‘Pentecostal’ Category

 

Glossolalia vs. Xenoglossy

Side note:  Spell check knew “glossolalia”, but not “xenoglossy”.

Both  can be referred to as “speaking in tongues”, but they are different and (as one website put it) should be distinguished from each other as often as possible.

Definitions:

Glossolalia. From (from Greek γλωσσολαλιά and that from γλῶσσα - glossa “tongue, language” and λαλεῖν (lalein) “to talk”) - this is copied and pasted so if it’s not exactly correct, hopefully it’s good enough for a lay person.
Trying to find an “official” definition that clearly defines glossolalia as different than xenoglossy and isn’t biased in terms of Continuationist vs. Cessationist has turned out to be an interesting side trip.  It was easier to get the definition from a secular dictionary.

The ability or phenomenon to utter words or sounds of a language unknown to the speaker, especially as an expression of religious ecstasy. Also called glossolalia, speaking in tongues.

The important key words are “words or sounds”.

A less generous defintion (both from answers.com):

Fabricated and nonmeaningful speech, especially such speech associated with a trance state or certain schizophrenic syndromes.

Xenoglossy.  (from Greek ξενογλωσσία - xenoglossia, from ξένος - xenos, “foreign” + γλώσσα - glossa, “tongue, language”).

This was an easier defintion (from worldwidewords.com):

The ability to speak a language without having learned it.

The important key word:  language.

Compare:

  • both glossolalia and xenoglossy use “sounds” or “words” that do not belong to a language that the speaker knows.
  • Both can be associated with religious activity.

and contrast:

  • glossolalia belongs to no known language.  Pentecostals call this “tongues of angels” and it may be referred to as a “private prayer language” that nobody (except presumably God) can understand.
  • xenoglossy can be identified as a real language and can be understood by a person who speaks that language.  In some cases it is claimed that a 2-way conversation has taken place between a native speaker and the “tongues-speaker” who has never been exposed to that language.

In short:  real language vs. not real language.

Other handy definitions:

  • Cessationism:  the view that the charismatic (or prophetic) gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, prophecy, and healing, were only given to the new church for a period of time and ceased either at the end of the apostolic era or shortly after.
  • Charismatic: the general term used to describe Christians who believe that these same gifts are available to Christians today (see “Continuationism”).  Closely related to Continuationism, and I’m not sure of the difference, other than continuationism is the belief and charismatic is the movement.  Also see “Pentecostal” - although, you can be charismatic without being Pentecostal.    Mark Driscoll refers to his church as being “charismatic with a seatbelt”, which I think is a way of saying, “we’re charismatic but not Pentecostal.”
  • Continuationism: the view that these same gifts continue to this present age and are available for all Christians alive today.
  • Pentecostal: the belief that a “born again” Christian can (and should) receive a subsequent experience of a “baptism of the Holy Spirit”, the initial evidence of which is speaking in tongues as the Sprit gives utterance.  Some Pentecostals believe and teach that a person who has not spoken in tongues (received the baptism of the Holy Spirit) is not saved.  All Pentecostals believe that the “gift” of tongues is THE gift that proves the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).  The other gifts were given later and a believer does not have tongues or another gift…it is always tongues plus the rest of the gifts listed later.

Here’s the problem:  Christians are not the only group of people who experience glossolalia and xenoglossy.

 
 
 

A Very Brief Look at the Pentecostalism that I See

From the outside looking in, it seems to me that Pentecostalism is very “self” centered theology.

There is a lot that is about “self”.

I claim…

Some teach that if you pray in the right formula, use the right words, then God is honor-bound to give you what it is that you ask for. The Holy Spirit becomes something like a magic genie in a lamp. Rub the lamp the right way and you get your wish.
Some real life examples…

I was at my mom and dad’s church on Sunday morning (if Mom reads, please let me know if I get this wrong.) The man who said the public prayer - in the prayer he told the congregation of a situation of a man who is sick or injured (I wasn’t very clear which, but God knows).

“Lord, WE claim healing…You promised that if WE have faith you will give us what we ask for.”

~~~~~

At work a woman I work with had a cold - and so did I. I took ester-C, echinacea and zinc (my usual “cocktail”.) She said, “I’m CLAIMING my healing!” My cold lasted for about 10 days…hers lasted for about a week and a half.

~~~~~

I hear on a pretty regular basis, “the power of life and death is in the tongue, you know!” My reply the first time was “my future is in the hand of a sovereign God who is in control of the universe.” After that I let it slip by.

~~~~~

Before I went “reformed”, even before my husband died, I remember being on the way to a quiz meet with the kids and one of the church leaders was telling us on the way (in a van) how important prayer is. The reason?

Because without our prayers God is helpless to give us what we need or want. The power of God is released by our prayers.

Now I am Reformed and I find myself seeing how this warped sense of “self” has infiltrated many, many churches. I belong to a sovereign God who is in control of the universe.

The whole of TULIP is wrapped up in the power of God, not the power of “me”.

 
 
 

The Meeting With My Pastor Went Very Well

The meeting went very well. There are still some concerns on my part, but I’m content with the general direction the church is headed.

I asked if I were the only one who had brought forward concerns - the answer is no, there were a lot of concerns brought up in small groups that Sunday and they were addressed in church the week that we were out of town.

I asked the pastor if he had looked at the Firehouse Family Ministries website and he told me that he didn’t even know they had a website. I explained what I had found and gave him a printout of my post from here. Ok…

He also told me that our church did not know, when the work team headed for New Orleans, who they would be helping. The context of the work team was that they were working through another evangelical disater relief organization. The “hookup” with Firehouse was not planned ahead of time.

He could somewhat anticipate my questions because of all the concerns brought up by others.

No, we are not “going all Pentecostal”
No, we are not going “word faith”
No, we are not going “Five fold ministry”

Parts of the service were not expected - the Shelton’s had come to give a “thank you” message.

Yes, the pastors are, at their core, very reformed (I ate dinner at the “all church supper” with Pastor Brian with a couple who is new to the church - they decided that there were things in Roman Catholic teaching that are not in the Bible so they left that religion - and we talked about “election” for about 45 minutes)

We went over what I discovered by just poking around and he agrees with what I found, other than his take on “language barriers” - sometimes the words that we use “sound like” what other people are using, but we don’t mean the same thing. Yeah. Then don’t use the words that have been co-opted by heretics.

There are big plans for our church and they are definitely talking about a singles ministry! Brian asked me what I thought would be the best route to take - a ministry that targets specific needs, or a general social group? I told him, why not both? with our small group system in place, a single person could have their social needs met, while addressing specific needs in a small group setting that targets their circumstance.

Anyway, there were a couple of other things (minor) that we talked about and I left feeling pretty good about the whole thing.

;-)

 
 
 

Meeting with my pastor

I’ll be meeting with my pastor (and his wife) on Wednesday at 5:00 (eastern). I’d sure appreciate prayers. This pastor’s wife is the one that the “prophet” “imparted” the gift of prophecy to.

- that my personality would disappear and that anything that is not of God remain unsaid.
- that only God’s Word would be used
- that only God would be glorified
- that I would remain unflustered and calm so that God can work in me and through me.

I’m working on “talking points” and a paper to leave with him.

Please feel free to tell a bit of the story and pass the word. I don’t feel worried or concerned - but I am working on being prepped.

thanks…

 
 
 

Calvinism…and TULIP

I picked my daughter up from her Wednesday night youth group and they covered (drumroll….) TULIP.

She has a pretty good grasp - limited atonement sort of eludes her and she doesn’t really like the doctrine of election. Then again, neither do I, but I accept it as truth.

I’m glad that they’re covering these issues - but it makes it very frustrating to know that on one hand, the youth are covering Reformed doctrine - and on the other hand, there are “apostolic oneness” prophets and apostles invited into our pulpit. What is the message that we are sending?

 
 
 

Today’s “Prophets”

I just posted on hope - and how knowing the future can interfere with it.

It’s Wednesday now and I’ve had a little more “processing time” after seeing the “prophet” at my church. I’ve been waiting on a call from my pastor since Monday (sometimes it takes a while to get through his assistant, who was out of the office).

I’ve led a sheltered life. This is the first time that I’ve seen (in person) a “modern day prophet” in action.

I didn’t trust her. Here’s what happened. The “apostle’s” wife (the prophet) came up on the stage at the end of the service and offered a prophecy to the pastors and their wives. She had talked about the time they had all spent together and the prophecy didn’t seem like anything that she would not have gleaned just from being with these people for several hours over dinner. Then she “prophesied” over the church. Basically, follow your leaders. (I think there might be a reason for that.)

Then, after the congregation was released, she stayed on the stage and “prophesied” over individuals. Some things I’m pretty sure that she could not have known, others she might have asked a question or two and found out something.

But there was a crowd of people who wanted to know what was in their future. Is this what God wants for us - really?

Does He really want us chasing after the Christian equivalent of fortune tellers, or does He want us leaning on Him; trusting in His goodness?

God didn’t send His prophets to tell His people that they (as individuals) were going to marry this man or that woman; that they were going to move to a different city, that they were going to change jobs or that their future was rosy.

No.

When God sent His prophets, they told the people exactly what they did not want to hear.

The woman I saw on Sunday told people only good things. And vague things. And things that will be forgotten in a short time.

We laugh at the “prophet” on the street corner. You know - the one that doesn’t look the way we think a prophet should look. The one that probably looks the way John the Baptist looked after living in the desert and eating grasshoppers for a few months. The one that tells us that the end is near. Yeah. That one.

But the pretty one in the nice suit, we flock to. You know - the one that tells us that everything is going to be good. The one that tells us we’re going to lose weight. Or that we’re not going to be alone. Yeah. That one.

It brings doubts to my mind when we only embrace the “prophet” that tells us the pretty things.

thought?

 
 
 

Firehouse Family Ministries (Guest Speakers at My Church)

Firehouse Family Ministries (Guest Speakers at my Church)

“Apostle” Sherman L. Shelton and “Prophet” Corrine Shelton of “Firehouse Family Ministries” in New Orleans, LA.

I have concerns. BIG concerns.

I’m not quite sure where I stand on “prophetic gifts” and one thing I’ve said pretty consistently is that whether “gifts” are active today or not – the Pentecostals are doing it wrong (according to the Bible). But that’s for another day.

Today, let’s talk about doctrine.

I’m “reformed”. Not “Truly Reformed”, but reformed, so I’m coming at this from the reformed direction. I won’t be quoting the Confessions or Catechisms as though they are the Bible, but as a summation of what we believe the Bible teaches.

(words from Firehouse Family Ministries will be in green)

Section 1. The Scriptures Inspired.The Bible is the inspired Word of God, a revelation from God to man, the infallible rule of faith and conduct, and is superior to c onscience and reason, but not contrary to reason. (II Timothy 3:15-17; I Peter 1:15-17; Heb 4:12)

The Westminster Confession says, “IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”

The last of the Scripture they list here (Hebrews 4:21) says: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

This is important, because it says the Bible judges my thoughts and attitudes. I don’t know about anybody else, but my thoughts and attitudes (and thus, my reason) are contrary to Scripture on a regular basis. By saying that Scripture is not contrary to (man’s) reason, we are using our own humanity as a God’s judge. Not a good plan. As the Confession says, the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend on the testimony (or reason) of any man.

This is important, because antitrinitarians claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to reason; their statement of faith says that the Bible cannot be contrary to reason, therefore the doctrine of the Trinity is false.


Section 2. The One True Godhead. The triune Godhead is comprised of three (3) separate and distinct personalities, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, who are eternally self-existent, self-revealed and function as one entity. Jesus Christ, who is God manifested in the flesh, is the second member of the Godhead, co-equal and co-eternal with The Father and The Holy Spirit.

It is not entirely clear here whether this church is anti-Trinitarian. I suspect that they are. Key phrase is “three (3) separate and distinct personalities”. A Website that Firehouse Ministries links to says that “We believe in one God, eternal and self existent, self-revealed and manifested to man as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” This denies the Trinity, in that they deny three persons – instead claiming “personalities”.

As the “United Pentecostal Church” website asks and answers, “Do these titles (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as used in Matthew 28:19 mean that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead? No, they refer to three offices, roles, or relationship to humanity.”

The Westminster Confession states: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.”

I’ll let you decide where you think Firehouse Family Ministries fall.

Section 4. The Salvation of Man.

Man’s only hope of redemption is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. On the cross Jesus Christ became sin and sickness providing both salvation and divine healing for all mankind.

Key phrase: “sin and sickness” – providing both salvation and divine healing. This opens the door for “Word Faith”.

2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

There is no mention of Christ becoming “sickness”.

Section 8. The Evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The full consummation of the Baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance,

At least some of the early Christians spoke in tongues. There is not Biblical evidence to say that all believers spoke in tongues or that it is the “initial physical sign”.

1 Corinthians 12: 29-31 asks, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts.”

The answer is clearly, “no.” Not every Christian in the apostles’ day spoke in tongues - thus it could not have bee the evidence of the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit”.

Paul goes on to say, “And now I will show you the most excellent way.” This way is love, not tonuges.

Section 10. Total Prosperity.

“Name it and claim it”. “Blab it and grab it”. “Health and wealth” Gospel.

Section 14. Five-Fold Ministry. We believe that in order for the Church to truly reach God’s expectations we must have the presence and influence of the Apostle, the Prophet, the Evangelist, the Pastor and the Teacher operating through us. (Eph 4:7-16)

This is the sole passage for the “five fold ministry”. Here is a great article on apologeticsindex.org.

There are 15 sections; these are the most problematic. Thoughts, anybody?

 
 
 

Gifts of the Spirit?

The time might have come for me to really delve into this matter.

This morning in church we had a guest speaker.

You can guess what my problems are.

 
 
 

Further notes on “speaking in tongues”

I should have noted right off the bat that I do not agree with Mr. Courson!

The internal debate I have on the gift of tongues is (at this moment) triggered by a dillema that my dad is facing. My mom and dad attend a small, rural Missionary church in the thumb of Michigan and their pastor is “going all Pentacostal” on them.

I have so much respect for my dad, who is a great man of God, with a very quiet, rock hard faith. He doesn’t always speak up, but when he does, you have better be listening because you know this is something that he has pondered long and hard.

And he is preparing to speak up in his church on this issue.

The sermon that I posted about (I believe) takes the Pentacostal stance on the gift of tongues to its logical conclusion (the sign of the New Covenant is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the initial evidence of which is speaking in tongues). I believe this is wrong.

I’m not sure where I stand on the gift of tongues. Some will say that it disappeared with the closing of the Canon. Others will say that it disappeared before that - the only places the mention of tongues appears is very early on, chronologically. Others will say that it *is* for today, as used by Pentacostals. Still others will say that the gift of tongues is for today, but as Paul wrote, can be abused - and the typical Pentacostal church abuses the gift; Paul gave us guidelines and we should use them.

Every side will have back up, either logical or Scriptural (or both). What I know is that tongues is not the determining factor in whether or not we are “sealed”, or whether or not we have the Holy Spirit (or are baptized in the Holy Spirit).

;-)

 
 
 

Speaking in Tongues = Circumcision

Searchlight Radios, “A Survey Through Scripture”, by Pastor Jon Courson

I just listened to the first part of a two-part sermon on-line - My goodness! This man took a series from Genesis and Abraham and spent the better portion of his time teaching about the gift of tongues….

He starts out in Genesis 17, where God is giving Abraham a “sign” or “token” of the promise. Mr. Courson noted, God does that which is unexpected and unconventional. God promises to give Abraham a token of the covenant, an emblem. This token would be an item that would remind Abraham of the covenant that God was making with him.

So far, he’s ok.

But then, he starts thinking…

“Token” of the covenant…Outward sign, seal…Token of the covenant God made with Abraham. Circumcision is the sign and the seal.

Courson says, in the New Testament, “sign” and “seal” are almost always connected with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the seal that was given to the believer, according to Eph 1:13 (In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit…)

So, the correlation made - in the OT, the sign is circumcision, in the NT, the sign is the “Internal work of the Spirit within” (quoted from Mr. Courson)

Note: in this next section, Mr. Courson makes the subtle statement that “praying in the Spirit” = “speaking in tongues”

Courson asks, “What is the sign? The sign is connected with the work of the Holy Spirit in a most particular way.” 1 Cor 14:22(a) says, “Tongues, then, are a sign” - now, Courson is beginning to see something…(right). He’s asking if seal of the Holy Spirit and the sign of praying in the Spirit (tongues) are connected with the idea of circumcision in some way,

Next, Mr. Courson makes the “solid” connection between circumcision and speaking in tongues

He asks, “Is there really a connection that we can make with integrity?” He quotes Phillipians 3:3 “For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God” Paul uses the idea of circumcision to give a NT application. The sign, the seal - are now words connected to the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers - not just correlated with the cutting away of the flesh (physical or spiritual), but with the sign and seal of speaking in tongues.

According to Courson, people get uneasy when talking about speaking about speaking in tongues - like when you talk about circumcision - because they’re related. He says that there’s a tendency to be embarrassed about tongues-speaking “perhaps because of the abuses of radical Pentecostal.” People tend to say “oh, this tongues area is a little -” just like circumcision.

Here, Courson makes a statement that will enable his followers to make the statement that if one Biblically and theologically rejects speaking in tongues as the sign of the Holy Spirit - that one is speaking in the flesh.

According to Courson, just as Abraham may have sat back when learning about the sign of his covenant, so believers today rebel against the “sign” of the New Covenant. He quotes 1 Corinthians 14:14 (For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful) to explain why our “flesh” reacts against speaking in tongues. Our minds like to engage in things that we understand and comprehend intellectually. Courson says that Paul writes, “although the mind is unfruitful, but the spirit is edified.” (I couldn’t find that part in this chapter).

Courson preaches, your mind (flesh) may rebel against the sign or seal of speaking in tongues. The flesh doesn’t like circumcision and it doesn’t like “praying in the Spirit” because the flesh and the Spirit are at enmity one with the other.

Courson adds that Paul says that when it comes to speaking in tongues, our mind (flesh) doesn’t get it, because we don’t understand what’s happening. The Spirit is praying through us. Edification is happening within us, but we don’t have a clue intellectually - we do it (speaking in tongues) in faith, according to what the Scriptures tell us - but t doesn’t please the flesh.

Further (I think he’s getting even farther awry here…) even as the flesh rebels against circumcision, so the flesh rebels against praying in tongues - the sign that we are the circumcision which worships God in the Spirit…He says: both tongues and circumcision deal with reproductive organs.

Courson states: there are only two reproductive organs in your body, one is physical, the other is spiritual. Proverbs 18 says that the power of life and death is in the tongue…

Here is where Courson introduces Word-Faith

He says that Christ taught us that when you want to see things happen in the spirit, say to the mountain be removed, don’t wish it, think it - go on record - say it - faith is released through the words that we speak. The tongue has the power of death and life - your words will either 18:44 be reproductive or they will be murderous and detrimental.

Next, the implication that tongues-speakers are persecuted, just like the Jews, for their sign.

Further correlation between circumcision and tongues…Both are called sign and both are embarrassing. From that point forward (until fairly recently), Jews would be persecuted over circumcision. So also, today, people make fun of those who speak in tongues. “if they think I’m one of “those guys”…So there can be embarrassment for both the Jew and the believer who is doing the sign and seal in the NT of the tongue being expressed.

The, the “reason” that speaking in tongues disappeared from the face of the earth, after the closing of the canon.

The Jewish went for centuries ignoring circumcision…Let’s not even do it, it’s causing too much trouble…And in their history, both Biblically and historically - just like Christians, who say why even bother with this controversy. Christian community ignores speaking in tongues because of the repercussions

We are a marked people - we are different from the other folks - it was a continual reminder that we are different than other people - but it was a difference that was noted in either privacy or intimacy - like tongues.

1 Corinthians 14 - Paul said “I would” - not wish you could… (Check out the Greek - or the ESV)
Mark 16 - and these signs shall follow them…(note from my Bible: ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

Paul told us “Follow me, as I follow Christ”
Point - I don’t believe Christ ever mentioned Himself speaking in tongues, so if we limit ourselves to following Paul as he followed Christ, tongues is not on that list.

Paul also said, “But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
(Which is the beginning of Mr. Courson’s next sermon…)

 
 
 

» recent comments

  • Ellen: Thank you, Elena. This...
  • Elena: So sorry to read this El...
  • KitKat: Ha ha! I love this. I'...

» archives

» meta