praying in tongues glossolia

[swordsman1]

The event on the Day of Pentecost has includes a contractual/covenental insertion in that Peter goes as far to say to the crowd that what they are seeing and hearing is for all generations;

17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.
And the crowd responsed by asking;

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

The promise that Peter is referring to in Acts 2:39 is "the promised Holy Spirit" (v33) not a promise that all believers would be able to prophesy and speak in tongues.

When we move over to First Corinthians we find that Paul is speaking to a congregation (and to the rest of the church through proxy) with how he is demanding that they stop the practice where all (or most) pray or sing in the Spirit (tongues) during times of praise and worship (14:23).

Paul never said that "all (or most)" of the Corinthian congregation spoke in tongues. You have missed that small but very significant word in v23, "If".

Paul even goes to say (14:5) that he "wishes that all would speak in tongues"

Paul also said he wished that everyone was single and unmarried as he was (1 Cor 7:7). It was a wishful ideal, not something that he realistically expected everyone to do.

and in 14:31 he appears to be saying that the majority of the Corinthian congregations appear to be prophets (v.31) or at least that the majority are prophesying

You really ought to learn not to take verses out of context.

1 Cor 14:29-31 "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged."​

In v31 Paul is referring to the 2 or 3 prophets who were to speak in turn. Not that all the congregation should prophesy in turn!

Leaving the praise aspect of tongues aside, our ability to pray in the Spirit is also a vital part of tongues, where Paul says in 1Cor 14:15 15 "What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also"; Paul follows up with this in Eph 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints".

Praying in the Spirit here is not praying in tongues. Paul doesn't mention tongues in his epistle to the Ephesians. He told them to pray in the Spirit in their native language.

Eph 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people."​

How can you make requests for the Lord's people if you don't know what you are saying? If praying in the Spirit was tongues then every time we pray we should only pray in tongues and never in English - "on all occasions" it says.

No, praying in the Spirit simply means praying with the Spirit's leading. Same as we walk in the Spirit, and worship in the Spirit.

In Jude 20 we also find “But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.”

Jude likewise never mentions tongues.

As these admonitions/commands are global, in that they apply to all of us, this means that it is up to us to seek to be able to pray in the Spirit (tongues), one and all.

Now 1Cor 12:28,29 certainly does say that "not all will . . ." but this is being applied to the congregational setting, where not all of those who speak in tongues will choose to speak in tongues during our meetings, where they may instead choose to prophesy or do neither.

Paul makes it abundantly clear that believers are not all given the same gift.

1 Cor 12:29-30 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?" Clearly not.​

1 Cor 12:8-10 "To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues."​

Rom 12:4-6 "For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. "​

 

[versavia]

Reread what I said about the tongues and prophecies here:

Israel and Palestine: "School of Bahira Omar"
Discussion in 'Debate Non-Christian Religions' started by versavia.

 

[Goatee]

I worry for these people who shout gibberish, fall over etc. They are being led away from God!

These people who are 'speaking in tongues. You say you are praying? Yes? All those who are shouting and screaming out unfathomable words are 'praying?' Am i right? If so, don't you think that that is wrong? Why? Because Jesus said this:

Matthew 6:5-6
5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

 

[LinkH]

As for Luke’s use of dialect and not glossa in Acts 2:8,11 I doubt if he would have consciously tried to differentiate between the known human language (dialektos) of Acts 2 with the Angelic tongues (glossa) of First Corinthians as all should realise that the Day of Pentecost was a unique event, which was further accentuated by his including the account of the tongues of fire along with the sound of a rushing wind.

Acts 2 refers to tongues as 'glossa' as well. And I Corinthians does not refer exclusively to 'tongues of angels' as 'tongues.' Paul said 'Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels...' so tongues of men are tongues, too.

I was raised Pentecostal, and it is strange to me when people try to ae that tongues are nearly always angelic languages. That's not the historical Pentecostal movement belief.

I have read or heard (interview with attendee) that at the Azusa Street Revival, there were occasions when immigrants would come into the meeting and understand their own language, Japanese or Russian for example, and that is part of what made the revival grow. A/G missionaries reported similar things over the years. Dennis Balcome, a missionary to China wrote an article in which he reported that Chinese villagers would sometimes speak in tongues in English. A few months after reading that, I had the opportunity to meet his daughter and her husband. I mentioned the article to her, and she told me she heard an old Chinese woman in a village who did not know English speaking in tongues in English. I asked what she said. She said she was saying a psalm. I asked her which one. She said she wasn't sure, but it sounded like something out of the Psalms.

I've known a couple of other people who've spoken in tongues and others present understood what they said in their natural language.

It's not the norm. Normally, if one speaks in tongues in church 'no man understandeth him'. But God can also arrange an Acts 2 situation.

Tongues of angels are a possibility Paul suggests. There is no reason to assume that is the norm.

 

[LinkH]

About the Isaiah quote in I Corinthians, one type of sign is a fulfilled prophecy. No doubt, this is the type of sign the crowd was demanding of Jesus after He fed the five thousand. They wanted Him to predict something so they could perform a Deuteronomy test of a prophet. He gave them only the sign of the prophet Jonah, which spoke of His resurrection, the sign He also gave those in the temple who demanded a sign of Him for cleaning the temple. He said destroy this temple and in three days He would raise it up. The temple He spoke of was His body.

Tongues are for a sign to them that believe not. What prophecy is fulfilled? 'And yet for all that, they will not hear Me.' Even if God speaks through men of other tongues and other lips, the people still do not hear.

This applied to Israel in the case of the captivity. It also applies to unbelievers who hear speaking in tongues and respond with unbelief. On the day of Pentecost, some onlookers scoffed, accusing the disciples of being full of new wine. Paul gave a scenario in which all in a church meeting speak in tongues. The unbeliever or unlearned who comes into such a meeting says 'ye are mad.' He responds with unbelief, fulfilling the Isaiah prophecy as applied to his case, responding like Israel did to the foreign invasion.

 

[swordsman1]

About the Isaiah quote in I Corinthians, one type of sign is a fulfilled prophecy. No doubt, this is the type of sign the crowd was demanding of Jesus after He fed the five thousand. They wanted Him to predict something so they could perform a Deuteronomy test of a prophet. He gave them only the sign of the prophet Jonah, which spoke of His resurrection, the sign He also gave those in the temple who demanded a sign of Him for cleaning the temple. He said destroy this temple and in three days He would raise it up. The temple He spoke of was His body.

Tongues are for a sign to them that believe not. What prophecy is fulfilled? 'And yet for all that, they will not hear Me.' Even if God speaks through men of other tongues and other lips, the people still do not hear.

This applied to Israel in the case of the captivity. It also applies to unbelievers who hear speaking in tongues and respond with unbelief. On the day of Pentecost, some onlookers scoffed, accusing the disciples of being full of new wine. Paul gave a scenario in which all in a church meeting speak in tongues. The unbeliever or unlearned who comes into such a meeting says 'ye are mad.' He responds with unbelief, fulfilling the Isaiah prophecy as applied to his case, responding like Israel did to the foreign invasion.

You are quite right that speaking in the tongues of men was the norm. I would go further and say that neither Paul nor anyone else spoke in the tongues of angels. By looking at the verse in context it is clear Paul was speaking hypothetically:

1 Cor 13:1-3
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and
if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and
if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.​

This passage consists of 5 parallel statements to illustrate the superiority of love over the spiritual gifts. Paul doesn't say he did any of those things. Each of them is an IF statement. Paul is saying that even if he possessed spiritual gifts to an impossibly superlative degree, but not have love, it would be to no avail. It is quite obvious that in each of these statements Paul is using exaggerated figures of speech to make his point:

Did Paul really have the gift of prophecy to such a degree that he literally knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge. ie was he was omniscient? No.

Did Paul really have the gift of faith to such a degree that he could literally move mountains? No.

Did Paul really have the gift of giving to such a degree that he literally gave ALL his possessions to the poor and made himself destitute? No.

Did Paul literally give his own body to be burned? No.

And neither did he literally speak in the language of angels. He was speaking hypothetically. None of those parallel statements are meant to be taken literally.

 

[Goatee]

The Apostles were given the gift of speaking in 'mans' tongues. To spread the good news. Nothing gibberish as is spouted these days.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

If everyone who are doing things "unbiblically" are operating in "another spirit" then every single person and church organisation are operating in "another spirit". Tell me the church group operating "biblically" and I will tell you 1000 who operate in a different way. Are they all operating in "another spirit"? I suppose you and your church are the only biblical church in the world? Everyone else is operating in another spirit?

Another option: you don't always know what is biblical.

What I can tell you is there are a ton of churches practicing many unbiblical practices and down right false teaching. The list of churches with pastors who teach sound doctrine at least in the US is getting smaller everyday.

 

[versavia]

The Apostles were given the gift of speaking in 'mans' tongues. To spread the good news. Nothing gibberish as is spouted these days.

I reject all satanic languages/tongues in the satanic "churches" of the last days!!!!!

The Truth About Tongues and Pentecostalism (Part 1)

The Truth About Tongues and Pentecostalism (Part 2)

 

[LinkH]

I Timothy 2:15 wrote

The notion that is taught in many Pentecostal churches that tongues are the evidence of salvation is incorrect and in all reality opens the door to condemnation and gives ground to the enemy which can lead to backsliding.

As far as I know, the only Pentecostal churches that think of tongues as a sign of salvation are Oneness churches that do not believe in the Trinity. Many years ago, I read that they comprised about 5% of Pentecostal churches. That's just Pentecostal, Charismatic. I can't say I've ever heard a Pentecostal or Charismatic outside of the Oneness movement teach such a thing.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I Timothy 2:15 wrote


As far as I know, the only Pentecostal churches that think of tongues as a sign of salvation are Oneness churches that do not believe in the Trinity. Many years ago, I read that they comprised about 5% of Pentecostal churches. That's just Pentecostal, Charismatic. I can't say I've ever heard a Pentecostal or Charismatic outside of the Oneness movement teach such a thing.

I have, Assemblies of GOD is another, Praise Chapel is another, Victory Outreach yet another, Calvary Chapel yet another.....it is embedded in the WOF movement as well.

From AOG website

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/baptmhs_faq_tongues.cfm#withoutspeaking

Is tongues the only evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit? Will there be any significant changes in one's attitudes and actions after being baptized in the Spirit?
The first physical sign of the infilling of the Spirit is speaking in tongues. This is the one physical sign that is consistent in its recurrence, as pointed out earlier. However, the Baptism is not a goal but a gateway. It is a door to Spirit-filled living. It marks a beginning, not an end. Speaking in tongues is but the initial evidence and is to be followed by all the evidences of Christlikeness that mark a consistent Spirit-filled life.

 

[LinkH]

You are quite right that speaking in the tongues of men was the norm. I would go further and say that neither Paul nor anyone else spoke in the tongues of angels. By looking at the verse in context it is clear Paul was speaking hypothetically:

Why would Paul list so many things that were possible in this list if speaking in tongues of angels was impossible.

Did Paul really have the gift of prophecy to such a degree that he literally knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge. ie was he was omniscient? No.

'All' in scripture does not always mean 'all' in the absolute logical sense we often use it.

Did Paul really have the gift of faith to such a degree that he could literally move mountains? No.

The question is whether or not it is possible to have faith to remove mountains. If Jesus, when He spoke of having faith and telling the mountain to be cast into the sea, was speaking literally, saying it was literally possible, then yes of course it is possible. If you argue that Jesus meant this as a metaphor of accomplishing great things by faith, then it is true that one can 'move mountains' in the sense that Christ meant it.

So either way, it is possible to have faith that 'moves mountains' however you take that.

Did Paul really have the gift of giving to such a degree that he literally gave ALL his possessions to the poor and made himself destitute? No.

You don't know that. How could you know that? Paul may have given every bit of money he had away on numerous occasions. Plenty of people have done such things, given away everything but the cloak on their back. St. Francis is said to have stripped naked to give his clothes away, too. This is something very possible. So why would speaking in the tongues of angels be impossible.

Did Paul literally give his own body to be burned? No.

Tradition said he was beheaded. But he could have given his body to be burned. In fact, in the very same century, some Christians were burned as 'human candles' as martyrs under Nero. So this is also something very possible. You've never heard of Christians being burnt at the stake rather than recanting?

Most of the things in the list are actual possibilities, so you have no argument against speaking in the tongues of angels.

Some people say this passage is full of hyperbole. But these aren't true hyperbole, just extreme statements. Giving all to the poor and giving one's body to be burned are clearly things that are possible to do. I Corinthians 12 contains some 'extremes', on the one hand saying Jesus is Lord, and on the other cursing Christ. They are both possibilities, but they are opposite extremes.

 

[LinkH]

I have, Assemblies of GOD is another, Praise Chapel is another, Victory Outreach yet another, Calvary Chapel yet another.....it is embedded in the WOF movement as well.

From AOG website

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/baptmhs_faq_tongues.cfm#withoutspeaking

Is tongues the only evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit? Will there be any significant changes in one's attitudes and actions after being baptized in the Spirit?
The first physical sign of the infilling of the Spirit is speaking in tongues. This is the one physical sign that is consistent in its recurrence, as pointed out earlier. However, the Baptism is not a goal but a gateway. It is a door to Spirit-filled living. It marks a beginning, not an end. Speaking in tongues is but the initial evidence and is to be followed by all the evidences of Christlikeness that mark a consistent Spirit-filled life.

That does not prove your point. Typically Pentecostals view being baptized with the Holy Spirit as something that occurs AFTER salvation, viewing it as a Christian being endued with power for service. Pentecostals pay particular attention to empowerment with the Spirit like we see in the book of Acts, where the Spirit fell on disciples and they were able to speak in tongues, prophesy, etc. These are the type of things we see associated with believers being baptized with the Holy Spirit, filled with the Spirit, the Spirit falling upon them, or coming upon them, in the book of Acts.

Most Pentecostals do not associate say the soteriological aspects of the Spirit's work that we read about in Paul's writings only occur at the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I have not read A/G position papers on this, but Derek Prince's writings come to mind. He was a Pentecostal who was active with Charismatics in the Charismatic movement. If I recall correctly (remembering the right author) he believed that Christians received the seal of the Spirit at salvation, but that the baptism with the Spirit is available for Christians after they are saved.

You are assuming that quote is about salvation, when that is not what is intended.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

You don't know that. How could you know that? Paul may have given every bit of money he had away on numerous occasions. Plenty of people have done such things, given away everything but the cloak on their back. St. Francis is said to have stripped naked to give his clothes away, too. This is something very possible. So why would speaking in the tongues of angels be impossible.

We do know that Paul had a job and he did not rely on people to be his sole support of income.

We do know that Paul did provide from his earning for the people. ACTS 18

With that being said, giving away things is not a sure sign they are godly people in the biblical sense. Or that someone lives a vow of poverty does not equate to Godliness either. For example many Hindu guru live very meek lifestyles and from a biblical sense they are not godly. Many street people live poorly and most definitely are not godly.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

That does not prove your point. Typically Pentecostals view being baptized with the Holy Spirit as something that occurs AFTER salvation, viewing it as a Christian being endued with power for service. Pentecostals pay particular attention to empowerment with the Spirit like we see in the book of Acts, where the Spirit fell on disciples and they were able to speak in tongues, prophesy, etc. These are the type of things we see associated with believers being baptized with the Holy Spirit, filled with the Spirit, the Spirit falling upon them, or coming upon them, in the book of Acts.

Most Pentecostals do not associate say the soteriological aspects of the Spirit's work that we read about in Paul's writings only occur at the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I have not read A/G position papers on this, but Derek Prince's writings come to mind. He was a Pentecostal who was active with Charismatics in the Charismatic movement. If I recall correctly (remembering the right author) he believed that Christians received the seal of the Spirit at salvation, but that the baptism with the Spirit is available for Christians after they are saved.

You are assuming that quote is about salvation, when that is not what is intended.

If you have not read AG papers on this how can you make a statement that you know what they teach. I was heavily involved in AG and preached for years in AG church, so I am well aware of their doctrine and statements of faith. It actually does prove my point entirely.

 

[LinkH]

The Apostles were given the gift of speaking in 'mans' tongues. To spread the good news. Nothing gibberish as is spouted these days.

This is eisegesis, rather than exegesis. In Acts 2, we read of disciples being filled with the Spirit, speaking in tongues, and some present hearing them speak in their own languages the wonderful works of God. But it does not say that they heard the gospel preached 'in tongues.' Peter stood up and preached, apparently in some common language rather than in a supernatural tongue, and people repented.

Nowhere does the Bible give us examples of people preaching the Gospel with the gift of tongues or teach that this was the function or purpose of speaking in tongues. In fact, Paul said that when one speaks in tongues 'no one understandeth him' and gave an example of an unbeliever who heard speaking in tongues saying 'ye are mad.'

 

[LinkH]

If you have not read AG papers on this how can you make a statement that you know what they teach. I was heavily involved in AG and preached for years in AG church, so I am well aware of their doctrine and statements of faith. It actually does prove my point entirely.

I grew up A/G, at least in some of my early years and from middle through high school. Unless their doctrine has majorly changed since the 1980's, either the church you were around was atypical, or you did not know what they believed. Not if you think the A/G teaches people aren't saved if they don't speak in tongues. Was the preacher in the church you were at from a Oneness background who had become A/G.

As far as A/G position papers go, I can't say I've read one on the 'seal of the Spirit'. But there is a position paper called 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit' which contains this quote which is so typical of A/G teaching on the subject:

The most distinguishing features of the baptism in the Holy Spirit are that: (1) it is theologically and experientially distinguishable from and subsequent to the new birth, (2) it is accompanied by speaking in tongues, and (3) it is distinct in purpose from the Spirit’s work of regenerating the heart and life of a repentant sinner.

The A/G considers the baptism in the Holy Spirit to be distinct from the work of the Spirit in regeneration. I cannot say I have met anyone in the A/G or the Charismatic movement who teaches otherwise.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I grew up A/G, at least in some of my early years and from middle through high school. Unless their doctrine has majorly changed since the 1980's, either the church you were around was atypical, or you did not know what they believed. Not if you think the A/G teaches people aren't saved if they don't speak in tongues. Was the preacher in the church you were at from a Oneness background who had become A/G.

As far as A/G position papers go, I can't say I've read one on the 'seal of the Spirit'. But there is a position paper called 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit' which contains this quote which is so typical of A/G teaching on the subject:

Brother, with all due respect it is one thing to "grow up" AG and another to be a pastor and leader in the denomination. Believe me I am aware of the doctrine and things that go on at the highest levels all the way up to George O Wood. I know district heads and superintendents personally. Now, if you want to say I still do not know what I am talking about, go right ahead.

I also know the leadership of Praise Chapel personally as well......and trust me you do not want to go down either road with me and it is probably not appropriate to discuss on this thread in particular. Make no mistake, this goes well beyond doctrinal differences to the arena of theft, lies, deception, money laundering, and infiltration by occult ties.

 

[LinkH]

2Timothy2:15, I am not familiar with Praise Chapel. I do know what I heard as A/G doctrine on the subject. But I've been out of the A/G and out of the US for much of my adult life. I also hear there are a lot of A/G's these days where speaking in tongues and interpretation are rare, which sounds like a move away from the kind of doctrine you are talking about.

 

[LinkH]

versavia,
The Bible encourages believers to desire earnestly spiritual gifts. Paul never once warned the Corinthians to beware, that they might end up speaking in false tongues.