Baptized in the Spirit and speaking in tongues?

[Neogaia777]

It is simple and defined by scripture.

Gen_10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Gen_11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

Gen_11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Gen_11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Gen_11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

"tongue" is directly tied to "language" and "speech" and "understand".

God speaking about the Romans (and others):

Deu_28:49 The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;

This is all through the Bible, the Hebrew tongue, the Syrian tongue, etc:

Ezr_4:7 And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.

Rev_9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. (referring to the OT (Hebrew) and NT (Greek) texts on Satan, the destroyer)

Notice the word "interpreted" connected with "tongue" and "writing".

The gift of "tongues" was given at Pentecost because there were devout Jews from every nation (with differing languages present at Pentecost) and they all needed to understand what was going on in their own mother languages and it even lists them. They all understood the works of God.

I know it's supposed to be another language, but just because we can't discern what language it is, cause it could be a very, very long dead language that none of knows or maybe even ever has known (here), but "elsewhere" and at "other times", and in "other places"...

Some say it impossible not to speak or make sounds that are not, or have not been "a language somewhere at some time"....

So, even if it's just babble due to being overwhelmed by the Spirit, it could be a long ago, long dead language that used to exist "somewhere" at "some time"...

As long as your/they're only doing it for their own edification and is for, and/or is between just them and God, I don't see a problem with it... We don't know if it ever once used to be a, or an actual language or not, so we shouldn't judge them, unless, "unless" they are clearly abusing it, then maybe we should say something, but, other than that, no, leave them alone, and don't pass judgement on them...

Now if they are passing judgment on you for it (either having it not having it, ect) or because of, or due to it, then you may have to "put them in their place" so to speak, but other than that, leave them and don't judge them if they are not judging you...

God Bless!

 

[wonderkins]

The bible says the gift of tongues is for those who believe, and not for any specific group...
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. - Mark 16

To forbid tongues to any group of believers is simply not scriptural.

What about verse 18? Are you picking up snakes or drinking poison? If not, why not?

 

[rockytopva]

There is no scripture which says Paul spoke the tongue of Angels.

Do angels have tongues in the mouths to speak a language and do they have a language? Of course. Daniel heard and understood Gabriel speak to him. Angels have their own language. Angels speak to other angels (Dan 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? Dan 12:5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. Dan 12:6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?). They are real beings. They don't go around speaking gibberish which is not a language.

1 Corinthians 13:1
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.

 

[liberty of conscience]

You are ignoring Paul's distinction between private prayer in tongues and speaking out in tongues in church requiring an interpretation.

Prayer is simply privately speaking to God, behind the closed door.

Speaking in general is done publically.

Look at what Paul said:

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

(If Paul started praying, by the Holy Ghost in a language foreign to him (such as English), how could he be edififed by what was prayed, and how would he know the prayer was answered, etc? How did Paul complete the thought? By stating that he would pray with understanding, Ie, in a language he understood.)

1Co 14:15 What 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.

The prayers of Paul were not some secret covert gibberish. They were real words, of real world languages.

Notice what he says:

1Co 14:16 Else 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?

1 Corinthians is about Paul lovingly rebuking a bad situation in the Corinthian Church. it is not about how good they were doing, but about correcting their bad example. Many people were speaking in many foreign langauges, even all at once, and no one was being edified at all, because of all the confusion of noise and language. Paul is setting the matter straight. Preach, Pray and Sing with "understanding", "interpretation", "distinction", etc, or keep it quiet. If there is not a translator for a certain tongue/language, keep it to yourself, for if there are no hearers of that language to understand, only the one is edified. Paul set order, only 2 or three at most languages/tongues at a time.

This is what missionaries doing evangelistic series in foreign countries like India or China do, as they have multiple languages and so as the presenter speaks (say in English), and one may translate into Mandarin Chinese, while another translates into Cantonese, etc.

 

[rockytopva]

What about verse 18? Are you picking up snakes or drinking poison? If not, why not?

No need for it... Paul found a need for it at one time...

3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm. - Acts 28

6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

 

[liberty of conscience]

1 Corinthians 13:1
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.

First word "though", meaning "even if" (possibility), not actually. Paul is positing a thought about the greatest gift, love. Again, there is no verse in scripture that states that Paul spoke the language of Angels.

He heard things in Heaven, but he says:

2Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Paul said he could not speak those words he heard in Heaven. "unspeakable" words, because it was a foreign, strange, unknown language to him.

 

[DamianWarS]

Could you give me the Acts scripture?

I asked you first to show me where in Acts manifestations are discriminately given so let's take this one request at a time

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

According to Acts, what were tongues?

In Acts 2, it says that the believers spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

That speaks a lot to me, because these were not natural human languages like Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew, as one poster in this thread is trying to insinuate. These were unknown tongues generated by the Spirit through the believers. I can't tell you how those unlearned languages came out in a way that all those pilgrims in Jerusalem heard the disciples praising God in their own regional languages. I just don't know, other than it was a miracle.

Luke doesn't explain the nature of the tongues the others in Acts spoke when the Spirit fill on them, but Peter tells the other Apostles that the Spirit fell on Cornelius and his household exactly the same as He did on us. This means that the Spirit enabled Cornelius and his household to speak in unlearned languages, except there was no crowd to hear the languages in their own regional languages. So the tongues were unknown to the speakers and listeners.

There is no point trying to read into Acts what is not there. If the tongues that occurred in the later points in Acts were different to what happened at Pentecost, then it stands to reason that Luke would have said so.

So, the more comprehensive information concerning tongues comes in 1 Corinthians 14. If Paul thought the tongues were different to the Day of Pentecost, he would have said so too, but he saw tongues as unlearned languages, and if they were spoken in church, they needed interpretation for the listeners to understand what was being said.

Seeing that Luke was with Paul for most of Paul's ministry, he would have explained tongues to him and described what happened at Pentecost, so Paul's description of tongues would be consistent with Luke's, but Luke was a diarist not a Bible teacher. Paul is the Bible teacher, so his teaching of tongues would extend Luke's description and give believers insight into its correct use.

 

[liberty of conscience]

The bible says the gift of tongues is for those who believe, and not for any specific group...

Yes, since it is to spread the word of God in foreign languages without having to learn it through schooling. The Holy Ghost gives the gift instantly.

This is why it is a miracle or sign to unbelievers (believers already know God can do this) who marvel at a person suddenly speaking fluent Russian to preach the Gospel, when they never learned it before by human means.

 

[Neogaia777]

I know it's supposed to be another language, but just because we can't discern what language it is, cause it could be a very, very long dead language that none of knows or maybe even ever has known (here), but "elsewhere" and at "other times", and in "other places"...

Some say it impossible not to speak or make sounds that are not, or have not been "a language somewhere at some time"....

So, even if it's just babble due to being overwhelmed by the Spirit, it could be a long ago, long dead language that used to exist "somewhere" at "some time"...

As long as your/they're only doing it for their own edification and is for, and/or is between just them and God, I don't see a problem with it... We don't know if it ever once used to be a, or an actual language or not, so we shouldn't judge them, unless, "unless" they are clearly abusing it, then maybe we should say something, but, other than that, no, leave them alone, and don't pass judgement on them...

Now if they are passing judgment on you for it (either having it not having it, ect) or because of, or due to it, then you may have to "put them in their place" so to speak, but other than that, leave them and don't judge them if they are not judging you...

God Bless!

One form of abuse of it is, when someone is doing it to really make themselves "seem to be really somebody", or someone very special or important to somebody or someone else, cause then it's all about impressing others, and it's not really about, or is really just between you/them and God at all, is it...?

It can take many form of abuse, and can all to easily sometimes (take or be some form of abuse/misuse), and I won't argue that...

Again, discernment, discernment, discernment...

God Bless!

 

[rockytopva]

Paul found the Holy Ghost missing in the life of believers and was disturbed by it....

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve. - Acts 19

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Prayer is simply privately speaking to God, behind the closed door.

Speaking in general is done publically.

Look at what Paul said:

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

(If Paul started praying, by the Holy Ghost in a language foreign to him (such as English), how could he be edififed by what was prayed, and how would he know the prayer was answered, etc? How did Paul complete the thought? By stating that he would pray with understanding, Ie, in a language he understood.)

1Co 14:15 What 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.

The prayers of Paul were not some secret covert gibberish. They were real words, of real world languages.

Notice what he says:

1Co 14:16 Else 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?

1 Corinthians is about Paul lovingly rebuking a bad situation in the Corinthian Church. it is not a bout how good they were doing, but about correcting their bad example. Many people were speaking in many foreign langauges, even all at once, and no one was being edified at all, because of all the confusion of noise and language. Paul is setting the matter straight. Preach, Pray and Sing with "understanding", "interpretation", "distinction", etc, or keep it quiet. If there is not a translator for a certain tongue/language, keep it to yourself, for if there are no hearers of that language to understand, only the one is edified. Paul set order, only 2 or three at most languages/tongues at a time.

This is what missionaries doing evangelistic series in foreign countried like India or China do, as they have multiple languages and so as the presenter speaks (say in English), and one may translate into Mandarin Chinese, while another translates into Cantonese, etc.

So what did Paul mean that if there is no interpretation, a person should speak to himself and to God? To do that would mean that the speaking in tongues would be away from the public arena. Even a half-wit would understand that. But then cuckoo theology makes one devoid of plain common sense at times!

 

[rockytopva]

Paul found the Holy Ghost missing in the life of believers and was disturbed by it....

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve. - Acts 19

... And they spoke in tongues!

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes, since it is to spread the word of God in foreign languages without having to learn it through schooling. The Holy Ghost gives the gift instantly.

This is why it is a miracle or sign to unbelievers (believers already know God can do this) who marvel at a person suddenly speaking fluent Russian to preach the Gospel, when they never learned it before by human means.

That is one correct use of it, but there are others (also)...

God Bless!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

One form of abuse of it is, when someone is doing it to really make themselves "seem to be really somebody", or someone very special or important to somebody or someone else, cause then it's all about impressing others, and it's not really about, or is really just between you/them and God at all, is it...?

It can take many form of abuse, and can all to easily sometimes (take or be some form of abuse/misuse), and I won't argue that...

Again, discernment, discernment, discernment...

God Bless!

How do you know that? Sounds generalised cuckoo stuff to me!

 

[Neogaia777]

How do you know that? Sounds generalised cuckoo stuff to me!

You don't agree that that is an incorrect use of it...?

God Bless!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That is one correct use of it, but there are others (also)...

God Bless!

Very rare. Early 20th Century Pentecostals believed that, so many sold their homes and spent their money going to China and tried to preach to the Chinese in tongues. They all failed miserably.

I know of only one instance in Church history where tongues was used to preach the gospel to a foreign person. St Francis of Assisi was faced with a foreign man, and prayed to God to be able to preach the gospel to him. He stepped out in faith and found himself speaking in the foreigner's language (which St Francis had never learned). The foreigner came to Christ as a result.

There is a modern example of a person miraculously receiving the Italian language to be able to preach the gospel to Italians. The person never lost the language. But that is a miracle and not the use of tongues. Paul is quite clear that when a person speaks in tongues, "no man understands him." Paul does not say something, and meaning something else. If he said that no man understands him, then that is what he meant. The usual use of tongues is the speaking and praying in an unlearned, unknown language.

 

[Neogaia777]

I suppose one who thinks they have the gift of speaking in tongues could always be dropped off in a foreign country where they do not know any of the language, and speak with or talk to them, I guess...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Very rare. Early 20th Century Pentecostals believed that, so many sold their homes and spent their money going to China and tried to preach to the Chinese in tongues. They all failed miserably.

I know of only one instance in Church history where tongues was used to preach the gospel to a foreign person. St Francis of Assisi was faced with a foreign man, and prayed to God to be able to preach the gospel to him. He stepped out in faith and found himself speaking in the foreigner's language (which St Francis had never learned). The foreigner came to Christ as a result.

There is a modern example of a person miraculously receiving the Italian language to be able to preach the gospel to Italians. The person never lost the language. But that is a miracle and not the use of tongues. Paul is quite clear that when a person speaks in tongues, "no man understands him." Paul does not say something, and meaning something else. If he said that no man understands him, then that is what he meant. The usual use of tongues is the speaking and praying in an unlearned, unknown language.

I know of another one: "Pentecost"...

God Bless!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You don't agree that that is an incorrect use of it...?

God Bless!

But in all the 50 years, I have never met or experienced anyone like that. Yes, I have met some self-important folk at times, but their problems were not associated with tongues.

I do know that some to pray in tongues in public and sometimes I wonder if they are making a show in front of others, describing what Jesus said about advertising your religion to impress others and get their praise, and it is all the reward those people will get. This is why I don't like expressing my worship in front of others, and I don't like group prayer meetings, for that purpose. If I want to worship God and pray, I get right away from other people so that God is the only Person who is listening to me. Because He knows my heart, there is no use in me trying to give some sort of religious show to impress Him! I might as well just be myself and give real worship and real prayer.