Charismatic Practice - Speakng in Tongues

[DavidFilmer]

In a Previous Thread, I engaged in discussion about Charismatic spirituality (particularly the practice of speaking in “unknown tongues”).  The discussion was Catholic flavored, as it was mainly among Catholics. Matthias, who identifies himself as Charismatic but not as a Catholic, joined the thread later with an interest in discussing the issue. Because the original discussion was slanted towards Catholic worship, I decided to open a new thread for this discussion.

The original thread had covered the question from many perspectives. Understandably, Matthias didn’t care to try to tackle all of that at once. So he asked me to focus the discussion on the “MAIN two or three reasons” why I feel that the practice of speaking in unknown tongues has no Christian credibility. He says that if he can refute those MAIN reasons, then he would consider that he has made a strong case.

OK, fair enough – that’s very sensible. But, tell ya what – How about we focus on THE MAIN reason.  I will give you my ONE MAIN reason for believing that speaking in unknown tongues has no credibility. If you can refute this then I will absolutely concede, and I promise that I will never again discourage speaking in unknown tongues. How about that?

In the original discussion about tongues (among Catholics) I focused heavily on the lack of historical merit.  Catholics (and especially Catholics who are apologetically inclined) have a deep respect for historical traditions. But, among protestants, this emphasis on history is not as profound. Protestants are very Biblical. So, for Matthias, I will ask him to explain this ONE MAIN objection:

The practice of speaking in unknown tongues has absolutely no Biblical merit. It is never supported, encouraged, or promoted anywhere in the Bible. The fact that it is MENTIONED in the Bible does not give it Biblical merit (“proxy baptism of the dead” is also mentioned in the Bible, but I doubt Matthias would encourage this practice, unless he is Mormon). Everything that the Bible says about “unknown tongues” is meant to discourage and limit the practice.

So, Matthias, there is your challenge. Can you refute this position? Can you find anything in the Bible that supports the idea of speaking in unknown tongues? If you can do so then you have won me over to your point of view.

But, before you try, let me give you this fair warning (because you said earlier that you had never attempted this sort of discussion). Many Charismatics will use portions of Scripture out of context. Please do not grab some verse from a Charismatic website and post it without first reading the passage and the text surrounding it (this is the meaning of “context”). Because I assure you that I will read the passages in context and post my reply accordingly.

[jesusandyou]

I have to disagree. There is nothing in the new testament which is written to discourage talking in tongues. There are multiple biblical passages which encourage believers to practice speaking in tongues. There are two kinds of tongues. One kind of talking in tongues will energize your inner man. Then there is gift of interpreting which will edify the Church. I came from a protestant Church. Nobody ever practiced it in that Church when I was growing up. It was more of a lack of education. The same Church now more into prayer and fasting. There are people in that Church receiving tongues without the interference of any Charismatic leaders from outside. Its important that you need to balance your Christian life. You can't talk in tongues much and practice hate towards your fellow beings.

Will you be surprised if I say this? John Paul II speaks in tongues. Few years back the Charismatic TV Evangelist Benny Hinn met John Paul in Rome. In his interview with TBN, he was asked about his meeting with John Paul. Pastor Benny said in that interview that John Paul spoke in tongues and believe in talking in tongues. I don't have anything to prove except to go back to that TBN Interview and listen.

I am writing this from a non-Catholic perspective. The main stream protestant Churches don't encourage talking in tongues. That is primarily because it is not part of their liturgical service. The people who get seperated from those churches and call them as independant practice free worship. Talking in tongues is part of their worship. Many call them Charismatics or Pentecostals. But the term Charismatics apply both to Catholicals and non-Catholics.

[DavidFilmer]

There are two kinds of tongues... talking in tongues... and gift of interpreting...

There is another way you could categorize it as "two kinds of tongues," namely speaking/interpreting in KNOWN or UNKNOWN tongues. The gift of speaking/interpreting KNOWN tongues is described in Acts Chapter 2. This gift bears absolutely no resemblance to the practice of speaking in UNKNOWN tongues described in 1Cor.

Speaking in KNOWN tongues is a gift from the Holy Spirit (and I’ve never heard of this gift in modern times). Speaking in UNKNOWN tongues is a corruption of the Devil.

There are multiple biblical passages which encourage believers to practice speaking in tongues.

Oh, Matthias will be so glad to hear that, because I’ve asked him to come up with JUST ONE Biblical passage that encourages speaking in unknown tongues. I’m still awaiting his reply. Perhaps you would be so kind as to help him out in this regard? If there are “multiple” passages it should be easy to cite just one. Matthias and I would be very grateful for this insight. Just one passage.
 

Will you be surprised if I say this? John Paul II speaks in tongues.

First of all, even if that were true, it would prove nothing. What a Pope does in his private life can be seriously flawed, and history has examples of several popes whom we would NOT wish to use as examples of personal conduct. But I don’t think JP2 speaks in tongues. I‘ve just spent nearly an hour Googling around and could find no reference to the Pope speaking in tongues – not even from Benny Hinn (an extreme supporter of tongues) or TBN. This conversation you mentioned hardly convinces me, either. I do not regard Mr. Hinn as very credible in the first place. But I could imagine that, if the topic were discussed, the Pope and Benny might not have understood each other properly (since they would not have been talking in Polish or Italian).  If the Pope speaks in unknown tongues, it is not mentioned at all in his nearly 1000-page (992, to be exact) biography, Witness to Hope. There is no indication that the Pope he has ever attended a Charismatic worship service. Ive never seen this mentioned on any Catholic charismatic website.

The people who get separated from those churches and call themselves independent…

You might be thinking this as a good thing, but from a Catholic perspective (and from most protestant viewpoints, as you say) this fragmentation of the Body of Christ is further evidence of the demonic effect of speaking in unknown tongues. If you wish to present the idea that fragmentation, division, and separation within the Body of Christ is a good thing then I strongly encourage you to open a new thread on this topic. But I see this is the work of the devil, and speaking in tongues has caused a great deal of Christian fragmentation, division, and separation, and continues to do so.

[Matthias]

davidfilmer I am not ignoring this question of you - I notice that what you say about how you are still waiting on me to say my answer. I am doing the research of the Bible of this question. It seem that it is not so easy that I answer your question very good - but I think that I may be have some thing or two that will be OK, so I am not giving up!!!!!!!!!!  But I want to research this additional that I make sure these answer are really OK before I say it as reply to you. So please that you be patient! In mean time if jesusandyou have such an answer that davidfilmer ask about please to say it, jesusandyou!

[trmichels]

Sorry I've been gone so long. I've been very busy with work, for my self and others.

Anyhow, I'm baa - ack.

It is very evident to me that what we have here is two different interpretations, and it appears, two different beliefs, on the Biblical references to tongues.

David Filmer (who appears to believe tongues may be evil) does not think they are Biblical. He uses the Bible to dismiss tongues, while many of us who believe in or use tongues can use the very same verses to support tongues.

The idea that there is no "historical reference" to tongues in the Catholic church, does not mean tongues were not used in the church between 33 AD or thereabouts and 2004. It also does not mean tongues were not used by Christian, yet Protestant, churches in that time.

I will admit I haven't reserached it enough to say that tongues were used by any Christian church between the 1st and 20th centuries (and let us not forget, the Christian church was originally that; the Christian Church, not the Catholic Church). I also dont' think anyone can definitively say tongues were not used, during that time, because there is no way to prove it.


As I said before (and I beleive it can be found in the Bible), "They (Christians) shall be known by their fruits." And the fruits of those Christians who speak in tongues, including Catholics, are good examples of what it is to be a follower of Christ.

I've seen this "prejudice" against tongues by many Christians who are unfamiliar with the spitiual gifts, and I see it particularly in my own denomination; Catholicism.

The use of tongues is clearly mentioned in the Bible, and the uses of the different types of tongues are there for those who either have an open mind, or have the spiritual gifts to understand their proper use, and improper use.

Here is a quote from the Catholic Catechism.

800 "Charisms (the spitirual gifts of the Holy Spirit) are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them and by all members of the chruch as well."

Nowhere in the Catechism is there any mention or referece that excludes the "use of tongues" or their categorization as a charism. Therefore, "tonuges" are to be accepted (not necessarily practiced, possibly not even believed in, but "accepted" by all members of the church.

I for one will continue to use my God-given Spiritual gifts, including tongues. I've said many times over the years, "Lord let me be your humble servant, and in that capacity, take away any gifts you do not want me to have or use."

Since 1974 I have been using tongues, because He has not taken them away from me. If He wanted to take them away from me, He would. I know and believe that. I don't believe I need to defend my use of tongues, and I won't, I was just trying to help an unbeliever (David Filmer) understand.

I know I am not evil, and neither is my use of tongues, nor is my use of tongues  inspired by Satan, nor is it Biblically wrong. Yahweh Sabaoth is my God, Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, and the Paraclete is my Comforter and Guide. Amen.

The best thing to do here, is agree to disagree.    

May God bless all of you and your families.


Your humble servant in Christ,

T.R. Michels

[DavidFilmer]

Hi, trmichels - welcome back!

The idea that there is no "historical reference" to tongues in the Catholic church, does not mean tongues were not used in the church between 33 AD or thereabouts and 2004. It also does not mean tongues were not used by Christian, yet Protestant, churches in that time... I dont' think anyone can definitively say tongues were not used, during that time, because there is no way to prove it

Ah, but we CAN prove it! The Early Fathers specifically tell us that tongues (either known or unknown) were NOT in use (I quoted them in my earlier post). Those guys were there - they ought to know. And, by the way, there were NO protestant churches then - there was no such thing as a Christian "denomination" until the Sixteenth Century - everyone (and I do mean literally each and every single Christian) up to that point was Catholic (and I'd be happy to discuss that further, if you like, in a different thread).

"They (Christians) shall be known by their fruits."And the fruits of those Christians who speak in tongues ... are good examples of what it is to be a follower of Christ.

The defective logic of this is easily demonstrated with an even more extreme example: In my diocese (Portland in Oregon), certain priests (men who had dedicated their whole lives in service to God) who were highly regarded and who bore abundant "good fruit" were later discovered to have been molesting small children all the while - much to the shock of many who knew them ("Oh, he was such a good man and did such good works - how could this be???"). External evidence of "good fruit" does not preclude wiling participation in even deeply evil or satanic acts. So neither would "good fruits" preclude participation in mildly satanic acts like speaking in "unknown" tongues.

The use of tongues is clearly mentioned in the Bible

The form of tonunges practiced in Charismatic worship services ("unknown" tongues) was NEVER mentioned by Paul EXCEPT to limit and discourage the practice.  There is not ONE SINGLE verse in Scripture that promotes it (I would still be interested to hear from Matthias, who offered to look into this question). Idolatry is mentioned in the Bible - but it is discouraged and condemned. Same with "unknown" tongues.

"Charisms (the spitirual gifts of the Holy Spirit) are to be accepted with gratitude..." [CCC#800] Nowhere in the Catechism is there any mention or referece that excludes the "use of tongues" or their categorization as a charism. Therefore, "tonuges" are to be accepted...

It is exactly BECAUSE the Church has NEVER accepted speaking in "unknown tonunges" as a valid Chaism that NO Catholic is expected to accept the practice. Just because the Church does not specifically EXCLUDE it does not mean She INCLUDES it by default.  I've never told my son not to pee in the toaster, but my silence on this point does not give him license to do so.

If He wanted to take [tongues] away from me, He would. I know and believe that.

Do you believe that God will "take away" ALL sinful desires from you (because, obviously, God does not want you to sin)? If that's what you believe, it means you never sin. If that's not what you believe, then you have   no basis to claim that God would simply "take away" your desire to speak in tongues either. God does not want you to speak in tongues any more than He wants you to sin, but He grants you unrestrained free will to do either.

The best thing to do here, is agree to disagree.

If a Christian Sister came onto this forum who was considering having an abortion and was attempting to defend her actions, would this be your attitude? Would you "agree to disagree" and allow your Sister to fall into sin? Or would you try to protect your Sister from the influences of the devil?

The devil is very clever. He can deceive good Christians with false spiritual practices which offer an artificial sense of fulfillment but which really inhibit and restrict our true spiritual progress. The devil fears the sense of spiritual renewal that is the foundation of the Charismatic movement and has successfully undermined it with the false spiritual practice of speaking in "unknown" tongues. I care about my Christian Brothers and Sisters whose faith is being diluted and corrupted by this practice (even if they don't realize it).

If the practice is legitimate, it should be objectively defensible (that's the whole concept of "apologetics").  I've never heard an objectively defensible argument in favor of tongues. We can talk about "personal feelings" of divine inspiration all day (along with Muslim suicide bombers), but that's not objectively defensible.

I'm still hoping to hear back from Matthias (who had accepted my challenge to find JUST ONE Biblical verse which - read in context - supports or encourages the practice of speaking in "unknown" tongues).

[trmichels]

Matthias,

No one here (including you) should worry about convincing David Filmer (or anyone else) that tongues are a spiritual gift from God, (especially since David  appears to be an unbeliever of tongues). The fact that those of us who use tongues believe in Jesus, and the fact that the Holy Spirit has given us the gift of tongues, is proof enough for me, and all the others who speak in tongues, that tongues are a gift from God.

(I will tell you now, that I realized about half way through this, that I was using my gift of Wisdom to write what is written here.)

In 1 Cor. 14:18 Paul says, "I thank God the I speak with tongues more than any of you..." Here Paul is thankful to God for his gift of tongues, because as it says in 1 Cor. 14:2 "Those who speak in a tongue speak to God, but not to other people, because nobody understands them; they are speaking in the Spirit and the meaning is hidden." This is proof enough that tongues are a gift from God, and they have a purpose, which is to convey personal or hidden messages or thoughts to God the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit. This type of "speaking in the Spirit" to God is meant to build up the person who uses the tongue, just as it says in 1 Cor. 14:4. "Those who speak in a tongue may build themselves up ..."

In 1 Cor. 14:5 Paul gives an explanation of why he would RATHER have people use the Spiritual gift of Prophecy than Tongues. He says, "While I should like you all to speak in tongues (in other words there is nothing wrong with tongues), I would much rather you COULD prophesy; since those who prophesy are of greater importance than those who speak in tongues, UNLESS they can interpret what they say so that the church is built up by it."

What Paul is saying is that he wishes you COULD PROPHESY, unless you use tongues and can INTERPRET TONGUES, because it builds up the church. Hel is saying is that in a communal setting (as in a prayer meeting) it is better for the church (or those attending the meeting) that those who have spiritual gifts use their gift of prophecy (than tongues), because prophecy builds up the entire church, not just the individual.

(It is at about this point that I realized I was using my Spiritual Gift of Wisdom to write this, because the words just began "forming" in my mind, and I know I am not intelligent enough to write [by myself] what I am writing.)  

These comments by Paul are in no way an indictment of tonuges, or an admonishment not to use them. He is simply saying that those who CAN speak Prophetically are more important than those who CAN/DO speak in Tongues; UNLESS (and this is a big unless), the person who speaks in Tongues (this is clearly Prophesy in tongues) can also INTERPRET tongues.

Let's' analyze Paul's statement and his meaning. He clearly states that those who have the ability to "Speak in Tongues" while giving "Prophecy" and are also able to "Interpret Tongues" are at least as important as Prophets. There is no use for "Interpretation of Tongues" unless there is the use of "An Unknown Tongue". Therefore, both the use of "An Unknown Tongue" and "Interpretation of Tongues" are useful and necessary Spiritual Gifts of the Holy Spirit, that are given to us to be used "to build up the church" (as is quoted by me, and stated in the Catholic Catechism in an earlier post).

As I stated in the original (earlier) thread, there are clearly three different uses of "tongues": 1. Speaking in Tongues (an individual praying in the Spirit to God, for the benefit of one's self or for the needs of others) 2. Singing in Tongues (often done by several people in communal settings as praise to God). 3. Prophesying in Tongues (mainly used in communal settings, where an Interpretation of the Prophecy in Tongues is given, so that all those hearing the Prophecy in Tongues are built up). Paul has here referred to two of these uses.    

There is a problem with the way many people interpret Paul's comments. They often do not understand that not all Charismatics are given, nor use, all of the Spiritual Gifts. While many Charismatics are given the Gift of Tongues, a far fewer number are given the Gift of Prophecy, the Gift of Prophecy in Tongues, or the Gift of Interpretation of Tongues. And, a person who does not have those Gifts (but has been given the Gift of Tongues) cannot use them. That does not mean he/she should not use their Gift of Tongues. The Holy Spirit would not bestow any of the Gifts on a person, unless they were supposed to use them.

(From here on what I write are my own comments/thoughts.)

I would suggest that those people who have not received any of the Spiritual Gifts of the Holy Spirit, not cast doubts about their use (by those of us who have been given these Spiritual Gifts from the Holy Spirit, and who do use our Gifts).

In 1 Cor. 14: 21 Paul refers to a prophecy of Isaiah. Paul writes, "It says in the written law: In strange tongues and in a foreign language I will talk to this nation, and even so they will refuse to listen, says the Lord. So then, strange languages are significant not for believers, but for unbelievers ..." To paraphrase; the use of the Gift of Tongues is a contentious issue for unbelievers, because they are skeptical / doubtful of its  use. For believers, tongues are not an issue, because they BELIEVE.

And before anyone jumps on following verses, my Bible notes that the next verses are from "an obscure text, and seem to be a contradiction of the previous verse." In other words their applicability and meadning are in question.


In closing:

How prophetic are the words of Isaiah of the skeptics here? "... and even so they refused to listen."

David,

I know because of the way you "used" certain things I wrote against me/my beliefs, and due to your personal interpretations/beliefs, that you will twist/interpret what I have written to show your viewpoint, and support your beliefs.

Your are entitled to your interpretation. I, and those of us who believe in the use of the Spirit, are also entitled to ours.

To answer your question about, "Do I believe God will take away what I ask him to take away of my Spiritual Gifts?"  The answer is yes, because I asked Him to, He said he will do what we ask in His name, and I believe He will remove any Gifts (or as you might put it false/pseudo Gifts) from me, so that I can continue to be his seervant. Without that faith/belief, I would be nothing.  

Your assertion of God not wanting me to speak in tongues is a strong one. Are you suggesting you personally know what God wants in this case, or is this your opinion. Is this you using the Gift of "Wisdom" or you using the Gift of "Knowledge" about me personally? (This is meant as a serious question.) If it is I will certainly take it to heart, and I will pray for confirmation of your pronouncement.

Your equating my asking God to keep me from using tongues and me not sinning is a stretch, and is not something I suggested. I in no way meant to imply that I am sinless, nor do I claim to be sinless. And I will say that to me this feel like a personal attack. If it is I think an apology is due.  

My question to you is, "Do you believe you have, and use, any of the Spiritual Gifts?"

I have stated my beliefs, and the beliefs of many others. I do not intend to "debate" this any further. I have better things to do than debate or to try to convince those who refuse to believe in the use of tongues.


May God bless all of you, and all of your families,

T.R.

[DavidFilmer]

Hello, trmichels.  Most of your previous post was directed to Matthias, so I will refrain from making any comments, because I'm curious what Matthias thinks about it. He is a strong supporter of speaking in tongues, but in a previous thread he was critical of some of Rick Jones' anti-Papal writings, even though Matthias is no supporter of the Papacy. So I believe that, if Matthias sees any problem with the points you raised, he will be willing to share those, even if he agrees with your viewpoint in general. He wrote in that earlier thread,

Yes, it is good to be honest. It is not good make points that you know they are not really OK - even if you think you get away with it and not be found out

so I will be interested to hear his opinion, if he cares to reply (I hope he does).

In the portion of the post directed towards me, you said

I know ... that you will twist/interpret what I have written

This troubles me greatly. I always try to deal forthrightly with people, and never twist or distort their words. Can you give me an example where you feel I have done this?

To answer your question about, "Do I believe God will take away what I ask him to take away of my Spiritual Gifts?"

That's not what I asked (it's not even close - scroll up a bit, brother). But maybe I didn't express myself very well. You presented a line of reasoning that seemed to go like this:

[/li]
• I speak in tongues, and I've done so for a long time
  
  
• If God didn't want me to speak in tongues, he could prevent me from doing so
  
  
• Since God has not prevented me, it is His will that I speak in tongues
  

This is what you seemed to be saying, and I saw a logical error in the reasoning (I saw two, actually, but I only pointed out one). A classic technique to examine the validity of a logical position is called "reductio ad absurdum" and it works something like this:

[/li]
• I'm an engineer (I really am), and I've been an engineer for a long time.
  
  
• If God didn't want me to be an engineer, he could prevent me from doing so
  
  
• Since God has not prevented me, it is His will that I be an engineer
  

It's the same logic in both cases. If the logic were valid in the first case, it ought to hold true in the second case, but the second case seems weak. You could reduce the second case even further to say "I'm a drunk (or wife-beater, or axe-murderer) and I've been a drunk (or wife-beater, or axe-murderer) for a long time..." and the flaw in the logic becomes even more clear, because the logic attempts to demonstrate an obviously absurd conclusion. Since the second case is obviously false, then the logic must be faulty. This is what I was trying to point out, and I used the technique of "reductio ad absurdum" to do so.  Perhaps I didn't express my application of this technique very well; I'm sorry if I inadvertantly offended you - this was not my intent.

(You can use the technique to prove logic as well. For example: "All Martians are green. Joe is a Martian. Therefore, Joe is green." This is a perfectly valid logical constuct. You can plug in any terms you like and the logic will hold true, no matter how absurd you try to make the terms. Since the logic cannot be reduced to absurdity, this is a proof of the validity of the logic, and the logic does not collapse. Of course, you could invalidate the argument if you could find one Martian who was not green - but that's a different technique).

Your assertion of God not wanting me to speak in tongues is a strong one. Are you suggesting you personally know what God wants in this case, or is this your opinion.

I'm saying that God does not want ANYBODY (yes, including you and Matthias) to speak in "unknown" tongues EVER, because this is NOT (and never has been) a valid Charism of the Holy Spirit (it is a corruption of satan). This is, indeed, my opinion (since the Church has not said one way or another), so I present my opinions for discussion in an apologetical forum and I critique the opinions of others (because that's what people do in an apologetical forum). But I believe the validity of my opinion is easy to demonstrate, though I  always have an open mind to opposing viewpoints (I am, after all, a Catholic convert - no closed-minded person can be a convert).

My question to you is, "Do you believe you have, and use, any of the Spiritual Gifts?"

Why do you ask? I don't beleive my own personal experience is relevant in any way. I DO believe in Charisms, and I do believe that speaking in tounges is a Charism, but ONLY the type of tongues described in Acts 2 (known tongues). I do NOT believe that the "unknown" tongues that Paul condemned in 1Cor is (or has ever been) a legitimate Charism (it is a corruption of satan).

I hope to hear from Matthias.