Speak in Tongues - essential :

Marvin Knox said:

Why would the Holy Spirit be praying or bringing a message in Romanian knowing full well that no one but Himself could possibly understand it?

Click to expand...

What makes you think it is the Holy Spirit that prays or gives a message when somebody spoke in tongues? Scripture says it is the human spirit that prays (1 Cor 14:14). In the light of that fact the rest of your questions are moot.

In Pentecost the faithful all have testimonies as to what the Lord has done for them.

http://miracles.areonthe.net/TESTIM... once out of control, now peace (Anthony).pdf

swordsman1 said:

What makes you think it is the Holy Spirit that prays or gives a message when somebody spoke in tongues? Scripture says it is the human spirit that prays (1 Cor 14:14).

Click to expand...

Read Romans 8

Waggles said:

Read Romans 8

Click to expand...

Romans 8 is nothing to do with tongues.

swordsman1 said:

Romans 8 is nothing to do with tongues.

Click to expand...

Romans 8 is all about the Holy Spirit, and for the most part walking in the Spirit and being free from sin. However, He also uses us by giving us gifts. And this is a great way for Him to utilize us through the gift of tongues. "26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

1stcenturylady said:

Romans 8 is all about the Holy Spirit, and for the most part walking in the Spirit and being free from sin. However, He also uses us by giving us gifts. And this is a great way for Him to utilize us through the gift of tongues. "26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Click to expand...

No mention of tongues there.

swordsman1 said:

No mention of tongues there.

Click to expand...

It still accurately describes how tongues is used.

1stcenturylady said:

It still accurately describes how tongues is used.

Click to expand...

In your mind maybe. But if this passage was referring to tongues Paul would have told us. He makes no mention of it.

swordsman1 said:

In your mind maybe. But if this passage was referring to tongues Paul would have told us. He makes no mention of it.

Click to expand...

Why go over the same ground he wrote about only a year or two before?

I'm always amazed that all those who have never been baptized in the Holy Spirit are experts in the distribution and operation of God's spiritual gifts. Confusion, misinterpretation/misrepresentation due to ignorance about the events of Acts chapter 19.

Thank God I was ignorant of all wrong teaching about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and His gift of speaking in tongues.

First, get yourself right with God in such a way that you can receive. Don't be as Paul who thought he was doing God service but was persecuting the church. Read your Bible and pray in lieu of besieging those that have believed and received. For your own enlightenment read, READ the Scriptures.

I've given messages in tongues and had them interpreted, I've spoken in tongues and had the Holy Spirit give me the interpretation telling me my wife was with child after 14 years childless. I speak in tongues i.e. Prayer in the spirit, building up, Jude vs 20. If you don't know what you're talking about then don't spread your confusion. It was 40 years ago when Jesus saved me then baptized me in His Holy Spirit. All outside of the influence of denominations or men. All in agreement with the Holy Bible. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (recall)

Isaiah 28:11-12 KJVS
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. [12] To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Would God the denominationalized would read the Scriptures for themselves rather than hearing Dr so and so's dissertation. I'm weary of the infantile, irrational arguments against the very word of God.



Frank Lee Jennings

Waggles said:

You'll never work it out intellectually - the carnal mind is opposed to the mind of Christ.
It is a spiritual baptism where one is immersed in the Holy Spirit and one receives understanding..................If you want to experience the truth of Pentecost then you need to put aside your own ways and seek
the Lord through the commandments given in the scriptures.

Click to expand...

I have worked it out to my own satisfaction and it is just as millions of charismatic/Pentecostals believe it to be and practice it in their churches.

I want to know how those who believe it to be known languages work it out - because I don't think they can or have they given it much through at all.

I believe they have thought long and hard about why millions of people around the world are wrong about this. But they haven't really thought much about what they themselves believe.

swordsman1 said:

What makes you think it is the Holy Spirit that prays or gives a message when somebody spoke in tongues? Scripture says it is the human spirit that prays (1 Cor 14:14). In the light of that fact the rest of your questions are moot.

Click to expand...

There are lot more questions than just that one in my two posts.

I wonder if you just wish it to be somehow moot because you haven't an answer to my questions.

There are many more pertinent scriptures to do with the subject of tongues both private and public but for starters:

"What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:26-33

You don't believe the messages received in tongues are from the Holy Spirit?

You believe that prophetic messages and words of knowledge are compiled from within ones self without coming from the Holy Spirit?

You believe they are just messages from one person to another that the first person wants to give in a language they have in their heart but they don't know what the words mean and thus it needs interpretation?

You believe that if no interpreter is available the first person is to speak to himself in the language he doesn't understand and also pray to God the message he doesn't understand - but that he himself thought up without it coming from the Holy Spirit?

Please help me understand. Thanks.

Marvin Knox said:

I wonder if you just wish it to be somehow moot because you haven't an answer to my questions

Click to expand...

From what I could see all your question revolved around the assumption it was the Holy Spirit speaking.

Marvin Knox said:

You don't believe the messages received in tongues are from the Holy Spirit?

Click to expand...

I don't see anywhere in scripture that says tongues were messages from the Holy Spirit to man.

Marvin Knox said:

You believe that prophetic messages and words of knowledge are compiled from within ones self without coming from the Holy Spirit?

Click to expand...

No, but they are not tongues.

Marvin Knox said:

You believe they are just messages from one person to another that the first person wants to give in a language they have in their heart but they don't know what the words mean and thus it needs interpretation?

Click to expand...

From what I can see in scripture your human spirit could pray to God in tongues, sing in tongues, praise God in tongues, etc. I don't see any examples of human to human messaging.

Marvin Knox said:

You believe that if no interpreter is available the first person is to speak to himself in the language he doesn't understand and also pray to God the message he doesn't understand - but that he himself thought up without it coming from the Holy Spirit?

Click to expand...

If there is no interpreter then the person was to be silent. It says tongues comes from the human spirit not the mind.

swordsman1 said:

From what I could see all your question revolved around the assumption it was the Holy Spirit speaking.



I don't see anywhere in scripture that says tongues were messages from the Holy Spirit to man.



No, but they are not tongues.



From what I can see in scripture your human spirit could pray to God in tongues, sing in tongues, praise God in tongues, etc. I don't see any examples of human to human messaging.



If there is no interpreter then the person was to be silent. It says tongues comes from the human spirit not the mind.

Click to expand...

Why are you so interested in speaking in tongues, when you really don't care about it at all. The Bible says that the secrets of the heart will be revealed, and that is so true.

1stcenturylady said:

Why are you so interested in speaking in tongues, when you really don't care about it at all. The Bible says that the secrets of the heart will be revealed, and that is so true.

Click to expand...

I care about the truth.

swordsman1 said:

I care about the truth.

Click to expand...

Really? It isn't apparent. Truth is from the Spirit of God, but arrogance and sarcasm is not and only shows contempt. What is required is humility.

1stcenturylady said:

Today, centuries of biases against speaking in tongues must be chiseled away through coming to believe they are even for us. The first century Christians had no biases to deal with first, so even the most immature Christian, like the Corinthians, could speak in tongues. But, even back then, not all who had the ability chose to. Paul even said, "I would that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you prophesy."

Click to expand...

The first century Jewish believer spoke in other tongues, other languages... because the message was going out to the NATIONS. The idea that we need to speak in unknown languages in order to have the Spirit is simply not supported in Scripture.

pescador said:

If you haven't yet spoken in tongues there is no need to belittle those of us who do. Why do you think that Paul wrote "For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit."?

Click to expand...

I am least bothered about people who speak privately in whatever manner. But the worst part is that they claim that speaking gibberish is motivated by the Holy Spirit. It is absurd and blasphemous. The Holy Spirit never prompts anyone speak in gibberish. It is ones emotional actions.

Speaking in tongues, "speaking mysteries by the Spirit", is a gift from God. I have received that gift and use it all the time. If you can't accept that, that is not my problem.

Click to expand...

You are wrong. You have conveniently changed spirit to Spirit for a wrong conclusion!

1 Corinthians 14
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

In Paul's letter to the church in Corinth he said, ""Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious." I recommend that you read his writings more carefully.

Click to expand...

It is out of love, I am speaking the truth and trying to point out the blunders of beliefs of Pentecostal people!

1stcenturylady said:

Really? It isn't apparent

Click to expand...

Ken Rank said:

The first century Jewish believer spoke in other tongues, other languages... because the message was going out to the NATIONS. The idea that we need to speak in unknown languages in order to have the Spirit is simply not supported in Scripture.

Click to expand...

What you described is not scriptural and not what speaking in tongues was for. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

When you can come to grips with not contradicting God's Word, you may learn something.

Frank Jennings said:

I'm always amazed that all those who have never been baptized in the Holy Spirit are experts in the distribution and operation of God's spiritual gifts. Confusion, misinterpretation/misrepresentation due to ignorance about the events of Acts chapter 19.

Click to expand...

At least in my case I did receive what my church called "baptism in the Holy Spirit". I was twelve years old and an evening service (I think it was Sunday night) a traveling evangelist came and the focus was on God using young people. After the sermon young people were invited to come up and receive "the baptism in the Holy Spirit", hands were laid on me in the front of the church, and like those before me that evening, I was "slain in the Spirit" and like I had seen others in my church do I began to make noises. It was all quite the experience, and for many years I was very emphatic that this was a legitimate experience of the Holy Spirit and that I had been "baptized in the Holy Spirit". I began to regularly "speak in tongues" a couple years later, primarily in private, and only once to my memory ever out loud and publicly in church. For years tongues were a major part of my private devotions and prayer life, even after I stopped attending my Pentecostal church and even after I had stopped identifying myself as a Pentecostal.

My views on the subject have changed slowly, over the course of the last 15+ years; chiefly through constant and rigorous biblical study and understanding the historical views of the Christian Church.

So my criticism of your statement here is twofold:

1) At least in some cases there are those of us who experienced those things you say we haven't. I'm an example of just such a person.

2) Since a fundamental point of contention is what Scripture means when it speaks of baptism with the Holy Spirit, making an argument based upon an assumed conclusion does not profit the argument or case being made.

I reject that what I experienced was the baptism with the Holy Spirit spoken about by St. John the Baptist, Jesus, and St. Peter; because in Scripture the baptism with the Holy Spirit is used in reference to two very specific events in the history of the Church, the most prominent of these being what took place on Pentecost as recorded in the 2nd chapter of the Acts; the other is what transpired when St. Peter went to preach to Cornelius and his household. At no point is baptism with the Holy Spirit ever identified with anything other than these two public events in which the first was the inaguration of the Church as the Church, and the second the signifier of God's inclusion of the Gentiles into the Church and its Gospel mission. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is never spoken of as a private or personal experience, but as the corporate act of God historically in the birthing of the Church, in fulfillment of Jesus' promise that He would ask and the Father would send the Holy Spirit. There exists no exegetical reason to apply it to anything else.

The individual promise of the Holy Spirit is not attached to a private spiritual experience, but is attached to the Sacrament of Holy Baptism as per Acts 2:38, historic Christian practice has been that the Baptismal Rite includes two things: Baptism itself and anointing (Chrismation), the application of oil with the laying on of hands which, in the ancient Church as well as in the Eastern Churches today go hand-in-hand; but which in the West became a somewhat complicated matter with Chrismation being put off and evolving into the Western Rite of Confirmation; that said, it is standard practice in many traditional churches even in the West to apply the oil of chrismation immediately after Baptism as the sacramental sign and seal of the Holy Spirit promised to us in Baptism (or at least this is true in the ELCA and other Lutheran churches). This practice follows what is observed in the Acts, for example in the case of the Samaritans who though being officially baptized were not yet chrismated, further we see this also in Acts ch. 19 where St. Paul baptizes the disciples of John the Baptist then lays hands upon them.

Error has crept in the modern age by identifying baptism with the Holy Spirit as being

1. Chiefly a secondary blessing,
2. Chiefly being identified with the speaking of tongues

In Scripture, rather, it is identified with Pentecost. And the Church's practice has been since the beginning to baptize and lay on hands, which go hand-in-hand as part of the rite of Christian initiation; Holy Baptism with which the promise of the Holy Spirit is connected in Scripture (as previously mentioned) and the laying on of hands as (normally) following immediately after, though apparently in some cases happening later as in the case with the Samaritans, and also which began to become normative in the West.

-CryptoLutheran