Featured The Early Church on Speaking In Tongues

I pray in tongues. It's amazing. The early church did it in prayer as well as the other uses. Personal prayer is more important imo.

 

Oh, oh?

P_n_S - I will be here, right beside when the onslaught falls in your direction! I was bloodied just last month for admitting I had a prayer language, so expect the :tonofbricks: and know that there are other Baptists, who should use this very moment in time to come out of the spiritual closet and stand up for what they believe in and practice.

I am not ashamed of this gift. And once again, I am going to say this, BECAUSE it is how I believe, tongues is NOT for everyone, and surely it is not, and I mean NOT, a sign of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost! :thumbsup:

Like you say, it is "Amazing" as well as "Important" to you! The thing is, I think OTHERS feel the same, and if you are ever going to admit, now is the time. Do not be afraid of criticism. They may judge us, but the proof of our agape love is not in judging them for not believing in or wanting we claim and hold dear to our hearts.

Personally, I am proud of your willingness to stand up and tell others what I have told them. And like me, I am sure you don't care on iota if others accept it, or have it, because it is not for everyone! Just like other gifts, this is a gift that not everyone has to have. All that really matters is that we are saved and going to heaven.

Welcome to the coming war ... and unless I am wrong, you will be confronted, and I will stand with you ...AND THAT THOSE WHO ASO SHARE OUR GIFT FINALLY SAYS SO!!! :wavey:

 

Welcome!

May I welcome you ... and pray that you remain open minded, because regardless of your last sentence ... you are going to feel the heat of those volatile Baptists, just as surely as the ground felt the blast of a Saturn Rocket leaving the Cape!!!:smilewinkgrin:

BTW - do you speak in tongues?

 

I believe there are 4 distinct applications for tongues. 3 are to who the Spirit wills, and are public. 1 is for every believer who wants to pray in the Spirit, can. That's the gift part. To me it is essential to a relationship with Jesus. As I willingly audibly produce sounds the Spirit forms the words as I pray. I have no idea what they mean but He does. The effects of praying like this in my closet are amazing when I go out into the world. You must know the awesome edification He works in you and your ministry. I see now where some of your strength comes from Amen!

 

You are spot on!

That is what I beieve! Great point! You have a clear understanding of this, I only wish others wouldn't judge us! I know we don't judge them!

 

The Stone-Campbell revival (1850's) Kentucky, reports of Holy Spirit utterings and groanings among other supernatural manifestations. This revival of some 20,000 people ended up becoming Church of Christ and several other offshoots. Books are rare and stories of first hand accounts are as well.

 

1Co 14:22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, ....

 

Actually if you are looking for views from the early church the 1850's aint it. And whatever went on in the 1850's as posted in this thread it was not biblical tongues.


And I have not posted 100's of posts on this topic here or anywhere else.

 

Well read perhaps, but his research is slanted, geared to prove his unbiblical view of tongues despite the biblical evidence that the gift has ceased, and that the "tongues" practiced today are so far from anything biblical as to be suspect as inspired by a spiritual force of a much different nature than God. Sullivan is notorious for using bad or deliberately misleading interpretations of the biblical accounts, and twisting the meaning of extra-biblical writings in defending his incorrect doctrine.

Yes, he's a prolific writer for an erroneous and false teaching.

McGee is of the same ilk, and another "researcher" who sets out with a premise and an intent to prove it, whether he has to stick to the truth or not.

Well, you've obviously got mine.

As Rev said, touching on the 1850s violates your own OP regarding an "early church" view of tongues.

Now, feel free to criticize me, as I suspect your "research" was really non-existent, and your purpose here is to open a discussion that will undoubtedly deteriorate into a riot when you discover few will support your views.

 

I have taken part on a couple of charismatic forums in the past. What I have found is they do not like opposing views. I suspect that is the concern of the op writer here as well.

 

the68:If you have extra-Biblical information from early church history (pre-1906) that supports ecstatic utterance as accepted by the Charismatic doctrine then by all means post it.

I believe George Fox experienced healings and tongues was mentioned but I cannot recall the article. Around 1650 England

 

Smith Wigglesworth late 1800's but a lady from Ohio did 3 examples regularly from 1882 on, Mariah Woodworth Etter 1844-1924. It is difficult to find earlier examples because writing was just not common until the past 200 or so years.

 

Thread Title: "The Early Church on Speaking in Tongues"

By what standard is "pre-1906" "early church"? The accepted definition of the Early Church is the first one to three centuries after Christ. Fox, the charismatic movement, the pentecostal movement -- all that is far past the time frame defined by the thread title, and the OP violates his own guidelines. That is because from the true Early Church, there are virtually no writings relative to tongues. Irenaeus wrote of very isolated tongues practices (ironically, mostly around the original church of Corinth), and Tertullian spoke of what he called "a questionable practice" he had come across of tongues with interpretation. Other than that, the gift is only mentioned in the past tense in reference to Paul's writings. There is no more proof positive that the gift had ceased in the first century.

This thread is nothing more than an effort to promote a false teaching.

 

And without any opposing views as charismatics so often do.

 

the68 in restating said pre1906(scroll back), and is looking for reference material, not debate.

 

1) Of course he wants no debate. He doesn't want his false belief challenged.

2) You still haven't told me how he --or you, for that matter -- can reconcile "pre-1906" with "early church."

 

Then it was posted in the wrong forum.