Baptized in the Spirit

[Presbyterian Continuist]

As I said..."Mastorate?"

To be fair to your experience with Charismatics, I have encountered all the "fuzzy" stuff over my years of association with it. I think that the lunatic fringe is more prominent in those churches because of the nature of the way some churches are run, and defective teaching about the functions of leadership and ministry in them. In my experience, there is a lot more freedom for any person who says they have a gift of the Spirit to exercise it. Some leaderships are better than others at discerning between the genuine and the false. Other leaderships have no idea, and they let anything happen in their services, I think to their detriment and discrediting of their churches. I think that the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches have been brought to disrepute because of the conduct of those who have taken it upon themselves to operate a ministry function where God has not commissioned them. Paul and Barnabas had to wait for a consensus of the Antioch leadership in the Spirit before they knew they were commissioned to their ministry.

Paul gave wise counsel to Timothy and Titus when he instructed them not to allow novices into positions of leadership lest they be puffed up with pride. There is an apprenticeship in ministry and a person has to prove themselves to be experienced and mature before being given freedom to exercise any ministry; and that includes any gift of the Spirit.

I will advocate for continuance of the gifts until Judgment day (when we don't need them any more), but I do not support many of the practices of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches. I think that novices in the faith have been given permission to minister too early, and they have mistakenly thought that what they are doing is of the Holy Spirit, when they are doing stuff out of their own minds, having been puffed up with pride to think that they have a special gift from God. I believe that this is the reason why a good number of prominent ministries have failed through sin and inappropriate financial dealings. These ones were released into ministry too early, before their personal issues had been properly settled. In other words, they were not sufficiently developed in their personal sanctification to be able to cope with the pressures of ministry upon their personal, married, and family life. Also, they did not have a strong leadership behind them, and even if they did, they might not have listened, because they, in their pride, believed that God had given them a special ministry so that they didn't have to listen to anyone who felt the need to correct them in God when inappropriate conduct started to emerge. So these ministries were brought down, because pride comes before a fall. Some of these ministries, after repentance and greater humility, have been able to be restored; but many have so lost their credibility, that they would never have the same effectiveness again.

Charles Spurgeon said that it can take 20 years to perfect the right sermon, because it can take that long to perfect the man who delivers it. We can take a good lesson from the experience of Moses, who thought he could free his people at the age of 40, but crashed in flames. He had to wait on the backside of the desert as a shepherd until the age of 80 before God commissioned him. Even after all that, he went into a rage and struck the rock instead of just speaking to it, and lost out in getting into the promised land. We have seen ministries run by 40s men start up with a hiss and a roar, but crash in flames because of pride and sin. I guess that this is more prominent in the Pentecostal/Charismatic because those ones tend to be more "out there" than more conservative groups.

I can give you many examples of what I have seen and experienced in the Charismatic churches I have belonged to. I was a victim of the Shepherding movement and this caused me to become disillusioned and to leave my last Charismatic church after 15 years of being involved in that movement. I have fellowshipped in Anglican, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches since. I have offered myself as a resource person to explain things to churches that have come under pressure by Pentecostals and Charismatics to change and become like them. I have also been able to confront P/Cs concerning their inappropriate conduct when they have invaded congregations because I can speak their language (their terminology, I mean).

So, I have witnessed and experienced probably the same things you have, and those things eventually drove me away from direct involvement in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, but these did not convince me to become cessationist, because I firmly believe that continuance is not just P/C, as I have told my people (as senior elder), but it is in the Bible. This means that we can believe in and practice the gifts of the Spirit without having to change our Presbyterian character.

I just thought I would mention these things to give you more of an insight to where I am coming from in all this.

 

[TheSeabass]

Having studied Church history at mastorate level, and completed a research paper on the ministry of healing through history and the present time, I would just have a chuckle about that statement.

I would have to chuckle at your 'mastorate level' study if you are gullible to believe those claims.

How to Fake a Healing

(The "Big-foot sightings" is a very common technique I see a lot.)

 

[TheSeabass]

It looks like the only ones you have met and have contact with have been the lunatic fringe of the movement. Must be a lot more of them over where you live than way down here in the more sensible country of New Zealand. In all my 50 years of being associated with Pentecostals, I have never met anyone like that, and if I did, I would laugh them out of the room too! It is certainly not the practice of Pentecostals and Charismatics in New Zealand. It is certainly obvious that most of the crack-pot ministries have come out of the United States than anywhere else, so it is understandable that the lunatic fringe are more prominent up there. You don't hear of many, if any, British, NZ, or Australian crack-pot ministries, and that is probably why I have never met anyone associated with them.

No, my contacts are with the common everyday charismatic Pentecostal types. Not a single one could ever give biblical, objective proof of possessing the abilities to perform miracles. The 'ecstatic utterances" are not miracles nor can they be found in the pages of the NT.

 

[Albion]

No, my contacts are with the common everyday charismatic Pentecostal types. Not a single one could ever give biblical, objective proof of possessing the abilities to perform miracles. The 'ecstatic utterances" are not miracles nor can they be found in the pages of the NT.

It's no secret WHY speaking in tongues is by far the most commonly claimed "gift of the Holy Spirit." All the others are a lot harder, if not impossible, to perform without actually having been gifted.

 

[TheSeabass]

It's no secret WHY speaking in tongues is by far the most commonly claimed "gift of the Holy Spirit." All the others are a lot harder, if not impossible, to perform without actually having been gifted.

Even a baby can speak in 'utterances' but that is not miraculous and I cannot see why/how people think these 'ecstatic utterances' are miraculous.

 

[Bible2+]

TheSeabass said in post #43:

The 'ecstatic utterances" are not miracles nor can they be found in the pages of the NT.

While only some Pentecostal-type and charismatic-type congregations like to work themselves up emotionally (just as some football fans and rock concert-goers like to, because it's fun and a release), no Pentecostal-type or charismatic-type congregation is able to operate in its Spiritual gifts only when it has worked itself up emotionally. For working oneself up emotionally has nothing to do with the ability to operate in the Spiritual gifts. They are miraculous abilities which only the Holy Spirit can give to people (1 Corinthians 12:8-10). Also, working oneself up emotionally isn't a good idea when operating in the Spiritual gifts. For they are to be employed in a sober, controlled way, according to the strict rules of 1 Corinthians 14:26-40.

In order for Christians to look honestly at all of the evidence regarding the operation of the Spiritual gifts in the church today, and not just give heed to cherry-picked extreme examples which they might hear about or find on the internet which they think support their anti-tongues view, Christians need to actually go out and attend faithfully for a few months a wide variety of congregations and home groups which operate in the Spiritual gifts, until they find one which operates in the gifts with discipline (1 Corinthians 14:26-40), and also has sound scriptural preaching (2 Timothy 4:2-4), and whose members also live holy lives (2 Corinthians 7:1).

 

[Bible2+]

Albion said in post #44:

It's no secret WHY speaking in tongues is by far the most commonly claimed "gift of the Holy Spirit." All the others are a lot harder, if not impossible, to perform without actually having been gifted.

Even people who have truly spoken in tongues can begin to doubt, thinking: "Wasn't I just faking tongues?" But why do they think that they were faking? For speaking or singing in tongues does take some effort. For when the Holy Spirit gives people the gift of tongues, he doesn't turn them into sock puppets. They still have to open their own mouths and make the effort to speak or sing something forth. Tongues are not spoken or sung out of some sort of Spiritual or emotional euphoria, but can be spoken or sung in no less a sober manner than praying or singing in one's natural language. So long as believers are not purposely trying to mentally control, alter, or add to what they are saying or singing in tongues, but are simply letting their spirit pray or sing in tongues with no mental input on their part (1 Corinthians 14:14-15), then they should simply accept by faith that they have truly received the gift of tongues.

Another misconception regarding tongues is that they can't ever be just a simple phrase, but must always be some long and elaborate discourse. But why should it be surprising that when our spirit is first given the ability to speak (1 Corinthians 14:14), it can use only simple phrases, just as when we were toddlers and our mind first learned to speak, it started out with only simple phrases?

A Christian can think that he is being objective in denying the validity of tongues today, when in fact he isn't, just as an atheist who used to be a Christian can think that he is being objective in denying the validity of Christian faith, when in fact he isn't. Does every instance of someone without Spiritual gifts (or without faith in gifts which he has received) witnessing their use throughout the world today have to objectively be like the fable of the child seeing the emperor with no clothes, rather than like the fable of the fox with no grapes?

Albion said in post #44:

It's no secret WHY speaking in tongues is by far the most commonly claimed "gift of the Holy Spirit." All the others are a lot harder, if not impossible, to perform without actually having been gifted.

Note that speaking in tongues can be the most common gift because it's the very least of the gifts:

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I may be different to a lot of the people who have spoken in tongues in your presence. When I speak in tongues, my mind is totally active, and I deliberately speak in an articulate language. I don't just babble with my mouth, but I ask the Lord to guide my tongue when I set out to pray for a particular person or about a particular issue. I find that the language that flows out of me is articulate and expressive and certainly not repetitive. I have heard Indians speak Hindi, and their language sounds more repetitive than what I speak to God. Once when interceding for a person in hospital on the danger list because of uncontrolled bleeding in her stomach, I found my self praying in a language which came out so fast I couldn't distinguish between the actual words. It seemed to come out with such intensity that when it stopped 20 minutes later, I felt quite drained. I had never spoken like that before or since. I found out the next day that the bleeding suddenly stopped and the person came off the danger list.

I have never been pressured into it by others, nor do I believe that one must speak in tongues to be saved. I see it as just one of the tools given to us by the Holy Spirit to help strengthen the body of Christ. It does not make one more spiritual than one who does not use the gift. Of course there are people who misuse it just like there are the lunatic fringe in any church. These are the ones who do it because it is their church doctrine, but they have no idea of what it is supposed to be used for.

My wife is Catholic, and Pentecostal things are not her cup of tea. We attended the Pentecostal church in which our daughter was baptised in water at the age of 16. I was not a member of that church, but as her father, I was given permission to give an Abrahamic blessing prophecy over her. My wife was standing right beside me. When I spoke, it came out as tongues, not because anything forced me, but I felt that was what God wanted me to do. So I spoke out a tongues message and then gave the interpretation over her. It came out as an articulate, deliberate language, different to what I usually speak when I pray privately. It was when I finished the tongues that the interpretation came to mind loud and clear. I wish I had it recorded because it was a beautiful interpretation for her. I think God did it that way because my wife had never heard me speak in tongues and I think I was a bit ashamed of it with her. She has a problem with people being too "holy" (a Catholic expression for those who are passionate about their faith). I think that God, having a sense of humour, and wanting to see me free that the shame of her hearing me speak in tongues, did things that way.

For me, speaking in tongues is part of my private prayer life and I pray in tongues believing that God understands what I say to Him. There are times when I have a burden for prayer but cannot put it into words. When I pray in tongues, I sense that the burden of my heart is being expressed to Him and I feel a real sense of satisfaction in my spirit and heart when I pray that way.

I told a person on another forum thread my testimony about me speaking in tongues over my daughter and I challenged him to accuse me of being inspired by the devil! If people do not believe that what I did was by the Holy Spirit, there can only be one other spirit that could inspire me, so I said, "Let's be having you. Have the honesty to tell me what you really believe, instead of trying to be all scholarly and spiritual about it."

Right, speaking in tongues is not gibberish, as some mockers call it. The languages are genuine languages created by God. He understands all languages.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Right, speaking in tongues is not gibberish, as some mockers call it. The languages are genuine languages created by God. He understands all languages.

If it's not a coherent language then it's gibberish. No one in the book of Acts ever spoke in a non-language. Ecstatic utterances of gibberish is a phenomenon that exists not only in modern Pentecostalism but in a number of shamanistic and esoteric traditions. Some would say that indicates a demonic activity; I don't think it's demonic, it's a purely human activity.

To suggest these are "languages created by God" is a nice way to ad hoc away the fact that these aren't actually languages, which is what we see happening in the New Testament.

If someone suddenly started speaking fluent Inuktitut having never heard it before, that would be a genuine example of glossolalia. A stammering set of incoherent, non-syntactical sounds is not a language; it's not even that they aren't a language, it's that they don't even accurately approximate the structure of language.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[1stcenturylady]

Tell that to over 50,000 Pentecostals and Charismatics world-wide. They would all laugh you out of the room! Just because you don't experience it, or those in your limited church sphere don't experience it, doesn't mean that it is not routine for vast areas of the Church you know nothing about. You are like the cessationist who said, "If I haven't been baptised in the Spirit, then it doesn't exist." It probably doesn't exist for you and if you are happy for it to remain that way, then the best of British luck to you.

Yes, I'll say it's over 50,000; it more than 280,000,000! And that includes me!

I actually read a book by a cessationist who DID say that. He said, "if I don't have the gifts of the Spirit, then they don't exist." As if he was the official gauge.

 

[1stcenturylady]

If it's not a coherent language then it's gibberish. No one in the book of Acts ever spoke in a non-language. Ecstatic utterances of gibberish is a phenomenon that exists not only in modern Pentecostalism but in a number of shamanistic and esoteric traditions. Some would say that indicates a demonic activity; I don't think it's demonic, it's a purely human activity.

To suggest these are "languages created by God" is a nice way to ad hoc away the fact that these aren't actually languages, which is what we see happening in the New Testament.

If someone suddenly started speaking fluent Inuktitut having never heard it before, that would be a genuine example of glossolalia. A stammering set of incoherent, non-syntactical sounds is not a language; it's not even that they aren't a language, it's that they don't even accurately approximate the structure of language.

-CryptoLutheran

Have you ever studied tongues scripturally? What does 1 Corinthians 14:2 mean to you? By that scripture, would you be able to understand them? Are you God?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Have you ever studied tongues scripturally? What does 1 Corinthians 14:2 mean to you? By that scripture, would you be able to understand them? Are you God?

I have studied tongues Scripturally, yes. I grew up in the Pentecostal tradition (Foursquare) and underwent what they called baptism of the Holy Spirit, hands laid on me, I was "slain in the Spirit", and frequently "spoke in tongues" for many years. Even after I left Pentecostalism (unrelated subject) and eventually was led to Lutheranism in my 20's I didn't really question my tongues experiences. It has only been through continued study of Scripture that I've reached the position I currently have. That's also why I know that translations that include the word "unknown" in 1 Corinthians 14:2 do so without that being present in the actual text, and while it may have made sense to the translators who did so (unknown here meaning the speaker doesn't know the language) it clearly has resulted in confusion for those who have interpreted "unknown tongues" to refer to languages that are simply unknown, and then add their own ideas of "heavenly language" or "prayer language" which are entirely absent from Scripture.

Here's the text:

ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ τῶ θεῷ οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια
ho gar lalon glosse ouk anthropois lalei alla te theo oudeis gar akouei pneumati de lalei musteria

the for speaks language not to-men speaks but the god no-one for hears with-the-spirit nevertheless speaks mysteries
For the one who speaks tongues speaks not to men but God, for no one hears (perceives), but with the Spirit speaks mysteries.

Nothing here suggests the language is some unknown/unknowable language; but that the language is not understood except by God; and here is in the context of Christian gathering; and it is on account of it being unknown by the hearers present that it is necessary for one to be able to translate it; and without that the speaker ought not to speak at all.

We can know that the languages which are covered by glossolalia are actual languages because that is precisely the phenomenon that is recorded as happening, when the pilgrims in Jerusalem heard their own languages and dialects spoken by those upon whom the Spirit descended on Pentecost.

Further, we also can remember that glossolalia isn't for the believing but the unbelieving, the Apostle quoting the Prophet Isaiah to underscore this point that those speaking with "strange lips" would still not be believed by a stubborn people; thus the charism of glossolalia was a demonstration of judgement against unbelieving Israel--not an indicator of the Spirit's presence and work in the individual believer. The Spirit's work in the individual believer can be assured by the promises of God as attached to the Gospel, such that whoever is baptized receives the gift of the Spirit, that though we are many we have all by our one baptism shared of the same Spirit, and that the Spirit is alive in us, by Him we confess Christ as Lord, by Him we cry out to God, "Abba! Father!" and so forth.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ron Gurley]

1 Corinthians 14:22-23...The BOTTOM LINE for "glossae"/language/"tongues" !
So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?


Luke 10...the 70 sent out...
say to them, ‘The kingdom of God (Divine Messiah) has come near to you.’
"The one who listens to you listens to Me,
and the one who rejects you rejects Me;
and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."
...rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven."
...All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and
no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and
who the Father is except the Son, and
anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

Shucks...nothing on baptism for the first organized missionaries!

"Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?"...Trick Question to Jewish leaders!!

A: Neither! The Baptizer was a prophesied forerunner and messenger. He was not the promised Divine Savior.
John's baptism emphasized turning to God and be symbolically immersed in a river to cleanse from sin.

If Jesus did not receive WATER BAPTISM from John,
he would be LACKING in the fulfillment of ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jesus was the sinless ONE!...divine at conception!

Mark 1:8
I baptized you with water; but He (Jesus) will baptize you with (God) the Holy Spirit."

Acts 1:5
for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with (God) the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Acts 19:4
Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance,
telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

1 Corinthians 12:13...for believers ONLY!
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one (spiritual) body,(of Christ!)
whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free,
and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Jesus the Divine Messiah was Deity from birth to ascension...SINLESS!

John's ceremonial water baptism ceremony was for OBSERVERS who caught a glimpse of the TRI-UNE GOD... Voice (FATHER) + Dove (SPIRIT) + Jesus.
This was the ~30 year starting line for which Jesus been prepared for a miraculous ~3 year ministry.

Ephesians 4...Unity of the SPIRIT
5 one Lord, one faith, one (SPIRITUAL) baptism,

===>NOT ritual water water baptism.

Romans 6:3
Or do you not know that all of us (believers)
who have been baptized INTO Christ Jesus
have been baptized into His death?

Galatians 3:27
For all of you who were baptized INTO Christ
have clothed yourselves with Christ.

John 3...
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again (spiritually changed) he cannot see the kingdom of God."..."Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water (normal flesh birth fluids) and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Mark 16: CAVEAT: verses 9-end were ADDED to the original MSS...UNRELIABLE!
"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. 17 These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

 

[1stcenturylady]

I have studied tongues Scripturally, yes. I grew up in the Pentecostal tradition (Foursquare) and underwent what they called baptism of the Holy Spirit, hands laid on me, I was "slain in the Spirit", and frequently "spoke in tongues" for many years. Even after I left Pentecostalism (unrelated subject) and eventually was led to Lutheranism in my 20's I didn't really question my tongues experiences. It has only been through continued study of Scripture that I've reached the position I currently have. That's also why I know that translations that include the word "unknown" in 1 Corinthians 14:2 do so without that being present in the actual text, and while it may have made sense to the translators who did so (unknown here meaning the speaker doesn't know the language) it clearly has resulted in confusion for those who have interpreted "unknown tongues" to refer to languages that are simply unknown, and then add their own ideas of "heavenly language" or "prayer language" which are entirely absent from Scripture.

Here's the text:

ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ τῶ θεῷ οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια
ho gar lalon glosse ouk anthropois lalei alla te theo oudeis gar akouei pneumati de lalei musteria

the for speaks language not to-men speaks but the god no-one for hears with-the-spirit nevertheless speaks mysteries
For the one who speaks tongues speaks not to men but God, for no one hears (perceives), but with the Spirit speaks mysteries.

Nothing here suggests the language is some unknown/unknowable language; but that the language is not understood except by God; and here is in the context of Christian gathering; and it is on account of it being unknown by the hearers present that it is necessary for one to be able to translate it; and without that the speaker ought not to speak at all.

We can know that the languages which are covered by glossolalia are actual languages because that is precisely the phenomenon that is recorded as happening, when the pilgrims in Jerusalem heard their own languages and dialects spoken by those upon whom the Spirit descended on Pentecost.

Further, we also can remember that glossolalia isn't for the believing but the unbelieving, the Apostle quoting the Prophet Isaiah to underscore this point that those speaking with "strange lips" would still not be believed by a stubborn people; thus the charism of glossolalia was a demonstration of judgement against unbelieving Israel--not an indicator of the Spirit's presence and work in the individual believer. The Spirit's work in the individual believer can be assured by the promises of God as attached to the Gospel, such that whoever is baptized receives the gift of the Spirit, that though we are many we have all by our one baptism shared of the same Spirit, and that the Spirit is alive in us, by Him we confess Christ as Lord, by Him we cry out to God, "Abba! Father!" and so forth.

-CryptoLutheran

What is your interpretation of the gift of interpretation of tongues?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I would have to chuckle at your 'mastorate level' study if you are gullible to believe those claims.

How to Fake a Healing

(The "Big-foot sightings" is a very common technique I see a lot.)

In recent times I have seen at least four people divinely healed as the result of my ministry to them. To counter that, you will have to call me a liar.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I have studied tongues Scripturally, yes. I grew up in the Pentecostal tradition (Foursquare) and underwent what they called baptism of the Holy Spirit, hands laid on me, I was "slain in the Spirit", and frequently "spoke in tongues" for many years. Even after I left Pentecostalism (unrelated subject) and eventually was led to Lutheranism in my 20's I didn't really question my tongues experiences. It has only been through continued study of Scripture that I've reached the position I currently have. That's also why I know that translations that include the word "unknown" in 1 Corinthians 14:2 do so without that being present in the actual text, and while it may have made sense to the translators who did so (unknown here meaning the speaker doesn't know the language) it clearly has resulted in confusion for those who have interpreted "unknown tongues" to refer to languages that are simply unknown, and then add their own ideas of "heavenly language" or "prayer language" which are entirely absent from Scripture.

Here's the text:

ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ τῶ θεῷ οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια
ho gar lalon glosse ouk anthropois lalei alla te theo oudeis gar akouei pneumati de lalei musteria

the for speaks language not to-men speaks but the god no-one for hears with-the-spirit nevertheless speaks mysteries
For the one who speaks tongues speaks not to men but God, for no one hears (perceives), but with the Spirit speaks mysteries.

Nothing here suggests the language is some unknown/unknowable language; but that the language is not understood except by God; and here is in the context of Christian gathering; and it is on account of it being unknown by the hearers present that it is necessary for one to be able to translate it; and without that the speaker ought not to speak at all.

We can know that the languages which are covered by glossolalia are actual languages because that is precisely the phenomenon that is recorded as happening, when the pilgrims in Jerusalem heard their own languages and dialects spoken by those upon whom the Spirit descended on Pentecost.

Further, we also can remember that glossolalia isn't for the believing but the unbelieving, the Apostle quoting the Prophet Isaiah to underscore this point that those speaking with "strange lips" would still not be believed by a stubborn people; thus the charism of glossolalia was a demonstration of judgement against unbelieving Israel--not an indicator of the Spirit's presence and work in the individual believer. The Spirit's work in the individual believer can be assured by the promises of God as attached to the Gospel, such that whoever is baptized receives the gift of the Spirit, that though we are many we have all by our one baptism shared of the same Spirit, and that the Spirit is alive in us, by Him we confess Christ as Lord, by Him we cry out to God, "Abba! Father!" and so forth.

-CryptoLutheran

That is the precise reason why I never speak in tongues publicly. When I go into my private prayer place and speak to God in tongues, then I am well out of range of anyone who might criticise my speaking and suggest that it is just gibberish. I have studied this at length and spent much time discussing this with the Lord. He has assured me that He understands what I am saying to Him, and I have experienced the spiritual benefits that have come from praying in tongues directly and privately to God. So people can quote Scripture to me until the cows come home but they will never convince me that my tongues speaking is unintelligible gibberish after God Himself has assured me that it is not. And don't try and tell me that I am mistaken about hearing the voice of God, because over 50 years of hearing His voice I think I know the particular character of His voice when He speaks to me.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

1 Corinthians 14:22-23...The BOTTOM LINE for "glossae"/language/"tongues" !
So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?


Luke 10...the 70 sent out...
say to them, ‘The kingdom of God (Divine Messiah) has come near to you.’
"The one who listens to you listens to Me,
and the one who rejects you rejects Me;
and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."
...rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven."
...All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and
no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and
who the Father is except the Son, and
anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

Shucks...nothing on baptism for the first organized missionaries!

"Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?"...Trick Question to Jewish leaders!!

A: Neither! The Baptizer was a prophesied forerunner and messenger. He was not the promised Divine Savior.
John's baptism emphasized turning to God and be symbolically immersed in a river to cleanse from sin.

If Jesus did not receive WATER BAPTISM from John,
he would be LACKING in the fulfillment of ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jesus was the sinless ONE!...divine at conception!

Mark 1:8
I baptized you with water; but He (Jesus) will baptize you with (God) the Holy Spirit."

Acts 1:5
for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with (God) the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Acts 19:4
Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance,
telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

1 Corinthians 12:13...for believers ONLY!
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one (spiritual) body,(of Christ!)
whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free,
and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Jesus the Divine Messiah was Deity from birth to ascension...SINLESS!

John's ceremonial water baptism ceremony was for OBSERVERS who caught a glimpse of the TRI-UNE GOD... Voice (FATHER) + Dove (SPIRIT) + Jesus.
This was the ~30 year starting line for which Jesus been prepared for a miraculous ~3 year ministry.

Ephesians 4...Unity of the SPIRIT
5 one Lord, one faith, one (SPIRITUAL) baptism,

===>NOT ritual water water baptism.

Romans 6:3
Or do you not know that all of us (believers)
who have been baptized INTO Christ Jesus
have been baptized into His death?

Galatians 3:27
For all of you who were baptized INTO Christ
have clothed yourselves with Christ.

John 3...
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again (spiritually changed) he cannot see the kingdom of God."..."Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water (normal flesh birth fluids) and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Mark 16: CAVEAT: verses 9-end were ADDED to the original MSS...UNRELIABLE!
"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. 17 These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

So you can quote Scripture. Good for you! Proves nothing either way. As for your comment on Mark 16, We don't know why some manuscripts had it and some did not. The earliest manuscript we have is from the fourth century. So we do not have the original manuscript of Mark's gospel to see conclusively whether Mark 16 is there or not. It could have been that the end of Mark's gospel could have been ripped off and copies were made of the damaged version. But that is only a theory. Mark 16 could have been deliberately left out by a scribe who no longer believed it. How do we know? But what we do know is that the scribe who included it, believed it to be true and a statement that was universally accepted as true by the Early Church. We don't know how early Mark 16 was there or inserted. We can't go back and ask the author whether that chapter is what he actually wrote. It is certain that the fourth century scribe believed Mark 16 to be genuine and included it in his copy, even though some other manuscripts, copied by scribes who did not have access to any that included Mark 16.

So, we all have the option to believe either way. Those who choose not to believe it will not experience anything connected with it and will happily carry on with their version of religious worship and practice. Those who do believe it will practice healing, casting out of demons, speaking in tongues, handling snakes, etc., and will continue to testify to miraculous healings, setting people free from demon influence, and having to go to the emergency department because of snake bites ( ).

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What is your interpretation of the gift of interpretation of tongues?

I'm tempted to give my opinion, but I will hold off and let the other guy respond first.

 

[Albion]

In recent times I have seen at least four people divinely healed as the result of my ministry to them. To counter that, you will have to call me a liar.

Not really. You could simply be mistaken.

 

[1stcenturylady]

That is the precise reason why I never speak in tongues publicly. When I go into my private prayer place and speak to God in tongues, then I am well out of range of anyone who might criticise my speaking and suggest that it is just gibberish. I have studied this at length and spent much time discussing this with the Lord. He has assured me that He understands what I am saying to Him, and I have experienced the spiritual benefits that have come from praying in tongues directly and privately to God. So people can quote Scripture to me until the cows come home but they will never convince me that my tongues speaking is unintelligible gibberish after God Himself has assured me that it is not. And don't try and tell me that I am mistaken about hearing the voice of God, because over 50 years of hearing His voice I think I know the particular character of His voice when He speaks to me.

I do to hear God's voice. And it doesn't have to be just the true meaning of Scripture which He does tell me. He tells me things that relate only to me. Like my mother's ring, you read from me. But there are a hundred more, usually about my cat. How like a Father to care about the things I care about.