I think you hit it on the head Ash! Good job man... test, but not judge. A fine line I think you are walking very well.

Praying for ya man!

hey Ash, its not so much the speaking in tongue as the messeage that the pastor delievered... didn't you find that it misused gospel, and had wrong focuses. IMO it seemed to be more about what God can do for you, then what you can do for God.
this seemed to be a common observation from the people who went to CHC. I looked it up after, and its called prosperity gospel.
the thing is, I think we have to be critical sometimes because a false teacher can mislead a lot of people. We should warn others if we feel like unsound doctrine is preached, the Bible warns us of false teachers, and that we should stay away from them right.

http://wordnverse.com/2008/01/06/non-biblical-teachings-of-kong-hee-city-harvest-church/#more-188

Hey Yushi, yah, I understand what you're saying about the prosperity gospel issue. I originally had incorporated some of my concerns about that into my original entry, but later removed it because I found that it diverged from the discussion about tongues, which is something that I had been wrestling with over the past year for myself.

Being critical is ok, don't get me wrong. What I was more concerned about in what I sometimes see is that people have the tendency to write things off immediately without even thinking critically about what they are criticizing. Prosperity gospel is one thing, but different from that, I know that from discussions I've had with some of the people I've lived with over the last term, we've had struggles with people assuming that some of the things we do in charismatic churches are wrong. The initial response is, "that's not what I see in my church, we don't do things that way. Therefore, you shouldn't do what you are doing."

I am sorry if I came off as ignoring the main issue you felt uncomfortable with. But I felt that it was something I couldn't fully address myself yet. I don't know anything about CHC except for that one service we attended. Thus I couldn't tell if the themes of the prosperity-type messages are characteristic of the church itself, or if it was just a one-off message from the preacher.

For the record, I do not agree with what I believe is the prosperity gospel.

But what I do have concerns about within the church is when people tend to cling to their denominations more than what God might actually be wanting to do. This goes for both evangelical and charismatic churches.

There needs to be some care taken in discerning in that you must discern from the Bible and from prayer, as opposed to running down lists of things that a particular denomination has taught you. This statement is not me attacking evangelical churches or "traditional churches." On the contrary, I even had issues with myself doing this from a charismatic background.

Prosperity gospel is perhaps something a bit more generally accepted among most of my Christian friends as incorrect. So that's a topic that I know people can more readily agree on within my Christian circle. Perhaps that's why I didn't draw attention to it.

I wasn't really trying to write a commentary on CHC. Rather, as I mentioned earlier, I was more focusing on some of the issues surrounding the appropriate use of tongues. That is something that is not agreed upon within my Christian circle.

Hope that clarifies a little bit about why I didn't touch on the prosperity gospel issues I know all three of us had that day...

Hey Ash,

First of all, I want to just thank you for taking the time to write this post - it brought about a lot of study, prayer, and discussion with other Christians in my own life. I realize this is a very long comment, but I had a lot to think about and respond to within your original post.

For point of reference, I come from a very conservative, non-charasmatic denominational background. And bear in mind that I’m not presenting these things in a way to just say “you’re wrong”, but to encourage you and to build you up in the faith. So, here I go!

The first thing I need to do is critical distinction between “tongues” and “a tongue” in the passages in 1 Corinthians. Notice in 1 Corinthians 12:30, it says “Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?” Tongues is plural. And in 1 Corinthians 14:2, it says “For he who speaks in a tongue does not s peak to men but to God, for on one understands him...” and similarly in verse 4 “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself...” In these verses, tongue is singular. I don’t believe this is a translation error or a slip up on Paul’s part, but rather an important distinction between the true gift of tongues and the false manifestations of tongues that some members of the Corinthian church were using.

The gift of tongues can be defined in Acts 2:6: “And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.” This is the true gift of tongues, and was not what was happening in the Corinthian church (more on this in the next paragraph).

Keeping that distinction in mind, I point to one of the first verses that you mention: 1 Corinthians 14:26, which specifies that those who speak in a tongue (singular) should be in small groups with an interpreter. Paul was stating here that the tongue these people were using could not be understood by other believers, and thus would require an interpreter. But if no one can understand (other than said interpreters, of which I believe there were none), what is the point? It only confuses other believers. This points down to verse 33, which says “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints”.

Secondly, I was kind of surprised when you said “shall we take all of 1 Corinthians 14 literally?” I believe the answer should be fervently yes! 1 Corinthians 14:34, which talks about how women should be silent in church, is a Biblical principal which is echoed throughout the New Testament. Unlike the arguments you would hear today, it’s not a sexist comment but rather speaks to the position of submission women should take. This point is spoken about in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 when Paul speaks of head coverings (which was a cultural signifier of submission in Corinth) and in 1 Peter 3:1, in the famous verse that says “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands”.

You mention that many churches today are guilty of this. And I would agree. But I wouldn’t stop there - instead I’ll tell you why it is like this. The reason is two-fold: men aren’t stepping up to take their places and women see an opportunity to fill a gap. If men were rising to places of leadership as they should be, women wouldn’t have an opportunity to take these positions. Again, I’m not being sexist nor am I saying that women are inferior to men. I’m simply stating a principal that I believe is Biblical.

Thirdly, you speak of tongues as a “prayer language”, citing Romans 8:26 (“Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.”) I believe “the Spirit” it is not referring to our human spirit, but rather the Holy Spirit who dwells inside of us (which started on the day of pentecost). That these groanings “cannot be uttered” seems to say to me that I cannot vocalize them. Thus, I don’t see tongues as being a prayer language - what purpose would that have? If we can do the job of the Holy Spirit, why should He be with us?

In the same paragraph, you mention 1 Corinthians 14:4 (“He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself...”), citing that “Paul notes that the gift of tongues edifies the believer who exercises it,” appearing to say that you believe this is a good thing. I would say the opposite. Edification means “building up”, meaning that a believer who speaks in a tongue (singular) is building himself up. Are we not called to be humble?

Fourthly, you speak about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, saying that this occurrence is only mentioned in Acts, in fact at the beginning of Acts (Acts 1:4-5). I believe it’s not mentioned anywhere else in scripture for a single reason: the Apostles were waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised and since Pentecost, the Holy Spirit dwells within us as soon as we are saved.

Finally, I would like to call your attention to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, which say “Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.” I believe this calls for the end of the gift of tongues as well as other miraculous gifts given to the apostles in the early apostolic age. And here’s why I think so.

These sign gifts were given by God to show that the men who used them were from God. And as more and more came to believe, and the church as a body matured, you can see these miraculous gifts disappearing. For example, in Acts, after chapter 19 nothing is said about the gift of tongues. Another example can be found in 1 Timothy 5:23, which shows the absence of the gift of healing (which the apostles previously showed). Paul could not heal Timothy, instead urging him to “use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.”

I don’t believe that God would bring back gifts He took away 2000 years ago in todays time - what purpose would these supernatural gifts serve? However, I am not saying that miracles don’t happen - God can do what he pleases and there might be an occurrence of the true gift of tongues here or there. One can see that it’s not an active gift, as missionaries have to learn the language of the foreign nation they are going to.

So, why is all of this important? I believe it’s very important for a very important reason: that the true Gospel is preached. When you talked about the altar call for people “who either had not yet been baptized in the Holy Spirit or who have never spoken in tongues”, I was afraid. Why would an altar call be called for those who had not spoken in tongues? If some churches believe that you are not saved until you manifest speaking in tongues, I would say that’s very dangerous. As Jesus said in John 14:6, “No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

I think that’s everything Ash! Sorry that this was so long! Again, I want to stress that the purpose of me writing all of this is NOT to prove you wrong but rather encourage you and see that the truth is brought fourth. Please prayerfully consider all that I’ve presented, and if I failed to clarify any points or you wish to discuss some of these things further, please email me :)

God bless Ash!

Hey Jon! Thanks so much for your long comment! Don't apologize for being lengthy!

I still have some differences in belief from what you have drawn my attention to, as I shall try to outline. But forgive me if I miss anything, because you have written a lot, which means I have a lot to read and respond to haha.

The first thing I need to do is critical distinction between “tongues” and “a tongue” in the passages in 1 Corinthians. Notice in 1 Corinthians 12:30, it says “Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?” Tongues is plural. And in 1 Corinthians 14:2, it says “For he who speaks in a tongue does not s peak to men but to God, for on one understands him...” and similarly in verse 4 “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself...” In these verses, tongue is singular. I don’t believe this is a translation error or a slip up on Paul’s part, but rather an important distinction between the true gift of tongues and the false manifestations of tongues that some members of the Corinthian church were using.

I'm not entirely sure if the distinction between singular and plural tongues is the same as a distinction between the actual gift of tongues versus a false manifestation of tongues. My main difficulty being in the way Paul continues to use the singular and plural forms of the word in the passage as a whole.

Consider the overall English sentence structure of 14:4 and 14:5. In 14:4, Paul is drawing attention to the fact that speaking in a tongue builds up the individual, while the one who prophesies builds up the church. Tongue in the English translation is singular as you note. Following this statement though, Paul continues the comparison with an application of the previous verse: "Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up." (ESV). Paul uses the plural form of tongues afterwards, but the sentence structure in plain English, to me, is not taken as making distinction between tongues from the Holy Spirit versus a demonic/deceptive tongue. I see this as Paul making a distinction between the use of tongues within the church. You cannot speak tongues to the body and expect them to be edified unless it is interpreted. Thus if you are to speak to the church without interpretation, it is better to speak prophecy in the natural language as opposed to tongues.

I believe that Paul would have been a bit more clear on things if it was a demonic versus Holy tongues issue. In 14:13, for example, Paul writes, "Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret." (ESV). To me, Paul's statement here makes no effort to discourage people from speaking in a tongue, rather, he encourages people who are speaking in a tongue to pray for an interpretation. If the singular tongue is to be taken as a false manifestation, why would he encourage people to pray for interpretation for a demonic/false tongue? I don't see Paul as one to ignore an issue of false tongues in the church if it was present. He is often quite quick to pick up on issues of false teachers in his letters.

Further more, consider Paul's usage of tongue versus tongues in 14:18 and 14:19. "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue." Again, in the English translation, the regular way to read things would be to interpret the singular and plural forms are referring to the same manifestation. Paul would rather speak intelligible words over many in a tongue. The word "rather" implies a preference, not an exclusion. It is a preference of speaking natural language over a tongue, as opposed to exclusively speaking natural language over a tongue. If singular tongue was a demonic manifestation, then why would Paul have a weaker preference for it? Should he not rather detest it all together?

Is this to say that all manifestations of tongues are of God? No, I do not believe it is that simple. This is actually one of the dangers, I feel of these kind of "let's have all those who haven't spoken in tongues before to speak in tongues." Because in a situation where you force people to expect that they must speak in tongues, you open up either fleshly manifestation, or worse, false manifestations as people might not be seeking after God, but rather the tongues.

Secondly, I was kind of surprised when you said “shall we take all of 1 Corinthians 14 literally?” I believe the answer should be fervently yes! 1 Corinthians 14:34, which talks about how women should be silent in church, is a Biblical principal which is echoed throughout the New Testament. Unlike the arguments you would hear today, it’s not a sexist comment but rather speaks to the position of submission women should take. This point is spoken about in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 when Paul speaks of head coverings (which was a cultural signifier of submission in Corinth) and in 1 Peter 3:1, in the famous verse that says “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands”.

Perhaps it is better for me to say, take it literally in terms of the context of the Corinthian church. Again unfortunately, I am not very well versed in the history of the time period. Being submissive to a husband is a bit of a different thing than talking in church. A lot of female friends I know fully agree with being submissive. The speaking in church though is an issue that has usually be relegated to context.

The issue of head coverings is also one that I tend to relegate to context of the history. Today, head coverings have no significance to our westernized youth culture. So if women are wearing head coverings because the Bible says so, it becomes something done of out religion rather than faith as the meaning is lost. But that is not to say we throw everything out the window. What should be done out of faith, however, is dressing modestly so as to not cause the young men in the church much grief over purity.

With respect to talking, I need to know more context about the history of women during that time period. If culturally it caused problems with people's faith, then I can see Paul addressing it. This argument I made in the post clearly does need more research. So thanks for that note!

Thirdly, you speak of tongues as a “prayer language”, citing Romans 8:26 (“Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.”) I believe “the Spirit” it is not referring to our human spirit, but rather the Holy Spirit who dwells inside of us (which started on the day of pentecost). That these groanings “cannot be uttered” seems to say to me that I cannot vocalize them. Thus, I don’t see tongues as being a prayer language - what purpose would that have? If we can do the job of the Holy Spirit, why should He be with us?

I agree that it is not our human spirit that the verse mentions. As surely, the gift of tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that those who are truthfully praying in tongues are doing it on their own spirit. Rather, they are doing it with the Holy Spirit. In the same way with other topics such as healing. It is not the human spirit that effects the change. Rather, it is the Holy Spirit that gives the power.

With respect to whether praying in tongues occurs, what speaks to me about this is at large personal testimony from close friends. I have two close friends. One comes from my church, while another comes from a more traditional evangelical background. Neither of these friends were pushing to speak in tongues. And moreover, my friend from an evangelical background probably never even expected that he would be able to speak in tongues. But both these friends had occasions where they began to pray in tongues. Both testimonies from these two separate friends are the same. Their heart was burdened for something, and they were praying fervently. They were desiring to pray so much for it. Out of this prayer, they suddenly began speaking in tongues. One of my friends put it that he wanted to pray so much, but couldn't pray anymore. That was when he began praying in tongues.

When speaking to my evangelical friend after his praying in tongues, he mentioned how he felt peace and calm while praying in tongues. His mind was clear and he could think freely about the things he was praying for.

To me, this is praying in tongues. To my friends, it was not disorderly, nor was it unpleasant or without peace. They were praying individually in both occasions.

What I am not comfortable with, however, is the kind of "let's get all the new believers to pray in tongues," as I saw at the church I went to. This is where I diverge from the pentecost belief that all believers must speak in tongues. I believe that it is a gift of the Spirit, that the Spirit gives to whom He desires to. Again as I mentioned earlier, the forcing of people to speak tongues is where I feel things open up to fleshly and counterfeit manifestations of tongues.

We are not doing the job of the Holy Spirit by praying in tongues. Because, tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit is working by giving us tongues.

In the same paragraph, you mention 1 Corinthians 14:4 (“He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself...”), citing that “Paul notes that the gift of tongues edifies the believer who exercises it,” appearing to say that you believe this is a good thing. I would say the opposite. Edification means “building up”, meaning that a believer who speaks in a tongue (singular) is building himself up. Are we not called to be humble?

This is a good point you bring up. We are called to be humble, and I believe that the edification of speaking in tongues is something that needs to be carefully considered. I don't see edifying oneself as necessarily a bad thing. That said, it can be a bad thing if the person is becoming prideful. However, I think about it perhaps as an increase in faith, and there by being encouraged by that. For example, there are times that I might spend time in worship, prayer and reading the Bible by myself alone. Out of this, I would often feel encouraged and edified. Not that I am feeling prideful, rather, just encouraged. This then goes back to the heart behind the matter. If someone is speaking in tongues as they are truly desiring to worship and commune with God, then that can be encouraging for them in a good way. But if they are trying to put on a show and feel edified from that, then that is a bad thing.

Fourthly, you speak about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, saying that this occurrence is only mentioned in Acts, in fact at the beginning of Acts (Acts 1:4-5). I believe it’s not mentioned anywhere else in scripture for a single reason: the Apostles were waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised and since Pentecost, the Holy Spirit dwells within us as soon as we are saved.

There is great division amongst Christians about whether or not there is a difference between water baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit. Not saying that this is necessarily correct, but one study that I have read about this, the author believes that the two occasions are separate. One particular example he cites is in Acts 19 where Paul arrives in Ephesus and asked the believers he found there, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" Their answer is, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." There is a bit of uncertainty in this here, but the author's point is that there is a difference in the baptism of repentance, versus the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, I would like to call your attention to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, which say “Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.” I believe this calls for the end of the gift of tongues as well as other miraculous gifts given to the apostles in the early apostolic age. And here’s why I think so.

I don't know if you've read my previous entries about my wrestling with some of the aspects of the Holy Spirit over the last 16 months before coming to Singapore, but I believe I touched on this verse. I have a different belief of this verse in context of what Paul is writing about faith, hope and love. What this verse particularly spoke to be about is the emphasis of spiritual giftings. Again touching back to the context of the Corinthian church apparently going about exercising their spiritual gifts in the wrong way, I see Paul as using this verse to draw them back to the whole purpose behind gifts - love. It is my belief that Paul's point here in relation to the Corinthians is that all these gifts they are operating in are not to be their focus. Because, in the grand scheme of eternity, the gifts are only temporal. Gifts are not eternal. Once we are in heaven, there will be no need for healing, etc. Rather what is of importance is love.

So I personally do not believe that the gifts were taken away from us 2000 years ago with the death of the apostles. There's something about people's testimonies to me about them exercising or witnessing spiritual giftings such as prophecy, healings, etc being manifested under loving conditions that still has me believe that the gifts are still around today. These aren't just testimonies that I would have seen on TV or read about online. Rather, these are close friends, some of whom I've known for almost all my life.

I don’t believe that God would bring back gifts He took away 2000 years ago in todays time - what purpose would these supernatural gifts serve? However, I am not saying that miracles don’t happen - God can do what he pleases and there might be an occurrence of the true gift of tongues here or there. One can see that it’s not an active gift, as missionaries have to learn the language of the foreign nation they are going to.

I believe that the purpose of the supernatural gifts remains the same - to demonstrate God's power and to bring glory to Him such that people would call upon the name of Christ and be saved. I'm not saying that people's salvation should be based on miracles and signs and wonders. But what I am suggesting is that there is something that happens to a person's faith when they experience God in a spiritual/physical way beyond head knowledge.

Yes, missionaries often have to learn the languages they want to minister to. But I believe that a lot of this is an aspect of responsibility and seriousness of the missionary. To me, it seems irresponsible for someone to go into a missions field without preparing themselves as best as possible. If that means learning a language, then I believe we should do that. But if there are unforeseen circumstances that the missionary could not prepare for, then I believe that God still can step in and help out.

So, why is all of this important? I believe it’s very important for a very important reason: that the true Gospel is preached. When you talked about the altar call for people “who either had not yet been baptized in the Holy Spirit or who have never spoken in tongues”, I was afraid. Why would an altar call be called for those who had not spoken in tongues? If some churches believe that you are not saved until you manifest speaking in tongues, I would say that’s very dangerous. As Jesus said in John 14:6, “No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

No doubt, don't get me wrong that I would willfully encourage a false gospel to be preached. Perhaps I didn't make it clear in my post, but I too do not agree with that type of altar call. So I personally currently agree with you there.

I don't believe that the pentecostal church might go so far as to say that you are not saved if you do not speak in tongues. However, I am not completely well educated in their reason for belief that everyone who has the Holy Spirit should speak in tongues. Hence I cannot make any comment there. But my current belief based on the fact that the Spirit gives different gifts to different members as necessary, I therefore believe that tongues is one such gift that not everyone must necessarily have.

I think that’s everything Ash! Sorry that this was so long! Again, I want to stress that the purpose of me writing all of this is NOT to prove you wrong but rather encourage you and see that the truth is brought fourth. Please prayerfully consider all that I’ve presented, and if I failed to clarify any points or you wish to discuss some of these things further, please email me :)

Thanks again, Jon, for taking all the time and effort to write. I realize that you're not trying to prove me wrong. I am still not in agreement with some of the points you bring up. Others I agree with, and others still need more clarification on my part.

But you know, debates about these kind of things have been raging on for quite a while now. Again though, if you return to the relative conclusion of the issues I struggled with in my recent 4-part post, I believe that the most important thing out of all of this is love as Christ and Paul mention. Gifts, tongues, what not, it's all a topic for hot debate. But at the end of the day, it's not about who got it right about spiritual gifts. I think what's more important is loving God first with everything we are, and then loving everyone around us in the same way we love ourselves.

Somehow, I don't believe that my response to your post will be very satisfying. But you have brought up some good points that I will meditate on more. I hope that you might do the same for some of the things I have written.

Ash

Hey Ash,

You need not worry that your response was not satisfying, as it was! I never expected you to completely agree with me in the first place. I also think that it’s good to have discussion with other believers about these “hot” issues. I certainly will prayerfully consider what you have written as I reply.

Before I begin, I want to go slightly off topic. When you wrote your four part series, I believe I was telling you how I was discouraged about an apparent lack of a Christian presence on my campus, saying that I couldn’t find any evidence of Christian clubs. After much prayer, I felt the Lord leading me to look one more time on the internet, and sure enough I found some contact information. Fast forward to this week, and I’m pleased to tell you that I’ve not only joined a Christian club but I’m also an active part of an outreach program we have this week called Christian Unity Week. I joined Baptist Student Ministries (BSM) which is a group who meet weekly to study the Bible. Today I had a chance to talk to Pastor Scott (the leader of BSM) about some of the issues we were discussing, so I have some other points that I’ll make because of that discussion.

But back to being on topic!

Firstly, you disagreed with my distinction between the singular tongue and plural tongues, bringing up the structure of 1 Corinthians 14:4 and 5. Verse 5, as you mention, uses the plural tongues, saying “I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.” I believe that this also uses the distinction between singular and plural, as I believe he uses this as he is saying that he wishes that all spoke with the true gift of tongues, as they seem to want it so much that they are going as far as faking this gift. The main point of these two verses, as I can see, is that the counterfeit tongue (singular) edifies just the individual, while we are called to build up the whole body of Christ with true gifts (“that the church may receive edification” in verse 5).

Contrary to how it might have come across in my first reply, I don’t believe that this is some sort of demonic tongue that Paul is referring to because, as you say, he would be much more clear about a big problem like this in the church. You mention verse 13 to refute this. I believe verses 13-17 affirm what I believe Paul is telling the Corinthian believers. In this passage, I believe he making the point that it is fruitless to use this false tongue as neither the believer nor anyone around can understand. As it says in verse 16, why would a believer give an “Amen” if they don’t understand what is being said? If you take a look at those places where the gift of tongues is used, you will see that the gift of interpretation was also given at the same time. Hence, if a believer must pray for interpretation, he or she must not have this gift.

Moving on to verses 18 and 19. I believe that Paul was saying that he was more gifted in tongues than any of the believers in the Corinthian church (“I thank my God that I speak with tongues more than you all”) and yet he would still rather speak 5 words which people can understand than many words which they cannot, as he uses the singular tongue, a false tongue which has no meaning.

Secondly, in brief, I just wanted to mention head coverings. I didn’t go into much detail with this so that might have caused the confusion it seemed to. I don’t believe that it’s Biblical for all women to wear head coverings - you’re very right to say it might be something just done out of religion rather than faith, and thus the meaning is lost. I did mention briefly that head coverings were a cultural signifier of a woman’s submission to the Corinthians (this is taken from my study bible). Unfortunately, I can’t think of a similar cultural signifier for our western culture today, so that’s really a moot point.

Thirdly, you twice mention testimonies of friends speaking in tongues. This is something that pastor Scott actually mentioned - he said we have to remind those who have these explainations of “sola scriptura” - by scripture alone. It’s dangerous to base one’s belief off of anything other than scripture, such as an experience or testimony. I can’t explain why your friends have experienced the gift of tongues; I don’t even pretend to limit God’s power and say that He can’t do this because I believe that He took these sign gifts away 2000 years ago. However, I would be wary of using this as proof that this gift is still in effect today, as I believe Scripture states that these sign gifts have passed away (again, refer to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10).

Fourthly, while I agree with you that being encouraged and edified in your faith is a good thing, I don’t think this was what Paul meant when he mentioned this is 1 Corinthians 14:4. I believe he was saying that these believers who were speaking in false tongues were building themselves up in a prideful way. I believe that these believers were not doing much more than putting on a show, as no one could understand them.

Fifthly, speaking on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I believe that water baptism is solely an outward identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ - no more, no less. I also believe that being baptized by the Holy Spirit is an event that occurs at the moment of salvation. The portion in Acts 19 that you mentioned really illustrates this point. Paul asks these people in verse 3 “into what then were you baptized?” They reply “John’s baptism”, which you most likely know is water baptism. This reply, as well as them not knowing about the Holy Spirit, told Paul that while these people wanted to be Christians, they were not yet saved. Paul goes on to tell them that to be truly saved, one believe on the Jesus Christ, as water baptism does not save.

I believe that verse 6 is part of the reason for why Pentecostals believe that one must exhibit the gift of speaking in tongues to ensure that they are truly saved. I do believe this was an isolated event (although I’m not sure - if you know of others, please let me know) and just served to show these new Christians that they were indeed in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. As they did not know the Holy Spirit existed before and they believed they were Christians, they probably needed some tangible proof.

Finally, I again want to stress that I am not limiting God’s power by saying that these gifts cannot be used at all. However, if they are given by God today, they are not given in the same way that they were during the apostolic era. During that time, the apostles could use these gifts freely. However, as time went on, the ability to use these gifts in that manner was phased out. I do believe that God can grant someone the gift of speaking in tongues or of healing or any other sign gifts that were available then. But they are not the same, as I pointed out.

I hope that this clarifies some of what I said previously! I’m glad that we’ve had this chance to discuss these issues calmly where others often get into fights. I want to thank you for reading my first reply and writing another one back, as well as reading this one when you get the chance.

I definitely think that you have something of true value when you say that it’s more important to love God with everything we are and then loving everyone around us than to worry about spiritual gifts. In the end, this is what truly matters.

God bless Ash!