Salvation and a third baptism often occur simultaneously

[Marvin Knox]

........So it is not disobedience even in church to speak in tongues. Just that it does not edify the church unless interpreted.......................

Although I generally agree with you - I must emphasis that to speak in tongues in church without a proper interpretation (even if that be the church that convenes on T.B.N. t.v. daily) is indeed disobedience.

It isn't just that such self serving activity as we see from famous people on t.v. is not "edifying" to anyone outside of the themselves. It is - instead - that it is outright and arrogant disobedient IMO.

 

[brotherjerry]

Marvin,

Nor do I speak in tongues for the purpose of being a sign for unbelievers. If God gives me a message for them and I speak in tongues with interpretation supplied by God - that would be another thing.

This is not what happened in Acts 2. Your idea of speaking on tongues goes against what was shown in Acts 2. There were no interpreters in Acts 2. Which again is why Paul is saying one is needed....if you speak in some unknown to man language then there best be another man there to interpret what you are saying. Language by definition is a means to communicate. If I speak to you in Swahili and you do not understand Swahili then you need an interpreter. Giving you the ability to understand what I am saying, is not interpreting. Interpreting means to explain the meaning of something. So when Paul talks about it he is saying that someone had best be there that understands what you are saying (you are talking to that interpreter) and the interpreter then says what you said in the language the people would understand.

That is not what happened in Acts 2. That is why Paul is speaking against this.

I will to pray and sing in the spirit and build myself up. out of obedience.

I don't do it as a "sign" for anyone.

Then you do not do it in tongues as Paul explained clearly that tongues are for a sign for the unbelievers. If you mumble gibberish to God you are just mumbling gibberish with your spirit and not your mind, you are unprofitable as Paul would explain.

As to "speaking tongues out loud is for a sign"....There is no other way to practice "speaking in tongues"....you cannot think in a language you do not know...and thinking is not speaking. All of the examples Paul was giving was speaking out loud.

 

[brotherjerry]

Here ya all. This is a bit of a long read, but it is a good read. The author goes through this utilziing the Bible. It is logical and Biblically sound.

I am sure it will not change the mind of anyone who already believes in speaking in tongues being a language other than a language of man. But perhaps for those that are not certain they can get a better understanding through what this gentleman wrote.

http://bible-truths.com/tongues.htm

 

[swordsman1]

Marvin said previously, "I have never spoken in tongues for a sign either for myself or for unbelievers."

I meant to clarify this point and got sidetracked.

Since you've brought the "sign to unbelievers" thing up again with downey - I thought this a good time to revisit what you said about what I said.

What I was saying was that I did not seek tongues from God because I required some sign from Him to increase my faith.

I sought more of the Holy Spirit and the practice tongues that came along with Him of my own will privately because I am exercising faith not to increase my faith through something that would serve as a sign to me.

Nor do I speak in tongues for the purpose of being a sign for unbelievers. If God gives me a message for them and I speak in tongues with interpretation supplied by God - that would be another thing.

But my obedience to the Lord in praying in the spirit is not done because I want to give a sign to an unbeliever. That may be why people on T.V. do it out loud without interpretation against what God commanded them not to do. They may be doing it to impress unbelievers (or even, more likely, other believers - and potential doners).

If they were doing it within their own and God's hearing only because no interpretation was given --- then they would be in obedience to God and not disobedience as they are clearly.

I will to pray and sing in the spirit and build myself up. out of obedience.

I don't do it as a "sign" for anyone.

Speaking in tongues out loud is for a sign for unbelievers only when there is interpretation supplied by God. When there is not interpretation and it is done out loud - the only "sign" it gives to the unbeliever is that you appear to be either mad or drunk.

I hope that clears that up.

Paul explains why tongues is a sign to unbelievers when he quotes Isaiahs prophecy:

1 Corinthians: 14. 21. In the Law it is written: "With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord." 22. Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; ​

When foreign languages are heard in Israel it is a sign to the Jews that judgement was imminent. That prophecy applied to the Assyrians invading Israel but Paul clearly applies it also to the unbelievers witnessing tongues. Further proof if any was needed that tongues in 1 Corinthians was foreign languages just as it was in Acts 2.

 

[sdowney717]

Although I generally agree with you - I must emphasis that to speak in tongues in church without a proper interpretation (even if that be the church that convenes on T.B.N. t.v. daily) is indeed disobedience.

It isn't just that such self serving activity as we see from famous people on t.v. is not "edifying" to anyone outside of the themselves. It is - instead - that it is outright and arrogant disobedient IMO.

I was never much for TV preachers. Frankly many seem to me interested in capitalizing themselves, fleecing the sheep for their gain and live very luxurious lifestyles. Anyone flaunting a spiritual gift to attract attention to themself is like the Pharisees with long robes, tassels, a lot of external baggage to make people think they were especially holy and worthy. Speaking in tongues is to edify yourself in the spirit with God, not to edify yourself in other people's eyes.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Marvin,
This is not what happened in Acts 2. Your idea of speaking on tongues goes against what was shown in Acts 2. There were no interpreters in Acts 2.

This isn't making sense to me although I'm read it a couple of times now.

There were no interpreters needed in Acts 2 because God allowed the people to hear what was being said in their own language. That would hold true whether the disciples were speaking in tongues in the "mystic" sense (for want of a better word) or whether they were indeed actually speaking the different languages themselves.

Paul's direction regarding speaking in tongues in "church" would be sometime after that particular event and not directly related to it.

Which again is why Paul is saying one is needed....if you speak in some unknown to man language then there best be another man there to interpret what you are saying.

Exactly. If a prophecy is brought in an "unknown to man language" that is when an interpretation must be provided by God. And it isn't "an interpreter" that the person receiving the prophecy is told to pray for. It is that he should pray that he may interpret. That is not to say that someone else my not bring an interpretation - because further on in the text it seems to say that another prophet can do that.

But - again - if it's known language that the message is being received in then why do we need to pray for the ability to interpret? If I, for instance, receive some message for the congregation in my native tongue, English, I don't need to pray that I may interpret. I already know what I'm receiving. But if I do receive a message in my own language than it is not being received in "tongues" and the whole thing doesn't apply.

I have no idea why I would ever be in a congregation where we weren't at least able to communicate in the same language. It seems to be talking about the local church assembly as in Corinth so I don't get why anyone would not be able to communicate without interpreters.

But - be that as it may - if the message came in the language of the congregation (and-again-it couldn't be in mine or it wouldn't be "tongues" that we are talking about) there would be no need to pray for interpretation either. I'd just speak it out in the French (or whatever) that the Lord was enabling me to speak in and "voila" the job is done.

The other option within the known language scenarios so championed here is that the message comes from God in a 3rd and strange to all language (say-Romanian). Then I would really need to pray to interpret or else I'd better keep quite as instructed because no one at all, including myself, would know what was being said.

Why on earth the Lord would give me, an English speaker, a message for a group of Frenchmen, in Romanian is a real mystery. Perhaps God just likes to play games like that. But I don't think so.

The entire idea of needing interpretation in a group setting is predicated on the idea of tongues being some kind of a spiritual language and not a known language.

No - tongues is a mysterious "spiritual" language and needs interpretation from the Spirit to be understood by either myself or those around me. God knows what is being said with tongues of course. And the Spirit may well be interceding for me in ways I don't even know I need to be praying for. So I, by an act of the will, pray and sing in the spirit, privately with God even without an interpretation.

Language by definition is a means to communicate. If I speak to you in Swahili and you do not understand Swahili then you need an interpreter. Giving you the ability to understand what I am saying, is not interpreting. Interpreting means to explain the meaning of something. So when Paul talks about it he is saying that someone had best be there that understands what you are saying (you are talking to that interpreter) and the interpreter then says what you said in the language the people would understand.

That is not what happened in Acts 2. That is why Paul is speaking against this.

Exactly so.

Acts 2 was not a church setting situation like that at Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul is not commenting in any way about what happened in the streets of Jerusalem at Pentecost.

At Pentecost the Holy Spirit was the interpreter (just as He was the opposite of an interpreter at Babel ).

Whether the disciples spoke the actual language that were heard or whether they spoke in "charismatic tongues" and the certain people heard them in their native language - remains to be seen when we replay the tape someday. It doesn't matter much to the subject at hand. Namely the use of tongues in church and in private.

Then you do not do it in tongues as Paul explained clearly that tongues are for a sign for the unbelievers. If you mumble gibberish to God you are just mumbling gibberish with your spirit and not your mind, you are unprofitable as Paul would explain.

Paul talks about public speaking of tongues as being a sign for unbelievers - not private.

"I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also." 1 Corinthians 14:15

I need make no apologizes to you or anyone else for obeying God.

As to "speaking tongues out loud is for a sign"....There is no other way to practice "speaking in tongues"....you cannot think in a language you do not know...and thinking is not speaking. All of the examples Paul was giving was speaking out loud.

Do we really need to play semantic games concerning whether thinking things in my head is the same a talking to myself? I thought better of you.

I don't sing out loud very pleasantly and I often praise God with the words of the hymns being sung by those around me on Sunday morning within my own head. I assure you it's real praise with real words either way.

The same applies to singing and praising and praying in unknown tongues. Whether it is done vocally or internally - it is equally real.

You are commenting on something that you don't know about because you do not practice it.

Of course you aren't alone in that.

P.S.
I need to take a pretty good break for a while.
I will be reading your linked article as I find time.

 

[sdowney717]

The Holy Spirit is not limited by man's tongues. He made all tongues and can make new ones, recall the Tower of Babel.
Clearly in 1 Cor 13, it says

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
Clearly some tongues of man (some man somewhere will understand) , and some of angels (heavenly, only God or an angel will understand). Tongues are plural, both angelic and earthly, so not just one heavenly or earthly language, there are as many as God wishes to exist.

When prophets spoke to angels they understood what was said to them, God made sure of that. Same thing at Pentecost,it would make more sense that each heard in his own language what those speaking in tongues were saying, and all at once. The Lord's voice of many waters fits.
Revelations 1
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Many waters all speaking at once. Now at Pentecost, you have many people all speaking in different tongues yet each person heard each speaker in his own native language. It would not make much sense, for the understanding hearers to run to and fro seeing if they could comprehend or not from each tongue speaker, no, they all heard from each tongue speaker as if it was their native language, Christ gave them the understanding interpretation in real time.

Those who could not hear God's wonderful works, no doubt God was not at work within them at that time. They considered this all a drunken foolishness. God does not waste His Words, they accomplish His purposes in those who can hear and understand the message. Some are chosen by God to know and understand, and some are not chosen to know and understand, so the interpretation clearly points to election, as tongues are a sign for unbelievers, they do not hear with understanding, while hearing with the understanding, the message interpreted to them by God a sign for believers. Clearly God wanted this to occur as it did.

And these who understood the message, God was going to form into His church, while those who did not, were going to reject or rejecting the Holy Spirit and Christ as saying the Holy Spirit was all just foolishness, so they were natural man only, and did not receive the things of the Spirit.

 

[sdowney717]

Now regarding speaking in tongues in church. It clearly says they did.
1 Corinthians 14

20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.

21 In the law it is written:

“With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”

says the Lord.

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

It was only that those who spoke in tongues in church edified themselves and not other believers, nor did hearing an unknown tongue convict an unbeliever's heart as there was no interpreted understanding, they would be remain like the scoffers of Acts 2 whom the Lord did not allow to understand what was being spoken by the tongue speaker. but there is zero mention of speaking in tongues in church as being forbidden.

As it says
1 Corinthians 14, notice Paul is describing a church setting.

5 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.

 

[Marvin Knox]

The Holy Spirit is not limited by man's tongues. He made all tongues and can make new ones, recall the Tower of Babel.

We can't get real exact concerning what happens in the spiritual world of course.

But I really can't understand why more people can't look at these things that happened at Pentecost in light of the closest thing we have to it in the O.T. (albeit in reverse it seems) - namely Babel.

At that time all people on earth had complete understanding of what was being communicate from one group to another. The Lord knew that they would never be able to hear His truth in light of the mammoth and apparently universal falsehood being put forth and accepted by everyone it seems.

He divided people into nations by language and forced a situation where diverse religions would form by language group.

Then He called a particular nation out to give His truth to and worked through them by giving them the one true religion.

He then, through various dispersions of His chosen people, formed a vehicle to bring the nations together again in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

What was once the confusion of the various languages - He made again into the "Holy nation" and royal priesthood of the church.

What we have at Pentecost it seems is a reversal of what happened at Babel. God mixed up the languages at Babel to keep people from a false religion and restored, as it were, again at Pentecost one language to be understood by all of His people.

The emphasis in the Babel account is on the many diverse languages created by God. The emphasis in His church is on the one language.

Where there was no interpretation of language at Babel - resulting in confusion and dispersion - there is to be interpretation of language in His church - resulting in order and unity.

Sure - we see these things rather dimly through the glass we are looking through now. But someday it will all be clear to us what this was all about.

The real shame is that many will understand along with us and then realize that they did not even participate in it because they lacked faith and/or worked against what the Spirit of God was doing in the church age.

Those who simply didn't participate because of a lack of faith in the promises of God - will suffer less loss, of course, than those who actively worked against the promises of God by teaching the cessation of gifts and/or forbidding the speaking of tongues.

It's bad enough to be in the first group. I'd really hate to be found in the second group.

But the group I really want to be in is the one which participates in God's promises by faith even though these things can be hard to fully comprehend.

Would that the entire church had faith in the promises of God. But (sad to say) I doubt that Christ will find complete faith in the work of the Spirit in His church when He returns.

 

[swordsman1]

I'm not sure why people here are persisting in the idea that the disciples spoke in charismatic glossolalia that were miraculously interpreted in the ears of the crowd. It is clearly an indefensible doctrine.

It plainly says the foreigners in the crowd heard them speaking in their own native languages.

Acts: 2:6. "each one heard their own language being spoken."​

And the disciples spoke in multiple languages:

Acts: 2. 4. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.​

The Greek word glossa means languages and is only ever used in the context of human languages.. Not once is it used in the Bible or secular literature to mean an unknown or extra-terrestrial language.

There is no mention whatsoever of any gift of interpretration occurring in Acts 2, let alone the far fetched idea of it automatically taking place miraculously in the ears of the crowd. Since when have spiritual gifts been given to unbelievers? The Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples, not on the crowd. The idea has no scriptural plausibility whatsoever.

All serious charismatic/pentecostal theologians readily admit that tongues in Acts 2 is foreign human languages.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'm not sure why people here are persisting in the idea that the disciples spoke in charismatic glossolalia that were miraculously interpreted in the ears of the crowd. It is clearly an indefensible doctrine.

Not "persisting" at all.

I wouldn't know exactly what happened except what we are told in the scriptures - nor would you.

It says that they spoke in other tongues - "languages" if you must.

It says that the people "heard" them speak in the language to which each was born.

Beyond that I wouldn't know exactly how it went down.

I happen though to find it a bit unlikely that each of the passers by leaned hard into the noises and managed to only hear their own language. But that's just me.

I it turns out on the eternal replay that it happen the way you insist - that wouldn't effect what I believe about the a further giving of the Holy Spirit over and above what is part of the basics of salvation one bit.

No need for me to defend what I didn't observe. You shouldn't do it either - beyond what is written. That's what you have been doing IMO.

The Greek word glossa means languages and is only ever used in the context of human languages.. Not once is it used in the Bible or secular literature to mean an unknown or extra-terrestrial language.

Not exactly true - as you well know.

All serious charismatic/pentecostal theologians readily admit that tongues in Acts 2 is foreign human languages.

I'm a very serious charismatic/Pentecostal theologian and I'm open to a at least a couple of different understanding understandings - including the one you insist on.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Here ya all. This is a bit of a long read, but it is a good read. The author goes through this utilziing the Bible. It is logical and Biblically sound.

I am sure it will not change the mind of anyone who already believes in speaking in tongues being a language other than a language of man. But perhaps for those that are not certain they can get a better understanding through what this gentleman wrote.

http://bible-truths.com/tongues.htm

I read the entire thing (studied it in fact).

There's no doubt now about where you got all your talking points.

He had some good points and some bad points.

I agreed with much that he said and I disagreed with other things.

He purposefully misrepresented what most charismatics believe just as he hit the nail on the head concerning the errors of some of what they mostly believe.

He made some of the same points that I have made about the abuses I see - particularly about t.v. types.

A couple of the areas he touched on could easily be refuted if I took the time. The thing about "gen" in particular could be turned back easily on him with regards to Kingdom of god and the Holy nation that believers from every earthly kingdom have been translated into.

I've read better and definitely more honest critiques of the charismatic situation.

Thanks for the link anyway.

 

[swordsman1]

It says that they spoke in other tongues - "languages" if you must.

It says that the people "heard" them speak in the language to which each was born.

Beyond that I wouldn't know exactly how it went down.

I happen though to find it a bit unlikely that each of the passers by leaned hard into the noises and managed to only hear their own language. But that's just me.

I it turns out on the eternal replay that it happen the way you insist - that wouldn't effect what I believe about the a further giving of the Holy Spirit over and above what is part of the basics of salvation one bit.

No need for me to defend what I didn't observe. You shouldn't do it either - beyond what is written. That's what you have been doing IMO.

I think you are are the one who is 'going beyond what is written'. Not me.

Your theory demands a totally unnatural interpretation of the wording. If someone said "I heard the man speaking in French". The most obvious understanding would be the man was speaking French, not he was speaking German but I somehow heard it in French. The latter could only be accepted if an extraordinary miracle was taking place. But no such miracle of interpretration is mentioned or even hinted at in Acts 2.

That's apart from the other theological problems your theory raises.

Not exactly true - as you well know.

Where then is glossa used in the NT or Septuagint to describe a non-human language?

I'm a very serious charismatic/Pentecostal theologian and I'm open to a at least a couple of different understanding understandings - including the one you insist on.

I mean the most respected charismatic/Pentecostal theologians (Fee, Carson, Grudem, etc). None of them subscribe to your theory.

 

[Marvin Knox]

If someone said "I heard the man speaking in French". The most obvious understanding would be the man was speaking French, not he was speaking German but I somehow heard it in French. The latter could only be accepted if an extraordinary miracle was taking place. But no such miracle of interpretration is mentioned or even hinted at in Acts 2.

The problem is not that I am insisting that it was so called "glossolalia" because I am not.

The problem is that you are insisting that it could not have been. That's a huge difference regarding who is going beyond what is written.

There is a huge miracle mentioned in Acts 2 - and we can't understand it except to just agree that it happened (much as the reverse happened at Babel in the O.T.).

That's apart from the other theological problems your theory raises.

The biggest theological problem is your very commonly held position that the Lord made exceptions in how people got saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit after having believed in faith.

As a believer in salvation by grace and not by the laying on of hands or the partaking of baptism - I reject these so called "exceptions" to how people get saved.

People aren't "saved" by the laying on of hands after believing or by being baptized and never have been. NO EXCEPTIONS -EVER!!!!!

You may be comfortable (along with the majority of non-charismatic Christians apparently) - with salvation involving the works of menn - I am not.

The biggest theological problem of all is the Lord Jesus Christ's reception of the Holy Spirit for the beginning of ministry even though He always had the Holy Spirit in the "saved" sense since His inception and before.

You refuse to connect the dots in this because you are so bias against the idea of a separate visitation of the Holy Spirit after initial salvation.

As a result - your systematic theology in this regard leaves much to be desired - even if a great many other non-charismatics share such slip shod theology with you.

Where then is glossa used in the NT or Septuagint to describe a non-human language?

Same word for the language of angels.

I'm not saying that Paul actually spoke in the language of angels - only that it is mentioned.

And - NO - the language of angels are not the same as the language of men. There was no "Babel" experience for the angelic kingdoms that we know of.

I mean the most respected charismatic/Pentecostal theologians (Fee, Carson, Grudem, etc). None of them subscribe to your theory.

What's the point?

Besides that I have never said that it was anything other than a "theory". If you heard otherwise - you haven't been listening to what I have said.

 

[brotherjerry]

Sorry Marvin but you are a bit all over the place with this.

In Acts 2 the only movement we are said of the Holy Spirit is in reference to those speaking. No where does it say the Jews that were listening were laid upon by the Holy Spirit. You are correct in that an interpreters were not needed, because the disciples that were speaking were speaking in the languages that the various Jews spoke, just as the Bible clearly states.
"And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to whcih we were born?"

And sorry Paul is not saying that if you are given prophecy in an "unknown to man language" that you should be the one to interpret so pray for an interpretation....that is actually exactly what Paul is speaking against. He even gives directives for the church to follow that would clearly reflect that "tongues" is not valid...down in vs 27 "If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret" Paul is saying if there is this mystical tongues then it should not be everyone but at least 2 and no more than 3. One should be speaking and the other interpreting and telling the congregation what was said. Paul clearly understands that language is communication, so one would be speaking while the other understands what was said and is able to translate it.

I know you said you do not agree with tongues in congregations, and that is great. But Paul also clearly states that tongues is for a sign. There is no "tongues in public" vs "tongues in private" in those verses. That is something you just made up.

You like to quote vs 15 but ignore vs 14. Vs 15 is a picture of who we should be...mind and spirit in sync. In vs 14 Paul states that if you pray in a tongue then only your spirit prays, not your mind, your mind is unfruitful.

And it is not a matter of semantic games or anything like that. That only comes in when people don't like the answers they are receiving. Paul is clearly writing about speaking, speech is a verbal utterance. Everything Paul talked about was sounds coming out of a persons mouth. You were the one to bring in a "tongues out loud is for a sign" bit. You were also the one to point out how silly it would be for God to give you silent utterance that you would then have to interpret (either by yourself or even through someone else). So of course speaking in tongues is a verbal utterance.

You singing in your head is still you singing in your head in the language you know. As to singing and praying in unknown tongues "internally"...again why? Why would God give you a gift of suddenly being able to speak Romanian just to sing a song in your head?

You are commenting on something that you don't know about because you do not practice it.

I do not have to practice something to know about it. I do not practice witchcraft but I do know about it. I do not practice animal sacrifices but I do know about it. I do not even practice archery, but I do know about it. I do know what the Bible says about it and I have found that mystical unknown langauges is what Corinth was apparently practicing and Paul was admonishing them for it.

 

[swordsman1]

The problem is not that I am insisting that it was so called "glossolalia" because I am not.

The problem is that you are insisting that it could not have been. That's a huge difference regarding who is going beyond what is written.

There is a huge miracle mentioned in Acts 2 - and we can't understand it except to just agree that it happened (much as the reverse happened at Babel in the O.T.).

The plain reading of the passage is that the disciples were speaking in foreign languages. The only way you can stretch it to say otherwise is if you make unwarranted assertions and claim spiritual untruths such as the Spirit falling on and spiritual gifts being given to unbelievers .

The biggest theological problem is your very commonly held position that the Lord made exceptions in how people got saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit after having believed in faith.

You refuse to connect the dots in this because you are so bias against the idea of a separate visitation of the Holy Spirit after initial salvation.

I never said anything of the sort and you know that.You are again changing the subject and setting up a straw man. I fully agree with your assertions about how we are saved and sealed in the Spirit.. And that we can be repeatedly filled with the Spirit.

There was no "Babel" experience for the angelic kingdoms that we know of.

Precisely. Whatever the language of heaven is, there is only one of them. So all those times in Acts and 1 Cor where tongues (languages) is mentioned in the plural it proves it cannot be the language of angels or heaven.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I do know what the Bible says about it and I have found that mystical unknown langauges is what Corinth was apparently practicing and Paul was admonishing them for it.

You apparently didn't follow the intent of much of what I said. My fault likely. So I won't comment on much of this. I'll just address the last sentence.

I'm glad you agree that what was being practiced at Corinth was "mystical unknown languages. You are right of course.

We can now leave out examples of English, French, and Romanian etc. Apparently I wasn't laying that idea out clearly anyway. My only broad point in that exchange was that none of Paul's instructions make sense if he was addressing speaking in the languages of the nations. I'm glad that we now agree that he was not.

Now that we agree that he was addressing the use of "mystical unknown languages" - we can perhaps get somewhere.

Paul was not forbidding the speaking of these mystical unknown languages. Paul was not even "admonishing" the Corinthians for practicing them.

What Paul was doing was giving rules as to how and when the practices could take place without the confusion that was apparently reigning happening in the future.

All of this is exactly what charismatics think about the 1 Corinthians 14 passages.

At least in the 1 Corinthians 14 case (if not Acts as well) - tongues are not any of the known languages of the nations. They are a kind of "mystical unknown language".

Because of this unknown nature we must pray for interpretation or we should not speak it out loud in church meetings.

We are, instead, to "speak to our selves and to God" - praying and singing songs to the Lord without verbal sound. That's all pretty clear.

Even if there is interpretation the public practice of this mystical language should be done with strict rules so that arguments such as are happening here about "gibberish", ecstatic "babbling" and the like.

Would that all Pentecostals and charismatics would obey these directives - we wouldn't be having these problems now if they did.

 

[Marvin Knox]

The plain reading of the passage is that the disciples were speaking in foreign languages. The only way you can stretch it to say otherwise is if you make unwarranted assertions and claim spiritual untruths such as the Spirit falling on and spiritual gifts being given to unbelievers .

The plain reading of the passage is that the people heard them in the language to which they were born.

I don't stretch it at all. I only point out that this incident may well dovetail with the way messages from the Lord came in the Corinthian case.

Most anti charismatics make a firm connection between the known languages of Acts 2 and the Corinthian tongues. You mean I can't suggest that there may well be a connection between the mystical language of the Corinthians and that of the disciples at Pentecost? That's a bit one way don't you think?

Having said that - I have made no unwarranted assertions concerning that parallel. I have only suggested it as a possibility. Would that you would do the same with your ideas about the possibilities. Instead you insist that your way is the only way it can be. You are wrong in doing that.

There are no "spiritual untruths" being put out by me. There is only a suggestion about how the dots might be connected in a systematic way with this subject.

.
I never said anything of the sort and you know that.You are again changing the subject and setting up a straw man. I fully agree with your assertions about how we are saved and sealed in the Spirit.. And that we can be repeatedly filled with the Spirit.

No one said that you did say that.

But you are saying that the situations in Acts are the initial giving of the Holy Spirit and not some second filling. You are saying that the initial giving of the Holy Spirit comes (at least in these cases) through tarrying in a room somewhere, laying on of hands by select people, at baptism, and the like.

If you were saying that these situations where a giving of the Holy Spirit subsequent to salvation in preparation for ministry (the Pentecostal/charismatic position) we wouldn't have a disagreement.

But (just like most anti charismatics) you are explaining these events as being the initial giving of the Holy Spirit to the folks involved. You may say that it is because they were the first of such and such a group or whatever. But you are making the basic reception of the Holy Spirit dependent on the works of men.

But I can make no allowances for that kind of exception concerning how people get the Holy Spirit in the initial sense. I believe in salvation by grace alone by an inscrutable work of the Holy Spirit of God within the heart of the elect.

In the case of Jesus - He always had the Holy Spirit in that sense. He received Him in another sense in preparation for ministry. The same is true for anyone who has been born again. Pentecost is an example of that principle. The disciples had already been born again.

By the way --- I'm assuming that you agree with the omnipresence of God and that God is not finite in any way. Any examples of spatial movement by the Holy Spirit are anthropomorphic explanations concerning His "relationship" with a situation.

As they teach in seminary the Holy Spirit is "present for blessing and absent for cursing". It's a relational thing and not an actual spacial presence thing. That was true for Jesus - our prototype as born again believers - and it was true for the disciples at Pentecost.

Not only was the Holy Spirit already present in the upper room when He "came" - He was also present in the hearts of the believers when He "fell" on them at Pentecost.

The disciples at Pentecost already "had" the Holy Spirit. They could never have even confessed Jesus as Lord except by the Holy Spirit. His arrival, distribution, falling on, filling, baptizing, or what other term is used for the event had to do with equipping for ministry - not sealing unto the day of judgment.

There can be some debate about the label we use for the event. There is also debate among Pentecostals about that. But there really should be no debate at all concerning these events in Acts being secondary to salvational possession of the Holy Spirit.

Precisely. Whatever the language of heaven is, there is only one of them. So all those times in Acts and 1 Cor where tongues (languages) is mentioned in the plural it proves it cannot be the language of angels or heaven.

You didn't hear me say that it was.

If you were not so blatantly anti charismatic you could have a conversation with someone like me without pinning other's beliefs on me - creating a straw man and trying to kicking him around through me.

 

[swordsman1]

The plain reading of the passage is that the people heard them in the language to which they were born.

I'll correct that for you. You missed out an important word. It should be:

The plain reading of the passage is that the people heard them SPEAKING in the language to which they were born.

You keep repeatedly ignoring the plain meaning of Acts 2:6:

Acts: 2. 6. "each one heard their own language being spoken. "​

If all the disciples were saying is something like "lalamafalo famidocola" (or something similar) which was then miraculously interpreted in the ears of the crowd, then the miracle wrought in crowd was far greater than than that of the disciples. And yet there is not the slightest hint of any interpretration taking place in Acts 2. Dont you think that's a little odd?

And do you seriously think the Holy Spirit was given to the crowd, so that unbelievers were given the gift of interpretration?

'Grasping at straws' is a phrase that comes to mind. Your theory has no plausibility whatsoever.

You mean I can't suggest that there may well be a connection between the mystical language of the Corinthians and that of the disciples at Pentecost?

There was no mystical language spoken in Corinth. It was foreign languages same as Acts 2, the only description of the phenomenon.

In 1 Corinthians tongues is often referred to in the plural. There were multiple languages spoken not just a single 'mystical language' that you presume to be the reversal of Babel. So that's another theory of yours dispelled.

Paul clearly links the tongues with foreign languages by applying Isaiah's prophecy about foreign languages being spoken as a sign of judgement against the Jews.

There can be little doubt that tongues of both Acts and 1 Corinthians were foreign languages.

Christian for 1800 years have always accepted that. Only since Pentecostalism came on the scene in the last 100 years or so has the tongues of 1 Corinthians has been re-interpreted differently to accommodate their experience.

 

[Marvin Knox]

There can be little doubt that tongues of both Acts and 1 Corinthians were foreign languages.

Christian for 1800 years have always accepted that. Only since Pentecostalism came on the scene in the last 100 years or so has the tongues of 1 Corinthians has been re-interpreted differently to accommodate their experience.

There can be little doubt that tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 were not the languages of the nations.

I could lead you through the logic of it. But you don't want to see it so I won't try any more.

"Brotherjerry" has acknowledged that it was some kind of mystic language and not the language of the nations. And he has been able to see it without various scenarios layed out to show how ridiculous the directions would be if they were normal tongues being spoken about.

1 Corinthians 14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
………………………..one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries…………………… if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. …………………..do not forbid to speak in tongues.

These words have been here for some 2000 years now and a great many have seen that it could not have been normal language that Paul was talking about.

The passage is talking about the person receiving speaking in "tongues". Whatever you envision that to be it could not be his native tongue.

If the message needs interpretation it must be received in a third tongue other than the speaker of the tongues and the intended receiver of the message.

You have two choices as to what tongue the Holy Spirit was transmitting to the original party. It could have been tongues in the sense that charismatics see it. Or it could have been a neutral tongue of a national identity.

If it is the later we have the specter of the Holy Spirit transmitting something like Romanian to someone who normally speaks something like English. All that to get a message to someone else who normally speaks something like French.

If I receive a prophecy from the Lord in this instance, I am to pray that the Lord will provide me with a person who speaks both Romanian and French. If we get find such a person, the Lord can get His prophecy out to the Frenchman. If we cannot, I have to not speak up but just talk very quite Romanian in my spirit to God.

That seems preposterous to me. Such ideas have seemed preposterous to a great many students of scripture over the years. It just doesn't make sense to think that that is what was going on in Corinth when the letter was written.

But then we obviously don't think alike (nor do you and about half the evangelical world at this time think alike). The other option is that we do think alike and you just won't admit the lack of logic in your position because of your bias.

You can only miss these things if you try to miss them because of bias such as yours.

You don't participate in the charismatic things that require faith in the Word of God and you don't want anyone else to.

That is my opinion and so it has seemed to me from your very first post concerning the supposed cessation of gifts.