I'm not sure it's taught in the Bible; most of Paul's tongues references as well as of course the Pentecost phenomenon do not refer to private prayer language but to public utterances.
On the other hand, it's not taught against in the Bible either, IMO. So it's like underarm deodorant in that respect.
Haruo
Poll: Private Prayer Language
Moderator: William Thornton
42 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
by Ed Pettibone » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:44 pm
Ed: I would like to know if it is private prayer language how does it become an issue? Oh! Some folk don't keep it private is that it?
I am a bit dubious about it BUT I do know people who in discussion have said that they have experienced it and are reluctant to stop it because that belive it is or at least could be prompted by the Holy Sprit. I have never heard any of these folk initiate a discussion on it. I can see why McKissick felt led to address the subject in light of the current controversy. As I have said else where I think he presented his view well. And I think He should be allowed to do so. The big question in my mind is how do folk who have this experience know if it is prompted by the Holy Sprit or by Satan. But I am not about to make it an issue of fellowship.
I must add, I see the questions of "Private Prayer Language" and "Speaking in Tongues" publicly as two diferent issues.
I am a bit dubious about it BUT I do know people who in discussion have said that they have experienced it and are reluctant to stop it because that belive it is or at least could be prompted by the Holy Sprit. I have never heard any of these folk initiate a discussion on it. I can see why McKissick felt led to address the subject in light of the current controversy. As I have said else where I think he presented his view well. And I think He should be allowed to do so. The big question in my mind is how do folk who have this experience know if it is prompted by the Holy Sprit or by Satan. But I am not about to make it an issue of fellowship.
I must add, I see the questions of "Private Prayer Language" and "Speaking in Tongues" publicly as two diferent issues.
-
Ed Pettibone - Posts: 11963
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
- Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area
by William Thornton » Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:42 am
-
William Thornton - Site Admin
- Posts: 12613
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Atlanta
by Hal Eaton » Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:58 am
I have stated these things before, but, as I recall, there was no response--heated, cool, supportive, or otherwise.
Some musings on the issue:
(1) The event at Pentecost was participated in by the close disciples of Jesus; neither of the Gospel authors saw fit to include it, although they wrote their missives long after the occurrence.
(2) Luke's account was based on the re-telling of the event by some who were evidently witnesses. Such stories, told and re-told years after the incident, tend to magnify the supposed miraculous factors. Think Lourdes, Mejagorje (sp?), the sun standing still, Mel Gibson's "Passion of Christ" (and its 40-minute depiction of a 30-second reading of the Gospel account), haunted houses, the image of Jesus on Veronica's veil, the shroud of Turin (and on countless other venues--tortillas, clouds, etc.), and any of a thousand other eye-witness accounts of such far-fetched, and routinely discounted, affairs. All of the afore-mentioned incidents are routinely vindicated by those who want to believe.
(3) Modern-day emulators of the event try to repeat the elements which make it spititual, mysterious, miraculous, and/or efficacious. (Old French proverb: Nobody ever falls in love until he hears about it.) Paul indicated his own distrust of the attitudes of many of the practitioners in his day. Perhaps we should emulate his example. His off-handed acceptance of the practice may have been an atempt to ameliorate his denial of its probity.
(4) One of the criticisms of tongues-speaking is that it occurs only in those locales where it is endorsed, expected, and routinely practiced. The relatively recent appearance of the private version is perhaps a reaction to that particular critique. Questions as to the value of such private involvement deserve consideration.
(5) As others have admonished, no criticism is valid if the private nature of the practice is adhered to. (If you talk non-sensically in public, the police will lock you up; the doctor will medicate you; your church may praise you--or not; your mother-in-law will have her worst fears realized.)
(6) All the psychological aspects of the practice must be examined--and they are many.
I'm sure some will respond to my post by the numbers. Forgive me if my words are inadequate to fully expound my reactions and theories applicable to the ideas. Food for thought sometimes results in indigestion. (Mine, for sure . . .)
Some musings on the issue:
(1) The event at Pentecost was participated in by the close disciples of Jesus; neither of the Gospel authors saw fit to include it, although they wrote their missives long after the occurrence.
(2) Luke's account was based on the re-telling of the event by some who were evidently witnesses. Such stories, told and re-told years after the incident, tend to magnify the supposed miraculous factors. Think Lourdes, Mejagorje (sp?), the sun standing still, Mel Gibson's "Passion of Christ" (and its 40-minute depiction of a 30-second reading of the Gospel account), haunted houses, the image of Jesus on Veronica's veil, the shroud of Turin (and on countless other venues--tortillas, clouds, etc.), and any of a thousand other eye-witness accounts of such far-fetched, and routinely discounted, affairs. All of the afore-mentioned incidents are routinely vindicated by those who want to believe.
(3) Modern-day emulators of the event try to repeat the elements which make it spititual, mysterious, miraculous, and/or efficacious. (Old French proverb: Nobody ever falls in love until he hears about it.) Paul indicated his own distrust of the attitudes of many of the practitioners in his day. Perhaps we should emulate his example. His off-handed acceptance of the practice may have been an atempt to ameliorate his denial of its probity.
(4) One of the criticisms of tongues-speaking is that it occurs only in those locales where it is endorsed, expected, and routinely practiced. The relatively recent appearance of the private version is perhaps a reaction to that particular critique. Questions as to the value of such private involvement deserve consideration.
(5) As others have admonished, no criticism is valid if the private nature of the practice is adhered to. (If you talk non-sensically in public, the police will lock you up; the doctor will medicate you; your church may praise you--or not; your mother-in-law will have her worst fears realized.)
(6) All the psychological aspects of the practice must be examined--and they are many.
I'm sure some will respond to my post by the numbers. Forgive me if my words are inadequate to fully expound my reactions and theories applicable to the ideas. Food for thought sometimes results in indigestion. (Mine, for sure . . .)
-
Hal Eaton - Posts: 1609
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:01 pm
- Location: Mouth of Wilson, VA
by William Thornton » Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:16 am
-
William Thornton - Site Admin
- Posts: 12613
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Atlanta
by William Thornton » Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:14 am
-
William Thornton - Site Admin
- Posts: 12613
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Atlanta
by William Thornton » Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:04 am
-
William Thornton - Site Admin
- Posts: 12613
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Atlanta
42 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests