The use of the gifts in a Revival meeting

Is it a biblical practice?

Is the decently and in orderuse of the gifts of the spirit as usedby the Revival churches a correct interpretation ofhow things wereintended to be? What does the bible mean bytwo at the most three*? It sounds like more of a recommendation than a commandment to me.

Does it anger God if the gift is used only once or four times?

If this is the Holy Spirit speaking, then who is Paul or anyone else to place a controlled restriction on it?*Interestingly, in theother instances of the use of thenumber phrase 'two or three' (Matt 18:20 two or three are gathered - John 2:6 two or three firkins) the addition of the second number calls attention to the fact that the first number is not meant to be an exact sum.

It goes like this: One stands up and speaks in an unknown tongue, another stands up and explains what the other just said. They conclude God had something to say, and communicated it this way. Logic asks then, "Why did God have to speak gibberish, then raise someone up to speak intelligently, when all the while He is supposed to be using the pastor to speak to the congregation in the first place?

"Tongues as a prayer language: We were lead to believe that God gives the gift of tongues so we can pray more effectively but where does it say He has to pray through us in an unknown tongue?

Romans 8:26 reads, "Likewise the Spirit also helps with our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." Observe closely here, "cannot be uttered" Whether in English, or some supposed mysterious language given by God, it says plainly -cannot be uttered.

Tongues to enable witnessing (yes, already covered well in another thread) Jesus made it clear in Acts 1:8 that theHoly Spirit would enable followers to be witnesses for Him. We readimmediatelyin the second chapter that this is what happened. People were gathered from different regions of the Mediterranean world and spoke many different languages. Yet afterwards, they heard them speak in their own native language! Galileans speaking miraculously as Parathions, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamian, Cretes, Arabians, Egyptians, ... the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2:8-11)

The original intent of the language gift was tomaximize the efficiency of transmitting the Gospel message.

Context means everything when defining a concept, and the context of the phenomena of 'unknown tongues' here is plainly to communicate the Gospel in a simple, communicative, understandable language to the listeners that surrounded them. Acts 2:6 tells us that they heard them speak in their own language. They didn't hear words they couldn't understand, but benefited by hearingthe gospelin their own dialect.

Tongues of angels and menI've mention recently that the term angels can simply refer to anyone sending a message as the word 'angel' means messenger, but let's unpack it a bit further."Though I speak with the tongues of men or angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."Should we read a prayer language into this?Is thisthe subject Paulwas emphasizing? No, he's saying how important is is to be lead by love no matter how blessed with gifts one is. Without love it's meaningless. He is exaggerating to prove a point. Isn't that obvious?

He does it again in Galatians 1:8,"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."In other words he's saying: "Sheesh, I don't care if an angel drops down from heaven, don't listen to them if it isn't what I've toldyou".

It's a hypothetical exaggeration here, to make it obvious to the reader, hardly a place to base a doctrine for a prayer language!

Some then quote1 Cor 14but the entire emphasis of that chapter is in the gift of prophecy where all can be edified by understanding clearly what the speaker or the person praying publicly is saying!Thought... Why does a prophesy sound exactly like an interpretation?

In verse one he asks us to desire the gifts but most importantly - prophesy. The Greek meaning of prophesy is to both foretell and forthtell, or to preach understandably. The word ispropheuoand means to declare truthwhether through prediction or not. In verse 5 Paul wishes that they all spoke with tongues. Why? They would be more useful if they all had the ability to cross language barriers. But he prefers that they prophesy unless there is an interpreter. Now this leads to the next question...It's all right to speak in tongues if there is an interpretation!

First of all, that's not theemphasis here, secondly, what kind of language was being interpreted?

Let's use our imagination here for a sec. Suppose you've been given a 'language' gift from the Lord and you use it in the meeting. Only one problem, no one understands what you just prayed including you! (verse 14) My spirit (i.e. my inward sincerity) was there, but who knows what I said! Over and over again Paul places the emphasis on communicating that all may understand in this chapter. He even uses musical instruments as an analogy.

In verses 27 and 28 Paul states that speaking in tongues is permissible if we have two, and at the most three speak in this fashion. Then, and only then, if one interprets. Let's use our imagination again, eh? The assembly has gathered, and the pastor moves to the pulpit and lo and behold, he's carrying the original Hebrew text! Someone says afterward: "Wow! We heard a message from Hebrew! He sure is gifted having the ability to read the original Hebrew! We sure are blessed, I enjoyed hearing the Hebrew read today in our meeting." The other would respond: "Yeah, but I wonder what he said?" Sound far-fetched? The Roman Catholics have read sermons in Latin for years! Paul is telling them, if you do use a different language, explain it that all understand.

Tongues was explained at pentecostas a gift given to clearly communicate the Gospel in a language that all could understand.

It's the same Greek word "glossa" throughout the New Testament and yes, even in 1 Corinthians where Paul found the most problems. Being the same Greek word, why should anyonechange the meaning to the way it is being practiced by Revival and their ilk?

Where do they getoff implying thatall who don't practice tongues are on their way to hell?Where do they get the revelation to say that one church is better than the other because one practices tongues and the other doesn't?Not from the bible.and some more...A little bit of logic unravels the whole 'gifts' ritual very quickly. ie. The two or three tongue messages TO the Lord are interpreted as messages FROM the Lord.

Theinterpretationsare completely similar to the two or threeprophesiesthat come afterward... and are not prophetic at all.Many Revivalists claim the miracle of the gifts because the one they were about to blurt out had a similar message to the one that got in first. This isn't surprising considering everyone in the community has been listening to the same talks, and talking in the same circles... not to mention the mathematical coincidence effect that there are only so many topics commonly used and that every now and again someone is going to beat you to the punch with a similar message.

A lot of times I found the "operation of the spiritual gifts" in meetings to be weird, disturbing or unintentionally hilarious. anyone care to share their more memorable spiritual gift experiences?One of my faves is young guy giving a prophecy which basically quoted almost word-for-word that "Footprints in the Sand" piece... you know the one, "a man had a dream he was walking along a beach with the Lord" etc etcBTW this isn't meant to start a debate on the whole concept of the spiritual gifts as they are operated in RC groups, it's more of a lighthearted thing. With maybe a dash of healthy disrespect thrown in[& no offence intended!]

I know I'm a bit late in replying to this topic but I couldn't resist! There was a guy in my old Revival who used to dribble the most ridiculous things when giving his "interpretation". God, the person he was interpreting must have been on something. I remember one where he was saying how much he loved Nirvana and how he  lined up for hours to get his tickets for one of their concerts  and at the end of it he somehow managed to tie it in by giving it some spiritual analogy. Please explain! Obviously the interpretations are hardly "divinely inspired"!

1 Corinthians 12:27:

"...Now you are Christ's body, and each of you is a member of it. (28) And God has placed in the church FIRST apostles, SECOND prophets, THIRD teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing, helps, gifts of leadership, different kinds of tongues..."

In the above passage, we note Paul likening the Christian Church to a human body, with EACH and EVERY individual fulfilling a *vital* function of the body. But did you happen to notice that, in the context of the church at Corinth, he very early identified THREE principle leadership *OFFICES* (NOT gifts), and that he *ranked* them? FIRST apostles, SECOND *prophets*, THIRD teachers (do you wonder why he *didn't* include pastors?). Again, these are gifted *PEOPLE*, fulfilling specific *APPOINTMENTS* within the Church. Notice also, the *Church* (i.e. individual Christians who together form the Body of Christ) is assumed as a 'given'. But God *placed into* this 'given'at Corinth, these THREE specific *OFFICES*.

What follows the THREE groups of gifted PEOPLE is an abbreviated list of spiritual GIFTS (and notice the specific gifts mentioned).

This is 'Point One' to bear in mind. Next,

1 Corinthians 14:27

"...If SOMEONE speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and SOMEONE must interpret."

Did you happen to notice that Paul said *if* 'SOMEONE'? First, he doesn't say *when*, but *if*. Second, Paul limits the exercise of the gift of tongues by the 'SOMEONEs' to TWO or THREE, and that either the same 'SOMEONE', or 'SOMEONE' else MUST interpret each tongue by course.

But notice, particularly, this:

"...(14:29) Two or three PROPHETS should speak and the OTHERS should evaluate what is said."

At this point, Paul *didn't* say two or three 'SOMEONEs'. He specifiaclly referred to PROPHETS, to those who ranked SECOND in the *heirarchy* of OFFICES within the church. But he also laid the emphasis for *evaluating* their messages on the 'OTHERS', on the 'WHOMSOEVER'.

But wait, there's more.

1 Corinthians 14:30

"...And if SOMEONE sitting down receives a revelation, the person who is speaking should conclude. (14:31) For you can ALL prophesy one after another, so ALL can learn and be encouraged."

The shift has occurred from PROPHETS back to the 'SOMEONEs'. Very interesting indeed. At Corinth, it appears that there were two destructive groups vying for supremecy in the church: the 'tongues-speakers', and the 'duelling-prophets'. Both groups believed that their own gift and/or appointment was the MOST important, the most spiritual, consequently, those believers who didn't share in *either* were marginalised and treated as irrelevant. Paul corrected the 'tongues-speakers' at length, but he also deflated the egos of the PROPHETS, by identifying that *other* Christians within the church, whilst not holding the OFFICE of PROPHET, could indeed prophesy as God enabled them. But (and 'buts' are always important), it was the PROPHETS *alone* who were limited to three prophetic messages at most. And the PROPHETS were told, rather politely given the circumstances, to 'shut-up' if God chose to use a 'SOMEONE' to bring a word of encouragement, teaching, exhortation or similar should they be 'waffling-on'.

Jake, understanding the situational CONTEXT that led to Paul applying his restrictions, and which sparked his comments in the first place, is absolutely *vital* to grasping a BIBLICAL theology on this issue.

One of the problems of the KJV as a version, is that meaning is often *lost* in the 'translation', sad I know but true nonetheless.

In 1 Corinthian 14:5, Paul wistfully expresses a sincere *wish* that he held: he really *did* wish that *all* the Corinthians enjoyed the benefit that comes from possessing the gift of tongues, something he himself enjoyed, and a claim which would have 'floored' the sectarian and carnal Corinthian 'glossalalics'. Paul fully accepted that the gift of tongues imparted a spiritual benefit to the person who was provided with this gift.

However...

(1) it's important to remember that he was thinking wistfully, and expressing a *wish*. Paul fully understood that God *doesn't* work that way, and that He chooses to give different gifts to different parts of the Body to ensure 'balance', and then for the *common* good (and not necessarily an individual's 'good'). Paul accepted that God was wiser than he, and knew what he was doing ;o)

(2) The KJV mistranslates the underlying grammatical structure of the verse by almost implying that Paul expressed a *command*: that he somehow suggested that *all* the Corinthians *should* have the gift of tongues. But irrespective of what your 1611AD English version might or might not imply, the 54AD Greek text which underpins it is crystal clear.

(3) As a follow-on from my point #1 above, Paul went further, to explain that the 'better' gifts were those which built up the *community*, rather than the *individual*. It was for this reason that he compared the value of tongues to prophecy, for example.

How are you going 'digesting' the points that I raised in my previous post? While you continue to 'chew' them over, take the time to also have a look at verse 28, where Paul states "...*if* there is no interpreter present, he [i.e. the tongues-speaker] should keep silent." Your fellowship's theology clearly teaches that there will *always* be an 'interpreter' present. Paul, however, apparently doesn't think so.

Quoted from Ian (via Brisbane Revival Fellowship Forum)

---

Revival Centres 1991 Assembly guidelines (and yes they are still in use)1) no private gatherings, seekers meetings, sporting groups or evangelical outreaches are to be held without thepastors prior knowledge or consent.(2) No literatture, tapes, books, videos or records whatsoever to bebrought into an assembly or handed out toothers unlessapproved by the pastor as being suitably and scripturualy correct.(7) It is expected thatallmembers will attend the mid-week meeting and both Sunday meetings.(28) Messages in tongues, interpretation and prophesy should be within the church. No member should operate such gifts except in anauthorisedsupervisedmeeting. A fourth message in tongues or prophesy mu

---