Existence of speaking in tongues and healing today?

Discussion in 'Questions?' started by Rexlion, Nov 9, 2019.

  1. Liturgyworks

    Liturgyworks Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    760
    Likes Received:
    442
    Country:
    US
    Religion:
    Christian Orthodoxy
    I have to confess I take a much darker view of Pentecostal and Charismatic ministers than this, in that I consider some of them operate by means of diabolical agency (as outlined in the heresiological works of Fr. Seraphim Rose and also his writings against Nihilism).

    I also agree with your view on cessationism, and I believe we are on basically the same page concerning the Charismatic idea in general.

    I do believe that prayer, whether by itself or together with the annointing of the sick with oil, and especially the partaking of the Eucharist, can be of benefit, but it seems wrong to me to say, as some do, that there are people who can compel a healing to take place.
     
  2. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Rexlion, you have made a very interesting and relevant observation here. Scripture therefore seems to indicate that the 'understanding' element of hearing glossalalia is key to its spiritual authenticity, rather than merely the sounds produced by the speaker.

    Something (of a spiritual nature) clearly seems to be going on in the hearers of the sounds, causing them to either dismiss what they hear as bogus gobledygook and drunken burblings or to interpret it as understandable language in their own native tongue.

    A very similar effect is noticed by the Apostle Paul concerning the way in which The Gospel is 'received'. I suspect the same effect also applies to all spiritual 'knowledge', including the receiving of The Gospel, as can be seen in the parable of the sower in Our Lord's teaching on the reception of the knowledge of salvation. The onus is on the spiritual receptiveness of the hearer as to how that which has been heard, is then subsequently spiritually received.

    The onus is on the RECEIVER of the information NOT on the projector and producer of the sounds and the active ingredient enabling reception in the hearer, is FAITH.

    Your observation is insightful but there is also the fact to be considered that the 'gift' of tongues can be and often is counterfeit when not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    All those who were speaking on that Day of Pentecost had gathered together "With one accord", i.e. were already fully commited disciples and obedient to Christ and his teaching. All were motivated by The Holy Spirit and no other. All were intent on doing God's will in obedience to Christ.

    I would suggest that glossalalia appearing in any context which does not meet all of the above mentioned criteria should be regarded with due diligence and a certain amount of scepticism. Certainly it should not be taken for advice from beyond directing church policy and action, without being rigourously 'tested'.
     
    Thomas Didymus and Rexlion like this.
  3. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    "speaking by definition requires understanding what you're saying."

    Actually your definition of speaking is a bit strained here and by no means accurate.

    It is perfectly possible to both speak and sing sounds which have no discernable meaning to some but not others. They are still perfectly discernable as sounds, and still come under the description of 'speech'. They are just not 'intelligible speech' to the hearer, (but, it has to be said, perhaps also not intelligible to anyone else).

    There are many nonsense songs and verses which on the surface are meaningless, but in certain contexts may take on profound meaning and purpose. Consider, for instance the use of parts of a nonsence ryme as a password or recognition phrase upon which the very lives of the speaker and hearer may depend. If you don't have understanding of the context in which the 'gobledygook' is being spoken, and you give the wrong answer to the 'gobledygook', thus identifying yourself as foe rather than friend, then it has been your lack of understanding of that gobledygook and it's meaning that has revealed to the speaker of it, your lack of understanding and therefore revealed to them your identity as a possible danger.

    Was 'Mene, Mene, tekel, upharsin" gobledygook? Daniel 5:25-26
    To all but the person who wrote it and the person who understood and interpreted it, YES.

    Was it an inteligable sentence in any known earthly language?
    As far as we know,
    NO
    .

    Was it "understood and translated"?
    Yes.

    How "Meaningful" was it?

    For the king, Profoundly!
    .
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2019
  4. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    And another thing about "speaking by definition requires understanding what you're saying.", no it doesn't. You are quite wrong in your assumption.

    I have often sung anthems in Latin, which I do not understand. Most of the audience/congregation did not understand the words either. That did not by any means render it 'meaningless' though. They were beautiful 'sounds' to both say, sing and hear. They were 'given to me', to say or sing, by someone, author or composer, who understood their meaning. I merely articulated them without understanding but having learned to pronounce them accurately as a 'language'.

    'Tongues' can simply be a language that the believer is repeating from the Spirit's dictation, having suspended their own insistence on 'understanding' everthing they 'say' or 'sing' but just saying or singing it in obedience to the Holy Spirit. This requires humility and a certain disdain for our personal image of sane rationality, which we human beings like to present to the world, (look at me I'm so sane and rational, I never babble like an idiot), pride of appearance. 1 John 2:16. Letting go of that pride in the image of our own rationality is so difficlt for some that they will never experience even this, the least, of the gifts of the Spirit. Gifts, even God's gifts, are not 'inflicted by God', on those who don't want them and can see no use for them.

    That may be one possible explanation for the paucity of such 'gifts' in the post 'enlightenment' world.

    Nevertheless we are advised by Apostolic authority to SEEK the higher gifts, not be simply content to articulate the lower ones and certainly not to despise the lower gifts.

    God does not impose gifts upon us, but it our Christian duty to allow God the Holy Spirit to develop the fruit of the Spirit in us as we mature in the faith.
    .
     
    Thomas Didymus, Rexlion and Brigid like this.
  5. Brigid

    Brigid Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    161
    Likes Received:
    100
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    AngloCatholic
    Tiffy, I really like and agree with what you've said, I've had that same experience saying or singing Latin and I know only a very little bit of it. I've never thought of that in terms of speaking in tongues, tho ànd it's a very interesting comparison!
     
    Rexlion likes this.
  6. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    When Paul said "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you;" 1 Cor.4:18 He was probably not only referring to glosalalia. He certainly spoke Greek and Aramaic, possibly Hebrew and probably other Mid Eastern languages as well. Paul thanked God that he could communicate the Good News in so many different ways to get his message across. He still preferred to use a language that the listener could understand though, because that is the most effective kind of communication.

    I wonder if Stalwart sings the kyrie eleison and the Agnus Dei, that would be two languages other than his native tongue that he sings without fully understanding, perhaps.
    .
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2019
  7. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Thank you for sharing your definition of a faith healer. I think we probably can agree that impressions received by some individuals will differ from the impressions received by other individuals. Impressions depend upon what angle we view the thing from as well as what background and preconceptions we have. Since no one can heal 'at will,' it makes sense for anyone who gets that impression from some minister who conducts healing crusades or services to take offense at the minister. And if one views such a minister as 'not properly ordained' due to their non-apostolic denominational association, one is even more inclined to be offended by the outrageous notion that God would deign to grace such a minister with a Spiritual Gift or a true ministry calling.

    Able to cause healings at will? Personally, I have never gotten that impression of any person who has a healing ministry. And here I'm sure this is due to my own rather checkered church background. Over the years I have been present at services conducted by Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, and Charles & Frances Hunter. (Of those, Benny Hinn is by far the most over-the-top in flamboyance and excessive showmanship.) I have watched many others on television, too. I never heard any of those ministers claim that they could dispense healing power at will. Every one of them, as far as I can recall, preceded the healing prayers (and consequent on-stage testimonies and whatnot) with teaching from Scripture that it is God, not man, who heals. They praised God and gave Him the glory when people were healed.

    Based on my own observations, I would be more inclined to define a "faith healer" as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through whose ministry the Holy Spirit effects healings on a relatively frequent basis.

    Certainly there are fakes and frauds. A charlatan can do things to make it seem as though he has such a gifting. Such a person may pretend to be a "faith healer," but he is nothing more than a fake healer.

    I see two 'ditches' here, and it's very easy to get off the road and into either ditch. One ditch is the blind acceptance of all those people as genuine. The other ditch is the blind rejection of all of them as frauds.

    I am highly suspicious of Benny Hinn. I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling about him, not at all! Yet that is as far as I want to go; I'm conscious of the fact that my perception might possibly be skewed somehow. Only God knows for sure.

    But let me add this: if a person goes to a healing crusade or healing service and has faith that God will meet his physical need, even if the event is conducted by a charlatan, that person may genuinely received healing. Let's face it: if God could use Balaam's ass to talk and could use evil Balaam to pronounce blessings upon His people Israel, God can also bless His people at an event conducted by an a__.
     
    Stalwart and Brigid like this.
  8. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Yes, some ministers link healing with prosperity. They point to this scripture:
    3Jn 1:1 The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.
    3Jn 1:2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
    They err in making this scripture of general applicability. John was writing to a certain man, Gaius, and expressing his (John's) wish. This should not be used as proof of God's will for all believers in all circumstances.

    That said, "God's will" is something we could write a book about. It's that broad a subject. There are different things we could mean when we speak of "God's will."

    There's some tendency to think that whatever God wills, God does... that whatever happens to us must be God's will because He is so mighty and powerful. We have to remember that God's will is not always done, not always realized or actualized on earth. After all, why did Jesus teach us to pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? If God's will were being perfectly carried out on earth, we would not need to pray for it.

    Now, some might object that God planned everything out before He even created anything, so isn't all of this His will? In a very broad sense one could say that. To be more precise, everything which happens has been foreseen by God, and God willed this universe (with all its eventual imperfections, including sin) into existence, but not all that happens on earth is due to His will. Is it His will for men to sin? Of course not. Is it His will for many humans to perish in everlasting fire? No, He wills that none should perish but that all should come to repentance. Is it God's will that man should toil by the sweat of his brow and die physically? No, however God warned Adam and Eve of the consequences to be borne if they disobeyed, and now those consequences must be borne, because God cannot lie.

    Even though we bear the consequences of the Original Sin, God is gracious. Through Christ's redemptive sacrifice, we may by faith receive His grace. When it comes to God's grace, mostly we tend to think of grace for salvation. But there is grace for healing, too. Grace for healing is received by faith that Christ "has redeemed us from the curse of the Law" and has "borne our sicknesses and carried our diseases" in fulfillment of Isaiah 53, and "by His stripes we are healed." Most of this healing will be fully accomplished only at our resurrection, but some of it is given to us now, in this life. We believe that God is the sustainer of life. By His power, we live and breathe. He who sustains our mortal lives obviously provides mortal sustenance to our bodies in the form of health. This provision of health is impacted by many earthly factors (Injuries, viruses, lack of good food, etc.) Yet God's compassion is rich, so that one might at times receive healing power from God into our bodies to overcome such factors for a time, if we look to Him in faith for His Providence.

    This provision of sustenance not unlimited, though. It is constrained within the necessities of God's overarching will for all humans, and indeed with all of His creation, with whom and which we constantly interact and are interwoven. We could never know all the intricacies of this, shall we say, 'Rubik's Cube on a Monumental scale.' Thus we pray and believe that God will do the best thing for us in every circumstance (some of which are of our own undoing, like eating habits for instance). We cannot believe that God must heal us just because it would seem best (in our own minds) to always be in perfect health, but we can and should believe that God will heal us if there is no relevant hindrance within His perfect knowledge of past, present and future. We should ask God to heal us, trusting that His general will is for us to have good health, but also trusting Him no matter what we see, because there's some good reason if we don't see an immediate, positive change. We should be as our Lord Jesus Christ, who asked in full trustfulness, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
     
    Brigid, Stalwart and Tiffy like this.
  9. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Rexlion: May I congratulate on a well thought through response. Clearly you have gained much insight in this matter. Thank you.

    My own small contibution to the healing debate is this:

    It seems to me that Jesus made very little fuss and ballyhoo about healing. He seems, according to the evidence we have in the Gospels, to be very 'matter of fact' about the process. His healing demonstrates the fact that it is the will of the Father to heal our infirmities in some instances but not in others and we do not have the ability to assign reasons for God's decision in the matter.

    Salvation itself is 'healing', we get the word 'salve' from the root meaning of the word. We cannot totally understand the mechanism by which Christ's 'stripes pain and suffering' healed us and brought us salvation, any more than we can understand why God seems to heal some but not others in response to prayer. To speculate upon why this may be so, is to wander into doubtful and dangerous theological territory, where we may doubt God's love for us and God's willingness to suffer as we do, and on our behalf, as he did in Jesus Christ.

    The most profound and effective form of 'healing' is circumcision of the heart, whereby we have a restored relationship with God and friendship with Jesus Christ. Any further physical and mental healing is, in a sense, only temporary anyway. Even Lazarus died, eventually and he must have died either by accident, violence or disease, so physical healing is not the most important aspect of the matter of 'Salvation'. The world would be a very crowded place if nobody ever died, but scripture indicates that God has remedied that which we most fear. 1 Cor.15:53-55. According to Paul we 'must' die, because death is necessary for the necessary change to take place, in which we will be transformed to be as Christ now is.
    .
     
    Brigid, Stalwart and Rexlion like this.
  10. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I appreciate that, and I think we can agree on this, in the end. Thank you for coming halfway to where I have been, namely where I said that I fully accept the possibility of healings. We both acknowledge that there can be healings, and that there can be fakes. And especially that someone famous like Benny Hinn is not someone that any Anglican could get warm fuzzy feelings about (for me it's more like a chill up my spine, personally, but anyway).

    I fully accept that, but again, this healing could just as likely (perhaps more likely) just happen from solitary prayer; or it could happen by God's free grace, without a person specifically asking for the healing, on account of their lifelong faithfulness to God or something. In other words, there is nothing specifically special about healing services that makes them 'more effective'.

    I want to disassociate faith healers, healing crusades, all these Pelagian man-made and typically duplicitous and superstitious phenomena from the real phenomena of healing, which is accomplished on God's time, on God's terms, in God's good grace, and solely through his unswaying and unswerving eternal intention from before all worlds.
     
  11. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I agree that God certainly can, and has, healed people who asked in a solitary prayer of faith as well as people who did not specifically ask. Concerning the latter, we saw Jesus do something unusual and rare when he healed the man at the Pool of Siloam even though the man did not show any faith and merely complained that he couldn't make it into the pool quickly enough when the healing power was present. It's the only recorded instance of its type by Jesus.

    Most recorded examples of healings, though, give us reason to believe that the people who were healed had faith that Jesus would heal them, and that their faith was highly relevant. (Note that this was at a time when no one yet had faith in Him for eternal life, since He had not yet died and risen.) Often, Jesus made a point of telling people that their faith had healed them (I shared several scriptures in post #11 which support this fact). In other words, their faith (their belief) played a key role; they were receptive, and they received. Those people heard the news that Jesus was able to heal people, was willing to heal people, and was actively engaged in healing people. So they came (in droves) to Jesus, hoping and expecting to be healed by the power of God through physical contact with Him. Physical contact of one sort or another was, to the minds of people back then (as it tends to be even today), very important for something like the transmission of God's power.

    This shows us the value people place on the laying on of hands, the anointing with oil, prayer cloths, and any other means of physical contact for the reception of God's healing power. The contact itself helps their faith for healing to peak, and this is quite often the time when they are healed. So even though people can be, and in some cases are, healed without any physical contact, the laying on of hands (and corporate prayers of a multitude) which are experienced in a healing service or healing crusade become important. Especially in our modern culture, wherein scientific knowledge, doctors and 'modern medicine' are prevalent, faith for supernatural healing has ebbed in many people and it has become harder to believe God for a supernatural touch. The so-called 'faith healer' (a term applied to ministers by others, for the ministers themselves rarely call themselves this) is a person whom God can and frequently does work through either in a Gift of Healing or as a point of contact to help people's faith rise enough to receive the healing power from Him (or both).

    Oral Roberts (setting aside for the moment whatever one might think of him or his mannerisms) expresses this in the following video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCgxVW3i8JI
    He makes a point of telling everyone that he has no healing power, rather it is God who heals, and the man is just a point of contact.
    I think this short clip is also worth seeing, wherein he lays hands on a boy afflicted with polio. Note Roberts' reaction at the end:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGBr2mtFw2E
    It seems to me, if people are being healed in services like these, there is considerable value to the ministry of so-called 'faith healers' and we should not discount all of them as "Pelagian" or "duplicitous."

    The account of the Roman Centurion is most instructive:
    Mat 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
    Mat 8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
    Mat 8:7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
    Mat 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
    Mat 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
    Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
    Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
    Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
    Mat 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

    The Centurion's faith in Jesus' authority to heal was greater than the faith of the Israelites. This man did not need a physical point of contact for his faith to peak; he already had faith in abundance for his servant to be healed. Jesus marvelled, and told him, as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. If that Centurion was just talking a good talk and not believing, do you think his servant would have been healed? No! But he got what he had faith to receive. Think of all the Israelites who were healed through a touch from Jesus; none of them had great enough faith for healing to receive it without that touch. The point of physical contact with Jesus was the point in time when their faith was at its highest, and that was when they received the healing power of God. Even the woman with the issue of blood said to herself, "If I can just touch the hem of his garment" (a physical contact) "I shall be healed." Let us not assume that all 'faith healers' are evil, despicable, frauds, or of no value to God's children.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2019
    Brigid likes this.
  12. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Here we get a lesson on what healing faith is all about. The Centurian was used to having his orders carried out without question. He was 'set under authority'. His authority was an extension of the authority of The Emperor, the highest earthly authority. He recognised Jesus as having been 'set under' an even higher authority, namely God The Father, who's directives Jesus always obeyed. The Centurian's faith was therefore in the will of the Father and the legitimate initiative of The Son, who at all times would obediently do only the will of His Father.

    As I previously indicated, this is all a very, 'matter of fact', approach to the issue of whether one will be healed or not. It seems that having an attitude of 'I wonder if it will work', is not as effective at delivering results as 'Just get on with it God, if you intend to do it'. Paul got a negative answer to prayer for healing himself. God's reply was that it was beneficial for Paul to continue with his ailment because it made him rely upon God's grace thus increasing Paul's faith in every other aspect of God's providence.

    "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong".
    .
     
    Rexlion and Brigid like this.
  13. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    John Smithwick is a missionary evangelist who sets up large open-air crusades, preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ, invites people to place their trust in Christ, and then teaches a bit about healing and prays for those who are in need of healing. Here is a video, just posted, concerning one girl who was thus ministered to twelve years ago. I think you all will find it encouraging.
    https://vimeo.com/374500308
     
  14. neminem

    neminem Active Member

    Posts:
    113
    Likes Received:
    85
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Christian
    Today, most people do not hear what the ear hears, but hear what their fears and false beliefs want them to hear, and 'truth' is the last thing their ego-self wants to hear. Our ears are honest, but our old natured 'self' is dishonest. So, if we want to hear the truth, we must be in a state of unconditional faith, allowing the Spirit of Truth within us to express itself, the Truth, to our thoughts and feelings.

    Speaking in tongues sounds gibberish, just the thing to stop our own thoughts and feelings to make sense of it. We become in-no-sense (innocent) of what the ear hears. Allowing the Spirit of Truth to hear the 'true' intent, and express that truth into our thoughts and feelings. Truth always precedes thoughts and feelings, but only a person of faith can choose to allow Truth to merge with their consciousness.

    So, there may be people truthfully speaking with intent instead of language, and there may be people truthfully listening, but it seems less often that the two meet. There are not to many no-bodies (spirit consciousness) in today's world of everybody wanting to be a some-body (self identity with their body).