Speak in Tongues - essential :

[1stcenturylady]

Presumably in this case it means praying in a tongue, since the context is tongues. What's not there is a "personal prayer language", that's not in the text.

-CryptoLutheran

So unless it uses the words "personal prayer language," praying in the Spirit doesn't mean speaking in tongues?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So unless it uses the words "personal prayer language," praying in the Spirit doesn't mean speaking in tongues?

Nope, it's that unless tongues are being spoken about or are somehow part of the context then it's a bad reading of the text to insert tongues where there's no evidence that it was even on the author's mind.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[redleghunter]

Nowhere does it say speaking in tongues or any other gift is dependent on your level of faith.

Correct as we see here:

But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills (1 Corinthians 12:11).

This gets back into the whole free will vs. Sovereignty of God debate.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Nope, it's that unless tongues are being spoken about or are somehow part of the context then it's a bad reading of the text to insert tongues where there's no evidence that it was even on the author's mind.

-CryptoLutheran

Even if it is the same author?

 

[Ken Rank]

We aren't talking here specifically about the gift of being able to speak different kinds of languages. That is at the discretion of the Holy Spirit as you say.

The Holy Spirit manifests Himself in the lives of His people as HE sees fit. One might have healing, one might prophesy, one might do miracles, one might have great faith... one might speak in different tongues. There are no verses that support the notion that every person who belongs to God will speak in unknown or other tongues, none.

And where exactly, pray tell, does this teaching come from?

"Pray tell?" Hi, I am a Christian and serve the Lord Yeshua, I am assuming you do the same? That makes us brothers, not people at odds with one another. To your question... the idea that ONE MANIFESTATION of the Spirit has to be shared by all saints comes from the Adversary, not from God. He gives out as He determines... He manifests Himself through His people as He determines.... and we won't all look, act, or sound the same.

 

[Marvin Knox]

You cannot use one or two miracles where Jesus "According to your faith..." and then apply it to everything else including the giving of spiritual gifts. That is amazingly presumptuous. Nowhere does it say speaking in tongues or any other gift is dependent on your level of faith.

We are not only speaking here about the spiritual gift of speaking other languages or even bringing messages to the church.

We are talking about speaking in tongues in general including in prayer.

I said nothing about the "gifts" being accessed by faith.

Having said that - one must use faith in the process of exercising most gifts as well - just as with receiving and administering healing and praying in the Spirit.

If you have the gift of healing - you must step out in faith to exercise it. If you have a word of knowledge - same thing. Prophetic gifts - same thing. The gift of speaking in other known languages - same thing. The interpretation of tongues - same thing.

Peter said "I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene-- walk!" God didn't just sort of take control of his will and speak through him like some kind of robot. He stepped out in faith and in so doing gave what he knew he had to another person.

There is an element of faith that must be accessed to actually use the gifts which you may have.

Nowhere does the scripture use the words in the sentence above. It shouldn't have to. The idea is everywhere in the scriptures.

Peter's faith grew through his experience of walking on water and then failing because of his lack of faith.

I don't believe we need to be taught in so many exact words what the scriptures illustrate for us all over the place.

 

[Marvin Knox]

There are no verses that support the notion that every person who belongs to God will speak in unknown or other tongues, none.

Nor did I say there were.

"Pray tell?" Hi, I am a Christian and serve the Lord Yeshua, I am assuming you do the same? That makes us brothers, not people at odds with one another.

I agree generally.

But your referring to the work of the devil having to do with the teaching of others puts you at odds with those others. Don't you see that?

To your question... the idea that ONE MANIFESTATION of the Spirit has to be shared by all saints comes from the Adversary, not from God.

I agree. That's a false gospel as I see it.

Fortunately there is only a very small fringe of Pentecostal minded Christians who would say such a thing.

.......... we won't all look, act, or sound the same.

I agree and close to half of the evangelical church looks, acts, and sounds like the charismatics they are.

Insinuating that their beliefs are of the devil doesn't make for good fellowship with us folks.

If you did not mean to insinuate that - but rather were only talking about those certain people who teach that tongues are necessary for salvation - then I took you wrong and apologize.

But no one here (currently at least) is teaching such heresy. Therefore I took your charge to say that the teaching concerning the value and availability of a second blessing of the Holy Spirit in preparation for ministry and use of tongues in private prayer and in public as per the instructions in Corinthians was of the devil - which it is not.

It's simply a different view than yours. It's also a view held by much of the evangelical church. They most certainly were not taught their cherished beliefs by the devil.

 

[Ken Rank]

Nor did I say there were.

I agree generally.

But your referring to the work of the devil having to do with the teaching of others puts you at odds with those others. Don't you see that?

I agree. That's a false gospel as I see it.

Fortunately there is only a very small fringe of Pentecostal minded Christians who would say such a thing.

I agree and close to half of the evangelical church looks, acts, and sounds like the charismatics they are.

Insinuating that their beliefs are of the devil doesn't make for good fellowship with us folks.

If you did not mean to insinuate that - but rather were only talking about those certain people who teach that tongues are necessary for salvation - then I took you wrong and apologize.

But no one here (currently at least) is teaching such heresy. Therefore I took your charge to say that the teaching concerning the value and availability of a second blessing of the Holy Spirit and use of tongues in prayer was of the devil - which it is not.

It's simply a different view than yours. It's also a view held by much of the evangelical church.

When a teaching divides the people of God from the people of God... God is not behind the teaching. God "hates" division between the brethren (see Proverbs 6:16-19) and thus anything that causes division between brethren is hated by God. This whole "I have the Spirit and you don't" teaching does not edify and build up the body, it tears it down. Therefore, it is not of God. If you feel uncomfortable saying it is of the Adversary, fine... but it is not of God.

 

[Albion]

My quote did answer your question. You apparently don't like what the answer from scripture leave you with.

It was interesting enough, but it just didn't relate to the topic (as I explained in my reply).

 

[Marvin Knox]

When a teaching divides the people of God from the people of God... God is not behind the teaching. God "hates" division between the brethren (see Proverbs 6:16-19) and thus anything that causes division between brethren is hated by God. This whole "I have the Spirit and you don't" teaching does not edify and build up the body, it tears it down. Therefore, it is not of God. If you feel uncomfortable saying it is of the Adversary, fine... but it is not of God.

"Not of God" is much better - thank you.

I have been around charismatic teachings for most of my 72 years. However, I am what you would likely call "Reformed". As such I do not fit well in most Pentecostal environs.

I have been aware over the years of several church splits and even more arguments about this subject.

It is my opinion that most splits and heated arguments come about not because of the attitude of the charismatics involved ("this whole I have the Spirit and you don't teaching").

That kind of statement is, instead, the exact kind of charge that is often leveled by non-charismatics against those who have seen in the scriptures and or experienced for themselves charismatic things and shared those findings with others in the church.

That is to say that it is often and even perhaps usually the attitude of those who do not share these charismatic beliefs which causes deep division.

I am currently serving in a Baptist church where my position is well tolerated. None of my small group is charismatic and fortunately the kind of adversarial attitude I allude to has not raised it's ugly head even though all know where I stand.

I know of many charismatics who are in the same position. None of them have the kind of attitude you claim that charismatics have.

I do believe that we are experiencing the exact negative scenario I have referred to now, between you and I.

I've been discussing and even arguing this issue for some time now in this thread and this is the first instance I am aware of that anyone has ever invoked the name of the adversary against the position held by someone else on the other side.

 

[Ken Rank]

"Not of God" is much better - thank you.

I have been around charismatic teachings for most of my 72 years. However, I am what you would likely call "Reformed". As such I do not fit well in most Pentecostal environs.

I have been aware over the years of several church splits and even more arguments about this subject.

It is my opinion that most splits and heated arguments come about not because of the attitude of the charismatics involved ("this whole I have the Spirit and you don't teaching").

That kind of statement is, instead, the exact kind of charge that is often leveled by non-charismatics against those who have seen in the scriptures and or experienced for themselves charismatic things.

That is to say that it is often and even perhaps usually the attitude of those who do not share these charismatic beliefs which causes deep division.

I am currently serving in a Baptist church where my position is well tolerated. None of my small group is charismatic and fortunately the kind of adversarial attitude I allude to has raised it's ugly head even though all know where I stand.

I know of many charismatics who are in the same position. None of them have the kind of attitude you claim that charismatics have.

I do believe that we are experiencing the exact negative scenario I have referred to now, between you and I.

I've been discussing and even arguing this issue for some time now in this thread and this is the first instance I am aware of that anyone has ever invoked the name of the adversary against the position held by someone else on the other side.

Look at it from my perspective... I am in the bible belt, and I have been to many places where my salvation has been questioned because I do not speak in tongues. To me it is ludicrous to challenge somebody because they do not manifest the LEAST of all gifts. When a teaching divides the people of God... we have to ask where it comes from. Does God seek to divide His own house, His own body? Of course not... so who does attempt to divide the body?

I acknowledge, wholeheartedly, that not all charismatics hold to the "tongues for all" position. But I have been around enough of them that I have a slight bias and stand on alert; I admit that. Still, if God is not trying to divide His own house, and this doctrine is dividing brother from brother.. then who or what is doing this?

 

[swordsman1]

We are not only speaking here about the spiritual gift of speaking other languages or even bringing messages to the church.

We are talking about speaking in tongues in general including in prayer.

I said nothing about the "gifts" being accessed by faith.

Ah, another one claiming there is another version of tongues which is not the 'gift of tongues' in order to wriggle out of all the necessary theology of 1 Corinthians that goes with it. Where is your biblical justification for this second type of tongues?

Of course speaking in tongues is a gift. Didn't you yourself previously admit it:

I stepped out in faith realizing that the Word of God assured me that I had nothing to fear by doing so.
I began to pray in tongues at length and discovered in time that I too had the gift or the ability to speak and pray in tongues.

I presume you've changed your mind about having the gift now that your ideas don't align with scripture?

 

[Albion]

Look at it from my perspective... I am in the bible belt, and I have been to many places where my salvation has been questioned because I do not speak in tongues. To me it is ludicrous to challenge somebody because they do not manifest the LEAST of all gifts.

Good point, Ken.

 

[Anto9us]

Not all speak with tongues - that is said flat out.

Those that do are instructed to also ask for Gift of Interpretation of Tongues, and rather that they Prophesy...

And the snake-handling, well, that old lady that died in the rattlesnake service a couple of weeks ago -- that was just a heart attack -- the snakes had been thoroughly milked of venom right before the service as a precaution...

 

[Blade]

For me.. if JESUS said it.. I take it.. I receive it. A John 3:16? For today or just back then? Well Jesus during that same time also said 'If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"

So for me what I see and read is.. if I ask the Father for the Holy Spirit..He will give me the Holy Spirit. Seems one HAS to ask. Seems EVERYONE and ANYONE has to ask. Well as we move on we find Jesus tells them "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;"

Now.. Jesus told them to WAIT.. they were after Jesus rose ALL saved. Yet Jesus told them to WAIT for the promise. JESUS asked the Father for what? He said before..the Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask. Jesus asked the Father for what..for who?

So.. for ME.. I don't care what some MAN/WOMAN says about "what Jesus really mean/ Its not for today".. so many times based on.. until that which is perfect is come.. haha.. unless I missed it.

For me what happen was exactly like what happens in the word. Short was.. they keep asking me now and then in the bible study if I wanted the Holy Spirit. One day I said..yes.. they read what the bible said about it. Then asked if I wanted the Holy Spirit.. again I said yes.. they prayed and said. Thats it .. you got it. Thats all that happen. Nothing else. Seemed SOME people on this earth believe just what is written. Meaning if JESUS said it.. just believe. And I got up.. when to go sit down and .. BAM it came out.. and WOW.

Dont look at MAN.. dont base your FAITH on what you SEE in some GROUP! You keep your eyes on CHRIST..in the word. Do what IT says.. Just ask.. you did for John 3:16

 

[Basil the Great]

If speaking in tongues is essential, then there will not be very many souls in Heaven.....

 

[Marvin Knox]

If speaking in tongues is essential, then there will not be very many souls in Heaven.....

Not that I believe it to be essential in a making to Heaven sense.

But we are talking about almost 1/3 of the Christian world who currently speak in tongues.

 

[Biblicist]

There is nothing in the text of Acts 2 to suggest the 120 were conducting the first prayer and praise service of the church. They were given those tongues for a reason and Peter makes it clear in verse 21.

We do have Acts chapter 3 to show us a distinction between what is clearly 'praise for God' and what is preaching the Gospel:

There has certainly been a huge amount of older commentary that has suggested that the words that the Holy Spirit spoke through the 120 were supposed to be an evangelistic message to the unregenerate Jews but there is nothing in the context that suggests that this was the case. What we do see from the text is that they were (v.11) “declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues” which is exactly the same as what occurs during times of praise and worship within the context of the congregational setting. As with 1Cor 14:2 the tongues of Acts 2 were being directed toward the Father which is who the Holy Spirit will always speak to when he prays through us.

About all the crowd could figure out was that these Galileans were speaking in languages that they would not be expected to know about the wonders of God. If some in the crowd had not approached the Twelve, which enabled Peter to preach the Gospel, the crowd would have left the precinct not knowing what was going on.

What I am trying to point out in my posts, is that the tongues in Acts 2 are most likely not the tongues Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 12-14. It is clear in Acts 2 foreigners (or diaspora Jews who were born in raised in foreign countries) heard their specific language that day. And that tells me what happened on Pentecost was different from what Paul speaks of when he says: "For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him..." (1 Corinthians 14:2). It is obvious on Pentecost the tongues heard were understood by those of various languages. Therefore, there is a difference here.

As I mentioned a few times in this thread, this is why 1stCenturyLady and a small number of Pentecostals feel that they have a need to say that the Holy Spirit fell upon both the 120 and the unregenerate crowd in that unlike the Epistles and with the other examples in Acts, the situation in Acts 2 on the surface goes against the grain in that on this single occasion tongues were given in known human languages.

So, even though on the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit spoke through the 120 in known human languages and that this differs from what Paul has told us in 1 Cor 14:2;

(14:2) For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

Those who feel that they have a need to try and reconcile the known human languages of Acts with Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 13 & 14 that tongues are always spoken to God within inarticulate tongues, they need to keep in mind a number of things:

1. The Day of Pentecost was a unique and unrepeatable event in that this was this giving of the Holy Spirit to the Children of God.

2. The content of what the 120 were saying to the Father matches that of 1 Cor 14 in that they are also words of praise being directed to the Father and not some supposed Gospel message to the unregenerate. As with the Epistles, the tongues that Paul speaks of and the occurrence on the Day of Pentecost, both are being directed to the Father and as Paul has told us, tongues are ALWAYS directed to the Father and NEVER to man, so Acts 2 is in line with 1Cor 14.

3. On the Day of Pentecost tongues were also accompanied by the sound of a rushing wind and tongues of fire resting upon the Believers, this has never occurred since this time.

4. The crowd were so confused by what they were hearing that this matches what Paul said in 1Cor 14:23 that when the unregenerate encounter everyone speaking in tongues that “they will say that you are mad”. If Peter had not provided an evangelistic message then the crowd would have moved on thinking that the Galileans were in fact drunk.

5. Whereas Paul forbids the corporate use of tongues where everyone within a congregation sings or speaks words of praise to the Father during times of praise and worship, we find all of the 120 speaking words of praise to the Father on the Day of Pentecost.

6. Paul also demands that every occurrence of tongues first be interpreted before another is given and of course this did not happen on the Day of Pentecost.

7. Unlike congregational tongues which must only be undertaken when they know that someone is present who the Holy Spirit provides an interpretation, this did not occur on the Day of Pentecost.​

To answer the OP in that one must speak in tongues to be saved; or do the saved all speak in tongues (the tongue which speaks to God and not men---no one understands him), the answer is 1 Corinthians 12:

Even though Paul indicates that it was normative for the Christians of his day to speak in tongues, he never indicates that someone must demonstrate their ability to speak in tongues before we can deem them to be Saved.

As a Pentecostal who understands this, I still acknowledge that this normative experience is for the entire Church age, where prior to a Salvation call, any Pentecostal meeting that does not encourage potential initiates to speak in tongues essentially disenfranchises or cheats the prospective new Believer out of a full Spirit empowered Salvation experience; but, if someone confesses their sin and acknowledges Jesus as their Lord and Saviour then they are indeed Saved, but sadly, they have missed out on a full Biblical Salvific experience – but as I said, they are still Born Again of the Spirit of God.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Of course speaking in tongues is a gift. Didn't you yourself previously admit it:................I presume you've changed your mind about having the gift now that your ideas don't align with scripture?.......

You would presume wrong. I didn't say that I had the gift of tongues. What I said was:
"I began to pray in tongues at length and discovered in time that I too had the gift or the ability to speak and pray in tongues."

Like I said "we are not only speaking here about the spiritual gift of speaking other languages or even bringing messages to the church. We are talking about speaking in tongues in general including in prayer."

Ah, another one claiming there is another version of tongues which is not the 'gift of tongues' in order to wriggle out of all the necessary theology of 1 Corinthians that goes with it.

I'm not trying to "wiggle out of" anything.

However you are correct in saying that I see another kind of tongues other than the gift of speaking in other languages.

Where is your biblical justification for this second type of tongues?

It's quite obvious by reading the various accounts in the Book of Acts and the teachings in Corinthians that there isn't only one type of tongues.

Where is your biblical justification for calling what happened to various people in the Book of Acts and praying in the Spirit the gift of tongues?

Of course all that we receive from God is a gift in some sense. I'm sure we both agree about that.

 

[Biblicist]

Look at it from my perspective... I am in the bible belt, and I have been to many places where my salvation has been questioned because I do not speak in tongues.

Here in Australia there appear to be very few Pentecostals who believe that unless someone can pray in the Spirit (tongues) that they are not Saved, where I would be surprised if there were more than 1% who actually believe this.

But on the other hand, for those us who allow the Holy Spirit to pray through them to the Father, when we encounter those who we would deem to hold to a cessationist worldview that is both long-term and aggressive in character, then this can be a bit problematic for us in that for those who both understand and have experienced the fullness of the Spirit through Spiritual prayer, we can be at a loss as to why anyone would go against the plain sense of Scripture regarding how we can all pray in the Spirit.

To me it is ludicrous to challenge somebody because they do not manifest the LEAST of all gifts.

Even though Paul has told us (1Cor 14:5) that he wants all of us to be able to speak in tongues, he does go to some length in chapter 14 to explain that as tongues are always directed to the Father within inarticulate words that this does not build up the Church as does prophecy, which is how the Spirit speaks to the congregation whereas tongues are always directed to the Father in words of praise and adoration.

So even though our ability to praise the Father in tongues is probably one of the greatest abilities that we have has mere mortals, Paul does point out that the congregational setting is there for the building up of the Saints which is something that our ability to worship the Father is the Holy Spirit does not really do.

So in many ways, even though our ability to worship the Father in the Holy Spirit does not really benefit the entire congregation, I would say that our ability to praise the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit is probably the greatest ability of all the nine Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (14:7-11).

When a teaching divides the people of God... we have to ask where it comes from. Does God seek to divide His own house, His own body? Of course not... so who does attempt to divide the body?

Much the same can be said for those church goers who have never really heard the Gospel back in their home churches, where having heard the Gospel at say an Evangelistic rally that when they return to their home church where very few (if any) actually know the Lord in a personal way that this can also 'divide the church', where the liberals will be offended by the new found faith of those who have just embraced the Lord.