Speak in Tongues - essential :

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

We need to rush ViaCrucis and the Swordsman down there to that island to help set those simpletons right.

Until they were proven wrong then retreat to annihalition ... that might work. Oh sorry, what thread is this?

 

[Bollweevil]

What planet do you live on?
Back here on planet Earth all nine miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost still operate in our
Pentecostal Fellowship.

Plus all over the world there is a continuing Holy Ghost revival wherein Acts 2:38 is upheld by
thousands and thousands who obey this and are all water baptized by full immersion and all are
baptized in the Holy Spirit with the Bible evidence of speaking forth in new tongues.
Papua New Guinea has gone from one Pentecostal saint, Godfrey Wippon, who healed his mother by
the gift of healing and then the whole village abandoned their spiritually dead religions and embraced
the gospel delivered by the Apostles.
In thirty years the Revival Fellowship has grown from one person to now over 50,000 Pentecostal saints of whom ALL speak in tongues and enjoy the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost within the Church.

I've never heard of credible examples nor seen any raising the dead, instant miraculous healing, or speaking in tongues. The following scripture seems to me to address this issue as only applicable to the apostles in the first century.
1 Corinthians 13:8-10
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.
And I've seen pentecostal services and frauds and I've personally attended pentecostal services. I just don't see the Holy Spirit working that way within us today.

 

[Bollweevil]

When we read the response that the crowd gave in Acts 2:11 to how the 120 were "declaring the wonders of God", we can easily understand their confusion as they would be at a loss as to how these rustic and unsophisticated Galileans were speaking in so many languages. We can add to this how odd their words would have sounded as even though the Galileans were speaking in the languages of the visiting Jews, the Galileans would have had not been able to control the required breathing points and voice accents that would have made the words sound pleasing to the visitors ears.

Even though the Holy Spirit empowered the 120 to speak in languages that they did not know, there is only so much that the Holy Spirit can do and the only way that he would be able to force them to add in the appropriate pauses and voice inflections would be if they were in some ecstatic state, which of course is not what happens when we speak in tongues.

As much as it is common to hear populist expressions that the Holy Spirit was speaking an evangelistic message through them to the crowd, we have no evidence of this and all we are told is that they were "declaring the wonders of God" which has nothing specifically to do with the Gospel. What happened on the Day of Pentecost has its parallel in 1Cor 14:16 where Paul refers to how tongues is used to "praise God in the Spirit".

What we certainly do not see recorded in Acts is the crowd approaching the 120 asking "who is this Jesus that you are talking about", in fact from what we can tell, the Holy Spirit said nothing about Jesus or the Gospel, if he had then they would not have been as confused as they were.


From what I can tell from what you have said, it appears that you do not believe that the Holy Spirit still works today as he did in the lives of the Christians of the first century!

Again I simply see the scripture giving a narrative that different people understood other languages and Peter absolutely preached to the crowd about Jesus and the crowd understood Peter in their own language. They knew about Jesus, everyone had heard about this man whether they believed in him or not. He was the talk of the region at that time. That's just how I understand this account.

Yes I believe the Holy Spirit is alive and works within us today just differently than it did at the beginning of this new message from God that needed to be spread throughout the world in the first century. We see the Holy Spirit working differently in the Old Testament therefore I see it to be reasonable that He works differently today in God's people. I just don't see the miracles today that we read about in the NT. Again I see the following scripture as this explanation of theses miracles stopping.
1 Corinthians 13:8-10
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

 

[Waggles]

We need to rush ViaCrucis and the Swordsman down there to that island to help set those simpletons right.

Even when Jesus himself did miracles and spoke with authority unbelievers remained unbelievers,
and challenged him - even the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
If they have not eyes to see, nor ears to hear, and if their hearts are hardened they will not submit
and abandon their own conceits and traditions.

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
Hebrews 6:1-3

 

[Waggles]

I've never heard of credible examples nor seen any raising the dead, instant miraculous healing, or speaking in tongues.

http://miracles.areonthe.net/TESTIM...eration, Incurable, healed by God (Jim S).pdf

 

[Righttruth]

Your spirit says a lot about you.

Fine. I will never speak gibberish and claim that to be of the Holy Spirit! I type with my spirit. Nevertheless, I don't claim this: djf ewpasoije dhefoiewuo rhdeuiie jc is the typing by the Holy Spirit!

 

[Waggles]

The alarm buzzes. Time to get up.
A cup of Nescafe, and 30 minutes of praying in tongues.
It doesn't get any better than this.
What a way to start the day.
My Father and I having prayer through Jesus by the Holy Spirit.
Now I understand the purpose of the Trinity.
Awesome.

 

[Ken Rank]

Any Christian who claims to want truth does not contradict scripture. I don't. You do.

You said being baptised into the Spirit means speaking in tongues. No verse says this... so you aim your shots at me rather than address the issue. You have an emotional tie here... it is clouding your ability to see clearly, respectfully.

Instead of taking shots at me, why not just share the verse(s) that say all who have the Spirit will speak in UNKNOWN languages.

 

[Ken Rank]

This is the type of post that I could spend hours with and in fact it reflects the intensive amount of interaction that had occurred for maybe 30 years on this point between classic-Pentecostals (ie, AoG) with the Evangelicals and Charismatics; but as of now, it seems that there is little if any interest within the various Charismatic movements and the Evangelicals who have rejected the subsequence position regarding the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, it seems to have died off within academic circles where it has been left with the AoG and other similar classic-Pentecostal denominations.

As much as I now recognise that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not one of subsequence, where instead all Believers are Baptised in the Spirit even if they speak in tongues or not, what now happens is that my Pentecostal tag jumps in where it says that as the New Testament record shows us that tongues accompanies the Salvific experience, that I hold to the view that before every call to Salvation that we need to inform potential initiates that they can/should expect to be able to immediately pray in the Spirit (tongues).

So the Evangelicals and Charismatics are correct in that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit occurs at the moment we first receive the Holy Spirit at conversion, but as a Pentecostal I believe that the Salvific experience should ideally see all initiates being able to quickly speak in tongues, but again, it is not compulsory for Salvation but it does complete the Biblical pattern – this is what makes me a non-classic Pentecostal.

Essentially, the difference between a classic Pentecostal (ie, AoG) and a non-classic Pentecostal is one of timing. This means that even though I now disagree with the classic Pentecostal it does not detract from the fact that they have the right experience, but merely an incorrect timing.

I appreciate the time and thought you put into your reply. My only response is simply that we have a few examples of people speaking in other languages and a reference or two to unknown languages but to take those experiences and make them a mandate and say that speaking in these forms MUST accompany the salvation experience, again, takes the least of the gifts and elevates it above the rest. Yeshua said, "you will know them by their fruit," he didn't say, "you will know them by their languages they speak." And those fruits are notches on the belt for converting people... they are HIS FRUITS... if we have the Spirit in us then we should also have the fruits of the Spirit in us... love, peace, joy, patience, long- suffering..." etc. This is what we are known by according to Messiah. And in your tone in these letters I see great peace and patience... joy and love... that is all I need to know in order to know you are a brother.

 

[Anto9us]

to take those experiences and make them a mandate and say that speaking in these forms MUST accompany the salvation experience

As I have posted before in this thread, I don't see any tongues-affirming posters in this thread declaring that Tongues MUST accompany the salvation experience -- just that they CAN and DO -- that is NOT a MANDATE that Tongues are essential; everyone is aware that Paul wrote "do all speak with tongues?" and we take it as a rhetorical question with an assumed NO answer.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You said being baptised into the Spirit means speaking in tongues. No verse says this... so you aim your shots at me rather than address the issue. You have an emotional tie here... it is clouding your ability to see clearly, respectfully.

Instead of taking shots at me, why not just share the verse(s) that say all who have the Spirit will speak in UNKNOWN languages.

I said no such thing. Being baptized into the Spirit means being dead to sin. I've even written a book on tongues, not only to those who don't believe in tongues, but to those who say you MUST speak in tongues. You don't HAVE TO. But that doesn't mean you don't have the ability. You just don't know it, or care to use it. Every Christian can pray in tongues, but not every Christian receives a message in tongues from God that must be supernaturally interpreted. Thus, do all speak in tongues, do all interpret? No. Praying in tongues is similar, but the direction is TO God, not FROM God.

Mark 16:17 TO God. All who believe and are baptized, though you may receive the sign first, then follow in obedience to be baptized.
1 Cor. 12 FROM God. Like an office in the church. Not given to everyone, anymore than all are apostles

 

[1stcenturylady]

Fine. I will never speak gibberish and claim that to be of the Holy Spirit! I type with my spirit. Nevertheless, I don't claim this: djf ewpasoije dhefoiewuo rhdeuiie jc is the typing by the Holy Spirit!

I rest my case.

 

[Ken Rank]

As I have posted before in this thread, I don't see any tongues-affirming posters in this thread declaring that Tongues MUST accompany the salvation experience -- just that they CAN and DO -- that is NOT a MANDATE that Tongues are essential; everyone is aware that Paul wrote "do all speak with tongues?" and we take it as a rhetorical question with an assumed NO answer.

With respect to @Biblicist who wrote what is quoted below, I think this borders on a mandate. If not a mandate, it certainly elevates ONE gift above others. Why not say that a potential inituate "can/should expect to be able to immediately heal?" No, the focus is on the least of the gifts. So the mandate is inferred even if not stated.

"As much as I now recognise that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not one of subsequence, where instead all Believers are Baptised in the Spirit even if they speak in tongues or not, what now happens is that my Pentecostal tag jumps in where it says that as the New Testament record shows us that tongues accompanies the Salvific experience, that I hold to the view that before every call to Salvation that we need to inform potential initiates that they can/should expect to be able to immediately pray in the Spirit(tongues).

 

[Ken Rank]

Mark 16:17 TO God. All who believe and are baptized, though you may receive the sign first, then follow in obedience to be baptized.
1 Cor. 12 FROM God. Like an office in the church. Not given to everyone, anymore than all are apostles

This ASSUMES the "sign" is the speaking in tongues. It isn't... it can be, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[1stcenturylady]

This ASSUMES the "sign" is the speaking in tongues. It isn't... it can be, but it doesn't have to be.

Hi Ken, Let me explain why I believe the prayer and praise language is a "sign," and more importantly when it comes to praying or praising in tongues, what type of sign. Not only does Mark 16:17 call it a sign as well as the others mentioned, but because it does not require the supernatural interpretation of tongues, (though interpretation of tongues can, at time, be allowed to interpret them as on the Day of Pentecost which the devout Jews received, and the mockers didn't IMO), if all speak in these uninterpreted tongues in a church service, and an uninformed or unsaved person comes in they will think everyone has gone mad (or mock as on the DofP when they thought the 120 were drunk).

The TYPE of sign here is the same type as the sign of Jesus. It is called a "sign which will be spoken against." Jesus was this type of sign for the rise or fall of many in Israel (Luke 2:34-35). So it is two-edged. Salvation for those who believe in Him, and damnation for those who won't. Now that doesn't mean not believing in tongues is damnation, just that it confirms one doesn't believe in them if they speak against it.

Understand?

 

[1stcenturylady]

No, the focus is on the least of the gifts.

I hear this often, but where does it say speaking in tongues is the "least" gift? Doesn't that mean, in church? Do you need prophecy when you are alone? When you need to pray God's perfect will what would be the greater gift then?

 

[Ken Rank]

I hear this often, but where does it say speaking in tongues is the "least" gift? Doesn't that mean, in church? Do you need prophecy when you are alone? When you need to pray God's perfect will what would be the greater gift then?

1 Cor 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Mark 16 does indeed use the word tongues, but because of the stigma here, lets use languages because glōssa simply means language. We will speak in new tongues.... since coming to the Lord I have advanced beyond English and can read and speak Hebrew. Isn't that learning a new tongue? How you praise the Lord is between you and the Lord, but the idea that speaking in tongues is expected or is what being baptised into the Spirit means is not Scripture. It is the bias you were raised in shining through the text.

As for Luke 2... no... messiah himself is the sign. Simeon knew of the prophecies of the coming mashiach (messiah/anointed one) and when he saw him he knew it was a sign that many prophecies were about to come to pass.

"Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against.

It was the child who was the sign, not tongues.

 

[Anto9us]

1Co 14:5

I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Above we see that PROPHESYING being GREATER than Tongues is QUALIFIED, i.e., that if the tongue-talker also INTERPRETS, his 'gift' is not LESS THAN prophesying, but amounts to the same thing.

 

[1stcenturylady]

1 Cor 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Mark 16 does indeed use the word tongues, but because of the stigma here, lets use languages because glōssa simply means language. We will speak in new tongues.... since coming to the Lord I have advanced beyond English and can read and speak Hebrew. Isn't that learning a new tongue? How you praise the Lord is between you and the Lord, but the idea that speaking in tongues is expected or is what being baptised into the Spirit means is not Scripture. It is the bias you were raised in shining through the text.

As for Luke 2... no... messiah himself is the sign. Simeon knew of the prophecies of the coming mashiach (messiah/anointed one) and when he saw him he knew it was a sign that many prophecies were about to come to pass.

"Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against.

It was the child who was the sign, not tongues.

You must have read my post too fast. Yes, Jesus, Himself, is a sign which will be spoken against. But as far a type, tongues to an unbeliever is also this same TYPE of sign, a sign which will be spoken against.

If you are filled with the Spirit, no one is demanding you speak in tongues. Paul only said he would that you all speak in tongues. He wouldn't have said that if he didn't find it beneficial, nor do it himself more than everyone in Corinth. But, in a service, Paul said not to all speak in tongues all at once, for the confusion it would bring. God is not a God of confusion. So in church only messages FROM God that must be interpreted supernaturally are allowed, and then only 2 or 3.

Speaking in tongues is not a learned second or even third language. It is unknown to the speaker, and to the hearers, except supernaturally interpreted.

 

[Anto9us]

"God is not the author of confusion" -- a verse much bandied about, and agreed upon by all, I guess.

Something happened in Acts ch 2 -- many onlookers thought it was the result of the believers being drunk (which was not true, it just looked that way) -- but the point is; GOD WAS THE AUTHOR of what happened at Pentecost.

Are we agreed on THAT at least?

I want to know if anyone here thinks God was NOT the author of what happened in Acts 2, for it seems some are saying that God is NOT the author of similar things that may be happening yet today.