Glossolalia or Xenolalia?

[TK]

DG wrote:

I’m just expressing my personal view here, but the older I get, the less astonished (but more depressed) I am at the breadth of falsehood within Evangelicalism.

I agree there is a lot of falsehood in Evangelicalism- the use of the "sinner's prayer" for example. But I would stop short in saying that the modern "use" of tongues is a falsehood-- but I suppose anything is possible.

You may have gathered that I am not a great "debater." I admitted as much in the preterism discussion in the eschatology section. So, I cannot come out and say that Zerhusen is dead wrong with a great deal of conviction(because I obviously dont know the original language and dont have the time or real desire to learn them)-- just that I THINK he is- more as a gut reaction as opposed to any fault with his logic. His logic is sound, I suppose, if his initial premise is correct. Of course that is a big IF, at least IMO.

I sure wish Steve G would chime in here. I'd be very interested in hearing what he has to say on the subject, since he says that he prays in tongues. But I know he is busy teaching at his school these days.

TK

[TK]

I was doing some more thinking about Zerhusen's theory- i scanned his articles but didnt see where he addressed these episodes:

Acts 10:44-46: While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Acts 19:1-7: And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”
So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Now the men were about twelve in all.

Acts 8:14-19: Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, “Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” (while not explicitly stated, I believe tongues were spoken here because Simon witnessed something tangible).

What would Zerhusen say about these- that Cornelius and his household simply started speaking a second language they may have known? The same would go for the believers at Ephesus and Samaria. That doesn't make any sense at all, in the context of what happened. There is nothing "supernatural" about knowing a second language. Why would "those of the circumcision" in the first example be amazed at hearing gentiles speak a second language they already knew?

TK

[DanielGracely]

Hi TK, I got this from Zerhusen's article: The Problem Tongues of 1 Corinthians: A Re-examination. I was able to copy and paste it into word, then do a word search for Acts 10. I don't think he has anything on Acts 10 or 19 in the other article. Re: Simon seeing a manifestation of the Spirit, I suppose it might have been something as 'small' as the effusive enthusiasm of new converts worshipping. Or if something like healings were given to one of the new converts, perhaps even that was present. The Scriptures don't really say what it was that so impressed Simon. As for Acts 10, I'm wondering if Cornelius and crowd speaking in their native tongues (not their 2nd tongue) might have helped confirm in Peter and the Jews' minds the Acts 2 experience of non-Hebrew being appropriate worship language. That's not Zerhusen's take (which I think I agree with), but I wonder if that was a lesser result of these Gentiles' expression. Anyway, here's Zerhusen on Acts 10 and 19.

Here we should also briefly discuss the languages of Acts 10 and 19 (note: the Mark 16:17 reference to "new languages" is part of a highly suspect text (Mk 16:9-20) and will not be discussed here). In both Acts 10 and Acts 19 we have new converts (viz., Cornelius and his household in Acts 10, and John's disciples in Acts 19), who spontaneously begin to "speak in languages." In neither situation is there a language barrier. All present when the languages are spoken are believers; so the languages do not serve an evangelistic purpose. The languages were also not spoken for the purpose of private prayer.

An important question here is, "With what language would a new convert spontaneously begin to praise God?" The answer (which lines up well with 1 Corinthians 14) is that the language-speakers would spontaneously praise God in the languages with which they were most familiar (i.e., native or first languages).

It should be observed that in neither passage is any amazement or ridicule (as in Acts 2) expressed in reference to the language speaking. Only in Acts 10 is amazement mentioned, and the amazement is in reference to Gentiles receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit: "And the faithful of the circumcision were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles also" (Acts 10:45). The reception of the Spirit, not the language-speaking, was the cause of the amazement. So we can conclude that in Acts 10 and Acts 19 (as in 1 Corinthians 14), people felt moved to praise God from the heart in languages with which they were most familiar.

[TK]

Man, I hear what he is saying but it sounds like a desperate argument. Oh well, what do I know!

TK

[DanielGracely]

Hi TK,

We all come to our own particular conclusions about biblical doctrine our own way, according to what we think best. And so, of course, views often differ. Zerhusen's hermeneutic is the historico-grammatical method, which means that he takes words to mean what words normally mean in language, and seeks to underpin his analysis of Acts 2 with historical findings, such as (in this case) the kind of native languages shown on Jewish ossuary inscriptions from places of the Diaspora mentioned in Acts 2.

All that said, I'm reminded of something C.K. Chesterton once said to a critic of his religious belief, that he (Chesterton) hesitated to give a reply, since the very statements which he held were reasons for belief, were thought by his critic reasons against belief.

[RickC]

So when Paul said "I speak in tongues more than all of you" does that mean (per Zerhusen) that he was the most multilingual, or just got a kick out of speaking different languages?

I must say that my gut tells me Zerhusen's theory is wrong. Interesting, but wrong.

I read Zerhusen's article and bookmarked it in my "Holy Spirit, Gifts" folder.
Actually in a "Cessationist" sub-folder.

Basically, I was unimpressed by Zerhusen.
Made you think, though.

Acts 2:6 (NKJV)
And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language (Gk, dialektw).
Acts 2:11 (NKJV)
"Cretans and Arabs––we hear them speaking in our own tongues (Gk, glossais) the wonderful works of God."

I did some research on the nations represented. Zerhusen limited the number of languages spoken at, was it, three? (I think so, or thereabouts). In any event, I didn't go into this real deep. I asked if dialects and languages (tongues) were meant to mean the same thing by Luke. I wasn't for sure. However, I theorized that within regions of some individual nations, there may have been dialects of the same language that wouldn't have been understood by others in that same nation. When the possible number came to some place around seven, I left it at that.

I plan to ask a young charismatic pastor (he's like 35) who's really into analyzing the gifts. He's Scott Lencke (going by ScottL), a regular @ http://theologica.ning.com/. Has a blog there, and a couple on his own. Reads all the latest charismatic stuff (Fee, et al). Off-Theologica @ The Prodigal Thought - and - To Be Continued . . . (charismatic-continuationist).

I'll run this by him some time....

Parting snippet-observation -
(on if the interpretation of tongues could mean "speak a language more skillfully") -
1 Cor 14:13 (NKJV)
Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

If Paul was saying they must become 'more fluent in a language' -
(would he not have stated it as something like) -
Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue study that he may interpret (???).

I mean, I can sit around and pray till the rapture that God will help me learn Greek.
But if I don't actually study it....(you see my point)...

Anyways, thanks, sorry so slow to reply, TK!

[jiott]

I find this whole discussion and confusion on Glossolalia vs. Xenolalia very curious because our organization has witnessed Xenolalia on a regular basis for over 100 years and myself for over 50 years. We beleive and receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the witness of speaking in tongues per Acts 2 in an existing language that every now and then can be interpreted by someone nearby who happens to understand that language (Xenolalia). These are people who we are personally aquainted with and definitely known to us as never having used or studied that language. The ones I have personaly heard speak in a very fluent and normal manner, rather than gibberish. I am not saying that we never hear gibberish type speaking that is very difficult to determine what it might be, but most of the time it is a very normal and beautiful speaking. In most cases where it can be interpreted they are usually praising God and speaking of the soon coming of Christ. These are usually one-time experiences for these people, not a "gift of tongues" that can be used at will later on for preaching in foreign countries for example.

Our organization "Apostolic Faith Church" of Portland Oregon is a pentacostal church that came directly from the Azusa group in 1907 by Florence Crawford. We still to this day believe the same set of doctrines that can be found in Volume #1 of the Apostolic Faith paper that was published at Azusa Street with no alterations or modifications. I have read many of these early volumes myself and know this to be a fact. We still get the same results today! We simply figure that the set of doctrines that those Bonnie Brae/Asuza people had at the very beginning were pleasing enough to God that he sent that mighty gift and revival, why change or modify any of those core doctrines. The Baptism I speak of above is always preceded by a definite instantaneous experience of Wesleyan type Sanctification, per the original Asuza group.

How can there be such misunderstanding of something that has been continuously in evidence and working as originally receivced, and not hidden under a bushel, for over 100 years. I'm not trying to put down anyone because I am aware of many groups that trace their roots to the same Asuza revival, but they all seem to have a different twist to the original and can make a compelling case for it. I am just relating my own thought process I went through when I reached a stage where I had to decide for myself which interpretation had the straight scoop on things-we all go through this. Since God himself chose that original group out of many variations to give this mighty gift to, it became a simple matter for me to decide I want to stick with those original unaltered doctrines. As long as those core doctrines are held to, I don't care what the name of the organization is. Its an obsevance that can be verified, tested and repeated - the essence of the scientific method.

[backwoodsman]

How can there be such misunderstanding of something that has been continuously in evidence and working as originally receivced, and not hidden under a bushel, for over 100 years.

That question is easier to answer than you might realize. In short, how much time and effort have you put into earnestly trying to understand the thoughts and beliefs of those who disagree with you on the topic, in order to lovingly and gracefully show them from scripture where they're wrong, or perhaps even learn where you're wrong? No disrespect intended, but simply stating that your church is the only one that's ever got it right isn't going to get you very far with most folks, for a whole spectrum of reasons.

God bless,
Dan

[jiott]

Dan,
All I'm trying to say is that I believe the original Bonnie Brae/Azusa church got it right for the reasons given above. I really should have left any church name out of my discussion because it is those original doctrines that I want to hang my hat on, independent of who or what modern organization holds to them, and I think there are more of them than I know about.

Jim