do any of you believe tongues are necessary

[Willing Spirit]

....which part of my post are you referring to as I had probably made reference to at least 8 points.

Actually I was referring to the original post. I guess I should have made that clearer.

 

[Biblicist]

When you state that an author comes from a "humanistic worldview", you need to provide your definition of humanistic worldview and how the author fits that description.

Otherwise, you are making an allegation without substantiation.

Thanks, Oz

I did provide a link to his article on tongues and as there are numerous mistakes it would be best to go to the article itself. The points that he tries to present in his article are essentially the same old lines that many cessationists try and perpetuate – cessationism is simply another form of unbelief or maybe merely of ignorance if one is simply parroting the views of their mentors.

One of the more popular cessationist lines is that when we pray in the Spirit (tongues) that this is always given in a known human language as per his following statement:

V.10-13 “There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.”
Here Paul identifies tongues as a language spoken in our world. So a tongue can be an ancient language but it is one mankind spoke.
​

Even though the only English versions that correctly translate phonon as sounds to my knowledge are the Complete Jewish Bible and the New Revised Standard Bible, this is still no reason to promote this fallacy; even though our translations tend to encourage this fallacy a quick reference to a Greek Interlinear or dictionary will show that Paul is not making reference to known human languages but to sounds.


[FONT=&quot]1 Cor 14:10 [/FONT]tosau/ta eiv tu,coi ge,nh fwnw/n eivsin evn ko,smw| kai. ouvde.n a;fwnon\[FONT=&quot]11 [/FONT] eva.n ou=n mh. eivdw/ th.n du,namin th/j fwnh/j( e;somai tw/| lalou/nti ba,rbaroj kai. o` lalw/n evn evmoi. ba,rbarojÅ

Of course there are numerous other errors with his logic as well.

 

[OzSpen]

Biblicist,

You've missed my point. I am NOT a cessationist. But when you accuse a Christian article of presenting a "humanistic worldview", you need to:

1. Define what you mean by humanistic worldview, and,
2. Tell how that article fits in with your definition of a humanistic worldview.

When I read the article, it did not present a typical cessationist view. Here is an article that I have written recently as a critique of a cessationist perspective: "Does the superiority of New Testament revelation exclude the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit? Is cessationism biblical?"


Sincerely, Oz

I did provide a link to his article on tongues and as there are numerous mistakes it would be best to go to the article itself. The points that he tries to present in his article are essentially the same old lines that many cessationists try and perpetuate – cessationism is simply another form of unbelief or maybe merely of ignorance if one is simply parroting the views of their mentors.

One of the more popular cessationist lines is that when we pray in the Spirit (tongues) that this is always given in a known human language as per his following statement:

V.10-13 “There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.”
Here Paul identifies tongues as a language spoken in our world. So a tongue can be an ancient language but it is one mankind spoke.
​

Even though the only English versions that correctly translate phonon as sounds to my knowledge are the Complete Jewish Bible and the New Revised Standard Bible, this is still no reason to promote this fallacy; even though our translations tend to encourage this fallacy a quick reference to a Greek Interlinear or dictionary will show that Paul is not making reference to known human languages but to sounds.


[FONT=&quot]1 Cor 14:10 [/FONT]tosau/ta eiv tu,coi ge,nh fwnw/n eivsin evn ko,smw| kai. ouvde.n a;fwnon\[FONT=&quot]11 [/FONT] eva.n ou=n mh. eivdw/ th.n du,namin th/j fwnh/j( e;somai tw/| lalou/nti ba,rbaroj kai. o` lalw/n evn evmoi. ba,rbarojÅ

Of course there are numerous other errors with his logic as well.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I go by the premise that if it ain't in the Bible then it ain't true. I don't see anywhere in Acts, 1 Corinthians 12 or 14 where Paul makes any definite statement that tongues is necessary for salvation. Therefore the doctrine that some hold that a person has to speak in tongues to be saved is a doctrine that originates from a lying spirit.

 

[Humble Pie]

If it is required then only a small percentage of Christians are saved. I used to go to a pentecostal church where tongues was practiced but they didn't doubt my salvation because I didn't do it.

 

[OzSpen]

I go by the premise that if it ain't in the Bible then it ain't true. I don't see anywhere in Acts, 1 Corinthians 12 or 14 where Paul makes any definite statement that tongues is necessary for salvation. Therefore the doctrine that some hold that a person has to speak in tongues to be saved is a doctrine that originates from a lying spirit.

Amen, brother, from across the Tasman!

However, let me play devil's advocate. If one holds to Mark 16:9-20 being in the original NT MSS (which is a view that I do not support), there is the statement in this section that "these signs will accompany those who believe" and one of those "signs" is that "they will speak in new tongues" (Mark 16:17 ESV). Therefore, those who accept the Textus Receptus as the NT Word of God will say that those who believe in Christ will demonstrate that faith by speaking in tongues. So tongues will be evidence of those who believe and, therefore, tongues will accompany all of those who are truly saved.

But if I follow that line, some of the other "signs" that would demonstrate true faith would include casting out demons, picking up serpents and drinking deadly poison and not being hurt. these people will also lay hands on the sick and they will recover (Mk 16:17-18). Surely all of these "signs" would be indicators of "whoever believes" (Mk 16:16), i.e. a person must demonstrate at least one of these signs if he/she is truly saved.

As I said, I'm playing devil's advocate.

In Christ, Oz

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Amen, brother, from across the Tasman!

However, let me play devil's advocate. If one holds to Mark 16:9-20 being in the original NT MSS (which is a view that I do not support), there is the statement in this section that "these signs will accompany those who believe" and one of those "signs" is that "they will speak in new tongues" (Mark 16:17 ESV). Therefore, those who accept the Textus Receptus as the NT Word of God will say that those who believe in Christ will demonstrate that faith by speaking in tongues. So tongues will be evidence of those who believe and, therefore, tongues will accompany all of those who are truly saved.

But if I follow that line, some of the other "signs" that would demonstrate true faith would include casting out demons, picking up serpents and drinking deadly poison and not being hurt. these people will also lay hands on the sick and they will recover (Mk 16:17-18). Surely all of these "signs" would be indicators of "whoever believes" (Mk 16:16), i.e. a person must demonstrate at least one of these signs if he/she is truly saved.

As I said, I'm playing devil's advocate.

In Christ, Oz

I think that the key in the Scripture quote is the word "accompany". I think it is important to carefully consider how the Scripture uses words to describe things.

The dictionary meaning of "accompany" is: Go somewhere with, be present or occur at the same time, provide something as a compliment.

The meaning of "connected" is to bring together to establish a link. This would be a stronger word to use if the signs were to provide evidence that a person is a genuine believer.

Also the Scripture says that the signs "will" accompany those who believer, not "must" accompany, etc.

It is the same as saying that a genuine Christian will go to church, pray, and read the Bible, but according to Scripture, these are not prerequisites salvation. "Those who call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." So this says that calling upon the Name of the Lord is a requirement for Salvation. It is interesting that the Scripture also says in answer to the Philippian jailor's question, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptised...", implying that these are prerequisites for salvation.

So, there are some things that are absolute requirements for salvation: Calling on the Name of the Lord, Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, and being baptised (baptism is debated in some quarters, but this is what the Scripture says).

And there are some things that can be characteristic of a saved, believing Christian but not requirements for Justification, but are indications that a person is living and ministering in the power of the Spirit.

How's that?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"If it is required then only a small percentage of Christians are saved."

TRUE - and since the "Oneness Pentecostals" are CONVINCED that their little "Lunatic Fringe" collection of denominations (UPCI is the Big One) are the ONLY CHRISTIANS in the world, and everybody else is hell-bound, they're perfectly O.K. with that. "Us 4, and NO MORE" organizations are generally that way.

"I used to go to a pentecostal church where tongues was practiced but they didn't doubt my salvation because I didn't do it."

As did I. I've been in the Assemblies of God for most of the last 50 years, and was a member there for 10 years before I ever Spoke in a tongue - and I received THAT at a Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship dinner in '73. It's 39 years later now - and I still do.

In fact in 2012 in the U.S. MOST members of the Assemblies of God DON'T "Speak in tongues" and the percentage falls every year.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Yes, because without a tongue it's not possible to talk.
and
since God said: Confess ME with your soul & mouth to be saved,
without a Tongue you'd have a tough time doing it; sorta impossible.

by God Be saved!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, because without a tongue it's not possible to talk.
and
since God said: Confess ME with your soul & mouth to be saved,
without a Tongue you'd have a tough time doing it; sorta impossible.

by God Be saved!

2 tongues are better than one

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

Luke 16:24 And he sounding said "Father Abraham! be thou merciful to me! and send Lazarus! that he should be dipping the tip of the finger of him of water, and should be cooling down the tongue of me,--
that I am being pained in this flame."

 

[OzSpen]

Oscarr,

I don't have the time at present to go into each point that you have raised, but when it comes to the meaning of "accompany" (Mk 16:17), I do not go to the English language dictionary to determine the meaning. Since I read and parse the Greek language, the better solution is to go to the meaning in Greek.

In 16:17, parakolouthesei = third person, singular, future tense, active voice, indicative mood of parakolouthew (Greek verb). What's the meaning of paraklouthew?

• Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon gives the meaning, "follow, accompany, attend (with the dative case) and for Mk. 16:17 gives the meaning, "these signs will attend those who have come to believe" (1957. Zondervan edition, p. 624).
• Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT states that 'the strict meaning is "to go along with (par-)" or "to accompany." Thus in Mk. 16:17 the miracles which accompany believers are signs that will accompany the believing ones [the exact Greek words are quoted]. It has a figurative meaning of "pursuing or investigating a matter" (Lk 1:3) and a second figurative meaning of "not letting a matter slip" of "concentrating", of "following a teaching which has been grasped" (1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:10) (Vol. 1, Eerdmans 1964, p. 215).

So, the signs that will accompany those who believe in the future (after these words were spoken), were the miracles which were given.

I don't think your differentiation of "will" from "must" carries much weight as "will" is simply an expression of the future tense. The "must" idea is generally associated with the imperative tense (a command). Such an expression would be difficult to say in this verse.

I would disagree with you on the necessity of baptism for salvation as that would amount to a necessary work to accomplish salvation, which is contrary to grace. A. T. Robertson, one of the greatest Greek scholars of all time, made this common sense comment about "and is baptized" in Mk 16:16:

The omission of baptized with "disbelieveth" would seem to show that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on disbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. Baptism is merely the picture of the new life not the means of securing it. So serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support anyhow than this disputed portion of Mark (1930. Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol 1, Broadman Press, p. 405).

Sincerely, Oz

I think that the key in the Scripture quote is the word "accompany". I think it is important to carefully consider how the Scripture uses words to describe things.

The dictionary meaning of "accompany" is: Go somewhere with, be present or occur at the same time, provide something as a compliment.

The meaning of "connected" is to bring together to establish a link. This would be a stronger word to use if the signs were to provide evidence that a person is a genuine believer.

Also the Scripture says that the signs "will" accompany those who believer, not "must" accompany, etc.

It is the same as saying that a genuine Christian will go to church, pray, and read the Bible, but according to Scripture, these are not prerequisites salvation. "Those who call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." So this says that calling upon the Name of the Lord is a requirement for Salvation. It is interesting that the Scripture also says in answer to the Philippian jailor's question, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptised...", implying that these are prerequisites for salvation.

So, there are some things that are absolute requirements for salvation: Calling on the Name of the Lord, Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, and being baptised (baptism is debated in some quarters, but this is what the Scripture says).

And there are some things that can be characteristic of a saved, believing Christian but not requirements for Justification, but are indications that a person is living and ministering in the power of the Spirit.

How's that?

 

[Laura Phillips]

.

 

[Laura Phillips]

well he asked if tongues were necessary......

 

[OzSpen]

well he asked if tongues were necessary......

He asked about "tongues" in the plural. I only have one tongue.

By the way, what are glossa in the Greek? I think that's his understanding.

Oz

 

[Laura Phillips]

oh you are so correct I guess my interpretation got screwed by beer into the hebephrenic state. look it up. it's a real state where everything is funny. i have3 a psych degree. i an t lying. its a variety of shcizophrenia

 

[OzSpen]

oh you are so correct I guess my interpretation got screwed by beer into the hebephrenic state. look it up. it's a real state where everything is funny. i have3 a psych degree. i an t lying. its a variety of shcizophrenia

shcizophrenia. I might have to look up that one also.

Oz

 

[Laura Phillips]

its COOL to be crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!joel in the last days