Video link: Click here!
Note: Hyperlinks are turned on for reference links wherever needed.
I posted this blog very late. I was just prompted to post recently highlighting my thoughts. Brother Francis from GA has done a great review of the unusual and embarrassing debate between Daniel Raj and Angel V Chandra on Tongues. As brother Francis concluded, Daniel Raj was well prepared and his position was definite while Angel Chandra was not. The moderator was even worse.
Daniel Raj spoke confidently on tongues as human languages while Angel couldn't do so in favour of heavenly language. Meanwhile, brother Francis concluded very well at end. He gave exactly great points that Angel Chandra could have used but he didn't. Even many points from brother Francis aligns with my own thoughts. Thanks to brother Francis for his review.
This is a worst debate but a good example for Pentecostal churches that they must learn to express their understanding precisely in favour of tongues against modern accusation of Gibberish. The opposition are always well equipped. Hence, next generation needs theological knowledge and clarification.
Here are some guideline for Pentecostal believers:
1. First, learn to engage with opposition side instead accusing them with unusual and unbiblical label "the churches that deny Holy Spirit". This is historically foreign and inaccurate label.
2. Second, avoid over-emphasis merely on experience. Experience alone cannot stand firm without sound biblical and theological foundation.
3. Third, learn to be open minded as this issue is non-essential. "My denomination and teaching is right" can mislead you.
4. Fourth, don't connect tongues strongly to baptism of spirit. This teaching came not until 1906. We don't know if this is true or false but normalizing this teaching brings false impression that all growing churches throughout history were deprived of baptism of spirit.
5. Fifth, don't force believers to receive tongues. This is unhealthy practice that can turn to idolatry.
6. Sixth, don't be quick to label tongues as heavenly language and don't teach it as language that Satan cannot understand without sound analysis. Former might have probable sound biblical case but later has no biblical suggestion.
7. Finally, don't create any impression that speaking in tongues marks spirituality. By cultural and contemporary Corinthian context, this was one of the problem with the Corinthian church. That's why Paul deliberately had to show they were wrong.
Next, I agree with brother Francis' arguments in favour of tongues as probable angelic language because those were also my arguments that I built up upon study several years back.
Here is what he said and those are also my considerations:
1. Paul mentions tongues of men and of angels distinctly.
2. Paul talks about 'interpretation' rather than 'translation'
3. New Testament also talks about unusual angelic language
4. 1 Corinthians 14 leaves open room for probability of both earthly and angelic languages.
5. There is no convincing argument on how speaking in earthly but foreign language edifies the speaker. Paul nowhere talks about tongues as preaching language.
6. Paul talks about speaking mysteries to God
7. A verse from book of Romans also gives a fringe hint at Holy Spirit helping in prayer with words that are incomprehensive to human limitation.
8. Accusing tongues as gibberish must confirm that they know all 7000+ languages of the earth.
Now, regarding Acts 2, it also bears probable room to assume that 120 disciples could have spoken in unknown language but the attracted group heard in their own languages miraculously. Well, this might be weak as even Pentecostal and Charismatic theologians like Michael Brown and Sam Storms hold that languages in Acts 2 were real human languages, but as Sam Shamoun and some Nepali theologian like Ps. Bhojraj Bhatt and PA Thomas often hold, there could have been miracle in hearing. Furthermore, there are other group who mocked the languages and thought they were drunk! Perhaps, they heard gibberish instead real languages. This is just for sake of argument although this view is rare and weak which I do admit.
Finally, this debate is a good example to show that knowledge and experience must go side-by-side. Angel V. Chandra is literally a good representation of typical Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians who usually aren't able to make case for their experience while Daniel Raj seems very strong since beginning. Nepali churches must learn from such debates and must be prepared for future.
Please go through these links for further study:
1. Tongues: praying and praising in spirit: Click!
2. When we pray in tongues: Click!
3. 10 things you should know about speaking in tongues: Click!
4. What are tongues? Click!
5. The gift of tongues part 2: Click!
.png)
.jpg)
0 Comments