Steve,
I have been reading this book, subtitled "Origens and Developments Worldwide", published in 1997. The author is said to be the leading expert on worldwide Pentecostalism. He is a Pentecostal from his youth and a professor at the University of Birmingham.
There are many astonishing things in the book, at least to me, one who is not in the charismatic camp. For example, Hollenweger quotes Russell Spittler (Assembly of God pastor & Fuller Theological Seminary) who states: "Glossolalia is a human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity nor even to religious behavior....". Hollenweger thinks Spittler is right and adds that "Scientifically, (his italics) speaking in tongues has been demonstrated to be a human ability which may or may not be used in Christian spirituality." He compares it to music, among other things, as a common gift of creation, a natural gift which many people may possess and says the same is true of the gift of healing. As people live in societies where speaking in tongues is considered eccentric or even insane, people do not have a chance to discover their gift.
Hollenweger says the idea of tongues, healing, and precognition being "supernatural" is scientifically and biblically untenable. Biblically because gifts seen as extraordinary such as tongues, healing and prophecy are listed as charismata right along with ordinary gifts of management, teaching, giving, and even being unmarried. He also states that the word "hyperphysikos" (supernatural) is unknown in the New Testament and is impossible to translate into Hebrew where the concept does not exist.
He says "The function of speaking in tongues is similar to that of dreaming, singing, or dancing, or even being silent...is non-cognitive, but meaningful nonetheless." He compares speaking in tongues to the poems of the Dadaists where the sounds are in themselves the message. Every listener makes his own interpretation.
These ideas bring questions to mind. If there is no biblical idea of the supernatural, why the astonishment over Jesus walking on water?
Jesus warned against using "vain repititions" in prayer. Battalogio (vain repetitions) is thought to be onomatapoeia (formation of words in immitation of sounds that have no meaning). Wouldn't praying in tongues as they are described by Hollenweger seem to be forbidden?
It seems if Hollenweger is not correct the pentecostal/charismatic is forced to maintain there is more than one kind of tongue. If "foreign language" is substituted for tongues in the pertinent passages, it can make sense in most all of them but a language unknown to man does not fit in the narrative on the Day of Pentecost.
The terms Pentecostal and Charismatic seem to be rather loosly defined. What do you see as the difference?
"Pentecostalism" by Walter Hollenweger
"Pentecostalism" by Walter Hollenweger
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Oops,
Hit the "post" button before I finished and corrected. I also meant to say if Hollenweger is correct, he solves the problem of more than one kind of tongue and also of tongues being spoken by Mormons and other non-Christian groups.
In Christ, Homer
Hit the "post" button before I finished and corrected. I also meant to say if Hollenweger is correct, he solves the problem of more than one kind of tongue and also of tongues being spoken by Mormons and other non-Christian groups.
In Christ, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
speaking in tongues
[b]Homer
I haven't read the book or read where Spittler said what he is quoted as saying there, but consider.
In Acts 2, the 120 were said to be speaking in "other" (heteros, another of a different kind) tongues. The listeners were able to understand what was being said. They also were in public, no interpreters, etc. (Obviously if they were being understood, interpreters would be superfluous).
In I Corinthians 14, the tongues issue seems to be "unknown" tongues. No one understood. The issues of order apply in the church, because our purpose should be to benefit others. The speaker benefits but nobody else. Notice in Chapter 14 Paul never assumes that it was a false tongue. Only that "the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets" and therefore it was possible to stop speaking in tongues under the appropriate circumstances.
In I Corinthians 12, the listing seems to be more generally tongues, i.e. both "other" and "unknown."
Generally, speaking in unknown tongues specifically, and I believe other tongues except under very unusual circumstances (If you don't recognize the language, how would you know if you were speaking in "other" or "unknown" tongues?) should not be done in a group setting unless there is an interpreter. We are told that WE are edified (built up), but not the church. Paul refers to "praying with my understanding and praying in the spirit" in the context of speaking in tongues which should, I suspect, give validity to using praying in the spirit as equivalent to speaking in tongues. If so, Jude 20 refers to praying in the spirit as building up our faith. Suggest if you do speak in tongues, that it would be best to use this in private prayer where the issues of order do not apply.
There have been reports which I am not in a position to confirm, of people receiving a language (Spanish, French Creole for example). If these accounts are true, it would be hard to see how this would not be supernatural. More importantly, Acts 2 seems to assume a supernatural action going on, and I Corinthians 14, seems to assume supernatural activities.
Hope I didn't over do it. As with anything, use what you can use.[/b]
I haven't read the book or read where Spittler said what he is quoted as saying there, but consider.
In Acts 2, the 120 were said to be speaking in "other" (heteros, another of a different kind) tongues. The listeners were able to understand what was being said. They also were in public, no interpreters, etc. (Obviously if they were being understood, interpreters would be superfluous).
In I Corinthians 14, the tongues issue seems to be "unknown" tongues. No one understood. The issues of order apply in the church, because our purpose should be to benefit others. The speaker benefits but nobody else. Notice in Chapter 14 Paul never assumes that it was a false tongue. Only that "the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets" and therefore it was possible to stop speaking in tongues under the appropriate circumstances.
In I Corinthians 12, the listing seems to be more generally tongues, i.e. both "other" and "unknown."
Generally, speaking in unknown tongues specifically, and I believe other tongues except under very unusual circumstances (If you don't recognize the language, how would you know if you were speaking in "other" or "unknown" tongues?) should not be done in a group setting unless there is an interpreter. We are told that WE are edified (built up), but not the church. Paul refers to "praying with my understanding and praying in the spirit" in the context of speaking in tongues which should, I suspect, give validity to using praying in the spirit as equivalent to speaking in tongues. If so, Jude 20 refers to praying in the spirit as building up our faith. Suggest if you do speak in tongues, that it would be best to use this in private prayer where the issues of order do not apply.
There have been reports which I am not in a position to confirm, of people receiving a language (Spanish, French Creole for example). If these accounts are true, it would be hard to see how this would not be supernatural. More importantly, Acts 2 seems to assume a supernatural action going on, and I Corinthians 14, seems to assume supernatural activities.
Hope I didn't over do it. As with anything, use what you can use.[/b]
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: