SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Help make this the DEFINITIVE learning thread

[ARBITER01]

Or for that matter, that the misuse was serious enough to jeopardize their salvation.

If there is any doubt about how we should express our faith, I think none of us can go wrong if we follow the example of Jesus- he spoke boldly and sternly in places like the Jewish synagogue in Capernaum- but there is no mention of any theatrics. In His instructions as to how we should pray, He spoke plainly in the language of the region the Lord's prayer- no mention is made of using glossolalia.

Others can do what the Spirit moves them to do- as for me, I'll follow the example of our Lord when He walked on the earth.

What The Holy Spirit taught through Jesus is not somehow greater than what He taught through Paul, or any of the other apostles, nor does His words somehow trump what the apostles spoke. They are in agreement, there is no contradiction.

If you choose to just speak with your mind to GOD, that is fine and your choice, but don't turn around and then condemn what is clear teaching and events from the same The Holy Spirit.

 

[zeke37]

Zeke37, you seem to have come full circle.




You accept that when the disciples (which Acts 1:15 tells us was about 120 people) on the day of Pentecost spoke in tongues they spoke other languages because Acts 2:4 tells us specifically that those who were filled with the Holy Spirit spoke with other languages, they did not speak in their own language.

hi....

all heard the words of the Holy Spirit in their own home dialect...including them.

Later on you assert that when the disciples spoke in tongues, they spoke in one Godly language but they heard themselves speak their own language.

that is what I believe....

Hearing yourself speak in your own language when you speak, is the definition of speaking in your own language.
It cannot equal speaking in another language and therefore contradicts Acts 2:4 which you agree with so in fact you end up contradicting yourself in order to hold onto the one Godly language understood by everyone idea.

not at all....one Godly language spoken,
and everyone present heard that Godly language as if it was their very own home dialect....
that includes the speakers, as they are part of the ALL...hence other languages understood by everyone that heard the words.

Wouldn’t it be more correct to interpret the disciple speaking in tongues in Acts 2 as them actually speaking in the human languages the crowd actually heard?

not for it to be a miracle from God....a unique happenstance...
as I said, i undersand that there was one language, a Godly one, that was spoken by the Holy Spirit

that one langauge was understood by everyone present, as if it was their own home dialect spoken...

that is what I understand...
if I understand you right, there would be no miracle the way you think of it...
infact, if it were as you say, then there would be no need for that cloven tongues of fire miracle at all...but there was...

IMO the disciples all spoke at the same time...
and that language that came out of them
was understood by everyone as if their very own dialect was being spoken....no confusion...
as in all the other languages besides just the Galilaean's ....hence the description of "other languages"

There were about 120 disciples in the upper room as previously mentioned and this means there could have been 120 human languages spoken by the disciples even though Acts 2:9-11 only lists 14 human languages or dialects.

ok...there could have been 120 different languages / dialects that were understood...
but IMO only one was actually spoken...a Godly one spoken by the Holy Spirit
one that allows all that hear it to understand it as if it was their own dialect...hence other languages..

If the Holy Spirit changed the language spoken by each disciple about every five minutes, in a half hour period a total of over 700 different human languages could have been heard.

well...that's not the way I understand it...

This interpretation seems to fit the text and you will be glad to see it does not provide any proof that the Charismatic or Pentecostal practice of everyone speaking in tongues in church, in languages unknown to anyone else in the church service is a Biblical practice. Do you have any objections or questions about what I have said?

as i said, i do not understand it that way...but to each their own...
i think the cloven tongues of fire, is a visual way of us seeing that it was a real miracle, something that no learned group of men could ever forge...fake...

although what you describe in your view is no doubt quite difficult to do with mere men, it dos not seem impossible...scholars and linguists might pull that one off...

but one language coming out of them all at the same time,
where in everyone present heard it in their own dialect,
would indeed be a miralce and an amazing way to spearhead the Great Commission.....

 

[Servant of Jesus]

What The Holy Spirit taught through Jesus is not somehow greater than what He taught through Paul, or any of the other apostles, nor does His words somehow trump what the apostles spoke. They are in agreement, there is no contradiction.

If you choose to just speak with your mind to GOD, that is fine and your choice, but don't turn around and then condemn what is clear teaching and events from the same The Holy Spirit.

What can I say, but quote 1 John 4 again:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

We can test prophecy, we can test healing, and, yes, we can test speaking in tongues- when it is done as described in Acts 2! That is, we could go to any person present who understood one of the languages described- and get the same translation!

But when members of some charismatic movements misinterpret (in my opinion) speaking in tongues, and utter gibberish, which they then refuse to submit to any sort of verification, then I question whether it is genuine.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

but one language coming out of them all at the same time,
where in everyone present heard it in their own dialect,
would indeed be a miralce and an amazing way to spearhead the Great Commission.....

A big Amen!

And, of course, if everyone present had just heard Paul speak gibberish, and looked at each other in puzzlement, we could have had just the opposite come true!

.

 

[zeke37]

correct...confusion.....in Acts2 and even in 1Cor14, God is not the author of confusion...

 

[ARBITER01]

What can I say, but quote 1 John 4 again:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

We can test prophecy, we can test healing, and, yes, we can test speaking in tongues- when it is done as described in Acts 2! That is, we could go to any person present who understood one of the languages described- and get the same translation!

But when members of some charismatic movements misinterpret (in my opinion) speaking in tongues, and utter gibberish, which they then refuse to submit to any sort of verification, then I question whether it is genuine.

.

Lol, I'm, sorry but that is not how you test any of the gifts. Paul taught on them in Corinthians, so...... see if people operate them according to what Paul taught, if not, then there is reason to question a person's use of them.

I think you are trying to suggest some personal test that is outside of what our Christian forefathers taught., and that would not be a correct test. Asking a person to submit a Spiritual gift to some form of natural verification among those that don't operate in it is questionable in itself.

 

[zeke37]

what are you afraid of ?
why not submit to a test....
if it is of God, the test will reflect that....right?

 

[ARBITER01]

what are you afraid of ?
why not submit to a test....
if it is of God, the test will reflect that....right?

Sure, you would want me to operate my prayer language outside of it being between GOD and I, wouldn't ya?

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Much evil has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity by charlatans that are quick to express indignation if someone dares to question their self-serving interpretation of the Bible.

When we read the Acts, we see in Paul a total confidence in God- I am sure that if someone had jumped up while he was speaking in another language (tongues) and questioned what he was saying in a language unknown to him, he would have gladly submitted to any verification asked of him; after all, he trusted in God!

Of course, in Paul's case, there was no need for verification; his speaking in other languages was a totally natural, albeit surprising, event.

 

[ARBITER01]

Much evil has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity by charlatans that are quick to express indignation if someone dares to question their self-serving interpretation of the Bible.

When we read the Acts, we see in Paul a total confidence in God- I am sure that if someone had jumped up while he was speaking in another language (tongues) and questioned what he was saying in a language unknown to him, he would have gladly submitted to any verification asked of him; after all, he trusted in God!

Of course, in Paul's case, there was no need for verification; his speaking in other languages was a totally natural, albeit surprising, event.

But you see, you are asking a person to go against the scripture teaching on it,..

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

And that would be unprofitable anyways,...

1Co 14:6 But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching?

It wouldn't do any good for me to be speaking in tongues to you according to scripture, hence your little test is not scriptural in the least bit.

 

[zeke37]

2For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Paul is chastizing here, not saying it is ok...
he is saying, if we speak a foreign language (unknown tongue) to an audience,
then no one but God would understand you...

that was an issue at the early church...

so if you do speak a foreign language to those in attendance,
make sure there is a gifted interpreter present and have your words/tongue
interpreted/translated into their language
so they can understand and either grow in God or come to God...

and the whole point is to edify them in attendance by sharing information with them...

so in verse 2 Paul is saying what NOT to do...he continues the same thought all the way through the chapter
don't speak a foreign tongue to an audience, unless it is translated by a gifted interpreter into their tongue....
otherwise only God would understand you...your mind (information in your mind) is unfruitful...or a mystery to them in attendance..

it is not a good thing....



9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

in verse 2 he said you wouldn't be speaking to men, but only to God
because you are still in the spirit praying/singing/interpreting scriptures etc...
but only God would understand you if you spoke a foreign tongue (to them in the audience)
and you are supposed to be edifying them in the audience by them understanding your words,
making your words PROPHESY to them....that means they UNDERSTAND

so if they cannot understand your tongue/language, then you can still preach to them,
but make sure you use a gifted believing translater so they can understand the translater's words
and grow in, or even come to God.

11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

16Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.


19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

nothing about a secret prayer language...it is all about understanding and learning and sharing...
to edify those in the audience listening...


this is instructions on how to preach the Word past all languages....
using other gifted individuals to help....

it is the Great Commission that Paul spearheaded...and we are commanded to continue
23If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

 

[Paul.]

everyone present heard that Godly language as if it was their very own home dialect....
that includes the speakers, as they are part of the ALL

I am guessing that the following scripture is the one which you believe is stating that everyone including the disciples in Acts 2 heard the speaking in tongues as if they were hearing their own language.

Acts 2 (KJV)
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Am I right or are there other scriptures that you believe support your understanding that in Acts 2 the disciples heard themselves speaking their own language while they were speaking in tongues?

 

[zeke37]

i assume as much, because they are also hearing their own words when they speak
(I do when I talk)...
thus they would hear it in their own langauge...

why all the questions? what is your point, as I asked before?

the "other languages" part, is of the hearer.....and that also includes the speaker....all languages.

 

[Paul.]

why all the questions? what is your point, as I asked before?

When I discuss Christian beliefs I try to find the pivotal points, that is those verses, phrases and words that cause others to have a different interpretation of the Bible. As I said in the other thread on tongues, in some posts I am just trying to gain a greater understanding of another person's belief. I feel that it is important to fully understand the other persons point of view and where they are coming from. This causes me to spend more time checking what the Bible does say and be more accepting of other Christians despite our different beliefs.

i assume as much, because they are also hearing their own words when they speak
(I do when I talk)...
thus they would hear it in their own langauge...

the "other languages" part, is of the hearer.....and that also includes the speaker....all languages.

When I examine Acts 2:6 I find that it does not say that when the disciples heard themselves speaking in tongues they heard their own language.

Acts 2 (KJV)
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

This is what I see when I analyze the scripture. Now when this was noised abroad, (This is referring to the events of Acts 2:2-4, being gossiped around the city) the multitude came together, (a crowd of people gathered at the house) and were confounded, (the crowd was confused) because (because is another way of saying, the reason that the people in the crowd are confused is) that every man heard (due to the fact that this is the explanation of why the crowd was confused it is still referring only to the crowd when it says every man) them (this is a reference to the disciples, not to the crowd otherwise it would have to say themselves in order to refer to the crowd because the crowd are still the subject of the sentence. The sentence draws a distinction between two groups of people, the crowd and the disciples) speak in (this is referring to what the crowd heard the disciples doing) his own language. (the word his is still referring to the subject of the sentence which is the crowd and why they were confused, unlike the reference to the disciples by use of the word them which denotes a different group. The own language therefore is referred to in relation to what is experienced by the crowd because it follows the word his and it is given as the explanation of why the crowd is confused)

The result of this analysis is that this scripture does not comment on what the disciples heard, it only comments on what the crowd heard. It neither requires or rules out the idea that the disciples heard their own language when they spoke in tongues. Equally because it gives no opinion on what the disciples heard, this scripture does not rule out the interpretation that the disciples spoke in and heard themselves speaking in the earthly languages that the crowd spoke. Before we examine any other points of difference what are your thoughts on the analysis of this scripture?

 

[zeke37]

When I discuss Christian beliefs I try to find the pivotal points, that is those verses, phrases and words that cause others to have a different interpretation of the Bible. As I said in the other thread on tongues, in some posts I am just trying to gain a greater understanding of another person's belief. I feel that it is important to fully understand the other persons point of view and where they are coming from. This causes me to spend more time checking what the Bible does say and be more accepting of other Christians despite our different beliefs.

When I examine Acts 2:6 I find that it does not say that when the disciples heard themselves speaking in tongues they heard their own language.

Acts 2 (KJV)
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

well, when I speak, I can certainly hear myself and my language just fine

This is what I see when I analyze the scripture. Now when this was noised abroad, (This is referring to the events of Acts 2:2-4, being gossiped around the city)

IMO passers by physically heard...maybe yelled to others near by...
the more that heard it, the more stayed to listen,
the crowd got ever bigger

the multitude came together, (a crowd of people gathered at the house) and were confounded, (the crowd was confused) because (because is another way of saying, the reason that the people in the crowd are confused is) that every man heard (due to the fact that this is the explanation of why the crowd was confused it is still referring only to the crowd when it says every man) them (this is a reference to the disciples, not to the crowd otherwise it would have to say themselves in order to refer to the crowd because the crowd are still the subject of the sentence. The sentence draws a distinction between two groups of people, the crowd and the disciples) speak in (this is referring to what the crowd heard the disciples doing) his own language. (the word his is still referring to the subject of the sentence which is the crowd and why they were confused, unlike the reference to the disciples by use of the word them which denotes a different group. The own language therefore is referred to in relation to what is experienced by the crowd because it follows the word his and it is given as the explanation of why the crowd is confused)

those are your thoughts...no problem...
but I think that they heard themselves in their own language,
as the crowd does...that is MY opinion

The result of this analysis is that this scripture does not comment on what the disciples heard, it only comments on what the crowd heard. It neither requires or rules out the idea that the disciples heard their own language when they spoke in tongues. Equally because it gives no opinion on what the disciples heard, this scripture does not rule out the interpretation that the disciples spoke in and heard themselves speaking in the earthly languages that the crowd spoke. Before we examine any other points of difference what are your thoughts on the analysis of this scripture?

there is no reference to a heavenly language to compare it to, before this...
tongues means languages....so that is what they were
IMO they spoke their own language
and the miracle from God changed their speech
into the language of each member of the crowd

 

[sunlover1]

Lol, I'm, sorry but that is not how you test any of the gifts. Paul taught on them in Corinthians, so...... see if people operate them according to what Paul taught, if not, then there is reason to question a person's use of them.

And even if they operate their gifts in that wrong way like those in Corinth were doing,..
that still doesnt negate the gifts.. as it didn't in Corinth either.

what are you afraid of ?
why not submit to a test....
if it is of God, the test will reflect that....right?

Sure, you would want me to operate my prayer language outside of it being between GOD and I, wouldn't ya?

That would be out of turn, not at all according to the direction that Paul gave on
how to operate in the gifts of the Spirit.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

2For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Of course, when you are referring to the speaking in tongues in a public meeting where there are uninitiated or unbelievers present, you are totally correct. I have absolutely no argument with that at all.

But you will not accept for one second that there is a private use of tongues in personal devotions with God, in spite of Paul saying quite clearly and conclusively that there is that aspect of tongues and that is where a believer should go if he/she wishes to speak in tongues in a personal way to God.

This is not a matter of you not being able to believe in the gift as practiced by millions of Christians worldwide. It is because you will not believe in it. It is a matter of will. You have set your mind and will against the modern day use of tongues for reasons best known to yourself (and I am not being insulting to you in this, but just making a reasonable observation based on your responses and your hard line stance against tongues regardless of the many proofs that have been written on this thread, including irrefutable personal testimonies of the genuineness and effectiveness of tongues in their personal lives and their fellowship with other Christians)

I am trained in semantics, which is examining the meanings of words. The quote above is Paul describing the use of tongues in a particular way. He is saying that when a person speaks in tongues he is speaking to God, and not to other people, because no one except God understands him, and that when he speaks he is speaking mysteries in the spirit.

Your interpretation of that sentence is if we speak a foreign language (unknown tongue) to an audience, then no one but God would understand you...

What you are saying is correct, but it is not exactly what Paul said. Paul did not include "to an audience". He is commenting on why the speaking of tongues should not be spoken to an audience, very true, but he is not limiting the use of tongues to the public use that requires an interpreter, as you have intimated in previous posts.

Semantics also deals with inferences in language. Paul's inference is that if a person wants to speak in tongues, because he speaks to God and not to men, he should get alone with God and speak, rather than in front of people who do not understand him.

This is quite different to your inference, which is definitely not reflected in the Scripture. I believe that your inferences to do with tongues is your will-based stance that the modern use of tongues is absolute nonsense whether spoken in public or private.

 

[zeke37]

Of course, when you are referring to the speaking in tongues in a public meeting where there are uninitiated or unbelievers present, you are totally correct. I have absolutely no argument with that at all.

But you will not accept for one second that there is a private use of tongues in personal devotions with God,

absolutely not Brother

in spite of Paul saying quite clearly and conclusively that there is that aspect of tongues and that is where a believer should go if he/she wishes to speak in tongues in a personal way to God.

Paul does not teach that at all....

Paul teaches that if you are sharing scriptures, psalms, or interpretations of scripture with others,
(about the Messiah fulfilling those scriptures and Psalms)
and if there is no multilingual-believing-gifted-interpreter present to translate your foreign speaking language,
into the audiences language,
so they can understand your words, grow in, and even come to, God
then don't say anything at all out loud...keep it to yourself
Don't confuse them....don't be as a barbarian to each other

the chapter is never about praivate prayer to God in a charismatic way.

verse2 is repeated many other ways through the chapter as a bad thing, not a good thing...

speak a foreign tongue to an audience and no one would understand you,
regardless that you are in the spirit praying...(praying in the Spirit is not mumbling charismatic utterances by the way)
you might give thanks well in your own language,
but if the audience cannot understand you,
then it is in vain...
you'd be speaking to the air...
or you'd be speaking to just God instead of men...

the understanding in your mind is not going to be passed on...not fruitful...

now this same thought is repeated....over...and....over....again

This is not a matter of you not being able to believe in the gift as practiced by millions of Christians worldwide.

I do not believe that mumbling charismatic utterances and calling it special prayer,
is a gift of God, and BILLIONS agree with me

It is because you will not believe in it.

what is because I will not believe in it?

It is a matter of will.

what is a matter of will?

You have set your mind and will against the modern day use of tongues for reasons best known to yourself (and I am not being insulting to you in this, but just making a reasonable observation based on your responses and your hard line stance against tongues regardless of the many proofs that have been written on this thread, including irrefutable personal testimonies of the genuineness and effectiveness of tongues in their personal lives and their fellowship with other Christians)

no PROOFS have been given, if they had, I'd believe.
Acts 2 was proof...
if that happens, let me know.

I am trained in semantics, which is examining the meanings of words.

that is why I am so dissapointed in your use of a false gift, instead of using your God given abilities to further His Word into other tongues...
that is what 1Cor14 is all about, not private prayer

such a shame

The quote above is Paul describing the use of tongues in a particular way. He is saying that when a person speaks in tongues he is speaking to God, and not to other people, because no one except God understands him, and that when he speaks he is speaking mysteries in the spirit.

I have already described what Paul is teaching,
and it is not that, no matter how many times you say it is...

and as I have repeated, the teaching is repeated over and over again...

understanding...
spirit....
mysteries.....

now go to...well most of the chapter really....even more than this...


7And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
12Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

Your interpretation of that sentence is if we speak a foreign language (unknown tongue) to an audience, then no one but God would understand you...

of course...repeated over and over again....

What you are saying is correct, but it is not exactly what Paul said.

sure it is

Paul did not include "to an audience".

the entire chapter is about "to an audience"

He is commenting on why the speaking of tongues should not be spoken to an audience, very true, but he is not limiting the use of tongues to the public use that requires an interpreter, as you have intimated in previous posts.

your tradition is obscuring the fact of the chapter Brother.
if they cannot understand your tongue,
either use an interpreter or keep silent

that is what Paul is teaching...
nothing about private prayer per say...
if the audience cannot understand your tongue,
about scriptures and psalms and revelations of scriptures (about Messiah fulfilling certain ones etc.)
then use an interpreter that interprets your tongue into their tongue so they can understand you and come to God

I am amazed that intelligent people can look over this continued,
repeated teaching by Paul....
and turn it into what it has become, a self serving mockery,
making void the actual meaning of the chapter...

Semantics also deals with inferences in language. Paul's inference is that if a person wants to speak in tongues, because he speaks to God and not to men, he should get alone with God and speak, rather than in front of people who do not understand him.

that is not what Paul teaches at all...
that is what you tradition has made...not Paul's meaning

This is quite different to your inference, which is definitely not reflected in the Scripture.

you mean, it is your opionion

because every single person that disagrees with you,
would say the same thing back to you...
your tradition is not in scripture Bro...

I believe that your inferences to do with tongues is your will-based stance that the modern use of tongues is absolute nonsense whether spoken in public or private.

of course it is nonesense....
even if the intent of the practishioners is good and honorable

 

[sunlover1]

He is saying that when a person speaks in tongues he is speaking to God, and not to other people, because no one except God understands him, and that when he speaks he is speaking mysteries in the spirit.

Almost verbatim

This is quite different to your inference, which is definitely not reflected in the Scripture.

I agree.

 

[DamianWarS]

sorry i'm coming in late on this threat and i really don't have time to read 12 pages of content so I apologize in advance if I am just going through the same old arguments. But with my experience with tongues I find a lot of people do not cover all aspects so I thought I would share my own thoughts on the subject as I have put some time into it in the past.

First of all we need to establish that tongues are still a part of the church today because some denominations believe tongues was only meant for the apostolic period and no longer is needed. Here is the verse that both sides use to defend themselves:

1 Corinthians 13:8-12
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

The important part here is how "when the perfection comes, the imperfect disappears" is interpreted. Some claim this is talking about the canon of the Bible or beginning of the church and say that since we have these things (the perfect) the imperfect (namely tongues) will cease. Some will point to the fact that when it is talking about tongues a different verb is used then when it talks about prophecy and knowledge. The verb is pauō when talking about tongues and katargeō when talking about prophecy and knowledge. These words essentially mean the same things but some have suggested that the verb for tongues is much stronger so this is the reason why tongues should not be present today but prophecy and knowledge can be.

What I say to that is lets look at the context of these verses. Chapter 13 does not start a new subject it is Chapter 12 that declares the subject which is about spiritual gifts. Chapter 13 is stressing these gifts are nothing without love and it not demonstrating why certain gifts are greater than other gifts or that some will no longer be needed where others will be. For example lets look at the following verses:

1 Corinthians 12:30
Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

1 Corinthians 13:1-3
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

1 Corinthians 3:9
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away

These are cases where Paul is not singling out the gifts it is where Paul is merely using whatever gifts he mentions as examples but the message is for all spiritual gifts not just the ones he mentions. So in 13:9 it doesn't matter what verb Paul uses he is just using different verbs as a writing style. The context of the passage has nothing to do with when if tongues is present in the church today it is to do with all spiritual gifts are nothing without love because love will always be here and spiritual gifts will pass away when perfection comes.

What is perfection? well it is the second coming of Christ or when the new heaven and earth are established. Spiritual gifts represent something that is lacking in our part. We are empowered with them because we are flawed and are lacking and these gifts help us see things that we are cannot see or do things we would otherwise not be able to do. However there will be a time when we will no longer be flawed and lacking as we are and so spiritual gifts will not be needed but of course love will always remain. So this verse does not say tongues is not present anymore it says all gifts of spirit should be acted with love and will remain until things are made perfect.

Now that we have established that tongues are still active today we need to establish the difference between the tongues in acts and the tongues in 1 Corinthians or if there one at all.

In Acts we see tongues happening 3 times, in Acts 2:1-4, Acts 10:44-46 and Acts 19:4-7. These are the only times in the entire bible we see tongues being spoken in a narrative. What is similar about these things? Well they all happen during the first experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We see the baptism of the Holy Spirit in other times like in Acts 4 but this is a subsequent experience of the Holy Spirit and not the first time the people mention received it. So this "first time" is an important distinction. We see only 2 other times where the baptism of the Holy Spirit is experienced for the first time in Paul's conversion which is Acts 9:17-19 and with Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8:14-17. These areas do not say these people began to speak in tongues however they also do not mention any sort of evidence.

What does this mean? Well the baptism of the Holy Spirit should show some sort of evidence that it has come upon you. If there is no evidence then there is no way of knowing. The Holy Spirit does have an impact on us so we need to show a sign of that impact. The Holy Spirit will manifest itself in a same fashion as it does any other times so when one is baptized with the Holy Spirit we look for evidence like we see in the gifts of the Holy Spirit not other things like shaking or barking like a dog because these are not consistent with the Holy Spirit. So in all cases there is a sign that shows us we are baptized with the Holy Spirit and that sign is consistent with how the Holy Spirit operates and we see examples of that through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. When Acts speaks of times like Paul's conversion or Simon the Sorcerer where the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens for the first time but there is no specific evidence we are to assume that the Holy Spirit has manifested itself the same way it would every other times. These cases of Paul and Simon do not talk about tongues or any other manifestation because their context is not about the manifestation it is about "Paul's conversion" or "Simon trying to buy the Holy Spirit" The author is not trying to show the manifestation of the Holy Spirit the author has a more pressing subject that he is writing about so the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is not important to the subject. In the case of Simon it is clear Simon saw a manifestation because he was prompted to offer money for this power and was then rebuked for trying to buy it. And in the case of Paul there is no manifestation spoken of but that is not important the text is not trying to show how the Holy Spirit operates it is trying to show Paul's conversion. So there are 5 times in acts where the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens for the first time with believers 3 of these times speaking in tongues followed it and the other 2 there is no manifestation described. 1 of the times prophesy is mentioned but it is clear that tongues has a dominate relationship with the baptism of the Holy Spirit and is a very dominate sign at the first time during pentecost. The other two times it is assume the Holy Spirit manifests itself the same way it does in the other 3 which is only consistent with tongues.

What about Corinthians? How does that play with this whole thing because it says in Corinthians

1 Corinthians 12:4-6
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

1 Corinthians 12:7-11
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, ... to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, ... All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

1 Corinthians 12:30
Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

So from these verses the message in Corinthians says that we are ALL baptized with the same Spirit and the Spirit will give us each different gifts as he determines. The whole passage speaks of the church being of one body and each person is a different part. Not all are the same part but each have their own role and not all will have the same gifts. So this then would extend to the gift of tongues because clearly this passage is saying we are ALL baptized Holy Spirit and so the accounts in acts should be no different than the teaching in Corinthians.

Well this is the confusing part of the Holy Spirit. Are we all baptized in the Holy Spirit upon conversion? Well in Acts we have conflicting message with this. We see in Acts 8 with Simon the Sorcerer the believers received the baptism of the Holy Spirit after their conversion. In fact they had to send for apostles to come to lay hands on them to received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and who knows how long that took, a week, a month, a year? We also see in Acts 10 believers receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with Water. In Acts 19 it talks of believers first being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (water baptism) and then the baptism of the Holy Spirit came upon them through laying on of hands. So this idea of the baptism of the Holy Spirit does show that it is a separate process of the Holy Spirit. It is not happen necessarily with conversion and it is not being baptized with Water. So we cannot assume that when Paul speaks of it in Corinthians that he means that "all believers" are baptized in the Holy Spirit as mentioned in the the baptism of the Holy Spirit is in Acts. It is not clear what he means by "baptism" but there is a contrast of this idea that the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens upon conversion. So Paul is not suggesting here that as soon as you are converted you are also baptized with the Holy Spirit. He may have used the word "baptism" differently or the audience he was speaking to perhaps might have all been baptized with the Holy Spirit so "ALL" was the audience he was speaking to. But it is clear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a separate experience then conversion and the two should not be confused together.

It is important to look at the greek word that is used for spiritual gifts. The unique word here is "charisma" which is translated into "gifts" or "spiritual gifts". the Root word of charisma is charis which is the word we use for grace. Charisma is also a word used to grace so we see this is a deep connection with charisma and with grace. Now we all know grace is given to us upon conversion so these "gifts" or "charisma" seems to also be rooted into this process. So in this case Paul is talking about Spiritual Gifts that are given to use as the Holy Spirit sees fit upon conversion. These gifts are developed and practiced as Corinthians further expands on. However this word "Charisma" is not used in acts. When it speaks of "the gift" of the Holy Spirit it is using the word "dōrea" which simply means "gift" or "the gift". "The gift" in Acts is not the same as "gifts" in Corinthians so they cannot be interpreted the same way. the context of the passage in Corinthians is teaching on the spiritual Gifts not on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, as it shows in Corinthians and in Acts, the manifestations of the Holy Spirit is consistent and we see examples of it in both Acts and Corinthians but they are not necessarily talking about the same thing. Corinthians is talking about gifts of the Holy Spirit where Acts is talking about baptism of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a separate process and the gifts of the Holy Spirit is something that is developed and given to us upon salvation.

Since we know it is the same spirit in both cases both Acts and Corinthians show us how the spirit operates and in the case of Corinthians it actually teaches us how specific gifts work. But the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not the gifts of the Holy Spirit they are separate things. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a overwhelming of the Spirit that is not constantly upon on. We see for example it happening subsequent times in Acts 4 so the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not something that is constant with us and it will happen as the spirit sees fit. However the gifts of the Holy spirit is something is constant with us upon conversion. The Holy Spirit dwells within us upon conversion but this isn't to be confused with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit helps us to use our spiritual gifts as the Spirit sees fit. Since Corinthians does talk about tongues it can be used to help understand tongues in Acts but it is not the same thing. One is talking about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the other is talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.