Speak in Tongues - essential :

[1stcenturylady]

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.



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.




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

The only ones claiming that speaking in tongues is "gibberish" are evil spirited cessationists erroneously "quoting" Pentecostals with a vile agenda. They lie. The tongues spoken are languages of men and of angels. But NOT for the purpose of preaching. They are languages created by God, as are all languages. Scripture tells us they are not for the purpose of being understood by anyone present, but to God.

 

[1stcenturylady]

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

Personally, I don't involve myself with semantics. Baptism, filling, received. The point is when one REPENTS, and I mean truly repents, wanting to be totally cleansed, does one receive the Holy Spirit, the evidence (to me) being power over sin. We are then dead to sin and are no longer slaves to the flesh. The gifts of the Spirit are given to us by that same Holy Spirit for our benefit.

 

[Anto9us]

Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?

 

[Anto9us]

Act 19:2

He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

 

[Anto9us]

Act 19:1

And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Act 19:2

He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Act 19:3

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Act 19:4

Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Act 19:5

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 19:6

And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Act 19:7

And all the men were about twelve.


--------------

Okay, this is way past Pentecost, and way past Cornelius...

It is "personal" to these disciples (about 12 of them)

Here is biblical evidence that the gift of tongues was given; not just once TO THE VISITING JEWS at Jerusalem at Pentecost, and again to Gentiles at house of Cornelius -- but to "certain disciples" who were believers, but lacked both a baptism in Jesus' name as well as charismatic "signs following" (speaking in tongues) UNTIL PAUL LAID HIS HANDS ON THEM, THE HOLY GHOST CAME ON THEM; AND THEY SPAKE WITH TONGUES, AND PROPHESIED

So the cessionist dismissal of Tongues as ONLY "once at Pentecost, again at Cornelius' house" simply doesn't hold water

 

[ViaCrucis]

Act 19:1

And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Act 19:2

He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Act 19:3

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Act 19:4

Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Act 19:5

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 19:6

And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Act 19:7

And all the men were about twelve.


--------------

Okay, this is way past Pentecost, and way past Cornelius...

It is "personal" to these disciples (about 12 of them)

Here is biblical evidence that the gift of tongues was given; not just once TO THE VISITING JEWS at Jerusalem at Pentecost, and again to Gentiles at house of Cornelius -- but to "certain disciples" who were believers, but lacked both a baptism in Jesus' name as well as charismatic "signs following" (speaking in tongues) UNTIL PAUL LAID HIS HANDS ON THEM, THE HOLY GHOST CAME ON THEM; AND THEY SPAKE WITH TONGUES, AND PROPHESIED

So the cessionist dismissal of Tongues as ONLY "once at Pentecost, again at Cornelius' house" simply doesn't hold water

Your argument is against a strawman. I never said tongues happened only at Pentecost and at Cornelius' house. I said that baptism with the Holy Spirit is only identified with these two events.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Anto9us]

baptism with the Holy Spirit is only identified with these two events.

whether you are a "strawman" -- I can neither affirm nor deny.

That what happenned to the twelve guys is indeed identified with THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, I most definitely affirm.

 

[Anto9us]

LAID HIS HANDS ON THEM, THE HOLY GHOST CAME ON THEM; AND THEY SPAKE WITH TONGUES

those are elements of "the baptism of the Holy Spirit" common to so many people from the time of Acts right up until today -- still going on -- the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

 

[Anto9us]

The only ones claiming that speaking in tongues is "gibberish" are evil spirited cessationists erroneously "quoting" Pentecostals with a vile agenda. They lie. The tongues spoken are languages of men and of angels.

You GOT IT, 1stcenturylady !

You NAILED IT -- in English !!

 

[ViaCrucis]

whether you are a "strawman" -- I can neither affirm nor deny.

Straw man refers to an informal fallacy of argument, whereby instead of addressing the actual substance of the argument, one sets up an opponent in order to knock down. Your argument didn't address my point, you instead constructed a straw man in order to argue against.

That what happenned to the twelve guys is indeed identified with THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, I most definitely affirm.

Then you should be able to show where in the 19th chapter of the Acts it refers to what happened to the twelve disciples of John the Baptist as the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

those are elements of "the baptism of the Holy Spirit"

On what basis? All you're doing here is making an assertion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Marvin Knox]

You GOT IT, 1stcenturylady !
You NAILED IT -- in English !!

The events shown in the Book of Acts were not instances of the reception of the Holy Spirit in the sealing/salvation sense. If they were - they would show salvation as being dependent upon tarrying in certain places for a special event, baptism in water, and the laying on of hands by a special group of anointed individuals - at least in some cases.

Ridiculous - in my scripture grounded opinion.

I know that some would teach that these applications of the Holy Spirit were only special cases. But that is hardly comforting to those of us who are counting on having been sealed with the Holy Spirit and seated with Christ in the heavenlies at the very moment we believed and were justified before God through that faith.

To teach that these events in the Book of Acts were something other than post-salvation visitations of the Holy Spirit in preparation for ministry is to teach that salvation is often dependent on human endeavors and not always by grace through faith.

This is a false gospel no matter how you spin it.

 

[Anto9us]

And apparently YOU were "making an assertion" saying Acts 2 and Acts 10 were definitely

"THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT" and nothing else was...

When in fact, neither in Acts 2, Acts 10 or Acts 19
does it ever SAY IN SO MANY WORDS

"this was the baptism of the Holy Spirit"

------------------------
Act 10:44
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
10:46
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
10:47
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Act 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, 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.
Act 2:39
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
--------------------------

What I called "elements of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit" --
(being baptized in the name of Jesus, Holy Ghost falling, speaking in tongues, receiving the GIFT of the Holy Ghost) -- these 'elements' for lack of a better word, are all in Acts 2 - Acts 10 - and Acts 19

The first two chapters mentioned have no VERBATIM CLAIM to "BE" the Baptism of the Holy Spirit any more (or less) than the account in Acts 19

So your 'assertion' that the two earlier accounts (Pentecost and Cornelius) stand in a unique way apart from accounts like Acts 19 -- is just that -- an assertion

So we both have made assertions, my assertion is that all 3 chapters of Acts mentioned describe elements of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, although none of the 3 use the exact phrase "baptism of the Holy Spirit" anywhere

So hopefully the Bereans will look at a preponderance of the evidence, and if it
walks like a "baptism of the Holy Spirit",
quacks like a "baptism of the Holy Spirit",
and water goes off its back like a "baptism of the Holy Spirit"
maybe it IS a "baptism of the Holy Spirit"
in all three chapters.

 

[Anto9us]

The events shown in the Book of Acts were not instances of the reception of the Holy Spirit in the sealing/salvation sense. If they were - they would show salvation as being dependent upon tarrying in certain places for a special event, baptism in water, and the laying on of hands by a special group of anointed individuals - at least in some cases.

I agree with that also -- and in one case we know, flat out, that WATER BAPTISM was SUBSEQUENT to the reception of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I agree with that also -- and in one case we know, flat out, that WATER BAPTISM was SUBSEQUENT to the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Exactly!

The opponents of the charismatic/Pentecostal concept of a second blessing for the purpose of empowerment for ministry are on thin ice to say the least.

The various visitations of the Holy Spirit described in the Book of Acts were not initial receptions of the Holy Spirit in the salvational sense but were in fact as charismatic/Pentecostals teach them to be.

 

[Marvin Knox]

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.

Then why would there be any need for an interpretation of tongues spoken to God out of the spirit of the person - if they were meant only for God and not for anyone present in the congregation?

It makes no sense to require interpretation of human languages prayed to God when God is the one providing the ability to pray in those foreign languages.

 

[Righttruth]

The only ones claiming that speaking in tongues is "gibberish" are evil spirited cessationists erroneously "quoting" Pentecostals with a vile agenda. They lie. The tongues spoken are languages of men and of angels. But NOT for the purpose of preaching. They are languages created by God, as are all languages. Scripture tells us they are not for the purpose of being understood by anyone present, but to God.

The God of order and discipline did not create gibberish language. Even Paul did not claim that to be a spiritual gift. Can anyone make out anything sensible in a disorderly and misbehaved congregation? Who will listen?

 

[1stcenturylady]

The God of order and discipline did not create gibberish language. Even Paul did not claim that to be a spiritual gift. Can anyone make out anything sensible in a disorderly and misbehaved congregation? Who will listen?

That's the point. It is NOT GIBBERISH, it is language. Using the word, gibberish, to a Pentecostal, is the equivalent of using the "N" word! It is a slur to a gift of God and blasphemous, and provoking your brethren. Shame on you!

They are languages created by God.

1 Corinthians 14:38

 

[Waggles]

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.

Sorry. My apologies. I misread your posting and thought that you were asking the Spirit-filled to
explain how it all happens.
I should go to bed when I'm crossed eyed and not force myself to stay up and continue on CF
whilst yawning.

 

[Waggles]

Romans 8 is nothing to do with tongues.

If you understand not Romans 8 then you will not understand anything else about Pentecost; praying in
tongues; nor of the nine spiritual gifts distributed to the Pentecostal church.