminded the Corinthians in...
1 Corinthians 14:
20. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the LORD.
22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
That right there is a study in itself, the resulting wisdom of which would cause the Believer wanting to worship the Lord "according to knowledge" to reevaluate his or her understanding as to the place, if any, of gifts/tongues, etc.
I am struggling to take the Bible on its own terms. The Book of Acts is the only place where glossolalia is even mentioned, so in my view the entire matter should be using Acts as the primary source.
Sometimes believers bring in other verses from other parts of the Bible as challenges to things found in other parts. I do not agree with doing this because biblical hermeneutics is based on the truth that finding out what was meant in the original verse is more important than our modern interpretation of those ancient passages.
Sometimes believers bring in other verses from other parts of the Bible as challenges to things found in other parts. I do not agree with doing this because biblical hermeneutics is based on the truth that finding out what was meant in the original verse is more important than our modern interpretation of those ancient passages.
Actually the use of tongues in a corporate setting is for unbelievers. This is not to be confused with the result of speaking in tongues when one is filled with the Holy Spirit as Acts 2, 10 and 14 clearly depict.
Paul is clear in 1 Cor 14, on how this is to be properly used in a corporate setting. Personal prayer involving tongues is not included here as is shown in v28.
This is a NC/NT experience never seen in the OC/OT because it is part of the Holy Spirit becoming our advocate when Jesus left.
Tongues that are spoken in a language that no one can understand is not meant for public consumption (1 Cor 14:28). Paul says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, but this is only true if the unbelievers who hear can understand, as was the case in Acts 2:11. If no one is present who can understand and interpret tongues, the speaker is to keep silent (1 Cor 14:28), but most public claims of speaking in tongues today are of the sort that no one can understand.
NOT what Paul is saying. Public tongues that are NOT interpreted are not meant for public worship, not private tongues in personal prayer.
Acts 2:11 was not the same thing. No one interpreted, the Holy Spirit allowed all those men to hear in their own language, the Apostles were not speaking those languages. There were 12 Apostles and at least 15 languages mentioned. The Greek conveys these tongues were NEW, as in NEVER before heard.
musterion
Well-known member
Meshak is correct. You'd best examine what YOUR church has said about it.
musterion
Well-known member
I have to disagree with this. Acts doesn't mention glossolalia. It mentions xenoglossia, which is completely different, which reinforces my point. The purpose of language is to communicate and be understood.