Were you crying

[shag]

I think a person should pray thru to a renewing periodically too, if need be. I just don't think that tongues is necessarily involved with that...

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I take it you are differentiating between "periodically" and "regularly" speaking in tongues. The difference could be alot or a little or nothing - depending on who is talking. I think this (speaking in tongues beyond initial evidence) is indeed a measurement that many use today to estimate another's spirituality.

Not sure it has always been that way though...

I would say that regularly is a bit more often than once a month, periodically then being once in who knows when. I agree that speaking in tongues should not be the only evidence used to judge a person's spiritual state. I have listened to people speak in tongues, and then say cruel things about the pastor and others in the church. However, I do believe that it is possible that after a time these people are actually backslidden and no longer truly filled with the Spirit, and many times, they have quit speaking in tongues before they finally leave the church.

I do believe that it is a good barometer perhaps for a person to know just how willing they are to be submitted to God. In learning to submit more, the rest comes more easily, and some of the most godly people I have known spoke in tongues more than once a week. (Which is not to say that I have not seen my share of fakes and flakes who imitate, or are so carnal that they do not know that they are backslid.)

[Hoovie]

I'll go so far as saying today a UPC man would not be elected GS if he said he only spoke in tongues one time...

Similarly, if he verbalized the he did not believe one who had never spoken in tongues was lost - he would not be elected (perhaps not even accepted?)

Yet these are two past General Superintendents of the UPC.

What gives? More light? Less light? Evolving hermeneutics?

Or is it simply a matter of less tolerance? Hmmmmm....

[houston]

When electing a GS, you want someone who best represents your views.

[Hoovie]

]"Similarly, if he verbalized that he did not believe one who had never spoken in tongues was lost - he would not be elected (perhaps not even accepted?) "

On this point, I see an increasing disconnect between the codified pulpit language and the individuals sincere beliefs. I was told by more than one three-stepper minister that they believe the Lord made provision for a non Pentecostal departed one...

So the questions remain. Why is this not something found in print and audio like it once was? Is there a fear of reprisal for not towing the line? A general atmosphere of intolerance? What gives? And why is this not seen as a simple return to the much touted "Old Paths"?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by houston

When electing a GS, you want someone who best represents your views.

Yes. So it calls into question whether there was always a high premium placed on speaking in tongues beyond the initial evidence.

[Orthodoxy]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I'll go so far as saying today a UPC man would not be elected GS if he said he only spoke in tongues one time...

Similarly, if he verbalized the he did not believe one who had never spoken in tongues was lost - he would not be elected (perhaps not even accepted?)

Yet these are two past General Superintendents of the UPC.

That's hard to believe. Which superintendents are you referring to?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I'll go so far as saying today a UPC man would not be elected GS if he said he only spoke in tongues one time...

Similarly, if he verbalized the he did not believe one who had never spoken in tongues was lost - he would not be elected (perhaps not even accepted?)

Yet these are two past General Superintendents of the UPC.

What gives? More light? Less light? Evolving hermeneutics?

Or is it simply a matter of less tolerance? Hmmmmm....

Well, I would say that these men likely were not agreed with most of the time on this issue. I am going to guess that the second would be Bro. Goss, as by his own record he spoke in tongues more than once.

I would not be certain who the second individual would be. Bro. Goss would have been an exception to the rule as he had long been a leader in the Pentecostal ranks. This gave him the credibility to win. Even when there were others who represented the majority view. Further if he is the one I believe mentioned, they were trying to balance the leadership of both groups. Bro. Goss' election to GS gave the PCI, a strong leadership position, just as Bro. Witherspoon being elected balanced with a man from the PAJC. It had nothing to do with doctrines, but everything to do with politics.

I believe that it was possibly an issue of tolerance rather than more/less light. I believe that eventually most ministers either came to believe in the absolute necessity of Acts 2:38, and many of those who had not eventually either left or died, and their heirs left the UPC. I am aware that not all did so, but I would say that this was likely what happened to them.

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Yes. So it calls into question whether there was always a high premium placed on speaking in tongues beyond the initial evidence.

I do not believe that it calls into question the premium place, so much as it call into question the methods used to achieve that result.

[Sabby]

I was immersed in His love and yes, I was weeping. Using the word, "crying" can put the wrong spin to it...

[shag]

Originally Posted by Sabby

I was immersed in His love and yes, I was weeping. Using the word, "crying" can put the wrong spin to it...

Yur right...If I could re-put a "weeping" in the title I would..