Speaking in Tongues in Todays Church - Term Paper Example

Speaking in Tongues in Today’s Church Dept # The sole distinctive element in Pentecostalism lies in its insistence that glossolalia is the essential evidence for the baptism in the Spirit.1 In the Pentecostal ranks the Spirit has many purposes within the body of Christ. Some still claim the prioritized purpose of the Spirit is to empower the body of Christ to do its work on earth. The controversy aroused concerning the Spirit is more focused on the Biblical evidence proving a believer has been baptized in the Spirit. In the basics of the on-going debate among Pentecostals is the definition of baptize. The word baptize comes from the root word bapto- it means to dip, to dip in, or to immerse. This should not to be confused with baptizo which is our word. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B. C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be `dipped (bapto) into boiling water and then `baptized (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptizing the vegetable, produces a permanent change, and also suggests the evidence is specific in nature and very noticeable by all.2 From this it is clear to see the difference between Who brings us to salvation and what happens at the moment believers are baptized in the Spirit. Looking at another aspect of the Spirit as he relates to the believer’s abilities, 1 Corinthians 12:3 makes reference to a specific work of the Holy Ghost (as it is in the text): Wherefore I give you to understand that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.3 Looking into this scripture it becomes evident that the Spirit draws us to salvation. Since no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Spirit (Holy Ghost) it stands to reason that one of the roles that He plays is bringing us to salvation. However, this is not to be confused with the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Acts 19:3-6 brings the reader to an account of some believers who have yet to experience the baptism in the Spirit with the explicit evidence of speaking in tongues. Paul asks the men about their salvation experience to this point in their lives. And he said unto them, Unto what, then, were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied. It is very interesting to note the word ‘on’ in reference to what Paul did to them physically. The word is really translated in Strong’s Concordance to mean ‘superimpose.’ The point to make here is that when Paul placed his hands on them they were superimposed with the same Spirit that was on, and in Paul. Referring back to Nicander’s recipe, this is what happened in the pickling of the vegetables. These men were immersed into a ‘solution’ that changed them forever, and just as the smell of vinegar is unmistakable so is the evidence of the baptism that took place when Paul laid his hands on the believers. Another example of the difference between the spirit (with a small ‘s’) that draws us to salvation and the baptism in the Spirit (capital ‘S’) is found in Ecclesiastes. The preacher speaking here is relaying a message concerning the vanities of life and the flesh, which he describes as dust, but he offers to his hearers an understanding that not many people, even today, understand. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.4 This gives us an inclination concerning the makeup of our beings and the part within us that is God. Notice in this verse of scripture that there is no reference made to believers, rather it is a reference to mankind. If this is true, and Proverbs 20:27 supports this, then everyone who draws a breath has a spirit within them that was given by God. At death, regardless who you are, this spirit will return to God. This is important because it differentiates the spirit with a small ‘s’ (candle of the Lord) and the Spirit with a capital ‘S’. God needed to have a direct connection with his creation. What better way to do this than to put a little bit of Himself in every man. It is this part of man that speaks to him when he is not living righteously. It is also this part of man with whom God communicates His will to the fleshly man. It is the soul that acts as a buffer between the flesh and the spirit. Man is a triune being and until he can recognize this construction developed by God to make him complete he will always feel uncertain about life. Jay Atkinson of latter-rain.com has an interesting twist to the person of the Holy Ghost and His role within the church. Glossolalia is from Greek glossa, tongue, referring to speaking in tongues, ecstatic utterances. One of the most interesting phenomenons in the modern church has been the tremendous growth of congregations which emphasize speaking in tongues. They emphasize a strict spiritual and Biblical authority, an austere morality, an enthusiastic faith and evidence of the Holy Ghost. Many however, strayed from the original vision confirmed by the Pentecostal doctrine and insisted that speaking in tongues was essential to any true baptism of the Holy Ghost. By their one burning desire to enter into the same supernatural experience which is described in the Book of Acts, tongues mistakenly became the only door through which they entered into this experience. By the use of the gift of tongues being out of order and congregations entering into in confusion, tongues became the most divisive influence in the modern church. From the one instance of the manifestation rising from the Azusa Street Mission, whole congregations sprang into being with the chief cornerstone, not on Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit but from one of His gifts.5 Mr. Atkinson seems to be inferring that there is another physical evidence to let onlookers and other believers know that the baptism in the Holy Ghost has taken place. He is also assuming that simply because a congregation is Pentecostal in nature that they put a higher priority on speaking in tongues than they do salvation or anything else that pertains to spiritual life. While there are denominations and even those who claim no denomination who emphatically deny the baptism in Holy Ghost as a separate and distinguishable experience from salvation, any instance in scripture where speaking in tongues is mentioned it is in direct correlation with the Holy Ghost. To deny this seems ludicrous to Spirit-filled believers who have experienced glossolalia and if they are not careful it can drive a wedge between people of different denominations. In the description of the Old Testament feast of Pentecost that Luke gives in the book of Acts, he writes that a sound came from heaven; a sound like that of a powerful wind (emphasis mine). It was not a wind per say, but the sound of one. Then he further describes the sound as filling the whole house where they were assembled. As if that was not a specific enough sign of the baptism, and also for the purpose of fulfilling scripture, cloven tongues of fire appeared. Cloven is a peculiar word which means to partition thoroughly. The fire appeared over them all and then was partitioned thoroughly to each one in the house. The next event was the one that baffled the onlookers of that day just about like it does today. The tongue in this passage refers to a language not naturally acquired. There are three references to speaking in tongues in the Acts. At Pentecost (Acts 2) the disciples spoke in tongues and were understood by their listeners. The phenomenon may have involved both the speaking and the hearing. At Ephesus (Acts 19:6) the speaking in tongues was equated with prophecy and thus was intelligible communication. At the home of Cornelius in Caesarea (Acts 10:4546) the people who heard the speaking knew that the people were praising God and not talking about some mystery. And in Peters Pentecost sermon (Acts 2: 1417) he equated the speaking in tongues with prophecy when he quoted Joel 2:2832 as being then fulfilled: "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." From these passages it can be said that the tongue speaking in the Acts was intelligible and understood.6 Harvey J.S. Blaney says further that the tongues Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 14 is different than the aforementioned instances. He points out that while it may be a physical sign of an inward experience it was, at the same time, very confusing to onlookers. Some would say this is support that tongues should not be used in congregations any longer. But, Paul was not advocating the refusal of tongues; rather he was instructing them to do it in an orderly fashion and to have an interpreter. "It was a happy circumstance for the future of Christianity that, in those early days when there were almost as many wild suggestions and foolish opinions as there were converts, that there should have been in the church this one clear, practical judgment, this pure embodiment of the wisdom of Christianity."7 If believers were as fervent about thinking as a Christian as they are their employment, there would, to some degree, less confusion in the congregation. If speaking in tongues as the evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is going to be taught there needs to be some critical thought put to it. In other words, if believers do not know why they believe what they believe, how is the convert ever going to survive? Returning to Roger Stronstad’s book, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, his heightened sense of urgency concerning how the body of Christ is divided on this subject is once again revealed. “…[Thus] winds of division and controversy now sweep across current interpretations of the gift of the Holy Spirit. This division is not simply theological. Fundamental hermeneutical and methodological differences lie at the heart of the matter. (Stronstad 1984, 2)” Fundamental truth is the ‘stuff’ of understanding. Proverbs 4:7 instructs, “Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom, and with all thy getting get understanding.” Solomon had his heart in the right place. His mind troubled him due to the controversial way his body wanted to react to the fame that was par for the course being the wisest man on the earth. Just as Solomon faced debate in his day, Bible scholars continue to argue different aspects of scripture. However, when argument is based on pride or stupidity, there will be no common ground upon which to stand. Ignorance of the truth faces every person who attempts to walk in Christ. Being a member of the Body of Christ has its perks, but along with those comes the responsibility to break the Bread of Life with whosoever will come. Jesus taught many spiritual truths, yet before he ascended He instructed the disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait for the power from on high. It is very interesting that they obeyed without knowing anything about the baptism in the Spirit. They ‘tarried’ as the King James Version says it, until the day of Pentecost was fully come. This ‘fully come’ is to swamp. It is the overwhelming of something that cannot be controlled. When the Spirit is in control, the believer will sometimes feel as if they are not. This is the way many describe the feeling while they are speaking in tongues. The first to feel this way and to speak in tongues in the early church were the disciples. The description is understood by Peter’s oration to the crowd that had gathered at the first outpouring. He felt like he needed to tell the onlookers that the people speaking in tongues were not drunk as they supposed they might be. Instead, it was the fulfillment of Joel’s words found in the Old Testament concerning the promise from God to pour out His Spirit in this fashion. Many other benefits came along with the baptism in the Holy Spirit, but the first and foremost evidence given in scripture is speaking in tongues. The crowd that had gathered on the day of that first outpouring claimed to hear the praises of God in their own language. It should not be assumed, however, that all experiences of speaking in tongues will not be understood. Just as the people gathering to hear what was going on in that upper room in Jerusalem heard their native tongue, it is quite possible, and probable, that God would do the same today. Bibliography Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, Hendrickson Publishers, 1984 Napier, K. B. Water Baptism. Bible Theology Ministries Outline. http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/outlines/outline_00044_water_baptism_web.htm First Corinthians 12:3 Ecclesiastes 12:7 Atkinson, Jay. Glossolalia. The Latter Rain Page. http://latter-rain.com/theology/gloss.htm Accessed 12 April, 2007 Blaney, Harvey J.S. St. Paul’s Posture in Speaking in Unknown Tongues, Wesley Center Online, 2007, http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/06-10/08-6.htm, Accessed 12 April 2007. Dods, Marcus. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: A.C. Armstrong, 1898), p. 6. Read More