Single Mention Doctrine

[JohnH]

Interesting. I had no idea. Goes to show I guess how much our fragmented Christian landscape has coalesced into silos.

Generally speaking, charismatic/Pentecostal people and plain people don't cross paths much and mostly are not very interested in each other's teachings and doctrines.

Sometimes, people from one group get very fascinated with the other and even convert and change their beliefs and affiliation. Usually they reject most of the former teachings they had, and explain how the other group is quite misguided, but they are glad they have discovered the truth now. (I would be one of those people.)

One observation I can make is that "legalism" or believing in "works" is no worse and no better in plain circles such as Amish, Mennonites, etc. than it is in charismatic / Pentecostal circles. Both seem to have a checklist of things that if done, prove you are a better Christian, whether it be speaking in tongues, lifting one's hands at church services, having a black car, or other things.

[Ernie]

My I ask, when you re if Ed the gift of tongues….what language did you now learn to speak and understand….I mean as opposed to gibberish?

Those I know who have the gift (including an Eastern Orthodox priest) would not refer to it as gibberish- as apostle Paul Todd...

I have a friend with the last name Todd. He is not yet a recognized apostle yet that I am aware of. He circulates in Pentecostal circles... H maybe I could ask him.

[Neto]

Regarding:
Dancing before the Lord
Being asked to stand for prayer in comparison to being told to raise your hands

This is where some of us make a distinction between the Old and the New. Unless the New reiterates the Old, we don't see it as being obligatory in the New.

It is the attitude behind the act of lifting one's hands that is the important thing,

I agree, but I don't think that this makes the physical act optional. This same argument is used for not practicing communion, baptism, head veiling for women, footwashing, hospitality, etc. But just because the attitude is what is most important does not mean we can then skip the practice.

I could not figure out how to correct the quotation parameters, so I condensed my parts of the above. I hope that I caught all of the salient points of the discussion:

Standing for prayer - Yes, it "feels genuine" to me, maybe mostly because I was taught that both standing and kneeling are expressions of respect and submission, respectively.

Just as these postures of prayer are meaningful to me, the raising of hands is as well. Actually, all of these things should be done on a voluntary basis, from the heart, not 'from the front'.

But I have never heard any of these practices presented as doctrines, and I'm not aware of any single command to stand for prayer. People did it, just as they sometimes danced in jubilant praise. (I hope that it is understood by all who read this that I am not talking about 'dancing' that resembles any secular dance form. I'm actually talking about 'leaping before the Lord', as did the man healed at the temple gates through the ministry of Peter. Incidentally, when I've been to meetings where this is done, raising hands was always also a part of it.)

What about weeping before the Lord? (I'm not saying that it is commanded in Scripture, but I sometimes cannot sing because I am crying, being 'moved in spirit', not out of sadness.)

Way Off-Topic:
I do not see any directive in the New Testament, especially in the parts represented as direct quotations of Jesus, to require that the NT must repeat or endorse everything that is good and true doctrine that is found in the Old Testament. (Some might point to Paul's writings to disregard the OT, but I think they misunderstand him. This also appears to be the reason why some believe that Paul high-jacked the Gospel of Jesus, and made up his own.)

I also do not see any teachings to this effect recorded in the Martyr's Mirror or the Complete Writings of Menno Simons. (I mention Menno because there are very few other extant 'anabaptist' writings available from that very early period.)

[JohnH]

In charismatic / Pentecostal circles (and possible others) it is expected to stand up when singing, and to be somewhat animated / willing to close one's eyes / lift hands / wave them in the air / sway a bit to the music. Failing to do any of these things would invite concern from others.

[ken_sylvania]

In charismatic / Pentecostal circles (and possible others) it is expected to stand up when singing, and to be somewhat animated / willing to close one's eyes / lift hands / wave them in the air / sway a bit to the music. Failing to do any of these things would invite concern from others.

I wonder how the faithful know who is failing to do these things, assuming their own eyes are closed...

[Ernie]

Standing for prayer - Yes, it "feels genuine" to me, maybe mostly because I was taught that both standing and kneeling are expressions of respect and submission, respectively.

Just as these postures of prayer are meaningful to me, the raising of hands is as well. Actually, all of these things should be done on a voluntary basis, from the heart, not 'from the front'.

I'm still struggling to understand why standing feels genuine, even if the person up front says it is time to stand

yet it should be voluntary and not directed from the front.

[Valerie]

In charismatic / Pentecostal circles (and possible others) it is expected to stand up when singing, and to be somewhat animated / willing to close one's eyes / lift hands / wave them in the air / sway a bit to the music. Failing to do any of these things would invite concern from others.

I don’t know that it causes concern, at least at the ones that I went to most of my life didn’t judge people at least not out loud. I never heard people commenting on people that were more reserved. My husband has never lifted his hands in these type churches we worship at nor swayed to music etc., no one seemed concerned (even me). I think it’s personal choice.

[Valerie]

My I ask, when you re if Ed the gift of tongues….what language did you now learn to speak and understand….I mean as opposed to gibberish?

Those I know who have the gift (including an Eastern Orthodox priest) would not refer to it as gibberish- as apostle Paul Todd...

I have a friend with the last name Todd. He is not yet a recognized apostle yet that I am aware of. He circulates in Pentecostal circles... H maybe I could ask him.

Taught!

[JayP]

The vast majority, if not all, of what Protestants call speaking in tongues is at best hysteria.

I absolutely accept that the Holy Spirit has given individuals gifts of communication in various was. But not gibberish

I am sure many will disagree. That’s fine

[Valerie]

The vast majority, if not all, of what Protestants call speaking in tongues is at best hysteria.

I absolutely accept that the Holy Spirit has given individuals gifts of communication in various was. But not gibberish

I am sure many will disagree. That’s fine

I’m sure most here would agree with you, and I’m sure Apostle Paul was sincere when he taught that he wished all had the “gift”- according to his teaching on it, you can tell it was not a language “known to man” and he wished all spoke in tongues so even if counterfeit exists to deny the desire for spiritual gifts that edify is to deny apostolic teaching- if one doesn’t ask for it or have faith for it it seems somewhat judgemental to criticize those who follow this teaching. More is said about it than headcovering.