I think the biggest struggle in our understanding of tongues is the fact that there has been no significant theological development in Pentecostal pneumatology for decades. The last real theological struggle was the Charismatic renewal and the problem it created for Classical Pentecostals. The response was one of two, 1. Our theology is outdated and therefore wrong, or 2. They are a bunch of crackpots.
Most our theology is based on a practical outworking of how the Spirit has displayed himself, not consistent biblical reflection. Without beating a dead horse, we can develop new language for Pentecostal theology that includes intelligent, deliberate, and intentional discourse on tongues.
Brian, I completely agree. Also,I think that if we are going to rescue tongues, we need to better contextualize it on a local level. In other words, keep the Holy Spirit from becoming merely a prerequisite for speaking in tongues. More work needs to be done from within our tradition on the fullness of a Spirit filled existence outside of a "tongues tunnel". Within some of our scholastic circles, I think we are there; or at least heading there. Now, it's just a matter of bringing a balanced biblical reflection on tongues' role within the life of the Spirit filled believer. GPH, there's some curriculum for ya.lol.
Amen to all your values and applications to these spiritual languages. They are spot-on and I will use them to share about the experience!
On a side note, my dad was used in the bilingual sign miracle you mentioned. While stationed in Germany, the Lord used him to give a warning in an Indian dialect to a visiting German Baptist missionary to India, who did not believe in tongues for today.
Brian and Trey -
I heartily agree with your comments. Although I completely stand behind our initial evidence doctrine, I believe more research and discussion needs to be undertaken on contextualizing tongues within a larger picture of Scripture than a handful of passages in Acts and references by John the Baptist. I know I'm generalizing about our exegesis, but there has to be more out there in Scripture to support tongues than what we teach.
To all -
Reading some of the comments about struggles with the doctrine, esp. those made by younger ministers, reminded me of my own struggles and journey (I'm 32 – I know, sooo much senior :-).
Three years ago, I came to a theological crossroad over tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. At the time, I felt called to lead a Bible Study on the subject with a group of young adults, all of whom were from non-Pentecostal backgrounds.
But before doing so, I poured days in prayer, fasting, and sola scriptura study. I divorced myself from my A/G understandings for the “sake of objectivity," threw myself at the feet of the Lord, pleaded for His wisdom (per James 1:5) and depended entirely on His promise that the Holy Spirit would lead me into all truth. He did not disappoint.
Over the course of several months, and even after the study had ended, the Lord opened my eyes to things in Scripture that I had never seen before. Some of the experiences I had blew my mind away. I would ask questions and He would lead me to verses, confirmations, and give me the understandings! He even went beyond my request and expanded my understanding of other Scriptural truths.
I prayed over posting some of what He showed me here. Within myself, I told the Lord that I would withhold unless 1. one of the moderators posted a follow-up about tongues and 2. there was a discussion about developing our pneumatology. Thanks Jeff, Brian, and Trey ;-!
As you read, please test the spirits and ideas to see if they’re from God. Also, please pray for understanding as well, because some of these ideas require discernment. I pray these ideas help those who are struggling with the relevance of our doctrines and that they stir further investigation. Ready? Seatbelt strapped? Ok, here it goes…
- The first thing the Lord showed me was that the day the Lord baptized Mount Sinai with fire and gave the Ten Commandments was the Day of Pentecost.
- He then showed me that the previous days of covenant (Noah, Abram, and later Abraham) were also on the Day of Pentecost.
- He showed me that each covenant had a lasting sign (rainbow, circumcision, Sabbath).
- He showed me that Pentecost is unique to all other feasts in that it is the only one counted by Sabbaths.
- He then showed me the significance of rainbows and how they are a multi-colored representation of his voices (seven colors for each of His voices/thunders).
- He showed me that the blazing torch and smoking firepot that appeared to Abram were also covenantal signs (not lasting however).
- He emphasized to me the point that circumcision was a physical and visible sign in the flesh.
- He then took me back to Exodus and showed me the progression of baptisms that took place from the Passover, to the Red Sea Crossing, and then to Sinai.
- He put everything together and said in essence that before the book of Acts, one could have compiled the covenantal signs together and predicted that tongues would be the sign of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
- He showed me that when John the Baptist was baptizing Jesus, and said He needed to be baptized by Jesus, John was referring specifically to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
- He showed me that in all the covenants, He extended His promises to both clean and unclean animals and "mixed" multitudes.
- He connected the dots between previous covenants and the Lord's inclusion of "unclean" to Peter's vision in Acts Chapter 10:9-16.
- He emphasized to me that tongues and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit were the reason why the Jewish disciples accepted the Gentile believers into their family.
- He reiterated to me that Jesus did not baptize on earth and that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is His personal baptism for believers. Incidentally, this is why I now prefer to call it "the Lord's Baptism."
- He showed me that three is a significant number when it comes to baptisms.
- He showed me that when looking at baptismal types, the number three will reoccur. A few instances of this include: the number of times Peter had his vision, the number of disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration, the number of elements in water, the number of times Elijah poured water on the sacrifice atop Mount Carmel and the number of times the earth will be regenerated (baptized).
- He showed me that there are three sub-baptisms (each with a lasting sign): Salvation (blood), Water (water), Spirit (fire/Spirit).
- He then took me back to the days of Covenant and showed me how all these three elements were always present.
- He showed me that the Trinity is represented in the three separate pilgrimage feasts of Israel (Shavuot, Sukkot, and Pesach) and unified under the Day of Atonement. Incidentally, the latter is the only time that the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies. It is the Highest of Holy Days in the Jewish religious calendar.
- He showed me that the three baptisms are representations of His triune identity.
- He explained to me that baptisms are new birth and, at the same time, burial experiences.
- He then showed me that baptism was always spoken of in the Old Testament. It was simply referred to by another name - atonement.
- He then enlarged my idea of the atonement to see it as triune baptism: blood, water, Spirit.
- He then showed me baptismal pre-cursors and types in the following: clouds, Joseph's robe, the sign of Jonah, Elijah's triune baptism, the Priestly garments, and the Ephod of the High Priest (to name a few). The stones of the Ephod, for instance, would supernaturally light up and at that point, the High Priest would "speak in tribes†through the lit stones “as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance."
- When asked for confirmation that the rainbow was connected to baptism, He led me to the passage in Rev 10:1 where the angel is enrobed in a cloud with a rainbow over his head (cf. tongues of fire coming to rest on the disciples’ heads).
- He explained to me the difference between the unknown tongue and the gift of different kinds of tongues. NOTE: the unknown tongue is unknown to the speaker and not necessarily the hearer.
- He then clarified how the unknown tongue is tied to empowerment for witnessing via the reference "a sign for unbelievers" and tied to personal edification via the reference "edifies himself." He thus showed me that the Corinthians erred doubly in setting and usage: 1. they were using a promise meant for witnessing to unbelievers in a body of believers and 2. they were using a personal edification language in a corporately unedifying manner.
- He clarified that believers can be baptized in the blood (salvation), water, and Spirit, at the same time, in short order and at other times distantly apart (Saul of Tarsus, the Eunuch in Acts 8, and the disciples in Samaria). These baptisms and their lasting signs are again allusions to the triune nature of God and His baptisms: distinct yet unified.
- He clarified that ministers who are not baptized in the Holy Spirit can be mightily used in evangelism and discipleship (pastors and teachers), because these are spiritually-gifted offices.
- He clarified that although tongues are holy, being baptized in the Holy Spirit does not translate to personal holiness. He showed me this with the analogy to the lasting sign of circumcision.
- When I asked for confirmation that the unknown tongue is the lasting sign in the Lord's Baptism, He led me to the Book of Isaiah to Chapter 59 and its very last verse. Then, He led me to combine it with the first five verses of the next chapter. Then I was led to cross-reference it with Acts 2, where I found its fulfillment in verses 1-12 and 37-39.
- He showed me that His voice has a visible nature (fire, rainbow, lightning, tongues). This explains why Simon the Sorcerer saw that the Baptism was given at the laying on of hands.
- When I looked for confirmation that Mount Sinai was connected to Pentecost, I was blown away by the fact that every Jew commemorates the giving of the Law at Pentecost. Also, I ran across references to visible thunders coming from the burning mountain.
The above are a good sample of what the Lord showed me in Scripture and backed up through confirmations. I had never heard or been taught any of what He taught me in His Q&A sessions.
At one point, I got so overwhelmed at the immensity of what He had shown me that I got up shaking in a half-trance and would speak in tongues throughout the day as if it was a second language – may the Lord be praised!
To help with my understanding of the inter-relationships and re-occurring patterns, I had to come up with what I termed a "Unifying Theory of Baptisms:"
The baptisms of blood, water, and Spirit are separate and distinct birth experiences that are unified under one baptism, the Atonement
I have used it to form and test hypotheses about baptismal types in Scripture and even in Judaic traditions not recorded explicitly in Scripture. For instance, I used it to predict that water played a significant role in the Feast of Sukkot.
I also used it to predict the number of hyssop branches the High Priest holds to sprinkle the water of cleansing (contains the ashes of the Red Heifer). The number of branches is three exactly. Again, I had no idea of these facts before testing the theory.
Because these concepts are so far beyond my theological, much less mental capacity, I even came up with a name for their study - quantum pneumechanics :-).
If you would like to read more about these insights and others, you can visit a pneuma blog that I completed over a year ago. It's called Jesus the Baptist, a fitting name I think given: the controversial nature of the subject, the claims, and the instant connection I felt I had to make between the Lord and His baptism.
If you visit it, you may notice that the ideas are fused together and may not form a clear and concise picture until everything has been read and prayerfully considered. This is a testimony to how they were shown to me. Someday, and if there is interest, maybe TPE, AGTS, GPH or Dr. Wood could help me put it all together in a more fluent manner without profit to me???
The next time, you look at a rainbow, I pray you see God's multi-colored voice!
Aloha & mahalos in Jesus FutureAG,
dj morales
clubalphaomega
wow! that is quite the research project. lots to ponder.
Thanks dj
November 20, 2007 9:43 AM
Anonymous said...
brian and trey: How right you are, and thus how sad it is to see Pentecostals everywhere, including on this very blog, calling our educational insitutions (where such theological work should take place) a non-spiritual "guild," "liberal," and somehow anti-faith, simply because most biblical studies scholars in the serious A/G schools (like Vanguard, Evangel, and perhaps some others) are actually not fundamentalists.
Sadly, though we (occassionaly) pay lip service to the idea of developing a coherent and academically articulate theology of anything, the cold fact is that the core culture of our denomination is unfortunately in another place.
Lord hasten the day when the fine professors at our insitutions can actually...
a) be given time out of their teaching schedules (which is rarely granted) to think and write about these issues...
b) engage in honest scholarly discussions in the classroom without having the annoying nephew-of-a-headquarters-employee in their class to rat them out, and thus receive threatening emails the very next day as a punishment for actually thinking...
c) publish, not in the Pentecostal Evangel or through GPH, but in actual, refereed, academic journals, etc...
d) be granted the chance to remain within the denomination and its institutions even while publishing material that challenges popular notions of what it means to be Pentecostal and/or properly understand the Bible.
It is this final aspect of scholarship serving as a corrective and a challenge to church life that is painfully missing from our fellowship. Since we have basically dis-empowered our educational institions from performing this function, our educational structures are weak and even pointless in some instances, and thus the kind of challenging theology you (rightly) speak about is not being produced.
All of this could come about by fostering an open academic culture where ideas are valued, professors are trusted, and it is made very clear that there is room for informed, respectful discussion and even disagreement on any (yes, ANY) issue. This is the way it is in many other (Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) schools, although of course "we don't want to be like them." Except, we actually do want to be like them, in many respects. So why not this one?
Exactly who it is that will spearhead these kinds of positive changes, or how they would come about in practical terms, is a difficult issue. I have no solution for that (or anything, actually).
-brian d., cambridge ma
November 20, 2007 10:57 AM
Anonymous said...
I bet the Methodists and Presbyterians had many similar conversations as are on this blog at one point......look how it worked out for them.
November 20, 2007 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous: It's not at all clear that their "decline"--if you honestly think that numbers are the whole story? or you see "how they turned out" negatively in some other way?--was connected to their academic institutions. But you have conveniently provided a nice, terse example of the kind of thing to which I referred in the first paragraph of my first comment.
-brian d., cambridge ma
The issue of academia in the A/G, I believe,will be defining of this next generation of ministers. Though you shouldn't quote me on this, I want to remember one of our very own posing the question of why we as Pentecostals do not have institutions are par with say Catholics(i.e. Notre Dame). While such schools might be viewed as liberal, even secular to the extent of some of the teachings, we as Pentecostals have the opportunity to succeed where other traditions have fallen short.
By definition, we are an experiential people. Luckily for us, this resonates with a postmodern society. We then are left with the challenge of engaging doctrines on things such as tongues not just in an exegetical discourse, but in an experiential exploration as well. In the same way that faith without works is dead, doctrine without experience is lifeless.
It is here we strike a balance between art and science, between challenging intellectual dialog and extraordinary encounters with the Divine. The more people I talk to under 30 about this issue, the less interest I find in "50 reasons you should speak in tongues if you're not already and 82 reasons you're doing it wrong if you already do". Rather, there is a question of "how does my personal experience fit into the big picture of life?"
Sadly, I find fewer biblically sound answers to the latter. I think this is where we all can improve. We have some great minds within our tradition and as Brian D. said we should support them. However, before we get too scared of becoming "like them", remember that Notre Dame was a fostering grounds for the Catholic Charismatic movement. Love it or hate it, I'm hard pressed to find that kind of fervency for the Spirit across the board in many of our institutions.(Oh no, it's only my second time to post and I've already become one of those people who leave books as comments. Lord, Help)
November 20, 2007 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...
Jeff & Paul,
Just a little FYI as a note of interest. Even you fellow blog authors seemingly contradict yourselves. Paul said on November 20, "Tongues is simply a prayer language...It is a unique way to pray that involves only my spirit communicating directly with God’s Spirit...Tongues does NOT give me the ability to pray the perfect will of God." Yet in Jeff's post on November 17th he stated, "It is a prayer language - the Holy Spirit prays through us according to God's will." I am definitely not demanding uniformity...just attempting to convey the point that concerning this subject, the opinions are very diverse and we need to be very patient with each other because the terminology which we are using just in this blog(i.e. Spirit baptism vs. Spirit's overwhelming) and the paradigms from which we communicate are distinct with each individual. For the record, on this issue, I side with the CBC grad (I can't believe I just did that).
For me the real learning process happens as I practice it. but I am all for debating it and studying it as well.
I am just so thankful for the operation of the Holy Spirit in my life. I don't know how I would function without the daily empowerment of the Spirit and the daily practice of tongues in my prayer life.
I want to live in anticipation of how God will use me today. The nine gifts of the Spirit are so critical to a gospel that is more than just words, but that is backed by power.
God, give us a fresh experience that will release the gifts in our lives.
And give us the freedom to academically understand and articulate it for the next generation.
help us know the scriptures and the power of God.
November 20, 2007 2:11 PM
Anonymous said...
Brian.....the word "decline" was never used. That's your word. Nor was simply the academic spoken of just that they probably had a lot of the same conversations as on this blog and there are numerous not just about tongues or academics. Study their history and you'll know it's true. If anyone thinks we are not heading down the same paths as them in many ways they are simply fooling themselves.
Jeff, I think many many kids at camp feel as you did in going up and not speaking in tongues right away - in fact I think many kinds have tried and tried and eventually "fake it in order to make it" to relieve themselves of the pressure of those around them such that I think many attendees of AG churches are primairly fakers in the tongues speaking issue. Sorry but that is how I see it.
As to Brian Jenkin's comment I think he makes a good point - however as a former student of Dr. Ben Aker (now retired prof of aGts fame), I think his thoughts on the concept of the "Second Exodus" has huge implications for the doctrine of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. I think some good stuff is coming out of aGts that will be very helpful for these kinds of issues.
I also think much of our distinctives should just be considered, in the words of Aimee Semple McPherson, "Bible Christianity."
November 20, 2007 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...
Dear Anonymous,
Quotes do not always imply a verbatim recitation of what someone has said, but can be used, as I did in the earlier comment, as "scare quotes," i.e. to denote problematic terms. Anyone could look at your comment and see that I was not quoting you verbatim.
But back to the issue of Presbyterians, Catholics, Methodists, and their universities: You do seem to imply that we cannot emulate these groups in any way, or at least in their educational institutions, lest we become like them. Someone will have to remind me what exactly is so horrible about these groups, besides the fact that they've lost members over the past few decades (see Trey's point about the charismatic renew at Notre Dame, and at Duquesne, I would add). (By the way, I have indeed studied their histories, perhaps more than you realize.)
Surely no one will deny that we have something, or even a lot, to learn from our brothers/sisters in other denominations? And they have a lot to learn from us (about 25% of the above-mentioned members in said groups are full-blown charismatics, even more by some estimates). I was baptized in the Spirit in the basement of a Catholic church by believers whose spiritual fervency and genuine commitment to loving Christ was frankly far greater than anything I've seen in our churches (at least in the States).
So, you seem to react to the issue of allowing our universities more academic openness by balking at the notion that we would, in some sense, become more like another group. But this can only be an emotional reaction, or anecdotal. What exactly is this "path" (here, a direct quote) you speak of? You cannot honestly think all groups are "dead" (scare quotes) besides Pentecostals? Of course, you may think that a church having a strong commitment to social justice, gender/racial equality, and "all that suff" (again, scare quotes) is "liberal," "dead," or whatever.
If so, then you would have about 90% of the people in the A/G behind you. I just simply disagree. I read the Gospels a lot, and the sermon on the mount. What can I say?
-brian d., cambridge ma
November 20, 2007 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...
Another of the generational differences that I believe can be observed in these discussions has to do with values and approaches to theology and apologetics. Robert Webber outlines the differences between three generations: traditional-pragmatic-younger* Evangelicals.
Concerning their Theological Commitment—Traditional Evangelicals see Christianity as a Rational Worldview; Pragmatic Evangelicals see Christianity as Therapy (answering needs); Younger Evangelicals see Christianity as a Community of Faith (Ancient and Reformational). These are radically different approaches to faith which can be expected to articulate doctrinal positions in ways consistent with their values.
Concerning their Apologetics Style—Traditional Evangelicals express Christianity as Evidential and Foundational; Pragmatic Evangelicals express Christianity as Meaning-Giver, Experiential, and Personal faith; and Younger Evangelicals express Christianity as Embodied and Communal.
While each of these terms would need to be unpacked to fully understand Webber’s meaning, they could also explain how the same experience (i.e., tongues and HS baptism) could be articulated and defended in vastly different terms for each generation. I think this explains much of the difference of emphasis between these groups. Same experience, different values and terminology.
One of my passions is to see the next generation experience the real deal. It has to be articulated for them to grab hold of the concept that the book of Acts is for them and it is for now.
Powerless Christianity is not the pattern in the Bible. There is so much in the book of Acts that I want to see and live.
What a tragedy, if young people--out of pressure feel the need to fake it. Somehow we have to pastor them into a lifestyle with the Holy Spirit.
To me this is the true goal. How can I live in the power and presence of God? How can my life see the release of 1 Corinthian 12 gifts? How can I express the Ancient/Reformational faith of the early church?
When I read the book of Acts, I am stirred with desire. I want to live in Acts.
How can we start a movement of next generation Holy Spirit empowered ministry? I think this is the first question we should address.
As a part of that move, we should openly discuss how to articulate these Biblical experiences in a clear, safe and motivating way.
Anonymous - great point on the generational differences of perspective! I hadn't looked at it quite like that before.
So with these thoughts in mind... what is the next step. Do we hold to the original terminology that our grandparents understand and appreciate or do we try to make some delicate changes that would resonate with the emerging generation?
Early Pentecostals believed that speaking in tongues would allow them to go to foreign lands and preach without having to go through the hassle of language study. Others have believed that when speaking in tongues the speaker is in a trancelike state and utters incoherent sounds.
Obviously, as an anonymous blogger above pointed out, there are many different views on the nature of tongues even on this blog. Jeff, Pete Pentecostal, and others view tongues as Holy Spirit praying through the speaker. To me this view does not make sense biblically or experientially.
The Bible does not say much about the nature of tongues explicitly, but to me the key verse is 1 Cor 14:14 where Paul says, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.†Here Paul says explicitly that when I pray in tongues it is my spirit which is praying, not the Holy Spirit. Obviously tongues is Holy Spirit inspired… all prayer is (Romans 8:23), but this does not mean that it is the Holy Spirit praying through me.
Also, why would God communicate to Himself through me? That sounds schizophrenic. Isn’t the very nature of prayer communication between human and the Divine?
So far the best definition of tongues I’ve come across was in an article by Dr. Gordon Anderson in the Enrichment a few years ago. Here are a couple of the highlights…
Speaking in tongues establishes a noncognitive and nonrational communication with God. It is not antirational. It is an immediate contact with God that does not include human words, nor can it be expressed in human words. This experience results in added faith in God, increased power and gifts for ministry, increased emotion and passion, and an enhanced awareness of the experiential dimension of God’s presence in the life of the Pentecostal believer.
The noncognitive, nonrational character of speaking in tongues is spiritually healthy when it is in balance with the other elements of spiritual life. The liberty to escape the cognitive dimension and enter into edifying communication with God, connecting in a different way — heart to heart, rather than head to head with the words of human language — should not be undermined.
How can we start a movement of next generation Holy Spirit empowered ministry? How do we resonate with the emerging generation?
One young person at a time...
We should be like Paul and boldly ask each new disciple "have you been baptized by Jesus?"
When asked "what do you mean?" We should be able to give an answer.
Personally, I tell them that it is similar to salvation and water baptism. Instead of being covered by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, you're covered by His Holy Spirit. Instead of a pastor baptizing you in water, it's Jesus personally baptizing you.
Making the experience Christ-centered makes it more personal and active ("Jesus baptizes you" vs. "being baptized in the Holy Spirit"). After all, who would give up the chance to be personally baptized by the Lord of the Universe? Furthermore, they may not like "Christians" but Jesus can still be their homeboy.
In my opinion, this is something our current teaching fails to do. It calls it the "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" instead of the "Lord's Baptism." It calls Jesus "the Baptizer" instead of "Jesus the Baptist." I don’t think John would mind. After all, he’s the one who said "He must become greater; I must become less."
Simplicity packed with meaning and graphic associations will "resonate with the emerging culture" and any culture for that matter. Get the point across with as much meaning and as few words as possible so they make the connections themselves.
"…don't you mean John the Baptist? I've heard about him before..."
"no actually Jesus the Baptist let me explain..."
When asked about tongues, I will now tell them that the Lord has had a spiritual language in store for them since the beginning of creation. Just like they have a new name in heaven now, they now will have a new language on earth.
Who doesn't like a free gift? - especially when it's a surprise. Who wouldn't like to pick up a language especially if it happens supernaturally? - Chris Angel eat your heart out!
Just like water naturally goes with water baptism and the blood of Jesus goes with salvation, so too does an unknown language go with the Lord's baptism.
BTW, I now call the lasting sign of the Lord's Baptism, the "unknown tongue" or the "unknown language" to differentiate it from the "gift of different kinds of tongues" just as the Apostle Paul did explicitly in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
If pressed for details, I now can paint a bigger picture with Scripture (thanks to my crazy experiences):
- I now can tell them that the baptism they are about to receive was foretold in the rainbow God gave to Noah after the flood (baptism). In fact, it was a picture of all the languages ever spoken. God so loves the world and He says so in every language every time He baptizes the earth with His light and rain. And now, they too can speak in rainbows, in a color He has chosen just for them, when He baptizes them in His Holy Spirit.
- I now can tell them that just like God gave Abraham a promise in the flesh, He too will give them a sign on their lips. It will be a sign to them that they are called to be witnesses to the world and a father or mother of many nations (in the form of disciples they are called to make).
- I now can tell them that just like God baptized Mount Sinai with fire on the Day of Pentecost in Exodus 19-20, so too Jesus will pour out supernatural fire upon them. Just like God spoke through visible thunders from that mountain of fire (20:18), so too He will speak through them now. - Shoot, thanks to Bob Cornuke, I can show them pictures of Mount Sinai (still burnt to this day from that supernatural fire). Again, Chris Angel got nothing on Jesus!
- I now can explain to them that just like God spoke supernaturally through twelve colored stones on the High Priest's garments, one for each tribe, so too God has called them to be a Holy Priesthood. He will supernaturally light them up and speak through them in an array of colors known as unknown tongues. Chris Angel's outa bidness.
- I now can read to them the following verses from the Book of Isaiah:
"'As for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the LORD. 'My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,' says the LORD. Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the LORD rises upon you and his glory appears over you. Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. 'Lift up your eyes and look about you: All assemble and come to you; your sons come from afar, and your daughters are carried on the arm. Then you will look and be radiant, your heart will throb and swell with joy; the wealth on the seas will be brought to you, to you the riches of the nations will come...'"
- Lastly, I can bring out my 2-by-4, and say that just like God gave birth to the church on the Day of Pentecost in Acts, so too He will give them another birth experience*. So too He will speak through them with the sound of a mighty rushing wind coming from their mouths. So too will the springs of the great deep within them burst forth as the floodgates of heaven are opened up open them.
The above give illustrations of how powerful the big picture of God's covenants is with man. It stretches from Genesis to Revelation; it spans the Old and New Testament. It's awesome. It's powerful. It's substantive. It's global. It's personal. It's relational. It's relevant. It's simple. It makes sense. It communicates at the speed of light. And dare I say it - "it's magical."
God never changes and He is someone whom the emerging culture, and any culture for that matter, can believe in. The teaching methods we use can change and likewise give them something to believe in.
* John 3 and 1 John 5:8 have all three: blood-Jesus, water-Father and Spirit.
P.S. Because of the experiences detailed in my first post, I look at the poll on the front-page and my mind rephrases it to say:
"I am an AG minister and I believe the blood of Jesus..."
- Is immediately evidenced the moment a believer is saved.
- Follows salvation, but not necessarily immediately.
- Is available for everyone, but may never happen even in those who have been saved.
- Follows salvation, but is only available for some believers with the gift of blood.
- Has nothing to do with salvation.
Or...
"I am an AG minister and I believe water..."
- Is immediately evidenced the moment a believer is baptized in water
- Follows baptism in water, but not necessarily immediately.
- Is available for everyone, but may never happen even in those who have been baptized in water.
- Follows water baptism, but is only available for some believers with the gift of water.
- Has nothing to do with baptism in water.
I'm not knocking the poll, which was well worded. I'm just using it to bring my points home. BTW, this is the first time I have openly talked about my experiences. Ya, I know my new teaching methods weren't approved at General Council, but neither were my experiences. As far as the practical applications of tongues go, now I can use Jeff's points ;-).
November 21, 2007 2:56 PM
Chris Griffin said...
Paul, in response to "praying in tongues is not the Holy Spirit praying through me...to me this doesn't make sense biblically"
What does "as the Spirit enabled them" mean?
apophtheggomai (NIV enabled, KJV utterance) means to speak forth or to speak out
"as the Spirit apophtheggomai"
"as the Spirit spoke forth"
Clearly the Spirit is speaking.
I don't see any way around the truth that when I pray in tongues, the Holy Spirit Himself is praying through me.
1. I was taking my concepts about the Holy Spirit praying through us directly from the Romans passage. I realize that Romans 8:26-27 does not specifically mention tongues. But it does express the fact that the Holy Spirit prays through us.
HERE'S THE VERSES: the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.
2. It also makes sense to me that the Spirit would pray through us to agree with God for His will to be done. If we see prayer just as asking, we it may seem absurd for the Spirit to ask the Father for something--because they are ONE.
But if we see prayer as agreeing and releasing, it makes total sense and is not absurd at all.
--Consider the Lord's Prayer where Jesus tells us to pray for God's will to be done.
--Consider 1 John 5:14-15 where John tells us that when we ask for things according to God's will, God hears us and gives us what we ask.
Somehow the Spirit prays through us to bring us into a more complete agreement with God's will and therefore a more effective potential in prayer.
Tongues, is one way that the Holy Spirit uses us to AGREE with God's will...even when we don't totally understand it with our mind.
Maybe this is part of why Paul says in 1 Corintiahsn 14...I speak in tongues more than you all...
Oh by the way, forgot to mention - I have tossed out the whole expression "second work of grace" and "ordinance" in favor of "covenant act" and "new birth experience."
Thus,
Salvation is a covenant act and new birth experience.
Baptism in Water is a covenant act and new birth experience.
The Lord's Baptism is a covenant act and new birth experience.
I believe Jeff has hit the meaning of the idea of tongues as prayer language. I think Paul does not go far enough in his reading of Romans and this defaults the ideas expressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians. I believe you are absolutely correct, Jeff, in saying that Paul intends to say that he speaks in tongues via prayer language more than anyone in the Corinthian church. We have to remember that Paul is explaining why tongues is not as important as prophecy. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, he repeatedly downplays the importance of tongues and the problems it poses to orderly worship as well as the perception of those outside the fellowship. At the same time, he does affirm that tongues is a gift that he actively participates in.
The whole doctrine of initial evidence is just plain hard. I have experienced personally speaking in tongues in my prayer times so I have that confirmation along with the biblical evidence that speaking in tongues is indeed a divinely ordained gift. However, the biblical and historical evidence simply does not seem to align with the hardline stance of some in the denomination on this issue. I agree with others that we must rework the language and understanding of the doctrine or we will see more people leave the fold.
Great discussion on academics within the organization. We must become more dedicated to improving scholarship.
November 22, 2007 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...
Danny...as long as we are changing termonology I'm sure you meant Joyful Giving of Thanks right?:)
lol you're right anonymous, I meant to say that ;-)
November 22, 2007 4:16 PM
Anonymous said...
I've done some asking around about some of the younger folks leaving the fold...and find it's not the initial evidence doctrine that is driving young men away as much as it is the "good ole boys club" mentality that pushes younger men and women away who want relationships, not religious exercise...
And yes, retribution does rule on both sides of this fight!
November 22, 2007 5:16 PM
Anonymous said...
It's amazing to see all the "Tongues" speakers in the national headlines right now. Benny, Paula, Creflo, Joyce, Kenny and Eddie...on top of that we have all that is going on down at ORU and their president, Richie. Their Board of Regents that is full of dedicated Word of Faithers, and ardent tongue talkers themselves! It seems that the taste for lavish living and fleecing the flock is now commonplace in our movement. Our credibility levels are going way down even as we discourse this wonderful subject. Maybe a new approach is needed?
anonymous 5:16 - Maybe we should poll to see what the number one reason is for them leaving. It wouldn't be scientific, but it could be telling nonetheless.
anonymous 7:30 - They will know us by our fruit. There will always be smack-talking about Pentecostals.
Each of us has to impact our world one testimony, one mind, and one person at a time. When they think of tongues, they should think of them positively or, at the bare minimum a neutral-issue, because they associate us with them.
November 23, 2007 8:43 AM
John Trotter said...
To the first comments onthis entry,
I notice that the first couple comments are saying that there have been no new contributions to Pentecostal theology in decades. This is simply not true. There have been scores of contributions and theologians. Men and women have been diligently working in this regard.
Please read Roger Strongtad, Frank Machia, Bob and William Menzies, Amos Yong, or WOnsuk and Julie Ma. . .these are all people duking it out in terms of trying to do Pentecostal theology. Asia Pacific Thelogical Seminary publishes a Pentecostal journal at www.apts.org/ajps (Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies. I'm not sure that many of us are reading Pentecostal theology enough to make statements such as "no significant contributions are being made". I sense there is a lot of skepticism with not a whole lot of substance.
Speaking of APTS, go to their website, www.apts.edu, and click on the "RESEARCH AND RESOURCES" tab. Then click on "Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies." Volume 1, Number 2 (August 1998)is entitled "The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost."
Looks like a lot of good information.
By the way, why does it seem like our own theological seminary is so far behind in terms of scholarship when it comes to some of our foreign seminaries? Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed this?
APTS is a great resource! I bump into research articles from their AJPS site all the time. Great reads. I especially value their historical research on the Pentecostal movement in the Pacific Rim.
According to the article, the term "initial evidence" has been a bone of contention amongst young Pentecostal ministers longer than I was even aware. Many favor the term "sign" over "initial evidence."
What is so crazy, to me anyways, is that ever since my experiences, I now call the unknown tongue the "lasting sign" or "covenantal sign" of the Lord's Baptism.
I now see 7 great covenant acts in Scripture each with their own signs. The seven are the Noahadic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant Part I, Part II, the Covenant at Sinai, Salvation, Baptism in Water and the Lord’s Baptism. All continue to this day.
The rainbow, blazing torch, smoking firepot, sign in the flesh, visible thunders, fire on the mountain, and Sabbath were signs given at four of these great covenantal acts. When you add the fact that they these four occurred on the Day of Pentecost, the connection with the unknown tongue, or "new tongues" as Jesus called them, should become apparent. Thus, the unknown tongue is the uncontested sign for the Lord’s Baptism in my book.
(I’ve learned that the Old Testament and Jews are more Pentecostal than we think)
As far as Salvation and Baptism in Water are concerned, their lasting signs are remembered every time we partake the blood of the covenant and baptize disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Speaking of which, water is an interesting lasting sign as it is not apparent as such until you put it together with Spirit and Blood (the Son).
Such was the case in: God's ultimate sign for Moses (Exodus 4:9), the baptism of Jesus, His first miracle of turning water into wine, the watery issue of blood after the Lord gave up the ghost, the names of the Trinity we baptize in, and the resurrection water mentioned in 1 Peter 3:21.
If you want to go even deeper - blood is made up of water and spirit (i.e. life). That's probably why it seemed good to the Spirit back in Noah's day and at the Council in Jerusalem for us not to eat it. Shucks, I love my porterhouse and ribeye medium!!!
Lastly - no actually firstly - the waters plural were mentioned "In the Beginning." Hmmm, I wonder what those waters were the Spirit of God was hovering over? Rev 13:8 and Rev 22 might shed some light.
Now, whenever I see water I think, "Trinity."
If y'all are wondering why I'm ranting and raving about this stuff. The Spirit has been whispering in my ear that we're about ready to turn this work over to a new generation. Although I'm concerned about this generation of young Pentecostal ministers, and want to be relevant, I don't think that's the generation He's referring to. I think it's the generation of Spirit-filled Jews who are about to take this bad boy over after we're gone ;-).
Man, I feel a Shema coming on! (oh, btw, that says “Trinity†too). Ok, I'll save future tomes for the wiki...
November 25, 2007 2:08 AM
Anonymous said...
Danny we need a "Danny Dictionary" to keep up with all your terms:)
dj, I've got a couple of questions about your last post. First, how is blood "made up" of water and spirit? Blood is material, spirit is not. You might say that spirit infuses our blood (but why not say, along with other great thinkers, it infuses our bodies?) but infusing is different from saying "made up". Being part of the make up of blood implies that the spirit is physical and detectable if we look closely enough.
Second, you say "that's why it seemed good to the Spirit ... for us not to eat [meat]." Are you saying that we shouldn't eat meat now? If not, was the Spirit wrong before? (It looks as if you imply that when you say "it seemed good", i.e. it seemed good but really wasn't.) If the Spirit wasn't wrong before, and it's okay for us to meat now, what changed that made it so we could eat meat?
Finally, what do you mean when you say "when I see water I think of the Trinity"? I think you mean one of two things: 1) when you see water you think of the Trinity (3 persons) or 2) when you see water you think of the Spirit of God (see your previous statement). If you meant the latter, then I don't have an issue, but if you meant the former, then I think you've unintentionally bought into a heresy.
November 26, 2007 4:51 AM
Anonymous said...
This blog is so inconsistent. Packed with posts for a time and then you don't see anything for days. It's getting very old boys
Brian D, I may have just had a revelation. You wouldn't happen to be pursuing a doctorate from a (shhh don't tell) non-A/G school near you? If so, I may have had a class with you. If not, oh well. haha.
I guess many of us are living lives that require a step back from the internet every now and then. Please accept our most humble apologies as we strive to post enough to make you happy.
November 27, 2007 4:31 PM
Anonymous said...
I'd have been most happy to have had one less post on here Paul F:)
November 27, 2007 10:15 PM
Anonymous said...
Thanks Paul F for returning the discussion to sarcasm...so productive!
What an incredibly disappointing digression. It seems more like a discussion board about the new Batman movie than informed discourse between two thinking Christian brothers.
Sorry I took so long to get back to you. I finally have a recovery day (we don't have days off in the Navy ;).
We know from biochemistry that blood is made up of water - anywhere from 83 to 95 percent depending upon hydration.
We also know from Scripture that life (Hebrew nephesh) is in the blood. This is not some figurative idea, it's a spiritual truth.
This is why blood is considered holy. This is why innocent blood cries out. This is one reason why there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. Just for kicks, check out the word nephesh and its ties to blood, you may be surprised what you find.
No, we can still eat meat. It's what for dinner at my house (I'm grilling tonight). It's eating blood I was talking about. In my opinion, the Spirit's leading against eating blood in Acts 15:29 had little to do with fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. The prohibition pre-dates Mosaic Kosher law. It goes all the way back to God's words to Noah. Why? Because nephesh is in the blood.
When I said that when I look at water I think of the Trinity I meant exactly that. I did not say that water is the sign for the Trinity. Looking back, I should have said "when I think of water as a lasting sign and it's connection with blood and Spirit, I think of the Trinity" which was my original premise.
All the lasting signs above that I mentioned: blood, water, unknown tongue all have connections with the Trinity. It's probably why soooo many denominations are confused as to when people are saved, baptized in the Holy Spirit, etc. Rightfully so.
Let's go down the line a little:
Unknown Tongue (sign of the Lord's Baptism):
- It's a sign in the flesh (think flesh and blood)
- The medium is the Holy Spirit
- The agent is the Lord Jesus, who baptizes and fills
- The voice comes from the Throne of God the Father through our temples. This voice is an extension of the rainbow that encircles the Throne of God (the Ark in our spirits within our Holy of Holies). It is the "visible" thunder that comes from the Presence of the Lord within us.
Water (sign of baptism in water):
- Three atoms make it up
- Sign of life anywhere you travel in the Universe. If NASA thinks that water exists on a planet, there's a remote chance of life there
- When the Spirit mixes with it, it can form blood. The Lord did it at the burning bush site and at the wedding at Cana (wine symbolizes blood)
- The Lord Jesus was born of water, as were we all
- the Water of Life flows from the Throne of God and of the Lamb. What is this water?
Blood of the Covenant (sign of salvation):
- It's the blood of the Lamb that washes away the sins of the world
- The Spirit covers (atones/baptizes) us with it
- The Father looks down at it and sees us as holy, unblameable, and unreprovable (perfect)
- we drink it, like water, in the form of wine as a lasting tribute
No, I haven't bought into heresy. It's all in God's Word. I'm just trying to show how all the pieces have fit together for me. For all the reasons above, I "see" the Trinity in the three baptisms and their three lasting signs.
It's hard for me to describe all that I have been shown, because it simply goes beyond words (maybe I could in tongues ;).
The closest I can come to describe all the interconnections are the theory of relativity and a hologram. Depending on what side of the equation you're on, you'll see something different.
On one side of e=mc^2, you have matter multiplied by the speed of light squared and on the other you have energy.
If I twist the hologram of the unknown tongue, for instance, I see what John the Baptist saw: fire and Spirit. If I twist it the other way, I see the disciples speaking in tongues unknown to them.
If I twist the hologram of water, I see the water of life coming from the Throne of the Father. If I twist it the other way, I see the Trinity in operation.
Using the three baptisms as lenses, I can see connections in Scripture that I have never seen before:
- Three days for Christ's sacrifice (blood), burial (water), resurrection (spirit)
- Three regenerations/baptisms/atonements for the earth and humanity: water (the Great Flood), blood (the Cross), and the coming regeneration by fire.
- Three pilgrimage feasts: Shavuot (spirit), Pesach (blood), Sukkot (water)
- Three phases of the Exodus: Pesach (blood), Red Sea Crossing and cloud (water), and Shavuot at Sinai (spirit)
- Why Christ took three disciples to the Mount of Transfiguration (it was more than just because they were His closest)
- The number of times Peter had his vision
- Elijah's sacrifice on Mt. Carmel: bull (blood), water three times, and fire from heaven (spirit)
- Sign of Jonah: Jonah sacrificed (blood), in the belly of the great fish (water), resurrected and spat out of the mouth (spirit)
- Rainbows, in order to see one you need three things: light behind you (spirit), you in the middle (blood), and a watery film in front of you (water)
- I haven't studied circumcision, but I bet you anything water, blood, and spirit play a big part!
I realize this stuff is far out. I won't belabor the points here on FutureAG. This is a topic worthy pf pursuit elsewhere. I brought it up, because I believe without any doubt that the unknown tongue is the lasting sign of the Lord's Baptism.
Don't worry I haven't gone into heresy or off the deep end. As I have said elsewhere my experiences have solidified my support behind the A/G doctrines I grew up with. It's just that I can see them in a whole new light.
Pastors, friends, and co-workers who know me, know that two of my passions are evangelism and discipleship. The fruit of those passions speak for themselves. The ideas above are part of an ongoing research project that I hope and pray will yield fruit of its own, in their season.
Speaking of Season, God bless you all and Merry Christmas!
Thanks Danny. Your comments are interesting and thought provoking and you don't seem to be worried about getting in the last word like some have posted. You give a great deal to consider and all of the discussions on here are good for each of us to ponder as we see the perspectives and beliefs of our brothers and siters.
Brian, I guess one of the major problems with blogs is that it's near impossible to communicate jest and humor. Sarcasm, on the other hand, must be the devil's tool because we recognize it so easily (and for those that didn't just now, that was sarcasm). So I guess if jest and humor are only appropriate when discussing Batman, then I'm guilty as charged.
DJ, I'm not sure how to respond to your specific thoughts so I'll respond to just a few things that stand out. First, it seems quite clear that your love for the Lord and your desire to see others come to know him drives your interest in matters under discussion on this blog. I think that is highly commendable. But we don't want to fall into the trap of only focusing on the intentions to the neglect of one's actions/words. For example, the heretic Arius strongly desired that others believed his doctrine of the incarnation was true. He even wrote popular songs for people to sing that communicated his message. His intentions were good, but his message was wrong.
I don't think you are a heretic, but it's troubling when people refer to/explain the Trinity with water. To say that the Trinity is like water seems to imply you mean something like the following. There are three forms of water: solid, liquid, and steam and in a similar way the Trinity comes in three forms: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The problem with the analogy is that no one body of water can be all three at the same time. When it is in the form of liquid it's not in the form of steam or solid. By parody of reasoning, that would mean when the Trinity is in the form of the Father, it's not in the form of the Son or the Spirit. That has been defined as heretical since at least the 4th century. If that's not what you meant, I think you should choose carefully how you present your view to avoid appearing as a modalist.
On a different note, I think much of what you say depends on a hermeneutical method that I find a bit suspect. One of the basic principles of hermeneutics that almost all scholars endorse is this: the text can't mean now what it didn't mean then. This may be shocking to some, but it would be nearly impossible to come to any agreement about what a text means if this isn't the case. (I'm aware that the post-modern, deconstructionist, emergent crowd would disagree with this, but pursuing the point further would get too far off track.) For example, you rely heavily on the idea of what things symbolize to you now. However, when Luke wrote about Christ turning water to wine, there simply is no textual evidence at all to suggest that he was symbolizing blood. I know that at the Lord's supper they drank wine, but that is a different passage and a different occasion. But even if it did symbolize blood, why think that it has the same components as that which it symbolizes?
Finally, I think you're very mistaken about the idea that the spirit is a part of blood. Spirit is by definition not physical. It has no material parts and can't be picked out under a microscope. It has no mass or form. That's just what it means to be immaterial. So how can something immaterial be a part of something material? You note that blood is mostly water, but do you mean that the rest is spirit? I think we would find lots of scientists (even Christian ones) that could fill you in about what the remaining parts are. Now, that doesn't mean that the spirit doesn't infuse the blood in an immaterial way. Traditionally, theologians and philosophers have believed that humans are body and soul (and they would say that the blood is just a part of the body). The soul is immaterial but yet infuses the body. It's what makes the body human. JP Moreland has commented that when the soul leaves the body, you no longer have a body, you have a corpse. There is a difference between my body with and without the spirit. With it, I am human, without it it's just a body (and I'm off in heaven I hope).
If you'd like I can recommend some books written by former professors of mine dealing with this very issue. I think you would find them very helpful.
Thanks for your comments Brother. Please DO recommend those books by name - I'm open to new ideas.
BTW, I happen to consider myself a scientist with a degree in Biochem and some years of basic research under my belt. I work in a physical science field in the Navy - meteorology and oceanography.
I didn't mean to imply that the other percentage of water is Spirit. I was speaking more in symbolic terms not logical ones.
You actually bring up a good point about water and its three phases. For the record, water can exist in all three phases simultaneously at what is known as the "Triple Point." Scientists use this point to define the SI unit of temperature - the Kelvin. It's not the only substance that can. I just wanted to put it out there.
As far as spirit being in blood and wine as a symbol of blood, you'll have to contend with Scripture on that one (to name a few for wine - Gen 49:11, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:27). Like I said, check out the word nephesh. For fun, Google nephesh and blood together and see what comes up.
As to my perspectives, I don't want to convert the world to my point of view. I just want to share what I believe the Lord has shown me. Maybe it might shed some light on some subjects, maybe not. It's cleared up the whole debate about tongues for me and the importance of water baptism. I also see more inter-connectedness between the major events in Scripture.
I've since learned that the early church fathers celebrated the same connections. For instance, look up "whitsunday" and its traditions.
The extra-canonical Book of Jubilees, which was discoursed at the time of Jesus and used by the early church, is another example. It records that all four of the great covenants in the OT occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Shavuot). I had no idea of this when the Lord showed me that they were connected.
I also had no idea that the ancient rabbis spoke of the Mount Sinai experience as if it was something out of a Steven Spielberg movie. According to some, multi-colored voices streamed from the mountain and landed on the heads of everyone in the assembly in the form of "diadems." Some even say that God spoke His law to the whole world that day from the burning mountain in every known language.
I don't claim to be a theologian or a hermeneutical expert. I walk with the Lord and share what He puts on my heart to share. Nothing beats the Lord personally opening your mind to understand hidden treasures in Scripture (Luke 24:45).
Thank God this occurred to our founders at the turn of the last century. 500-million people later says a lot for a movement that didn't exist two hundred years ago. A little focused Bible Study, fasting, and prayer can go a long way. It did for me!
I'll end with a cool story from one of my good friends - Evangelist Bill Ashpole (love that man). While He was conducting a revival in the South Pacific a few years back, the Lord showed him an aspect of the baptismal experience.
As he was preaching about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the Lord told him that He was about to baptize the crowd in sections across the huge assembly where they were meeting.
All of a sudden, he saw shafts of light come down from the rafters. As they landed on the sections, the people sitting there began to burst out in tongues. The process repeated itself in waves across the assembly until the whole place erupted in tongues. He even heard people shouting out in English, who had no knowledge of the language.
Because of my experiences, something told me that the shafts of light had color. I asked him "what color were they?" He replied, "Danny, they were rainbow-colored."
November 28, 2007 8:36 PM
Anonymous said...
Jeff: "I did not break through to the release of 'tongues' in my life at that moment. Honestly, I felt ashamed, condemned, and somewhat like a failure."
Was this a result of the doctrine of initial physical evidence, or could it be that it had to with its articulation?
Could it be that we need to give greater attention to the articulation of our doctrines without changing the essence of these doctrines?
This is not the first time in our history that we experienced cataclysmic generational shifts in attitudes, worldviews, etc. Many were baptized in Holy Spirit during the 60's and 70's, a time of great cultural upheaval. I think it more to do with how this was being articulated and ministered than it had to do with a fault in the wording of our doctrine.
Also, how many of our young people actually read the 16 Fundamental Truths on a regular basis? Doesn't their exposure to the doctrine come primarily through the preaching of the word through a pastor. I would fault the administration of the altar service as the source of your early confusion and guilt, not our teaching on the initial, physical evidence.
There are three books that I can think of that do a fantastic job of describing our soul/spirt (the terms are often interchangeable, though at times one does a better job at picking out the referent than the other). The first is a book by JP Moreland called Scaling the Secular City. This is an apologetics book in general, but he does a great job defending the view that we're not just our bodies. To that end, he explains nicely the components of the soul.
Another book was written by JP Moreland and Scott Rae called Body and Soul. This book has some overlap with the first, but it pays more attention to the ethical results of such a view.
The final book is by Dallas Willard and is called Renovation of the Heart. The first two or three chapters are pretty challenging, but they are well worth the effort. I think he gives the best description of the soul and its parts.
Moreland and Rae are both professors at Biola University (where I did my M.A. degree) and are wonderful Christian men. They are more committed to Christ than to their philosophy, but God has rewarded their commitment with outstanding philosophical abilities. Willard is a philosophy professor at USC (I'm a Sooner fan, but still don't hold that against him!) and is Moreland's mentor. I think he has the best things to say about spiritual life and development, but his books aren't often super easy to read. For those used to reading Max Lucado, schedule out a lot more time to read Willard. However the reward for the extra time and work reading Willard will pay out ten fold over a Lucado book. (As most things in life, the things most rewarding are often the most difficult.)
I hope you find these helpful, if I think of any others I'll shoot them your way.
BTW, you can call me either dj (Danny Jr.) or Danny, whatever you prefer.
November 29, 2007 2:29 PM
b.r. said...
"...the text can't mean now what it didn't mean then."
Excellent point.
But don't insist on that too hard--or there goes our eschatology...!!!
November 30, 2007 6:14 AM
br said...
And P.S.: Don't tell Matthew 2:15 (to cite but one of dozens of possible examples) about the hermenuetical principle of something not meaning now what it didn't mean then...
"But don't insist on that too hard--or there goes our eschatology...!!!" and "Don't tell Matthew 2:15 (to cite but one of dozens of possible examples) about the hermenuetical principle of something not meaning now what it didn't mean then..."
I don't know any exegetes that make use of this hermeneutical principle that would say that it applies to the NT authors too. All the ones I know would say that part of the authors being inspired is their ability to make use of OT texts in a different way. We, however, aren't infallibly inspired and don't have that right. In other words, Matthew can do that, we can't.
As far as your eschatology point, you may be right. I think many people have crazy a eschatology because they misuse scripture. With that said, there are different genres of scripture and this hermeneutical principle would apply differently to each genre. For example, we shouldn't treat the book of Proverbs as a book of promises, because it wasn't treated as a book of promises at that time. Instead it a book of generally true principles.
One's eschatology is (mostly) going to come from apocalyptic literature, and there we use this hermetical principle differently. For example, we may try to figure out what some of the symbolism meant to the people then & there (which is what we should do first) and then see if that symbolism applies to us here & now. There's a good case to be made that all the prophecies in Revelation came to pass 100 years or so after it was written (symbolism then & there). That doesn't mean that there still isn't a further meaning to some of the things symbolized (symbolism here & now). What makes apocalyptic literature so difficult to interpret is that applying this principle isn't so clear cut.
Anonymous: I would agree with your assessment of my experience. My feelings of guilt or failure for not immediately speaking in tongues had to do with tone and pastoral ministry.
I have no problem with the initial evidence doctrine. I think our ministry of the experience needs to be constantly evaluated.
I went back and studied a little about circumcision (bris milah - literally the “Covenant of the Wordâ€) and was blown away yet again by the convergence of water, blood, and spirit.
The covenant act is intimately tied to birth by water, in that the mother and father have to count 8 days from the day of birth to the day of circumcision.
Even if the day fell on a Sabbath, the father was responsible (or someone in his stead) to circumcise his son. This is the only time that a Sabbath rule can be broken. The Circumcision rule supersedes Sabbath rules (John 7:23).
Thus, the eighth day in circumcision is linked to water.
Why the eighth day? Because the number eight is the number for spirit. The number eight to rabbis is reminiscent of the day after the 7-day creation of the physical world and the number of Hanukkah, the Feast of Lights – a feast Jesus celebrated.
But what jumped out at me was the whole connection to a day after a Sabbath week. Both the resurrection and Shavuot fell after a Sabbath and Sabbath Weeks respectively, the very next day after the Sabbath (Matt 28:1, Lev 23:15-16).
It is literally a day of the Spirit.
The day before the resurrection was a Sabbath (the Lord rested in the womb of the earth) and the day before that He bled for our sins. But the day after the Sabbath, He was "reborn" by the Spirit.
Thus, the eighth day and the day after the Sabbath are linked to spirit.
Going back to circumcision, this is the day that a Jewish baby boy is given his name. He is literally reborn spiritually into the assembly. There's a new name in the kingdom as it were.
Ironically, Jews have for several centuries placed a vacant chair for the Prophet Elijah to oversee circumcision, as it may herald the identification of Messiah. This is interesting given Elijah's three-part baptism on Mt. Carmel and his connection to John the Baptist.
As far as what role blood plays in circumcision, well I'd rather not talk about that part ;-).
Because of my experiences, I see the Trinity yet again in the convergence of water, blood, and spirit in the covenant act of circumcision. As far as I'm concerned, religious Jews see a representation of the Trinity every time they witness a circumcision.
So what does this have to do with tongues? Well, because of my experiences, I see lips being circumcised when people are speaking in unknown tongues (Exodus 6:12, 30 KJV). They fluently speak in languages unknown to them as the Holy Spirit gives them utterance and as streams of living water flow from within them.
Incidentally, I used to wonder why the Lord began His ministry at the age of 30, why He died at 33, and why He rose on the third day.
Now, because of this follow-up study, I see the Trinity in these timelines. They're all multiples of three from the day the Lord was born of water and even baptized in water. I also see why ten days after Jesus ascended, the fire fell: 7 + 3. The fire fell on the third day, the day after the Sabbath. It fell on the day of the Spirit (Exodus 19:10-11, 16).
Just thought I'd share what I found after studying a little on circumcision.
December 3, 2007 11:34 PM
Anonymous said...
How can this happen and will anyone help us?
I just received a letter toady form the Southern Missouri District council of The
Assemblies of God. Following is a copy of the letter's contents;
Dated November 29, 2007
Dear Fellow Ministers:
We Trust the blessings of God are greatly upon each of you during this special Holiday
Season.
In our October presbyters meeting a motion prevailed that no Assemblies of God
credentialed minister in our district will be allowed to attend a non-Assemblies of God
Church unless they are given permission by the Presbytery Board.
It was also moved that the District write a letter to those ministers that have been
brought to our attention who are attending a non-Assemblies of God Church indicating it
will be necessary for them to receive District Presbytery approval for them to do so, or
their credentials will be in jeopardy.
If you or some credentialed minister in your church falls into this category, please
comply or encourage them to follow through with this action.
May God continue to bless you and your family as together we strive to enhance the
Kingdom of God.
Sincerely in Christ
Bill Baker
Superintendent
Southern Missouri District Council
I have read with interest the recent discussion initiated by Paul's post 'Living Room Conversation'. So much of what was said prompted remembrances of my own spiritual journey.
My roots are in the AG. Youth Camps were the place of significant spiritual experiences for me as a young person. It was at a Camp that my first intense pursuit of an 'Acts 2' experience began. My first response to an altar call for the Holy Spirit was one that could be characterized as hyper-emotional and pressurized.
Personally, I did not break through to the release of 'tongues' in my life at that moment. Honestly, I felt ashamed, condemned, and somewhat like a failure. I'm not sure why I felt that? No one verbalized that to me. As best as I can discern now later in life, I was part of the fall-out of the over-emphasis on momentary experience and the under-emphasis on supernatural lifestyle.
It took me about five months of seeking before I finally experienced the miracle of spiritual language. It happened for me in my living room, after a small group, and without a lot of emotion. And that moment started me on a journey of partnership with the Holy Spirit.
Honestly, I often viewed my Holy Spirit baptism as an historical event in my life. It was something I had experienced back in 1980. But the reality of the value of this new dimension in my spiritual life was somehow under-appreciated in my daily experience. For me it has been in the past decade that I have come to understand the tremendous value that speaking in tongues has in my life and in my ministry.
So in my ministry, I try to teach the people I lead to go beyond momentary experience and to press into ongoing practical application of the use of spiritual language in their life. These are some of the values/applications that I enthusiastically share (I know this is not unique to me...I simply share it to add to the discussion of how to present this important experience). It is a prayer language - the Holy Spirit prays through us according to God's will. It opens our ears to God's voice - as we speak mysteries with our spirit to God--God will release His mysteries back to us. It is a self-edificational practice - Paul indicates that as we speak in tongues, we edify our own soul. When discouraged or under attack, this gift is a lift to our burdened heart. It is practice for function in the other eight manifestation gifts - speaking in spiritual language is a private step of faith. We learn to hear and obey God's voice. As we practice obedience to the prompting of the Spirit in our language, we prepare ourselves to be used in the other gifts. It gives voice to the deep burdens of our heart - Romans 8 talks about how we can groan out our deep cries to heaven. I appreciate being able to pray through a burden to the place of peace through the use of my spiritual language. It can be used as a 'sign' miracle (in conjunction with interpretation) - I have heard many stories from around the world of how a bi-lingual person heard and understood both the tongue and the interpretation. It releases boldness to witness - the Holy Spirit empowers. The more we commune with Him, the greater potential there is for power and fruit to be released in our world.When I present this experience to people now, I find myself talking less and less about the initial moment and more and more about the ongoing effect. For me this balance helps everything to fall in place and make sense.
Mowser
"Tongues In The Practical"
58 Comments -
I think the biggest struggle in our understanding of tongues is the fact that there has been no significant theological development in Pentecostal pneumatology for decades. The last real theological struggle was the Charismatic renewal and the problem it created for Classical Pentecostals. The response was one of two, 1. Our theology is outdated and therefore wrong, or 2. They are a bunch of crackpots.
Most our theology is based on a practical outworking of how the Spirit has displayed himself, not consistent biblical reflection. Without beating a dead horse, we can develop new language for Pentecostal theology that includes intelligent, deliberate, and intentional discourse on tongues.
November 19, 2007 1:47 PM
Brian, I completely agree. Also,I think that if we are going to rescue tongues, we need to better contextualize it on a local level. In other words, keep the Holy Spirit from becoming merely a prerequisite for speaking in tongues. More work needs to be done from within our tradition on the fullness of a Spirit filled existence outside of a "tongues tunnel". Within some of our scholastic circles, I think we are there; or at least heading there. Now, it's just a matter of bringing a balanced biblical reflection on tongues' role within the life of the Spirit filled believer. GPH, there's some curriculum for ya.lol.
November 19, 2007 2:37 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
November 19, 2007 2:56 PM
Jeff -
Amen to all your values and applications to these spiritual languages. They are spot-on and I will use them to share about the experience!
On a side note, my dad was used in the bilingual sign miracle you mentioned. While stationed in Germany, the Lord used him to give a warning in an Indian dialect to a visiting German Baptist missionary to India, who did not believe in tongues for today.
Brian and Trey -
I heartily agree with your comments. Although I completely stand behind our initial evidence doctrine, I believe more research and discussion needs to be undertaken on contextualizing tongues within a larger picture of Scripture than a handful of passages in Acts and references by John the Baptist. I know I'm generalizing about our exegesis, but there has to be more out there in Scripture to support tongues than what we teach.
To all -
Reading some of the comments about struggles with the doctrine, esp. those made by younger ministers, reminded me of my own struggles and journey (I'm 32 – I know, sooo much senior :-).
Three years ago, I came to a theological crossroad over tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. At the time, I felt called to lead a Bible Study on the subject with a group of young adults, all of whom were from non-Pentecostal backgrounds.
But before doing so, I poured days in prayer, fasting, and sola scriptura study. I divorced myself from my A/G understandings for the “sake of objectivity," threw myself at the feet of the Lord, pleaded for His wisdom (per James 1:5) and depended entirely on His promise that the Holy Spirit would lead me into all truth. He did not disappoint.
Over the course of several months, and even after the study had ended, the Lord opened my eyes to things in Scripture that I had never seen before. Some of the experiences I had blew my mind away. I would ask questions and He would lead me to verses, confirmations, and give me the understandings! He even went beyond my request and expanded my understanding of other Scriptural truths.
I prayed over posting some of what He showed me here. Within myself, I told the Lord that I would withhold unless 1. one of the moderators posted a follow-up about tongues and 2. there was a discussion about developing our pneumatology. Thanks Jeff, Brian, and Trey ;-!
As you read, please test the spirits and ideas to see if they’re from God. Also, please pray for understanding as well, because some of these ideas require discernment. I pray these ideas help those who are struggling with the relevance of our doctrines and that they stir further investigation. Ready? Seatbelt strapped? Ok, here it goes…
- The first thing the Lord showed me was that the day the Lord baptized Mount Sinai with fire and gave the Ten Commandments was the Day of Pentecost.
- He then showed me that the previous days of covenant (Noah, Abram, and later Abraham) were also on the Day of Pentecost.
- He showed me that each covenant had a lasting sign (rainbow, circumcision, Sabbath).
- He showed me that Pentecost is unique to all other feasts in that it is the only one counted by Sabbaths.
- He then showed me the significance of rainbows and how they are a multi-colored representation of his voices (seven colors for each of His voices/thunders).
- He showed me that the blazing torch and smoking firepot that appeared to Abram were also covenantal signs (not lasting however).
- He emphasized to me the point that circumcision was a physical and visible sign in the flesh.
- He then took me back to Exodus and showed me the progression of baptisms that took place from the Passover, to the Red Sea Crossing, and then to Sinai.
- He put everything together and said in essence that before the book of Acts, one could have compiled the covenantal signs together and predicted that tongues would be the sign of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
- He showed me that when John the Baptist was baptizing Jesus, and said He needed to be baptized by Jesus, John was referring specifically to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
- He showed me that in all the covenants, He extended His promises to both clean and unclean animals and "mixed" multitudes.
- He connected the dots between previous covenants and the Lord's inclusion of "unclean" to Peter's vision in Acts Chapter 10:9-16.
- He emphasized to me that tongues and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit were the reason why the Jewish disciples accepted the Gentile believers into their family.
- He reiterated to me that Jesus did not baptize on earth and that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is His personal baptism for believers. Incidentally, this is why I now prefer to call it "the Lord's Baptism."
- He showed me that three is a significant number when it comes to baptisms.
- He showed me that when looking at baptismal types, the number three will reoccur. A few instances of this include: the number of times Peter had his vision, the number of disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration, the number of elements in water, the number of times Elijah poured water on the sacrifice atop Mount Carmel and the number of times the earth will be regenerated (baptized).
- He showed me that there are three sub-baptisms (each with a lasting sign): Salvation (blood), Water (water), Spirit (fire/Spirit).
- He then took me back to the days of Covenant and showed me how all these three elements were always present.
- He showed me that the Trinity is represented in the three separate pilgrimage feasts of Israel (Shavuot, Sukkot, and Pesach) and unified under the Day of Atonement. Incidentally, the latter is the only time that the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies. It is the Highest of Holy Days in the Jewish religious calendar.
- He showed me that the three baptisms are representations of His triune identity.
- He explained to me that baptisms are new birth and, at the same time, burial experiences.
- He then showed me that baptism was always spoken of in the Old Testament. It was simply referred to by another name - atonement.
- He then enlarged my idea of the atonement to see it as triune baptism: blood, water, Spirit.
- He then showed me baptismal pre-cursors and types in the following: clouds, Joseph's robe, the sign of Jonah, Elijah's triune baptism, the Priestly garments, and the Ephod of the High Priest (to name a few). The stones of the Ephod, for instance, would supernaturally light up and at that point, the High Priest would "speak in tribes†through the lit stones “as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance."
- When asked for confirmation that the rainbow was connected to baptism, He led me to the passage in Rev 10:1 where the angel is enrobed in a cloud with a rainbow over his head (cf. tongues of fire coming to rest on the disciples’ heads).
- He explained to me the difference between the unknown tongue and the gift of different kinds of tongues. NOTE: the unknown tongue is unknown to the speaker and not necessarily the hearer.
- He then clarified how the unknown tongue is tied to empowerment for witnessing via the reference "a sign for unbelievers" and tied to personal edification via the reference "edifies himself." He thus showed me that the Corinthians erred doubly in setting and usage: 1. they were using a promise meant for witnessing to unbelievers in a body of believers and 2. they were using a personal edification language in a corporately unedifying manner.
- He clarified that believers can be baptized in the blood (salvation), water, and Spirit, at the same time, in short order and at other times distantly apart (Saul of Tarsus, the Eunuch in Acts 8, and the disciples in Samaria). These baptisms and their lasting signs are again allusions to the triune nature of God and His baptisms: distinct yet unified.
- He clarified that ministers who are not baptized in the Holy Spirit can be mightily used in evangelism and discipleship (pastors and teachers), because these are spiritually-gifted offices.
- He clarified that although tongues are holy, being baptized in the Holy Spirit does not translate to personal holiness. He showed me this with the analogy to the lasting sign of circumcision.
- When I asked for confirmation that the unknown tongue is the lasting sign in the Lord's Baptism, He led me to the Book of Isaiah to Chapter 59 and its very last verse. Then, He led me to combine it with the first five verses of the next chapter. Then I was led to cross-reference it with Acts 2, where I found its fulfillment in verses 1-12 and 37-39.
- He showed me that His voice has a visible nature (fire, rainbow, lightning, tongues). This explains why Simon the Sorcerer saw that the Baptism was given at the laying on of hands.
- When I looked for confirmation that Mount Sinai was connected to Pentecost, I was blown away by the fact that every Jew commemorates the giving of the Law at Pentecost. Also, I ran across references to visible thunders coming from the burning mountain.
The above are a good sample of what the Lord showed me in Scripture and backed up through confirmations. I had never heard or been taught any of what He taught me in His Q&A sessions.
At one point, I got so overwhelmed at the immensity of what He had shown me that I got up shaking in a half-trance and would speak in tongues throughout the day as if it was a second language – may the Lord be praised!
To help with my understanding of the inter-relationships and re-occurring patterns, I had to come up with what I termed a "Unifying Theory of Baptisms:"
The baptisms of blood, water, and Spirit are separate and distinct birth experiences that are unified under one baptism, the Atonement
I have used it to form and test hypotheses about baptismal types in Scripture and even in Judaic traditions not recorded explicitly in Scripture. For instance, I used it to predict that water played a significant role in the Feast of Sukkot.
I also used it to predict the number of hyssop branches the High Priest holds to sprinkle the water of cleansing (contains the ashes of the Red Heifer). The number of branches is three exactly. Again, I had no idea of these facts before testing the theory.
Because these concepts are so far beyond my theological, much less mental capacity, I even came up with a name for their study - quantum pneumechanics :-).
If you would like to read more about these insights and others, you can visit a pneuma blog that I completed over a year ago. It's called Jesus the Baptist, a fitting name I think given: the controversial nature of the subject, the claims, and the instant connection I felt I had to make between the Lord and His baptism.
If you visit it, you may notice that the ideas are fused together and may not form a clear and concise picture until everything has been read and prayerfully considered. This is a testimony to how they were shown to me. Someday, and if there is interest, maybe TPE, AGTS, GPH or Dr. Wood could help me put it all together in a more fluent manner without profit to me???
The next time, you look at a rainbow, I pray you see God's multi-colored voice!
Aloha & mahalos in Jesus FutureAG,
dj morales
clubalphaomega
November 20, 2007 7:04 AM
wow! that is quite the research project. lots to ponder.
Thanks dj
November 20, 2007 9:43 AM
brian and trey: How right you are, and thus how sad it is to see Pentecostals everywhere, including on this very blog, calling our educational insitutions (where such theological work should take place) a non-spiritual "guild," "liberal," and somehow anti-faith, simply because most biblical studies scholars in the serious A/G schools (like Vanguard, Evangel, and perhaps some others) are actually not fundamentalists.
Sadly, though we (occassionaly) pay lip service to the idea of developing a coherent and academically articulate theology of anything, the cold fact is that the core culture of our denomination is unfortunately in another place.
Lord hasten the day when the fine professors at our insitutions can actually...
a) be given time out of their teaching schedules (which is rarely granted) to think and write about these issues...
b) engage in honest scholarly discussions in the classroom without having the annoying nephew-of-a-headquarters-employee in their class to rat them out, and thus receive threatening emails the very next day as a punishment for actually thinking...
c) publish, not in the Pentecostal Evangel or through GPH, but in actual, refereed, academic journals, etc...
d) be granted the chance to remain within the denomination and its institutions even while publishing material that challenges popular notions of what it means to be Pentecostal and/or properly understand the Bible.
It is this final aspect of scholarship serving as a corrective and a challenge to church life that is painfully missing from our fellowship. Since we have basically dis-empowered our educational institions from performing this function, our educational structures are weak and even pointless in some instances, and thus the kind of challenging theology you (rightly) speak about is not being produced.
All of this could come about by fostering an open academic culture where ideas are valued, professors are trusted, and it is made very clear that there is room for informed, respectful discussion and even disagreement on any (yes, ANY) issue. This is the way it is in many other (Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) schools, although of course "we don't want to be like them." Except, we actually do want to be like them, in many respects. So why not this one?
Exactly who it is that will spearhead these kinds of positive changes, or how they would come about in practical terms, is a difficult issue. I have no solution for that (or anything, actually).
-brian d., cambridge ma
November 20, 2007 10:57 AM
I bet the Methodists and Presbyterians had many similar conversations as are on this blog at one point......look how it worked out for them.
November 20, 2007 11:26 AM
Anonymous: It's not at all clear that their "decline"--if you honestly think that numbers are the whole story? or you see "how they turned out" negatively in some other way?--was connected to their academic institutions. But you have conveniently provided a nice, terse example of the kind of thing to which I referred in the first paragraph of my first comment.
-brian d., cambridge ma
November 20, 2007 11:38 AM
The issue of academia in the A/G, I believe,will be defining of this next generation of ministers. Though you shouldn't quote me on this, I want to remember one of our very own posing the question of why we as Pentecostals do not have institutions are par with say Catholics(i.e. Notre Dame). While such schools might be viewed as liberal, even secular to the extent of some of the teachings, we as Pentecostals have the opportunity to succeed where other traditions have fallen short.
By definition, we are an experiential people. Luckily for us, this resonates with a postmodern society. We then are left with the challenge of engaging doctrines on things such as tongues not just in an exegetical discourse, but in an experiential exploration as well. In the same way that faith without works is dead, doctrine without experience is lifeless.
It is here we strike a balance between art and science, between challenging intellectual dialog and extraordinary encounters with the Divine. The more people I talk to under 30 about this issue, the less interest I find in "50 reasons you should speak in tongues if you're not already and 82 reasons you're doing it wrong if you already do". Rather, there is a question of "how does my personal experience fit into the big picture of life?"
Sadly, I find fewer biblically sound answers to the latter. I think this is where we all can improve. We have some great minds within our tradition and as Brian D. said we should support them. However, before we get too scared of becoming "like them", remember that Notre Dame was a fostering grounds for the Catholic Charismatic movement. Love it or hate it, I'm hard pressed to find that kind of fervency for the Spirit across the board in many of our institutions.(Oh no, it's only my second time to post and I've already become one of those people who leave books as comments. Lord, Help)
November 20, 2007 12:24 PM
Jeff & Paul,
Just a little FYI as a note of interest. Even you fellow blog authors seemingly contradict yourselves. Paul said on November 20, "Tongues is simply a prayer language...It is a unique way to pray that involves only my spirit communicating directly with God’s Spirit...Tongues does NOT give me the ability to pray the perfect will of God." Yet in Jeff's post on November 17th he stated, "It is a prayer language - the Holy Spirit prays through us according to God's will." I am definitely not demanding uniformity...just attempting to convey the point that concerning this subject, the opinions are very diverse and we need to be very patient with each other because the terminology which we are using just in this blog(i.e. Spirit baptism vs. Spirit's overwhelming) and the paradigms from which we communicate are distinct with each individual. For the record, on this issue, I side with the CBC grad (I can't believe I just did that).
November 20, 2007 1:41 PM
For me the real learning process happens as I practice it. but I am all for debating it and studying it as well.
I am just so thankful for the operation of the Holy Spirit in my life. I don't know how I would function without the daily empowerment of the Spirit and the daily practice of tongues in my prayer life.
I want to live in anticipation of how God will use me today. The nine gifts of the Spirit are so critical to a gospel that is more than just words, but that is backed by power.
God, give us a fresh experience that will release the gifts in our lives.
And give us the freedom to academically understand and articulate it for the next generation.
help us know the scriptures and the power of God.
November 20, 2007 2:11 PM
Brian.....the word "decline" was never used. That's your word. Nor was simply the academic spoken of just that they probably had a lot of the same conversations as on this blog and there are numerous not just about tongues or academics. Study their history and you'll know it's true. If anyone thinks we are not heading down the same paths as them in many ways they are simply fooling themselves.
November 20, 2007 3:08 PM
Jeff, I think many many kids at camp feel as you did in going up and not speaking in tongues right away - in fact I think many kinds have tried and tried and eventually "fake it in order to make it" to relieve themselves of the pressure of those around them such that I think many attendees of AG churches are primairly fakers in the tongues speaking issue. Sorry but that is how I see it.
As to Brian Jenkin's comment I think he makes a good point - however as a former student of Dr. Ben Aker (now retired prof of aGts fame), I think his thoughts on the concept of the "Second Exodus" has huge implications for the doctrine of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. I think some good stuff is coming out of aGts that will be very helpful for these kinds of issues.
I also think much of our distinctives should just be considered, in the words of Aimee Semple McPherson, "Bible Christianity."
November 20, 2007 4:24 PM
Dear Anonymous,
Quotes do not always imply a verbatim recitation of what someone has said, but can be used, as I did in the earlier comment, as "scare quotes," i.e. to denote problematic terms. Anyone could look at your comment and see that I was not quoting you verbatim.
But back to the issue of Presbyterians, Catholics, Methodists, and their universities: You do seem to imply that we cannot emulate these groups in any way, or at least in their educational institutions, lest we become like them. Someone will have to remind me what exactly is so horrible about these groups, besides the fact that they've lost members over the past few decades (see Trey's point about the charismatic renew at Notre Dame, and at Duquesne, I would add). (By the way, I have indeed studied their histories, perhaps more than you realize.)
Surely no one will deny that we have something, or even a lot, to learn from our brothers/sisters in other denominations? And they have a lot to learn from us (about 25% of the above-mentioned members in said groups are full-blown charismatics, even more by some estimates). I was baptized in the Spirit in the basement of a Catholic church by believers whose spiritual fervency and genuine commitment to loving Christ was frankly far greater than anything I've seen in our churches (at least in the States).
So, you seem to react to the issue of allowing our universities more academic openness by balking at the notion that we would, in some sense, become more like another group. But this can only be an emotional reaction, or anecdotal. What exactly is this "path" (here, a direct quote) you speak of? You cannot honestly think all groups are "dead" (scare quotes) besides Pentecostals? Of course, you may think that a church having a strong commitment to social justice, gender/racial equality, and "all that suff" (again, scare quotes) is "liberal," "dead," or whatever.
If so, then you would have about 90% of the people in the A/G behind you. I just simply disagree. I read the Gospels a lot, and the sermon on the mount. What can I say?
-brian d., cambridge ma
November 20, 2007 6:02 PM
Another of the generational differences that I believe can be observed in these discussions has to do with values and approaches to theology and apologetics. Robert Webber outlines the differences between three generations: traditional-pragmatic-younger* Evangelicals.
Concerning their Theological Commitment—Traditional Evangelicals see Christianity as a Rational Worldview; Pragmatic Evangelicals see Christianity as Therapy (answering needs); Younger Evangelicals see Christianity as a Community of Faith (Ancient and Reformational). These are radically different approaches to faith which can be expected to articulate doctrinal positions in ways consistent with their values.
Concerning their Apologetics Style—Traditional Evangelicals express Christianity as Evidential and Foundational; Pragmatic Evangelicals express Christianity as Meaning-Giver, Experiential, and Personal faith; and Younger Evangelicals express Christianity as Embodied and Communal.
While each of these terms would need to be unpacked to fully understand Webber’s meaning, they could also explain how the same experience (i.e., tongues and HS baptism) could be articulated and defended in vastly different terms for each generation. I think this explains much of the difference of emphasis between these groups. Same experience, different values and terminology.
*Traditional (Billy Graham), Pragmatic (Bill Hybels), Younger (Rob Bell, Brian McLaren)
November 20, 2007 6:15 PM
One of my passions is to see the next generation experience the real deal. It has to be articulated for them to grab hold of the concept that the book of Acts is for them and it is for now.
Powerless Christianity is not the pattern in the Bible. There is so much in the book of Acts that I want to see and live.
What a tragedy, if young people--out of pressure feel the need to fake it. Somehow we have to pastor them into a lifestyle with the Holy Spirit.
To me this is the true goal. How can I live in the power and presence of God? How can my life see the release of 1 Corinthian 12 gifts? How can I express the Ancient/Reformational faith of the early church?
When I read the book of Acts, I am stirred with desire. I want to live in Acts.
How can we start a movement of next generation Holy Spirit empowered ministry? I think this is the first question we should address.
As a part of that move, we should openly discuss how to articulate these Biblical experiences in a clear, safe and motivating way.
November 21, 2007 4:10 AM
Anonymous - great point on the generational differences of perspective! I hadn't looked at it quite like that before.
So with these thoughts in mind... what is the next step. Do we hold to the original terminology that our grandparents understand and appreciate or do we try to make some delicate changes that would resonate with the emerging generation?
November 21, 2007 8:19 AM
Early Pentecostals believed that speaking in tongues would allow them to go to foreign lands and preach without having to go through the hassle of language study. Others have believed that when speaking in tongues the speaker is in a trancelike state and utters incoherent sounds.
Obviously, as an anonymous blogger above pointed out, there are many different views on the nature of tongues even on this blog. Jeff, Pete Pentecostal, and others view tongues as Holy Spirit praying through the speaker. To me this view does not make sense biblically or experientially.
The Bible does not say much about the nature of tongues explicitly, but to me the key verse is 1 Cor 14:14 where Paul says, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.†Here Paul says explicitly that when I pray in tongues it is my spirit which is praying, not the Holy Spirit. Obviously tongues is Holy Spirit inspired… all prayer is (Romans 8:23), but this does not mean that it is the Holy Spirit praying through me.
Also, why would God communicate to Himself through me? That sounds schizophrenic. Isn’t the very nature of prayer communication between human and the Divine?
So far the best definition of tongues I’ve come across was in an article by Dr. Gordon Anderson in the Enrichment a few years ago. Here are a couple of the highlights…
Speaking in tongues establishes a noncognitive and nonrational communication with God. It is not antirational. It is an immediate contact with God that does not include human words, nor can it be expressed in human words. This experience results in added faith in God, increased power and gifts for ministry, increased emotion and passion, and an enhanced awareness of the experiential dimension of God’s presence in the life of the Pentecostal believer.
The noncognitive, nonrational character of speaking in tongues is spiritually healthy when it is in balance with the other elements of spiritual life. The liberty to escape the cognitive dimension and enter into edifying communication with God, connecting in a different way — heart to heart, rather than head to head with the words of human language — should not be undermined.
November 21, 2007 1:52 PM
Jeff and Paul:
Loved your last posts.
How can we start a movement of next generation Holy Spirit empowered ministry? How do we resonate with the emerging generation?
One young person at a time...
We should be like Paul and boldly ask each new disciple "have you been baptized by Jesus?"
When asked "what do you mean?" We should be able to give an answer.
Personally, I tell them that it is similar to salvation and water baptism. Instead of being covered by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, you're covered by His Holy Spirit. Instead of a pastor baptizing you in water, it's Jesus personally baptizing you.
Making the experience Christ-centered makes it more personal and active ("Jesus baptizes you" vs. "being baptized in the Holy Spirit"). After all, who would give up the chance to be personally baptized by the Lord of the Universe? Furthermore, they may not like "Christians" but Jesus can still be their homeboy.
In my opinion, this is something our current teaching fails to do. It calls it the "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" instead of the "Lord's Baptism." It calls Jesus "the Baptizer" instead of "Jesus the Baptist." I don’t think John would mind. After all, he’s the one who said "He must become greater; I must become less."
Simplicity packed with meaning and graphic associations will "resonate with the emerging culture" and any culture for that matter. Get the point across with as much meaning and as few words as possible so they make the connections themselves.
"…don't you mean John the Baptist? I've heard about him before..."
"no actually Jesus the Baptist let me explain..."
When asked about tongues, I will now tell them that the Lord has had a spiritual language in store for them since the beginning of creation. Just like they have a new name in heaven now, they now will have a new language on earth.
Who doesn't like a free gift? - especially when it's a surprise. Who wouldn't like to pick up a language especially if it happens supernaturally? - Chris Angel eat your heart out!
Just like water naturally goes with water baptism and the blood of Jesus goes with salvation, so too does an unknown language go with the Lord's baptism.
BTW, I now call the lasting sign of the Lord's Baptism, the "unknown tongue" or the "unknown language" to differentiate it from the "gift of different kinds of tongues" just as the Apostle Paul did explicitly in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
If pressed for details, I now can paint a bigger picture with Scripture (thanks to my crazy experiences):
- I now can tell them that the baptism they are about to receive was foretold in the rainbow God gave to Noah after the flood (baptism). In fact, it was a picture of all the languages ever spoken. God so loves the world and He says so in every language every time He baptizes the earth with His light and rain. And now, they too can speak in rainbows, in a color He has chosen just for them, when He baptizes them in His Holy Spirit.
- I now can tell them that just like God gave Abraham a promise in the flesh, He too will give them a sign on their lips. It will be a sign to them that they are called to be witnesses to the world and a father or mother of many nations (in the form of disciples they are called to make).
- I now can tell them that just like God baptized Mount Sinai with fire on the Day of Pentecost in Exodus 19-20, so too Jesus will pour out supernatural fire upon them. Just like God spoke through visible thunders from that mountain of fire (20:18), so too He will speak through them now. - Shoot, thanks to Bob Cornuke, I can show them pictures of Mount Sinai (still burnt to this day from that supernatural fire). Again, Chris Angel got nothing on Jesus!
- I now can explain to them that just like God spoke supernaturally through twelve colored stones on the High Priest's garments, one for each tribe, so too God has called them to be a Holy Priesthood. He will supernaturally light them up and speak through them in an array of colors known as unknown tongues. Chris Angel's outa bidness.
- I now can read to them the following verses from the Book of Isaiah:
"'As for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the LORD. 'My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,' says the LORD. Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the LORD rises upon you and his glory appears over you. Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. 'Lift up your eyes and look about you: All assemble and come to you; your sons come from afar, and your daughters are carried on the arm. Then you will look and be radiant, your heart will throb and swell with joy; the wealth on the seas will be brought to you, to you the riches of the nations will come...'"
- Lastly, I can bring out my 2-by-4, and say that just like God gave birth to the church on the Day of Pentecost in Acts, so too He will give them another birth experience*. So too He will speak through them with the sound of a mighty rushing wind coming from their mouths. So too will the springs of the great deep within them burst forth as the floodgates of heaven are opened up open them.
The above give illustrations of how powerful the big picture of God's covenants is with man. It stretches from Genesis to Revelation; it spans the Old and New Testament. It's awesome. It's powerful. It's substantive. It's global. It's personal. It's relational. It's relevant. It's simple. It makes sense. It communicates at the speed of light. And dare I say it - "it's magical."
God never changes and He is someone whom the emerging culture, and any culture for that matter, can believe in. The teaching methods we use can change and likewise give them something to believe in.
* John 3 and 1 John 5:8 have all three: blood-Jesus, water-Father and Spirit.
P.S. Because of the experiences detailed in my first post, I look at the poll on the front-page and my mind rephrases it to say:
"I am an AG minister and I believe the blood of Jesus..."
- Is immediately evidenced the moment a believer is saved.
- Follows salvation, but not necessarily immediately.
- Is available for everyone, but may never happen even in those who have been saved.
- Follows salvation, but is only available for some believers with the gift of blood.
- Has nothing to do with salvation.
Or...
"I am an AG minister and I believe water..."
- Is immediately evidenced the moment a believer is baptized in water
- Follows baptism in water, but not necessarily immediately.
- Is available for everyone, but may never happen even in those who have been baptized in water.
- Follows water baptism, but is only available for some believers with the gift of water.
- Has nothing to do with baptism in water.
I'm not knocking the poll, which was well worded. I'm just using it to bring my points home. BTW, this is the first time I have openly talked about my experiences. Ya, I know my new teaching methods weren't approved at General Council, but neither were my experiences. As far as the practical applications of tongues go, now I can use Jeff's points ;-).
November 21, 2007 2:56 PM
Paul, in response to "praying in tongues is not the Holy Spirit praying through me...to me this doesn't make sense biblically"
What does "as the Spirit enabled them" mean?
apophtheggomai (NIV enabled, KJV utterance) means to speak forth or to speak out
"as the Spirit apophtheggomai"
"as the Spirit spoke forth"
Clearly the Spirit is speaking.
I don't see any way around the truth that when I pray in tongues, the Holy Spirit Himself is praying through me.
November 21, 2007 6:59 PM
Paul,
Great discussion huh?
1. I was taking my concepts about the Holy Spirit praying through us directly from the Romans passage. I realize that Romans 8:26-27 does not specifically mention tongues. But it does express the fact that the Holy Spirit prays through us.
HERE'S THE VERSES: the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.
2. It also makes sense to me that the Spirit would pray through us to agree with God for His will to be done. If we see prayer just as asking, we it may seem absurd for the Spirit to ask the Father for something--because they are ONE.
But if we see prayer as agreeing and releasing, it makes total sense and is not absurd at all.
--Consider the Lord's Prayer where Jesus tells us to pray for God's will to be done.
--Consider 1 John 5:14-15 where John tells us that when we ask for things according to God's will, God hears us and gives us what we ask.
Somehow the Spirit prays through us to bring us into a more complete agreement with God's will and therefore a more effective potential in prayer.
Tongues, is one way that the Holy Spirit uses us to AGREE with God's will...even when we don't totally understand it with our mind.
Maybe this is part of why Paul says in 1 Corintiahsn 14...I speak in tongues more than you all...
November 22, 2007 7:53 AM
Oh by the way, forgot to mention - I have tossed out the whole expression "second work of grace" and "ordinance" in favor of "covenant act" and "new birth experience."
Thus,
Salvation is a covenant act and new birth experience.
Baptism in Water is a covenant act and new birth experience.
The Lord's Baptism is a covenant act and new birth experience.
God bless and Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
November 22, 2007 8:47 AM
I believe Jeff has hit the meaning of the idea of tongues as prayer language. I think Paul does not go far enough in his reading of Romans and this defaults the ideas expressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians. I believe you are absolutely correct, Jeff, in saying that Paul intends to say that he speaks in tongues via prayer language more than anyone in the Corinthian church. We have to remember that Paul is explaining why tongues is not as important as prophecy. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, he repeatedly downplays the importance of tongues and the problems it poses to orderly worship as well as the perception of those outside the fellowship. At the same time, he does affirm that tongues is a gift that he actively participates in.
The whole doctrine of initial evidence is just plain hard. I have experienced personally speaking in tongues in my prayer times so I have that confirmation along with the biblical evidence that speaking in tongues is indeed a divinely ordained gift. However, the biblical and historical evidence simply does not seem to align with the hardline stance of some in the denomination on this issue. I agree with others that we must rework the language and understanding of the doctrine or we will see more people leave the fold.
Great discussion on academics within the organization. We must become more dedicated to improving scholarship.
November 22, 2007 12:17 PM
Danny...as long as we are changing termonology I'm sure you meant Joyful Giving of Thanks right?:)
November 22, 2007 12:59 PM
lol you're right anonymous, I meant to say that ;-)
November 22, 2007 4:16 PM
I've done some asking around about some of the younger folks leaving the fold...and find it's not the initial evidence doctrine that is driving young men away as much as it is the "good ole boys club" mentality that pushes younger men and women away who want relationships, not religious exercise...
And yes, retribution does rule on both sides of this fight!
November 22, 2007 5:16 PM
It's amazing to see all the "Tongues" speakers in the national headlines right now. Benny, Paula, Creflo, Joyce, Kenny and Eddie...on top of that we have all that is going on down at ORU and their president, Richie. Their Board of Regents that is full of dedicated Word of Faithers, and ardent tongue talkers themselves! It seems that the taste for lavish living and fleecing the flock is now commonplace in our movement. Our credibility levels are going way down even as we discourse this wonderful subject. Maybe a new approach is needed?
November 23, 2007 7:30 AM
anonymous 5:16 - Maybe we should poll to see what the number one reason is for them leaving. It wouldn't be scientific, but it could be telling nonetheless.
anonymous 7:30 - They will know us by our fruit. There will always be smack-talking about Pentecostals.
Each of us has to impact our world one testimony, one mind, and one person at a time. When they think of tongues, they should think of them positively or, at the bare minimum a neutral-issue, because they associate us with them.
November 23, 2007 8:43 AM
To the first comments onthis entry,
I notice that the first couple comments are saying that there have been no new contributions to Pentecostal theology in decades. This is simply not true. There have been scores of contributions and theologians. Men and women have been diligently working in this regard.
Please read Roger Strongtad, Frank Machia, Bob and William Menzies, Amos Yong, or WOnsuk and Julie Ma. . .these are all people duking it out in terms of trying to do Pentecostal theology. Asia Pacific Thelogical Seminary publishes a Pentecostal journal at www.apts.org/ajps (Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies. I'm not sure that many of us are reading Pentecostal theology enough to make statements such as "no significant contributions are being made". I sense there is a lot of skepticism with not a whole lot of substance.
November 23, 2007 7:31 PM
Speaking of APTS, go to their website, www.apts.edu, and click on the "RESEARCH AND RESOURCES" tab. Then click on "Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies." Volume 1, Number 2 (August 1998)is entitled "The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost."
Looks like a lot of good information.
By the way, why does it seem like our own theological seminary is so far behind in terms of scholarship when it comes to some of our foreign seminaries? Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed this?
November 24, 2007 8:08 AM
APTS is a great resource! I bump into research articles from their AJPS site all the time. Great reads. I especially value their historical research on the Pentecostal movement in the Pacific Rim.
November 24, 2007 11:29 PM
Art:
I read an 1999 article in volume 2 - Initial Evidence Again? that blew me away. One of the findings reported in "If It Is A Sign: An Old Testament Reflection on the Initial Evidence Discussion" sent shivers down my spine.
According to the article, the term "initial evidence" has been a bone of contention amongst young Pentecostal ministers longer than I was even aware. Many favor the term "sign" over "initial evidence."
What is so crazy, to me anyways, is that ever since my experiences, I now call the unknown tongue the "lasting sign" or "covenantal sign" of the Lord's Baptism.
I now see 7 great covenant acts in Scripture each with their own signs. The seven are the Noahadic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant Part I, Part II, the Covenant at Sinai, Salvation, Baptism in Water and the Lord’s Baptism. All continue to this day.
The rainbow, blazing torch, smoking firepot, sign in the flesh, visible thunders, fire on the mountain, and Sabbath were signs given at four of these great covenantal acts. When you add the fact that they these four occurred on the Day of Pentecost, the connection with the unknown tongue, or "new tongues" as Jesus called them, should become apparent. Thus, the unknown tongue is the uncontested sign for the Lord’s Baptism in my book.
(I’ve learned that the Old Testament and Jews are more Pentecostal than we think)
As far as Salvation and Baptism in Water are concerned, their lasting signs are remembered every time we partake the blood of the covenant and baptize disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Speaking of which, water is an interesting lasting sign as it is not apparent as such until you put it together with Spirit and Blood (the Son).
Such was the case in: God's ultimate sign for Moses (Exodus 4:9), the baptism of Jesus, His first miracle of turning water into wine, the watery issue of blood after the Lord gave up the ghost, the names of the Trinity we baptize in, and the resurrection water mentioned in 1 Peter 3:21.
If you want to go even deeper - blood is made up of water and spirit (i.e. life). That's probably why it seemed good to the Spirit back in Noah's day and at the Council in Jerusalem for us not to eat it. Shucks, I love my porterhouse and ribeye medium!!!
Lastly - no actually firstly - the waters plural were mentioned "In the Beginning." Hmmm, I wonder what those waters were the Spirit of God was hovering over? Rev 13:8 and Rev 22 might shed some light.
Now, whenever I see water I think, "Trinity."
If y'all are wondering why I'm ranting and raving about this stuff. The Spirit has been whispering in my ear that we're about ready to turn this work over to a new generation. Although I'm concerned about this generation of young Pentecostal ministers, and want to be relevant, I don't think that's the generation He's referring to. I think it's the generation of Spirit-filled Jews who are about to take this bad boy over after we're gone ;-).
Man, I feel a Shema coming on! (oh, btw, that says “Trinity†too). Ok, I'll save future tomes for the wiki...
November 25, 2007 2:08 AM
Danny we need a "Danny Dictionary" to keep up with all your terms:)
November 25, 2007 1:51 PM
dj, I've got a couple of questions about your last post. First, how is blood "made up" of water and spirit? Blood is material, spirit is not. You might say that spirit infuses our blood (but why not say, along with other great thinkers, it infuses our bodies?) but infusing is different from saying "made up". Being part of the make up of blood implies that the spirit is physical and detectable if we look closely enough.
Second, you say "that's why it seemed good to the Spirit ... for us not to eat [meat]." Are you saying that we shouldn't eat meat now? If not, was the Spirit wrong before? (It looks as if you imply that when you say "it seemed good", i.e. it seemed good but really wasn't.) If the Spirit wasn't wrong before, and it's okay for us to meat now, what changed that made it so we could eat meat?
Finally, what do you mean when you say "when I see water I think of the Trinity"? I think you mean one of two things: 1) when you see water you think of the Trinity (3 persons) or 2) when you see water you think of the Spirit of God (see your previous statement). If you meant the latter, then I don't have an issue, but if you meant the former, then I think you've unintentionally bought into a heresy.
November 26, 2007 4:51 AM
This blog is so inconsistent. Packed with posts for a time and then you don't see anything for days. It's getting very old boys
November 27, 2007 12:49 PM
Brian D, I may have just had a revelation. You wouldn't happen to be pursuing a doctorate from a (shhh don't tell) non-A/G school near you? If so, I may have had a class with you. If not, oh well. haha.
November 27, 2007 2:22 PM
Anonymous 12:49
I guess many of us are living lives that require a step back from the internet every now and then. Please accept our most humble apologies as we strive to post enough to make you happy.
November 27, 2007 4:31 PM
I'd have been most happy to have had one less post on here Paul F:)
November 27, 2007 10:15 PM
Thanks Paul F for returning the discussion to sarcasm...so productive!
November 27, 2007 10:17 PM
Ah yes and your chastisement was the epitome of productivity.
November 28, 2007 10:46 AM
As was your response
November 28, 2007 1:30 PM
I bet I can get the last word in this game.
haha
November 28, 2007 1:52 PM
What an incredibly disappointing digression. It seems more like a discussion board about the new Batman movie than informed discourse between two thinking Christian brothers.
November 28, 2007 3:14 PM
Paul f:
Sorry I took so long to get back to you. I finally have a recovery day (we don't have days off in the Navy ;).
We know from biochemistry that blood is made up of water - anywhere from 83 to 95 percent depending upon hydration.
We also know from Scripture that life (Hebrew nephesh) is in the blood. This is not some figurative idea, it's a spiritual truth.
This is why blood is considered holy. This is why innocent blood cries out. This is one reason why there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. Just for kicks, check out the word nephesh and its ties to blood, you may be surprised what you find.
No, we can still eat meat. It's what for dinner at my house (I'm grilling tonight). It's eating blood I was talking about. In my opinion, the Spirit's leading against eating blood in Acts 15:29 had little to do with fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. The prohibition pre-dates Mosaic Kosher law. It goes all the way back to God's words to Noah. Why? Because nephesh is in the blood.
When I said that when I look at water I think of the Trinity I meant exactly that. I did not say that water is the sign for the Trinity. Looking back, I should have said "when I think of water as a lasting sign and it's connection with blood and Spirit, I think of the Trinity" which was my original premise.
All the lasting signs above that I mentioned: blood, water, unknown tongue all have connections with the Trinity. It's probably why soooo many denominations are confused as to when people are saved, baptized in the Holy Spirit, etc. Rightfully so.
Let's go down the line a little:
Unknown Tongue (sign of the Lord's Baptism):
- It's a sign in the flesh (think flesh and blood)
- The medium is the Holy Spirit
- The agent is the Lord Jesus, who baptizes and fills
- The voice comes from the Throne of God the Father through our temples. This voice is an extension of the rainbow that encircles the Throne of God (the Ark in our spirits within our Holy of Holies). It is the "visible" thunder that comes from the Presence of the Lord within us.
Water (sign of baptism in water):
- Three atoms make it up
- Sign of life anywhere you travel in the Universe. If NASA thinks that water exists on a planet, there's a remote chance of life there
- When the Spirit mixes with it, it can form blood. The Lord did it at the burning bush site and at the wedding at Cana (wine symbolizes blood)
- The Lord Jesus was born of water, as were we all
- the Water of Life flows from the Throne of God and of the Lamb. What is this water?
Blood of the Covenant (sign of salvation):
- It's the blood of the Lamb that washes away the sins of the world
- The Spirit covers (atones/baptizes) us with it
- The Father looks down at it and sees us as holy, unblameable, and unreprovable (perfect)
- we drink it, like water, in the form of wine as a lasting tribute
No, I haven't bought into heresy. It's all in God's Word. I'm just trying to show how all the pieces have fit together for me. For all the reasons above, I "see" the Trinity in the three baptisms and their three lasting signs.
It's hard for me to describe all that I have been shown, because it simply goes beyond words (maybe I could in tongues ;).
The closest I can come to describe all the interconnections are the theory of relativity and a hologram. Depending on what side of the equation you're on, you'll see something different.
On one side of e=mc^2, you have matter multiplied by the speed of light squared and on the other you have energy.
If I twist the hologram of the unknown tongue, for instance, I see what John the Baptist saw: fire and Spirit. If I twist it the other way, I see the disciples speaking in tongues unknown to them.
If I twist the hologram of water, I see the water of life coming from the Throne of the Father. If I twist it the other way, I see the Trinity in operation.
Using the three baptisms as lenses, I can see connections in Scripture that I have never seen before:
- Three days for Christ's sacrifice (blood), burial (water), resurrection (spirit)
- Three regenerations/baptisms/atonements for the earth and humanity: water (the Great Flood), blood (the Cross), and the coming regeneration by fire.
- Three pilgrimage feasts: Shavuot (spirit), Pesach (blood), Sukkot (water)
- Three phases of the Exodus: Pesach (blood), Red Sea Crossing and cloud (water), and Shavuot at Sinai (spirit)
- Why Christ took three disciples to the Mount of Transfiguration (it was more than just because they were His closest)
- The number of times Peter had his vision
- Elijah's sacrifice on Mt. Carmel: bull (blood), water three times, and fire from heaven (spirit)
- Sign of Jonah: Jonah sacrificed (blood), in the belly of the great fish (water), resurrected and spat out of the mouth (spirit)
- Rainbows, in order to see one you need three things: light behind you (spirit), you in the middle (blood), and a watery film in front of you (water)
- I haven't studied circumcision, but I bet you anything water, blood, and spirit play a big part!
I realize this stuff is far out. I won't belabor the points here on FutureAG. This is a topic worthy pf pursuit elsewhere. I brought it up, because I believe without any doubt that the unknown tongue is the lasting sign of the Lord's Baptism.
Don't worry I haven't gone into heresy or off the deep end. As I have said elsewhere my experiences have solidified my support behind the A/G doctrines I grew up with. It's just that I can see them in a whole new light.
Pastors, friends, and co-workers who know me, know that two of my passions are evangelism and discipleship. The fruit of those passions speak for themselves. The ideas above are part of an ongoing research project that I hope and pray will yield fruit of its own, in their season.
Speaking of Season, God bless you all and Merry Christmas!
November 28, 2007 3:15 PM
Thanks Danny. Your comments are interesting and thought provoking and you don't seem to be worried about getting in the last word like some have posted. You give a great deal to consider and all of the discussions on here are good for each of us to ponder as we see the perspectives and beliefs of our brothers and siters.
November 28, 2007 3:22 PM
Brian, I guess one of the major problems with blogs is that it's near impossible to communicate jest and humor. Sarcasm, on the other hand, must be the devil's tool because we recognize it so easily (and for those that didn't just now, that was sarcasm). So I guess if jest and humor are only appropriate when discussing Batman, then I'm guilty as charged.
DJ, I'm not sure how to respond to your specific thoughts so I'll respond to just a few things that stand out. First, it seems quite clear that your love for the Lord and your desire to see others come to know him drives your interest in matters under discussion on this blog. I think that is highly commendable. But we don't want to fall into the trap of only focusing on the intentions to the neglect of one's actions/words. For example, the heretic Arius strongly desired that others believed his doctrine of the incarnation was true. He even wrote popular songs for people to sing that communicated his message. His intentions were good, but his message was wrong.
I don't think you are a heretic, but it's troubling when people refer to/explain the Trinity with water. To say that the Trinity is like water seems to imply you mean something like the following. There are three forms of water: solid, liquid, and steam and in a similar way the Trinity comes in three forms: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The problem with the analogy is that no one body of water can be all three at the same time. When it is in the form of liquid it's not in the form of steam or solid. By parody of reasoning, that would mean when the Trinity is in the form of the Father, it's not in the form of the Son or the Spirit. That has been defined as heretical since at least the 4th century. If that's not what you meant, I think you should choose carefully how you present your view to avoid appearing as a modalist.
On a different note, I think much of what you say depends on a hermeneutical method that I find a bit suspect. One of the basic principles of hermeneutics that almost all scholars endorse is this: the text can't mean now what it didn't mean then. This may be shocking to some, but it would be nearly impossible to come to any agreement about what a text means if this isn't the case. (I'm aware that the post-modern, deconstructionist, emergent crowd would disagree with this, but pursuing the point further would get too far off track.) For example, you rely heavily on the idea of what things symbolize to you now. However, when Luke wrote about Christ turning water to wine, there simply is no textual evidence at all to suggest that he was symbolizing blood. I know that at the Lord's supper they drank wine, but that is a different passage and a different occasion. But even if it did symbolize blood, why think that it has the same components as that which it symbolizes?
Finally, I think you're very mistaken about the idea that the spirit is a part of blood. Spirit is by definition not physical. It has no material parts and can't be picked out under a microscope. It has no mass or form. That's just what it means to be immaterial. So how can something immaterial be a part of something material? You note that blood is mostly water, but do you mean that the rest is spirit? I think we would find lots of scientists (even Christian ones) that could fill you in about what the remaining parts are. Now, that doesn't mean that the spirit doesn't infuse the blood in an immaterial way. Traditionally, theologians and philosophers have believed that humans are body and soul (and they would say that the blood is just a part of the body). The soul is immaterial but yet infuses the body. It's what makes the body human. JP Moreland has commented that when the soul leaves the body, you no longer have a body, you have a corpse. There is a difference between my body with and without the spirit. With it, I am human, without it it's just a body (and I'm off in heaven I hope).
If you'd like I can recommend some books written by former professors of mine dealing with this very issue. I think you would find them very helpful.
Grace and peace,
November 28, 2007 4:00 PM
Paul F:
Thanks for your comments Brother. Please DO recommend those books by name - I'm open to new ideas.
BTW, I happen to consider myself a scientist with a degree in Biochem and some years of basic research under my belt. I work in a physical science field in the Navy - meteorology and oceanography.
I didn't mean to imply that the other percentage of water is Spirit. I was speaking more in symbolic terms not logical ones.
You actually bring up a good point about water and its three phases. For the record, water can exist in all three phases simultaneously at what is known as the "Triple Point." Scientists use this point to define the SI unit of temperature - the Kelvin. It's not the only substance that can. I just wanted to put it out there.
As far as spirit being in blood and wine as a symbol of blood, you'll have to contend with Scripture on that one (to name a few for wine - Gen 49:11, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:27). Like I said, check out the word nephesh. For fun, Google nephesh and blood together and see what comes up.
As to my perspectives, I don't want to convert the world to my point of view. I just want to share what I believe the Lord has shown me. Maybe it might shed some light on some subjects, maybe not. It's cleared up the whole debate about tongues for me and the importance of water baptism. I also see more inter-connectedness between the major events in Scripture.
I've since learned that the early church fathers celebrated the same connections. For instance, look up "whitsunday" and its traditions.
The extra-canonical Book of Jubilees, which was discoursed at the time of Jesus and used by the early church, is another example. It records that all four of the great covenants in the OT occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Shavuot). I had no idea of this when the Lord showed me that they were connected.
I also had no idea that the ancient rabbis spoke of the Mount Sinai experience as if it was something out of a Steven Spielberg movie. According to some, multi-colored voices streamed from the mountain and landed on the heads of everyone in the assembly in the form of "diadems." Some even say that God spoke His law to the whole world that day from the burning mountain in every known language.
I don't claim to be a theologian or a hermeneutical expert. I walk with the Lord and share what He puts on my heart to share. Nothing beats the Lord personally opening your mind to understand hidden treasures in Scripture (Luke 24:45).
Thank God this occurred to our founders at the turn of the last century. 500-million people later says a lot for a movement that didn't exist two hundred years ago. A little focused Bible Study, fasting, and prayer can go a long way. It did for me!
I'll end with a cool story from one of my good friends - Evangelist Bill Ashpole (love that man). While He was conducting a revival in the South Pacific a few years back, the Lord showed him an aspect of the baptismal experience.
As he was preaching about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the Lord told him that He was about to baptize the crowd in sections across the huge assembly where they were meeting.
All of a sudden, he saw shafts of light come down from the rafters. As they landed on the sections, the people sitting there began to burst out in tongues. The process repeated itself in waves across the assembly until the whole place erupted in tongues. He even heard people shouting out in English, who had no knowledge of the language.
Because of my experiences, something told me that the shafts of light had color. I asked him "what color were they?" He replied, "Danny, they were rainbow-colored."
November 28, 2007 8:36 PM
Jeff: "I did not break through to the release of 'tongues' in my life at that moment. Honestly, I felt ashamed, condemned, and somewhat like a failure."
Was this a result of the doctrine of initial physical evidence, or could it be that it had to with its articulation?
Could it be that we need to give greater attention to the articulation of our doctrines without changing the essence of these doctrines?
This is not the first time in our history that we experienced cataclysmic generational shifts in attitudes, worldviews, etc. Many were baptized in Holy Spirit during the 60's and 70's, a time of great cultural upheaval. I think it more to do with how this was being articulated and ministered than it had to do with a fault in the wording of our doctrine.
Also, how many of our young people actually read the 16 Fundamental Truths on a regular basis? Doesn't their exposure to the doctrine come primarily through the preaching of the word through a pastor. I would fault the administration of the altar service as the source of your early confusion and guilt, not our teaching on the initial, physical evidence.
November 29, 2007 10:43 AM
Danny (or do you prefer DJ?),
There are three books that I can think of that do a fantastic job of describing our soul/spirt (the terms are often interchangeable, though at times one does a better job at picking out the referent than the other). The first is a book by JP Moreland called Scaling the Secular City. This is an apologetics book in general, but he does a great job defending the view that we're not just our bodies. To that end, he explains nicely the components of the soul.
Another book was written by JP Moreland and Scott Rae called Body and Soul. This book has some overlap with the first, but it pays more attention to the ethical results of such a view.
The final book is by Dallas Willard and is called Renovation of the Heart. The first two or three chapters are pretty challenging, but they are well worth the effort. I think he gives the best description of the soul and its parts.
Moreland and Rae are both professors at Biola University (where I did my M.A. degree) and are wonderful Christian men. They are more committed to Christ than to their philosophy, but God has rewarded their commitment with outstanding philosophical abilities. Willard is a philosophy professor at USC (I'm a Sooner fan, but still don't hold that against him!) and is Moreland's mentor. I think he has the best things to say about spiritual life and development, but his books aren't often super easy to read. For those used to reading Max Lucado, schedule out a lot more time to read Willard. However the reward for the extra time and work reading Willard will pay out ten fold over a Lucado book. (As most things in life, the things most rewarding are often the most difficult.)
I hope you find these helpful, if I think of any others I'll shoot them your way.
November 29, 2007 12:50 PM
Thanks Paul F. I will look them up!
BTW, you can call me either dj (Danny Jr.) or Danny, whatever you prefer.
November 29, 2007 2:29 PM
"...the text can't mean now what it didn't mean then."
Excellent point.
But don't insist on that too hard--or there goes our eschatology...!!!
November 30, 2007 6:14 AM
And P.S.: Don't tell Matthew 2:15 (to cite but one of dozens of possible examples) about the hermenuetical principle of something not meaning now what it didn't mean then...
November 30, 2007 6:48 AM
b.r. said...
"But don't insist on that too hard--or there goes our eschatology...!!!" and "Don't tell Matthew 2:15 (to cite but one of dozens of possible examples) about the hermenuetical principle of something not meaning now what it didn't mean then..."
I don't know any exegetes that make use of this hermeneutical principle that would say that it applies to the NT authors too. All the ones I know would say that part of the authors being inspired is their ability to make use of OT texts in a different way. We, however, aren't infallibly inspired and don't have that right. In other words, Matthew can do that, we can't.
As far as your eschatology point, you may be right. I think many people have crazy a eschatology because they misuse scripture. With that said, there are different genres of scripture and this hermeneutical principle would apply differently to each genre. For example, we shouldn't treat the book of Proverbs as a book of promises, because it wasn't treated as a book of promises at that time. Instead it a book of generally true principles.
One's eschatology is (mostly) going to come from apocalyptic literature, and there we use this hermetical principle differently. For example, we may try to figure out what some of the symbolism meant to the people then & there (which is what we should do first) and then see if that symbolism applies to us here & now. There's a good case to be made that all the prophecies in Revelation came to pass 100 years or so after it was written (symbolism then & there). That doesn't mean that there still isn't a further meaning to some of the things symbolized (symbolism here & now). What makes apocalyptic literature so difficult to interpret is that applying this principle isn't so clear cut.
November 30, 2007 8:57 AM
Anonymous: I would agree with your assessment of my experience. My feelings of guilt or failure for not immediately speaking in tongues had to do with tone and pastoral ministry.
I have no problem with the initial evidence doctrine. I think our ministry of the experience needs to be constantly evaluated.
November 30, 2007 12:52 PM
Thanks for clarifying it, Jeff.
December 1, 2007 9:03 AM
For anyone who may have been interested...
I went back and studied a little about circumcision (bris milah - literally the “Covenant of the Wordâ€) and was blown away yet again by the convergence of water, blood, and spirit.
The covenant act is intimately tied to birth by water, in that the mother and father have to count 8 days from the day of birth to the day of circumcision.
Even if the day fell on a Sabbath, the father was responsible (or someone in his stead) to circumcise his son. This is the only time that a Sabbath rule can be broken. The Circumcision rule supersedes Sabbath rules (John 7:23).
Thus, the eighth day in circumcision is linked to water.
Why the eighth day? Because the number eight is the number for spirit. The number eight to rabbis is reminiscent of the day after the 7-day creation of the physical world and the number of Hanukkah, the Feast of Lights – a feast Jesus celebrated.
But what jumped out at me was the whole connection to a day after a Sabbath week. Both the resurrection and Shavuot fell after a Sabbath and Sabbath Weeks respectively, the very next day after the Sabbath (Matt 28:1, Lev 23:15-16).
It is literally a day of the Spirit.
The day before the resurrection was a Sabbath (the Lord rested in the womb of the earth) and the day before that He bled for our sins. But the day after the Sabbath, He was "reborn" by the Spirit.
Thus, the eighth day and the day after the Sabbath are linked to spirit.
Going back to circumcision, this is the day that a Jewish baby boy is given his name. He is literally reborn spiritually into the assembly. There's a new name in the kingdom as it were.
Ironically, Jews have for several centuries placed a vacant chair for the Prophet Elijah to oversee circumcision, as it may herald the identification of Messiah. This is interesting given Elijah's three-part baptism on Mt. Carmel and his connection to John the Baptist.
As far as what role blood plays in circumcision, well I'd rather not talk about that part ;-).
Because of my experiences, I see the Trinity yet again in the convergence of water, blood, and spirit in the covenant act of circumcision. As far as I'm concerned, religious Jews see a representation of the Trinity every time they witness a circumcision.
So what does this have to do with tongues? Well, because of my experiences, I see lips being circumcised when people are speaking in unknown tongues (Exodus 6:12, 30 KJV). They fluently speak in languages unknown to them as the Holy Spirit gives them utterance and as streams of living water flow from within them.
Incidentally, I used to wonder why the Lord began His ministry at the age of 30, why He died at 33, and why He rose on the third day.
Now, because of this follow-up study, I see the Trinity in these timelines. They're all multiples of three from the day the Lord was born of water and even baptized in water. I also see why ten days after Jesus ascended, the fire fell: 7 + 3. The fire fell on the third day, the day after the Sabbath. It fell on the day of the Spirit (Exodus 19:10-11, 16).
Just thought I'd share what I found after studying a little on circumcision.
December 3, 2007 11:34 PM
How can this happen and will anyone help us?
I just received a letter toady form the Southern Missouri District council of The
Assemblies of God. Following is a copy of the letter's contents;
Dated November 29, 2007
Dear Fellow Ministers:
We Trust the blessings of God are greatly upon each of you during this special Holiday
Season.
In our October presbyters meeting a motion prevailed that no Assemblies of God
credentialed minister in our district will be allowed to attend a non-Assemblies of God
Church unless they are given permission by the Presbytery Board.
It was also moved that the District write a letter to those ministers that have been
brought to our attention who are attending a non-Assemblies of God Church indicating it
will be necessary for them to receive District Presbytery approval for them to do so, or
their credentials will be in jeopardy.
If you or some credentialed minister in your church falls into this category, please
comply or encourage them to follow through with this action.
May God continue to bless you and your family as together we strive to enhance the
Kingdom of God.
Sincerely in Christ
Bill Baker
Superintendent
Southern Missouri District Council
December 5, 2007 3:57 AM
What is Tongues?
Southern Cross College, an Australian AG school, has posted an article on tongues that helps see what a magnificent gift tongues actually is.
Click Here
December 7, 2007 1:11 PM
My roots are in the AG. Youth Camps were the place of significant spiritual experiences for me as a young person. It was at a Camp that my first intense pursuit of an 'Acts 2' experience began. My first response to an altar call for the Holy Spirit was one that could be characterized as hyper-emotional and pressurized.
Personally, I did not break through to the release of 'tongues' in my life at that moment. Honestly, I felt ashamed, condemned, and somewhat like a failure. I'm not sure why I felt that? No one verbalized that to me. As best as I can discern now later in life, I was part of the fall-out of the over-emphasis on momentary experience and the under-emphasis on supernatural lifestyle.
It took me about five months of seeking before I finally experienced the miracle of spiritual language. It happened for me in my living room, after a small group, and without a lot of emotion. And that moment started me on a journey of partnership with the Holy Spirit.
Honestly, I often viewed my Holy Spirit baptism as an historical event in my life. It was something I had experienced back in 1980. But the reality of the value of this new dimension in my spiritual life was somehow under-appreciated in my daily experience. For me it has been in the past decade that I have come to understand the tremendous value that speaking in tongues has in my life and in my ministry.
So in my ministry, I try to teach the people I lead to go beyond momentary experience and to press into ongoing practical application of the use of spiritual language in their life. These are some of the values/applications that I enthusiastically share (I know this is not unique to me...I simply share it to add to the discussion of how to present this important experience).
It is a prayer language - the Holy Spirit prays through us according to God's will.
It opens our ears to God's voice - as we speak mysteries with our spirit to God--God will release His mysteries back to us.
It is a self-edificational practice - Paul indicates that as we speak in tongues, we edify our own soul. When discouraged or under attack, this gift is a lift to our burdened heart.
It is practice for function in the other eight manifestation gifts - speaking in spiritual language is a private step of faith. We learn to hear and obey God's voice. As we practice obedience to the prompting of the Spirit in our language, we prepare ourselves to be used in the other gifts.
It gives voice to the deep burdens of our heart - Romans 8 talks about how we can groan out our deep cries to heaven. I appreciate being able to pray through a burden to the place of peace through the use of my spiritual language.
It can be used as a 'sign' miracle (in conjunction with interpretation) - I have heard many stories from around the world of how a bi-lingual person heard and understood both the tongue and the interpretation.
It releases boldness to witness - the Holy Spirit empowers. The more we commune with Him, the greater potential there is for power and fruit to be released in our world.When I present this experience to people now, I find myself talking less and less about the initial moment and more and more about the ongoing effect. For me this balance helps everything to fall in place and make sense.
posted by Jeff Leake at 1:03 PM on Nov 17, 2007