Speaking in Tongues, from God, or something from Satan? Options

[SoulEspresso]

saharafan,

You clearly put in a lot of time on these studies, and I appreciate it. I would guess that most of us would agree with what you say about living and thinking biblically.

But let's be truthful: honest, Spirit-led Christians sometimes disagree. I hope you don't think that just because you and I disagree , one of us doesn't have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does what He likes, without asking us. (John 3:8)

Here are my burdens in posting on this topic:
1) To persuade everybody not to judge the spirit of charismatic Christians based on glossolalia (or other weirdness) alone
2) To encourage whoever reads this to begin Bible study with exegesis, exegesis, exegesis rather than systematic theology.

For good or ill, exegesis only works if one tries really, really hard to set aside any presuppositions about the text in question. Without this, "One believes he is thinking while he's really rearranging his prejudices."

While I agree about the other passages, generally, I still stand by 1 Corinthians 14 as being about ecstatic speech. As noted and described in an earlier post, I think rendering the term "tongues" into "foreign language" makes the text harder to understand, rather than easier. Try it with verses 2, 4, 9 and 13-14 in particular.

We all tend to start by acting systematically rather than exegetically. You have to have systematic theology to live in the real world. I'm not arguing for ecstatic speech to be practiced in Adventist churches. But systemization has to come out of studying individual texts--and the study of the individual text has to come first. I would point out, for example, that Acts 2 uses "dialekto" (dialect/language) as much as it does "glossa" (tongue/language) (twice each) to refer to what was happening there--perhaps as clarification? After all, 1 Corinthians 14 uses only "glossa."

Note also that different NT writers use the same word to mean different things--to use the same word as an obvious example, even the word "glossa" in Acts 2 refers to language AND to the "tongues of flame" that descended on the believers. Obviously two different meanings to the same word, within Luke's own writings and the same chapter. [This isn't the best example. We could try studying "teleios" and its derivatives--contrast Matthew 5:48 ("be perfect") with Hebrews 10:14 ("he has made perfect forever"), for example.]

A brief exegesis of 1 Cor 14 we might be able to agree on (try this on for size, in other words): Paul was talking about ecstatic speech, but addressed it by being sarcastic about it--in other words, he was opposed to its use in public worship and was pooh-poohing it by showing how unhelpful it was to a larger body. Not my idea, but perhaps enlightening. The trouble is that we can't hear his tone of voice as he dictates the letter to his scribe.

I would reiterate that my point is not to say we should practice glossolalia as Adventists, but that we should not condemn other Christians, or say they're following a false spirit, just because they do practice it.

Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

I also appreciate that you believe the people who are practicing this may well be protected by the Lord from spirits other than His--even if I'm wrong on 1 Cor 14 I have to believe this--but even this can be damaging.

Where the rubber meets the road: We had a dear Pentecostal couple in their 70s visiting our church (after watching 3ABN, no less--and I'm not a fan) for some weeks. While they were at someone's house for Sabbath lunch, while sharing backgrounds, one of our members said something very close to, "My mother used to be a charismatic, and it wasn't until she was an Adventist that she realized the voices she was hearing were from the devil."

Now, this was a dear couple who had been in the Lord for decades, through several denominations, and were on the verge of accepting Present Truth--but because of our assumptions about the spirit present in their congregations, they will probably never come back. This was not just a case of bad manners; it was a direct result of the prejudice engendered by these presuppositions about other Christians and the Bible.

Truth is, I've never even heard glossolalia, and I myself only met that couple once. But we've got to be really, really careful about identifying spirits, either way, because we run the risk of making the worst mistake of all--blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

As my wife said after she found out what happened with that dear couple, "We Adventists have got to quit pretending we have the corner on favor with God."

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Oct 2 2006, 09:29 AM

[AmeliaLD]

I found this article to be very helpful to me. Not being a learned student of the bible but just a lay student, having the text broken down with the greek meanings proved more enlightening for me.

The following verses in the Book of the Revelation should be examined carefully (Revelation 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15). In each passage where the word “tongue” is mentioned it means one of the languages associated with the various nationalities and races. I see no reason why anyone should raise a question as to the tongues in those passages in Mark, Acts and Revelation meaning languages.

But the more serious problems arise in the interpretation of the twenty-one references to tongues in First Corinthians chapters 12-14. There are those who tell us that the tongues in First Corinthians are ecstatic utterances not known in any country on earth. They base their conclusion on the term “unknown” which appears in I Corinthians 14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19, and 27. But the reader of this chapter in God’s Word must not fail to observe that the word “unknown” in every place where it appears is in italicized letters, which means that it does not occur in any Greek manuscript but was inserted by translators. The Holy Spirit did not direct Paul to write that the tongue is unknown.

I find no warrant for changing the meaning of tongues in First Corinthians. In every other place where the word is used it means languages. Why then should the meaning be changed in First Corinthians? I know of no textual license that will warrant changing the meaning of the word. All the usages of tongues in Paul’s treatment of the subject refer to foreign languages. “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into air” (I Corinthians 14:9).

There is no reason for anyone to speak except to converse intelligibly. The Greek word laleo means “I speak.” The word is never used for mere sound or noise. Nor is it used for a mere mumbling or muttering of unintelligible gibberish. The tongues-speaking in the New Testament was in the native languages of hearing people. The supernatural phenomenon which took place at Pentecost was the exercise of a gift whereby many people from many countries, gathered at Jerusalem, heard God’s message in their own language. This was indeed a miracle of God.

It would be an arbitrary and strange interpretation of Scripture that would make tongues-speaking in the New Testament anything other than known languages. There is no trace of Scriptural evidence that tongues were ever heard by anyone as incoherent, incomprehensible babbling.

FromSpeaking in Tongues by Lehman Strauss , Litt.D., F.R.G.S. Bible.org http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=393

[SoulEspresso]

I found this article to be very helpful to me. Not being a learned student of the bible but just a lay student, having the text broken down with the greek meanings proved more enlightening for me.
FromSpeaking in Tongues by Lehman Strauss , Litt.D., F.R.G.S. Bible.org http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=393

Hey There, AmeliaLD,

Nobody is going to go wrong in their own practice by believing that the word for "tongues" means "foreign languages" across the board. I totally agree that the majority of texts in the NT are this way. Maybe all of them but this one--I didn't examine them because systematization was not my purpose.

But I don't believe it's responsible scholarship to assume that just because a writer uses a word one way in one place, another writer means exactly the same thing using the same word in a completely different book.

In English, the word "lemon" means different things:
"I hear the acid in lemon juice will take the enamel right off your teeth."
"This #*#% car is a lemon and I'm taking it back to the dealership!"

Even the same writer can use the same word in different ways in different places; 1 Corinthians 12 seems to use it as a word for "languages." In NT usage, the word "glossa" can mean "the organ that helps you swallow and enables you to speak," or "the shape of a tongue" (tongues of fire, Acts 2) or "language."

For people who speak in tongues (not myself), they might tell you it puts them into a mode of worship/receptivity to God faster than any other spiritual practice. This doesn't legitimize it--but it does explain the function of glossolalia to those who practice it.

Okay, has anyone reading this ever spoken in ecstatic speech? Some of us have spoken languages other than our mother tongue, but I'm looking for someone who either presently or in the past has engaged in glossolalia. I don't care whether you agree with me or not, I just want to hear your experience. Just witnessing it doesn't count.

I have yet to see any compelling textual evidence from the direct context that indicates the "tongues" here in Chapter 14 are foreign languages. So far, it's evident to me that everyone on this thread who has addressed the issue has done so from a priori commitments to the belief that "tongues" is "languages" every single place it occurs in the NT--including the authority you mentioned.

This is not at all a put-down, everyone is entitled to their belief, but I can't get anyone to concede that even if I'm wrong and it is languages in 1 Cor 14, the natural reading of the words of the Bible seem to indicate something else. I've said the following, twice now, but I'll put it one more time: try reading 1 Corinthians 14, substituting "foreign languages" for "tongues;" then try it with "ecstatic language." Which one makes more sense, in the natural flow of the text?

If you've actually tried this and you still disagree, we might get somewhere.

Perhaps the problem is that we Adventists are so unfamiliar with mystical experiences that we blow them all off as deceptive--odd considering that one of our founders had them all the time.

One more question: Is there any chance we can get this moved to the Theology department? This is incredibly !

[Clay]

sure, how much of this do you want moved to the other section? just the speaking in tongues part?

[Clay]

topic has been split..... let's continue dealing with speaking in tongues.....

[saharafan]

SoulEspresso,
Thank you for your kind response. I will answer briefly.

But let's be truthful: honest, Spirit-led Christians sometimes disagree. I hope you don't think that just because you and I disagree, one of us doesn't have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does what He likes, without asking us. (John 3:8)

I certainly don’t want to judge you, or anyone else, and say because you disagree with me you don’t have the Holy Spirit, who is also a seal for our salvation. That would imply that I would assume that you are lost just because you disagree with me on a minor point of interpreting a difficult and to a certain extend ambiguous Bible passage…
I am sorry if you perhaps got this impression but I don’t think that I gave you any reason to have it by from what I wrote.

Here are my burdens in posting on this topic:
1) To persuade everybody not to judge the spirit of charismatic Christians based on glossolalia (or other weirdness) alone

I agree with you on not to judge the “spirit” of the person “speaking in tongues”, or the person herself, that’s not my task. However, I feel myself rightfully burdened to judge or discern, on a general basis, with the help of the Holy Spirit and based on the Bible the “spirit” that makes them “speak in tongues”, that is, the “spirit” that is behind producing those babbling sounds, whether it is
a) from God,
from the person’s own psyche (a “natural” psychological phenomenon), or
c) from Satan,
or possibly a mixture of it.
Since those who practise it usually claim that a) is the right answer, and make it thus a supernatural phenomenon given to them as a gift from God, I think this question and study is very valid and important. If they are right and this is a true gift from God and is indeed very helpful for our spiritual growth and our relationship with Jesus and everybody can get it from God when praying hard enough for it, then I wonder why our church isn’t teaching this truth, too; I also would want to partake of this benediction, if it really is one and is genuinely from God and can be so easily obtained.
On the other side, if it is not from God then the people believing this are certainly deceived in this point and if they rely on it for their spiritual life and growth and relationship with God then something is very wrong and they are in spiritual danger, and that is another reason why I feel the need to make this judgement. I want to help them, and also those that have the same question not yet sufficiently answered, and those who are tempted to “try” it.

I would reiterate that my point is not to say we should practice glossolalia as Adventists, but that we should not condemn other Christians, or say they're following a false spirit, just because they do practice it.

I agree with you on the point not to condemn a person, this is not my task to do, at least not for the fact that he/she is speaking in tongues. However, I do claim the right to discern on the basis of the Bible and with the help of the Holy Spirit whether or not this person is deceived by a false teaching and a dangerous practice and that deception could become worse once evil spirits use this first deception as an inroad and open door into his/her mind. I claim the same right to discern on a biblical basis that a person advocating that Sunday is the New Testament Sabbath, or that a person’s soul (or spirit) goes directly into heaven or hell at death, is also deceived in a similar way, though it might not be that dangerous for them to directly come in contact with evil spirits like those “speaking in tongues”.

If you read in the Bible about the history of Israel, and if you study church history or the spiritual growth of individuals, you will find that it is not always only black or white, or 100% right or 100% wrong. People can follow the impressions of the Holy Spirit, or the teachings of the Bible only partially, although they even might believe they do so 100%. At the same time they might follow the devil in other parts of doctrine and practice, perhaps because of simple ignorance and assumption, or because of false interpretation of the Bible.
Therefore I think I have the right to discern whether or not a particular doctrine or practice held dear by some people is biblically justifiable/permissible, and if it is not and the point is an important one or one potentially dangerous for their soul, I feel a burden to try to help this person, and to warn others in similar danger of becoming deceived or encouraging it. Certainly, this needs to be done, according to the matter, patiently, humbly, with a lot of wisdom and in love. If I have an arrogant attitude of “You are wrong, I am right, I am better than you”, and only see the splinter in my brother’s eye that I need to force out of him, I am not likely to succeed always.
I am sorry for the experience with that Pentecostal couple that you related, there probably have been made mistakes in the way and manner and time they have been told those things. But I believe that there must come a time when people are ready that we help them in love and with wise words to understand and grasp the truth for themselves, step by step, beginning with expressing personal doubts and uncertainty with their understanding based on biblical texts, and leading the people to question themselves their own understanding with asking honest questions to them etc. You can compare it with devote Catholics who really love their church and their pope and who also started visiting our worships and studying with us. The way and manner you present a study on Daniel 7 to them is very important and grave errors can be made telling the truth in a wrong way. But it has to be told once, in the right way, at the right time. And I wouldn’t describe our position and teaching about the “little horn” as “prejudice” against the Papacy.

Similarly, I do not accept if someone tells me I am “prejudiced” against glossolalia, or ecstatic speech, since I did a thorough study about it, read several books about it, have visited several Pentecostal churches, watched their worships on TV, and talked with Pentcostals and came to certain conclusions that I believe are well based in Scripture and very clear to me, but also objective and balanced at the same time. But you are right that I need to be careful not to become prejudiced against any person that practises it. That is a completely different thing. Nevertheless I feel the need to warn people about it and to speak out against it.

Truth is, I've never even heard glossolalia, and I myself only met that couple once. But we've got to be really, really careful about identifying spirits, either way, because we run the risk of making the worst mistake of all--blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

I do not claim that ecstatic speech always comes from Satan, that he is always behind it and directly involved in it. I believe it is a self-induced psychological phenomenon in the first place, that can be abused by Satan, and unfortunately often is. It is the advocates of glossolalia that usually claim that it is from God and that the Holy Spirit is behind it. So in my opinion, they (and perhaps you) need to be careful not to be deceived by a religious phenomenon in attributing something to the Spirit of God where He isn’t originally involved in. And I don’t see any danger of blasphemy in this particular case, even if I were wrong with my understanding of 1 Cor. 14.

Concerning your emphasis on exegesis, I certainly subscribe to that, you speak from my heart. But I would like to add that 1) sound exegesis must always be the basis for systematic theology, and 2) established systematic theology must be allowed to influence and correct exegesis. (But not to overrule and dictate it, for sure.) Systematic theology and exegesis are closely interwoven.
Systematic theology is merely a systematic arrangement of the results of detailed exegesis, like the 28 fundamental doctrines belong in the realm of systematic theology. And since systematic theology is mainly concerned with a theme and studies this theme (or doctrine) throughout the whole scope of biblical books, it should take into account the sound exegesis of the passages that contribute to it. At the same time, systematic theology can help us to understand better difficult Bible texts, and it has the important advantage of reminding us also of the crosslinks between different themes.
For example, when doing exegesis of certain difficult texts that at the first view seem to support the popular teachings that souls going directly to heaven immediately after death without the body, or eternal conscious suffering in the fires of hell, it is systematic theology that helps us and guides us towards the correct understanding of these difficult passages.

In our concrete example, when studying “speaking in tongues” in the Bible and especially in 1 Cor. 14, we must also take into account what the Bible teaches in general about “spiritual gifts”, especially what Paul teaches about them, since “speaking in tongues” is identified as such a “gift” of the Spirit, together with several others. The result of this study about “spiritual gifts” must be allowed to influence us in our understanding (exegesis) of difficult and ambiguous biblical passages on “speaking in tongues” like 1 Corinthians 14. Exactly the same is true for a study (exegesis) of other passages of the same subject – “speaking in tongues” – which are much clearer, like those passages in the book of Acts that I discussed here before. This is where systematic theology has a valid place in exegesis to protect us from misinterpretation. Sound exegesis therefore always includes the taking into account of the teachings of systematic theology of the related subjects, to various different degrees depending on the passage under study. And a major part of sound exegesis is also a thorough word study on the key words of the passage. And it is interesting and surprising to me that in the case of 1 Cor 14 you on the one side insist on exegesis of the text proper and on the other side you already say in advance that you won’t respect the obvious result of a word study on the Greek word of “tongue” outside of 1 Corinthians. If this word, especially in its close connection with “speaking”, really should have a different meaning in 1 Corinthians than in all other biblical appearances, then you really need to have a very strong contextual argument for that, which means basically that the context would not allow the “standard” meaning and force us to accept a different meaning unique to that passage, and I honestly doubt that we can find support for this case in this chapter.

I admit that 1 Corinthians 14 is a difficult text and the meaning of the “tongues” in it is somewhat ambiguous in front of the background of modern glossolalia. However, I believe that a careful analysis of the text of this chapter alone will already tip the scale more or less in favour of “foreign languages”. Compared with what Paul teaches in the same book about “spiritual gifts”, and what Luke teaches in Acts about “speaking in tongues”, and what Peter teaches about the importance of “soberness” of our mind and ratio, and what all Bible writers teach about powerful spiritual deceptions used by the devil especially in the end time, I believe there is not much room left for the argument that the tongues in 1 Corinthians can be understood as “ecstatic speech”. Then add to that what Ellen White says about this and related subjects….

I am sorry that I did not yet take time to start writing something down about 1 Corinthians 12-14, I am fasting during Ramadan with my Muslim friends, and not drinking and not eating all day in this heat here makes me very tired and not very motivated…. I hope to continue within this week or next weekend.

[princessdi]

Oh don't get it twisted. I am not agreeing with you, in the leasst. My point is because it is foreign to you, and you have been taught to fear this manifestation, and can't/won't shake that programming, you are not trying to understand. it in yourcarnal mind let alone in the spiritual. it wills ound slike jibberish to you, 1) it is not meant for you or your understanding, 2) you are not even trying to understand this with your carnal mind let alone a spiritual one.

It is kind of like "urban"(black) gospel music/style fo worship. We have been taught that it is not acceptable for worship. Mainly because of the drums, beat and emotion that accompany it. We all know all those drum beats from the African continent were used to call demon(Yeah right! NOT!!!), but that is still taught and accepted.
The leaders of this church call speaking in tongues jibbereish, say it is from the pit of hell, and totally disregard 1 Cor 14, add a cosign by EGW, and Voila!!!

You have post volumes here of nothing but party line you have been taught. It still doesn't ring true. Our doctrine on this should be as tight as our Sabbath and state of the dead doctrines with Bible ONLY! It is not, not without that cosign from EGW. That is unacceptable. If her writings agree with exstablished bible doctrine then so be it, but we should not depend ono them to complete the doctrine. It does not work with too many here, and it will not work with those to whom we are witnessing. That is sad to me.

You are certainly right, "spiritual things need to be spiritually discerned", and not emotionally.
And for discerning something we need a certain and trustworthy basis, a dependable rule, on that we can discern, or judge, or examine something. And in order to discern/judge/examine/evaluate/investigate spiritual things, that basis has to be the Bible, which is spiritual and was inspired by the Holy Spirit. If our understanding of some "spiritual things" does not comply with the Bible, we are already wrong, or misguided, or deceived concerning that point, and perhaps in spiritual danger, depending on the importance of the matter.

And that is exactly what I am doing here, I judge glossolalia by the Bible.

This talks about the Word of God (the spiritual tuth or message preached by the apostles and prophets). Today this is the Bible. It has to be understood "spiritually", i.e. with the help and ilumination of the Holy Spirit. Once it is understood this way and has become accepted truth, it is the basis for discering any other "spiritual thing."

"He that is spiritual" who judgeth all things is he that is devoted to biblical truth, has a living personal relationship with God based on biblical truth, teachings and principles and desires for the Holy Spirit to guide and illuminate him through biblical truth, i.e. through the Bible. Then God will also give him understanding in spiritual matters where the Bible and Ellen White are not clear. Concerning glossolalia, I believe both of those "spiritual sources" are clear and in harmony.

[Clay]

I am still trying to figure out how speaking in tongues means that you have opened your mind to Satanic influences....

[Seraphim7]

I am still trying to figure out how speaking in tongues means that you have opened your mind to Satanic influences....

Is that what scripture says about tongues? Or are we talking how men "perceive" the issue? Frankly that idea sounds like a serious lie right out of the pit of hell. BTJM

[Clay]

Is that what scripture says about tongues? Or are we talking how men "perceive" the issue? Frankly that idea sounds like a serious lie right out of the pit of hell. BTJM

human perception.... the bible doesn't suggest that speaking in tongues is of the devil per se......

[laryfromGary]

I have printed and read 80 posts. We have addressed this topic from the view of personal experiences, from what others have said about tongues, to the ultmate EGW card, even to the point of grabbing our swords and going to war against one another. So I want to take this back to the word of God. Paul states in 1st Corinthians 13: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.". 1. why do we let our personal predjudices cause os to fight one another, and 2. what is the tongues, or language of angels? Does heaven have a language of it's own that only God and the angels speak?, and if we are so holy that we can see into heaven and interpet the mind of God? Why do we have these theological fights when we express our own opinions?

[princessdi]

It was expalined to me, and I don't have the time to find it now, in another thread, that it is becuase you are not incontrol of your mind. At that point you are so very emotional, that you are unaware and/or oiffguard. Now, the fact that in your heart you are yielding yourself to the Holy Spirit does not matter. Basically because of the emotional state, even God leaves you open to attack from satan. Now, the explanation made sense to me only in that we tend to be spiritual Vulcans, and worse yet Borg. To me, it is just yet another DL attempt to villify a certain style of music and worship BTJM

I am still trying to figure out how speaking in tongues means that you have opened your mind to Satanic influences....

This post has been edited by princessdi: Oct 3 2006, 11:34 AM

[Denny]

After reading all these posts I still don't understand why a human being would need an unknown never been used before language to speak to God what is wrong with the language/dialect that they already know?

[Clay]

After reading all these posts I still don't understand why a human being would need an unknown never been used before language to speak to God what is wrong with the language/dialect that they already know?

you know they want to keep it a secret from you know who (satan) so that he can't rain on their parade, or answer a prayer intended only for God's ears.....

It was expalined to me, and I don't have the time to find it now, in another thread, that it is becuase you are not incontrol of your mind. At that point you are so very emotional, that you are unaware and/or oiffguard. Now, the fact that in your heart you are yielding yourself to the Holy Spirit does not matter. Basically because of the emotional state, even God leaves you open to attack from satan. Now, the explanation made sense to me only in that we tend to be spiritual Vulcans, and worse yet Borg. To me, it is just yet another DL attempt to villify a certain style of music and worship BTJM

Ohhhh ok.... and God knowing that we are in a state of emotional and spiritual vulnerability allows this to happen..... so either we serve a weak God or the devil is much stronger than we care to admit...

[princessdi]

The purpose is that God has given man a special prayer language to which satan and his angels are not privy. That is the point as expalined to me personally, and I have heard in several sermons on the gift. That also left me with a couple of questions, 1) If God is all powerful, creator of even satan and his angels, why would He need to go around them at all? 2) If it is aprivate pryer language and they use the scripture in ICor. 14 to supbstantiate the manifestation, then whyare so many not adhering to the Bible and speaking in tongues in a corporate setting with intperpretation. I have said it before, they over do and we dont 'do it at all, somewhere there is a happy medium.

After reading all these posts I still don't understand why a human being would need an unknown never been used before language to speak to God what is wrong with the language/dialect that they already know?

you know they want to keep it a secret from you know who (satan) so that he can't rain on their parade, or answer a prayer intended only for God's ears.....

Exactly!

Ohhhh ok.... and God knowing that we are in a state of emotional and spiritual vulnerability allows this to happen..... so either we serve a weak God or the devil is much stronger than we care to admit...

Yeah, that was my first thought also. Kind of reminded of the babies being possessed thing. However, as I told them at that time, I think it woul dhave been a waste of energy to bring up this point, becuase it was clear they have a toally different and errant concept of God., and Who He is. Clearly, for them He has some serious limitations, and indeed is not all powerful. Which leads to conclude as I did in the babies being possessed thread that they might indeed be searving a different God.