Quote: | Aaron Scott wrote:
First, you know BY THE SPIRIT the answers the these questions, I imagine. You already know within yourself that praying in tongues is perfectly acceptable. Trust the Spirit. He always agrees with His word--even if He does not always agree with the interpretations others give His word.
What would you say to someone who didn't have peace about this sort of thing going on, and believed the Spirit was grieved over the same thing you think is acceptable?
What do you do? The very same thing you do if someone tells you that they don't have peace and believed the Spirit was grieved about you preaching on the atonement of Jesus.
We do not stand down on what the Spirit reveals to us because someone else might not agree. If so, we'd all stop this Pentecostal stuff because MacArthur doesn't have peace about it. You simply go on about your business...and let God sort it out with them, if need be. Certainly you can have a dialogue with them, but let's not act like their beliefs about this are as valid as ours. She doesn't even believe that tongues are for today.
Quote:
Second, as the pastor, I believe that you have to discern when a message is for the congregation or is just praise/prayer. One of my "pet peeves" is when an entire service grinds to a halt as we beseech and plead and wait and wait (it seems) for someone, anyone, please! interpret this message.
Does the Bible say there is a special gift for that? I suppose someone could get a word of knowledge? If there is no interpreter after a reasonably long wait, why not just quote the 'verse 'if there be no interpreter....' and move on?
Why does there need to be a "special gift" to discern that someone is out of order? Does there need to be a special gift to discern that this or that is not for the given moment? If you are sensitive to the Spirit, we have all likely felt those moments when something just didn't quite click. It's surely of the same source as judging what a prophet would say.
As for your suggestion, that's a good one, too. However, the way I mentioned will hopefully serve to gently train a person about when to speak out, etc. If they realize that what they did was speak out a personal praise instead of a message, they begin to examine these instances a bit more closely, gaining assurance before they proceed. Of course, my intention was NOT AT ALL to be scolding. It was to VALIDATE the tongues (i.e., it is real; it is speaking to God), while also revealing that it was not a message to the church.
Is there any reason to fault the person who gives a message? After he gave the message, there was no interpreter? Okay, now the Bible says for him to keep silent in the church. Tongues if off the table. Let's prophesy if the Lord will grant that, or teach, or something else.
Actually, Smith Wigglesworth and many who followed him did not take this verse the way you and I do. They believed that if a SINGLE PERSON gave 2-3 tongues without interpretation, that PERSON was to keep quiet. But there could be, so far as I can gather from my reading, unlimited tongues in a service. I personally don't hold to that, although I don't think God would hold it against someone for believing it.
So they verse you quoted might or might not do the job for the church.
And please understand that my statement was NOT to fault the person, but to gently instruct them and the congregation. It is not meant to shut them up, but to help them discern for themselves when it's meant for more than personal communication with God.
IMO, one of the problems with having tongues as a 'doctrinal distinctive' or as a mark of identity that distinguishes us from others is the tendency to fixate on tongues in comparison to other gifts.
I agree with this. I believe many people have "stopped" at tongues, while the Bible clearly tells us to seek to prophesy. Fortunately, while I was raised in a tongue-speaking household and culture, I was never taught that tongues was some superior gift, but that it was the initial evidence AND just one of the gifts of the Spirit.
Quote:
On the Day of Pentecost, before they went into the streets and preached to those from other nations, they spoke in tongues that they almost certainly did not understand (them being unlearned men).
But those present did.
Quote:
How did Peter know that those at Cornelius' house had received the Holy Ghost if they didn't speak aloud?
It wasn't a church service for the edification of believers. This was an evangelistic event. We could argue the same for the situation where tongues occurred in Acts 2.
I do not make the distinction you do between and evangelistic service and otherwise. Tongues are for a sign of the infilling, for speaking to God in an unknown language, and for use (by interpretation) in the church. All of those could and should be potentially present in all of our services.
Another way to approach it is what Derek Prince's view was, that you allow for individual "Pentecost" experiences when there is an infilling with the Spirit without getting on their case about interpretation, and otherwise, there should be interpretation.
Quote:
Don't let a non-Pentecostal tell you how to be Pentecostal! She doesn't have it and is looking for ways to justify her not having it.
Or she could be wondering if you guys really have it if she looks at how it's supposed to function in the Bible, and doesn't see that being done in church.
Btw, what's there for her to 'justify'? |
_________________ |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 1/25/14 6:43 am
|