do any of you believe tongues are necessary

[patience7]

Just for interest, I interviewed a Vietnamese client this morning with the help of an interpreter on "language line". They spoke what sounded like a lot of gobbledygook to me, but they were speaking an understandable language which was translated into perfectly clear English. So we cannot assume that when we speak what seems like gibberish to us, that it is not understood by God who needs no interpreter to know what we are speaking when we pray in tongues.

I surely never meant that speaking in tongues is gibberish!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I surely never meant that speaking in tongues is gibberish!

I understand. I just wanted to make the point, because I had never heard the Vietnamese language before and it sounded real strange!

 

[GodsServant05]

I see that as the timing of God. It probably took that amount of time before you were ready to receive the gift and be able to appreciate and use it appropriately. Nothing in Christian development ever happens by accident.

Amen!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Now for those who believe that this is "faking" tongues, what do you think is the alternative?"

Simple - don't DO anything until you KNOW what to do.

Waiting with your mouth open for something to bubble up?[/SIZE]
Making your mind blank and hoping that some "force" will take you over?

Nope - neither. Those are just "Strawmen".

Don't worry about "Speaking in tongues". Seek FIRST the "kingdom of God, and HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, and all these things - etc". God can, and will bring a "Tongue" into your mind so that you can speak it when he is ready to do so.

There's no "Development" to it, and no "practicing" - it's either THERE or it's NOT, and if it isn't - fine. When it IS there - speak it. Simple as that. No "Priming the pump" is necessary. There MAY BE "feelings" connected with it, and there may be nothing as in my case - except the presence of an "odd" language - waiting to be spoken.

Isn't faith a deliberate action based on what one believes?

Absolutely not, "Faith" is the result of a DEFINITE KNOWLEDGE that the Word of God has imparted to YOU in terms you can understand, and the action that follows is the result of your obedience to that conviction.

What YOU have stated is the definition of "Presumtion". "One" may believe all SORTS of stupid stuff, and try to MAKE IT HAPPEN with his "deliberate action". HEY!! We're only talking about "tongues" here - but when MEDICAL issues are what's involved with this kind of presumptive teaching, then the "body count" starts to rise. Hobart Freeman led well over 100 people to death (including himself) in Indiana back in the '70s with his "believe in God for healing and ACT on your belief" requirement.

So, if tongues happens without an act of faith on the believer's part, would that not be a counterfeit, seeing that without faith it is impossible to please God?

The difference is that YOU mistake "presumption" for faith, and think you have to DO SOMETHING for there to be "faith". That's a common problem with TOXIC Word-Faith teaching.

"All it says is that they spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2).
I am inclined to believe that when the Holy Spirit fell on them, they received the words in their minds and they spoke them out in faith."

And since this is EXACTLY how I began to speak in tongues back in '73, I totally agree with your "inclination". When the "words" appeared in my Mind, I Spoke 'em in faith, and 38 years later I still do. I don't speak 'em any BETTER now that I did the first night, and occasionally they "change" - significantly. And I know by speaking with other "Tongues Speakers" over the years that MY "experience" isn't "Unique".

So if you are "inclined to believe" what you stated, why don't you TEACH it that way??

 

[Biblicist]

Having heard someone speaking Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese?) where the person was speaking in a rather excited tone, if I did not know she was actually speaking a real language I could have rightfully wondered what was going on.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

This is one of my pet peeves. NO you don't have to DO anything to be saved. When I first started going to church, I went to a church where they stressed "having to speak in tongues" when you get saved. It was almost like "speaking in tongues is THE SIGN you are saved". NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!! I saw people get so disappointed because they "just couldn't do it and didn't understand why." That is such a crock!

Apparently you got tangled up in the "Oneness Pentecostal" lunatic fringe.

There ARE CHristian folks in that bunch, but there's a PILE of bad teaching, and often a real "Us 4 and NO MORE" cult mentality among the hard-liners.

"While we are on this subject, let me address another one. You do NOT have to fall down when some crazy evangelist goes around smacking people on the forehead! I NEVER fell down because I honestly believe that if I DO fall down, it will be an involuntary action."

TRUE - Being "Slain in the Spirit" - IF it's real - is involuntary. And there IS a genuine "Slaying in the Spirit".

What you normally see in "Pentecostal alter services", though, is a choreographed and cooperative religious "Ritual" where the "Slayer" overbalances the "Slayee" who cooperates by falling backwards stiff legged into the arms of the "Catcher(s)" who then arrange the "Slayee" for best use of the platform real estate. Then a "Coverer" will apply a blanket to the "Slayee" if necessary for propriety's sake.

It's basically a "harmless" ritual, and folks get healed as frequently in these performances as they do otherwise, but it really has nothing to do with "Being Slain in the Spirit".

"Catchers" HATE it when folks really are "Slain" because they go down like sacks of potatoes, and can't be "Racked and Stacked" effectively

It's probably just another "Religious fad" that will pass.

 

[ARBITER01]

TRUE - Being "Slain in the Spirit" - IF it's real - is involuntary. And there IS a genuine "Slaying in the Spirit".

This is true.

I went to a small methodist church one evening to watch a healing service (not a lot of healing, but a whole heap of guilt, but that is another story), and while I was praying just as the service started, 4 people in the pew ahead of me fell down instantly and exactly at the same time, and in the same direction.

No one layed hands on them or anything, so I do believe people can be "overwhelmed" by the presence of The Lord at times, as was demonstrated to me by GOD, but I don't believe in the manufactured approach of people going before others for that specific purpose.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"I don't believe in the manufactured approach of people going before others for that specific purpose."

Nor do I, and that's what I tell folks who ask.

In the Pentecostal church there's an old saying - better a little "Wild Fire" - than NO FIRE at all. The problem with THAT is the "Wild Fire" - IS "NO FIRE", but folks are misled by it to think that something "spiritual" is going on - when NOTHING of value is going on at all.

 

[Alive_Again]

A few comments seem to be in order.

Simple - don't DO anything until you KNOW what to do.

Your "head" will never really know what to do. Your spirit will. In the beginning, YOU will have to step out, even though your spirit is not developed.

God can, and will bring a "Tongue" into your mind so that you can speak it when he is ready to do so.

Funny how God put something on the inside of you and your mind fought it tooth and nail for being "contrived". You don't know that it's from God. Their can be a sense to step out, but even that can be fought by the enemy in a fierce battle to keep you from doing one of the most beneficial things you'll ever partake of in this world.

There's no "Development" to it, and no "practicing" - it's either THERE or it's NOT, and if it isn't - fine. When it IS there - speak it.

How many have their been say that it was "there" all along, but it was so gentle and mentally confusing as to not be considered real, until they stepped out. You have to put legs to your faith, and it's YOU all the way. As far development, as the natural, so is the spiritual. You didn't learn to talk perfectly right away, and it's often the same way. Also, you have to step out, and like a new walker, it's a few steps in faith and a stop. You look around and take a few more. Rarely does anyone get bowled over. We'd all like to (even now). You just step out and if you can get past your mind, you notice their are fruits connected to it.

Simple as that. No "Priming the pump" is necessary.

Anything that will release the flow of the Spirit in your walk is a good primer. That includes singing with your understanding and praising the Lord.

What YOU have stated is the definition of "Presumtion". "One" may believe all SORTS of stupid stuff, and try to MAKE IT HAPPEN with his "deliberate action".

We're only talking about getting into agreement with the Holy Spirit. As far as making it happen, you ask and then start praising the Lord. When you're ready to step out with something that surely seems like madness to your understanding, YOU have to stand up and walk. If you're not used to it, you learn to walk. It's the same as the natural.
Some take to it quickly. It seems God favors some in this respect. That is not the norm. I got tired of waiting and entered in.

Hobart Freeman led well over 100 people to death (including himself) in Indiana back in the '70s with his "believe in God for healing and ACT on your belief" requirement.

Their is a corresponding action to faith without question. I don't know about Hobart, and I don't use potentially bad examples to illustrate walking in faith or in the Spirit. Their not worth mentioning. No one's going to get hurt stepping out speaking in tongues.

The difference is that YOU mistake "presumption" for faith, and think you have to DO SOMETHING for there to be "faith".

How do you know this? Someone wants to enter in. After all of the praying, asking, believing, etc., you will have to enter in and speak. THEY spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. That utterance may seem very slight and your mind is usually not on board. God will fill your mouth and there's not an ounce of toxicity in it. It may seem completely foolish, but keep stepping out, because the Holy Spirit is right in front of you with outstretched arms.

You might even agree with the bulk of this, but if someone waits around for what they believe to be tongues, they might wait their entire walk to enter in. God won't always knock you over with the tongues thing. You have to enter in and you have to speak. I want to stress that because anyone can enter in, without doubting. You don't have to "tarry" at all.

What does one do to get faith? They meditate on the promises of God (listening for the quickening of the Word) and be of good courage. They serve the King first and then He serves you. You ask and believe you receive, then you have. You walk through the door and you take some steps like you entered in. These are things you do, not God. God gave us keys for edification and if we don't use them, we won't likely enter in to that provision. We definitely have our part.

Anyone who doesn't pray in the Spirit, know that your head will likely fight you to the end, and guess who'll be leading that charge of discouragement? Just speak out boldly and acknowledge God! He'll show up!

 

[floydsayz]

Hi yea I was slain in the sprit it is real and as for speaking in tonges it is a gift you have to ask for it but u have to be willing to let go of your self and let the holy spirit take total control. Not every one is supposed to have same gift

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Nope

 

[His_disciple3]

So do you believe that tongues is not available to all?

did you not read his post?

 

[Biblicist]

Our ability to pray in the Spirit should never be considered the absolute litmus test of ones salvation but on the other hand, as with the Apostles, the Elders in the Council at Jerusalem and with the disciples who were present, it was still the only evidence that they would except that proved beyond reasonable doubt that someone was born again and in particular that they had received the Holy Spirit. Whereas we would generally ask, Are you saved, they would be more interested in knowing has someone received the Holy Spirit.

This is not intended as some form of doublespeak but it is merely an acknowledgement of how we have become to rely less on the person of the Holy Spirit when it comes to outworking our salvation. Whereas the early Church fully understood his importance not only to their daily walk but also his vital importance for ministry, both personal and within the congregational setting. For the early Church it seemed Paul had to contend with them not always walking in the Spirit whereas to day for many, the Spirit is only known as a part of some doxology.

Things can become a bit complicated or awkward when someone persistently and aggressively speaks out against the work of the Spirit within the believer, this would be especially so when they speak against the Spirits ability to pray through us. Even though there are certainly more dramatic and powerful Manifestations of the Spirit such as with miracles and healings, I suspect that as any denunciations that the Spirit does not work in this way or that some argue that he has never worked through the rank and file believer in this way that they are unwittingly attacking the very nature and person of the Spirit – eventually such aggression towards his ministry may realise severe ramifications for such persons.

 

[Willing Spirit]

No.

I never actually met a person who believed that.

 

[Biblicist]

No.

I never actually met a person who believed that.

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

 

[OzSpen]

No.

I never actually met a person who believed that.

Oneness Pentecostals (non-Trinitarian) believe that a person must speak in tongues as evidence of salvation. This is a Jesus-Only denomination. The United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) is an example of this kind of denomination. According to the UPCI homepage, this is how this oneness Pentecostal church sees the doctrine of salvation:

New Testament Salvation
Salvation is by grace through faith and not by human works (Ephesians 2:8-9). The doctrine of grace means that salvation is a free gift from God, which humans cannot merit or earn; in other words, salvation is God’s work in us. The atoning death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ have made this gift available.
The doctrine of faith means that we receive God’s saving work by trusting in Jesus Christ. Faith is more than mental assent, intellectual acceptance, or verbal profession; it includes trust, reliance, appropriation, and application. Faith is alive only through response and action; we cannot separate faith from obedience. (See Matthew 7:21-27; Romans 1:5; 6:17; 10:16; 16:26; II Thessalonians 1:7-10.) Saving faith, then, is (1) acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ as the means of salvation and (2) obedience to that gospel (application or appropriation of that gospel).

The gospel of Jesus Christ is His death, burial, and resurrection for our salvation (I Corinthians 15:1-4). On the Day of Pentecost, the birthday of the New Testament church, the apostle Peter preached the first gospel sermon to the crowds who had gathered to observe the Spirit-filled believers as they spoke in tongues and worshiped God. He proclaimed the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Convicted of their sins by his simple yet powerful message, the audience cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Peter, with the support of the other apostles, gave a precise, complete, and unequivocal answer: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). As this verse shows, we respond to the gospel, obey the gospel, or apply the gospel to our lives by repentance from sin (death to sin), water baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ (burial with Christ), and receiving the Holy Spirit (new life in Christ). (See Romans 6:1-7; 7:6; 8:2, 10.)

This response is the biblical expression of saving faith in Jesus Christ. (See Mark 1:15; 16:16; John 7:37-39; Acts 11:15-17.) This threefold experience, viewed as an integrated whole, brings regeneration, justification, and initial sanctification. (See I Corinthians 6:11; Titus 3:5.) Baptism of water and Spirit is the birth of water and Spirit, the born-again experience of which Jesus spoke in John 3:3-5. The three steps are not human works that earn salvation but divine works of salvation in human lives.

Thus, Acts 2:38 is the comprehensive answer to an inquiry about New Testament conversion, expressing in a nutshell the proper response to the gospel. Not only did Jews from many nations on the Day of Pentecost receive the Acts 2:38 experience, but so did all other converts in the New Testament, including the Samaritans, the apostle Paul, the Gentiles at Caesarea, and the disciples of John at Ephesus.

In each case, believers were baptized with the invocation of the name of Jesus, even some who had previously been baptized another way. (See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:3-5; 22:16.) The Epistles also allude repeatedly to the Jesus Name formula. (See Romans 6:3-4; I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12.) Moreover, the examples in Acts show that the baptism of the Spirit is for everyone and is accompanied by the initial sign of tongues. (See Acts 2:4; 10:44-47; 19:6.) The experience signified by tongues is the promised outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 2:6-17, 33).

So this denomination (which I consider to be unorthodox because of its non-Trinitarian view of God and its view of salvation) maintains that for salvation to happen, a person is saved by grace through faith, plus water baptism, plus Holy Spirit baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

See a critique of this position at Let Us Reason Ministries, "Tongues and baptism for salvation".

In Christ, Oz

 

[Biblicist]

Oneness Pentecostals (non-Trinitarian) believe that a person must speak in tongues as evidence of salvation. This is a Jesus-Only denomination. The United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) is an example of this kind of denomination. According to the UPCI homepage, this is how this oneness Pentecostal church sees the doctrine of salvation:
So this denomination (which I consider to be unorthodox because of its non-Trinitarian view of God and its view of salvation) maintains that for salvation to happen, a person is saved by grace through faith, plus water baptism, plus Holy Spirit baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

See a critique of this position at Let Us Reason Ministries, "Tongues and baptism for salvation".

In Christ, Oz

If you were responding to Willing Spirits' question then this is certainly not my own position as can be quickly seen with my opening statement; I trust that he was referring to something else.

One of the problems with the LetUsReason website when it comes to the things of the Spirit is that as the author is an avid cessationist (contrary to his own claim), he is not only patently poorly read on the subject but he seems to be stuck in some humanist mindset where human reason supplants that of Gods. So when it comes to understanding the Gospel and especially with how the Spirit ministers in and through the individual believer, this is a website that is best avoided.

 

[OzSpen]

If you were responding to Willing Spirits' question then this is certainly not my own position as can be quickly seen with my opening statement; I trust that he was referring to something else.

One of the problems with the LetUsReason website when it comes to the things of the Spirit is that the as the author is an avid cessationist (contrary to his own claim), he is not only patently poorly read on the subject but he seems to be stuck in some humanist mindset where human reason supplants that of Gods. So when it comes to understanding the Gospel and especially with how the Spirit ministers in and through the individual believer, this is a website that is best avoided.

The article, "Tongues and baptism for salvation", from Let Us Reason Ministries was designed to refute the Oneness Pentecostal view that tongues is a necessary manifestation to demonstrate that a person is saved. In the process, the author also refuted the view that tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

This latter view of tongues as the initial physical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is the doctrine held by an orthodox Pentecostal denomination such as the Assemblies of God. I, as a convinced charismatic, do not support tongues as the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Spirit and I most certainly do not support tongues as one of the evidences of salvation.

See my articles:

• “Tongues and the baptism in the Holy Spirit”;
• “Baptism of the Holy Spirit: When does it happen?”

However, I am convinced of the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit and agree with the article from Let Us Reason Ministries (LURM). LURM is an apologetic and polemicist ministry addressing some of the issues in defending the faith in the secular world and confronting issues among the cults.

As a supporter or the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit, see my articles: “The gift of prophecy as non-binding revelation”; "St. Augustine: The man who dared to change his mind about divine healing".

I affirm the great benefit of Let Us Reason Ministries, without agreeing with all that is on that website.

Oz

 

[Biblicist]

The article, "Tongues and baptism for salvation", from Let Us Reason Ministries was designed to refute the Oneness Pentecostal view that tongues is a necessary manifestation to demonstrate that a person is saved. In the process, the author also refuted the view that tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit....

I affirm the great benefit of Let Us Reason Ministries, without agreeing with all that is on that website.

One of the problems with using material from any website that is patently aggressive toward so much of the work of the Spirit is that it can all too easily suffer from a lack of credibility, especially for those who are currently bound up in Oneness Pentecostal distinctives. It’s almost like having Dawkins defending the Christian faith by having him defend evolutionary theory against Creationism.

If I were an oneness minister who was trying to convince someone that the material in the website was from a less than credible source all I would have to do is to point to the article on tongues. By pointing out the authors humanistic worldview I would simply point out that his information is certainly tainted and how could any believer take the author seriously after reading his material on tongues. In my opinion we would be far better off referring to more credible websites.

Without going into too much detail, the following quotation of the author shows how problematic his material can be and I would expect that most oneness individuals would stop reading past his following statement:

“In each case when tongues are manifested there are Jews present (sometimes in unbelief). The conclusion can only be that that tongues were given primarily as a sign to unbelieving Jews or to those new people groups entering the body.”

​

. . . .

PS. I went to your interesting website and I noticed a dead link, as I can't seem to find an email address for your website or in CF then feel free to send me a PM.

 

[OzSpen]

If I were an oneness minister who was trying to convince someone that the material in the website was from a less than credible source all I would have to do is to point to the article on tongues. By pointing out the authors humanistic worldview I would simply point out that his information is certainly tainted and how could any believer take the author seriously after reading his material on tongues. In my opinion we would be far better off referring to more credible websites.

PS. I went to your interesting website and I noticed a dead link, as I can't seem to find an email address for your website or in CF then feel free to send me a PM.

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.

As for the link on my homepage that is not working, you can send me a private message with evidence of that broken link.

Thanks, Oz