Speak in Tongues - essential :

[Marvin Knox]

NO tongues no spirit ..yep none of his (only religious in your own way not Gods !)
Repent..be Baptized (full immersion ) your bit of obedience ..
then ask God through Jesus Christ and (if your fair dinkum ,open to him ) receive HIS Spirit..easy..and free !!

I believe in the gift of tongues.

I may even speak and pray in tongues more than you do.

But this kind of tongues and baptism for salvation works based false gospel nonsense gives those of us who speak in tongues a bad name.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You missed out v18. "they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”



By that reasoning wouldn't it also be foolish not to pick up deadly snakes and drink poison? Have you seen what happens to people (even Christians) when they do? So the 'beleivers' Jesus is referring to cannot be all believers.

Paul was bitten by a snake and it didn't hurt him. Plus God still heals today. What you don't like our security in the Lord?

 

[swordsman1]

Paul was bitten by a snake and it didn't hurt him. Plus God still heals today. What you don't like our security in the Lord?

You think all other believers are immune from poisonous snake bites as well?

 

[1stcenturylady]

You think all other believers are immune from poisonous snake bites as well?

Without faith no.

 

[swordsman1]

Without faith no.

An extra dose of faith is not a condition mentioned in that passage.
But at least you admit Jesus was not referring to all believers.

 

[1stcenturylady]

An extra dose of faith is not a condition mentioned in that passage.
But at least you admit Jesus was not referring to all believers.

If you say so.

 

[Strong in Him]

1 Cor. 14:39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues.

We aren't commanded TO speak in tongues, but we are cautioned not to forbid ourselves, or anyone else to speak with tongues.

That's not what I was saying.
There's nothing wrong with speaking in tongues, and I would not forbid anyone from doing so. My point was that it's not compulsory, or even essential, as the title of this thread states - it certainly isn't essential for salvation.

Mark 16:16-18

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;

Were you baptized out of obedience? He has given us a way to pray perfect prayers that are always His will. Wouldn't it be foolish not to use it.

I'm sure that speaking in tongues is a lovely, helpful, uplifting, beautiful gift - it is from God, how could it be anything else? And it is not doubt very beneficial to those who have this gift, and use it.

But the OP actually stated that if someone doesn't speak in tongues, they don't have the Holy Spirit, and therefore do not belong to God.
THAT is what I am challenging - and since I wrote my post, with Scripture, the OP seems to have gone into hiding. There is no Scriptural proof that if you do not speak in tongues, you are not saved and/or do not belong to God. I don't, and I know I have the Holy Spirit.

 

[redleghunter]

It has nothing to do with "it doesn't fit with their doctrine", after all the Lutheran Confessions quote from it regularly in regard to the importance of Baptism. The point is that the Longer Ending of Mark is considered spurious, I'm not saying that because the Ending is bothersome to my own theology (it's not, there's nothing in the Longer Ending that I find theologically objectionable); however personal opinions and feelings aside, it is generally understood that the Longer Ending is spurious. The existence of variant endings to Mark, along with the absence of any of these endings in the manuscript record, indicate that Mark likely ended at verse 8; but endings were written latter and appended to Mark because as it stands Mark seems to end very abruptly--some see in this abrupt ending an intentional abruption to leave the reader feeling a sense of awe, others have suggested that it may have been left unfinished for one reason or another. But that the Longer Ending isn't authentically Marcan is pretty well accepted given the evidence we have. This isn't the only example we have, the Pericope Adulterae is also absent from our earliest manuscripts of John, and in several cases appears in Luke's Gospel, leading many to believe that it was a free-floating tradition that existed independently of the Four Gospels that at times was incorporated into Luke, and other times into John before ultimately being included in John (this doesn't make the Pericope Adulterae false, only that it wasn't originally written by the Fourth Evangelist), other free-floating traditions exist in antiquity, though these never made it into any Gospel text, one example being the Egerton Fragment (Papyrus Egerton 2) which contains several parallels to the Canonical Gospels, but also includes an otherwise unknown miracle.

My point is simply that we should tread carefully with the Longer Ending and not hang our hat too hard on it, due to it being spurious. There's nothing theologically objectionable, but in all truth wasn't written by the Second Evangelist, and its veracity is open to question.

-CryptoLutheran

The Lutherans did some research on tongues being acquired through practice.

One Lutheran pastor used a video to explain it.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Cool story bro!

 

[Alithos Anesti]

As one poster already pointed out, 1st Corinthians 12:30 clearly states not everyone even in the early church had the gift, so making tongues a sign of salvation is not Biblical.

 

[Alithos Anesti]

Also, true tongues required an interpreter, and nobody was allowed to speak more than two or three at a time. (1 Corinthians 14:27)

Which is completely different from what we see today

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Also, true tongues required an interpreter, and nobody was allowed to speak more than two or three at a time. (1 Corinthians 14:27)

If you're referring to the gift of tounques rather then the sign in acts then that's applicable. The gift not everyone can have and requires an interpreter because it's a message from god for the congregation. A sign on the other hand is just a sign of being saved but also for personal edification in prayer and worship. A gift like prophecy for example isn't just something you just can get it requires an approval or annoiting from god. Typically it takes time until god approves of someone to hold such a gift if they are chosen to have it

 

[Alithos Anesti]

If you're referring to the gift of tounques rather then the sign in acts then that's applicable. The gift not everyone can have and requires an interpreter because it's a message from god for the congregation. A sign on the other hand is just a sign of being saved but also for personal edification in prayer and worship. A gift like prophecy for example isn't just something you just can get it requires an approval or annoiting from god. Typically it takes time until god approves of someone to hold such a gift if they are chosen to have it

The gift was a sign:


1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

I'm not sure the difference you're trying to make

 

[Haipule]

Absolutely !!!

Well, my "spiritual gift" is "Interpretation of Tongues".

Although nobody in my church speaks in tongues, I did go to the local Pentecostal church to try out my gift. It’s true, I can actually understand what they are saying but I’m not sure why they are saying it. One guy kept on telling “knock knock” jokes but never gave us the punch line. I kept yelling, “Panda who?!” The guy next to me was saying that the rear-end of the girl in front of him was “So sweet it gave him a toothache”. And a guy across the room from me kept yelling, in an old Moab language, “I’m gay, I’m really, really gay!” It was not edifying; although I did find myself “rolling in the aisle”. But actually, I was ROFLOL!

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

The gift was a sign:


1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

I'm not sure the difference you're trying to make

The difference should be clear enough, the gift of tounques here is simply a sign for the unbelievers. Be aware also that when he means sign to unbelievers he's referencing Earthly tounques without the interpretation nothing more. There's one verse focusing on this subject for a reason...it's not that significant.

While speaking in tounques was a sign of the holy ghost being received on the day of pentecost and available for everyone there. That's a big difference if you ask me.

The holy spirit in acts was promised for everyone and speaking in tounques was common....but in corinthians there's a gift of tounques mentioned that isn't common for everyone and suddenly requires an interpreter which wasn't mentioned at all in acts.

Clearly there are 2 different forms of speaking in tounques. One was a sign of being filled and the other a gift which is when God speaks directly through an individual in an unknown tounque which requires interpretation in order to be understood by everyone else. Thus as paul points out if anyone claims or tries to operate in such a gift without an interpreter ..it will be dismissed as nonsense. . You see an example where a message is dismissed for not being understandable in Isaiah 28 also.

 

[1stcenturylady]

That's not what I was saying.
There's nothing wrong with speaking in tongues, and I would not forbid anyone from doing so. My point was that it's not compulsory, or even essential, as the title of this thread states - it certainly isn't essential for salvation.



I'm sure that speaking in tongues is a lovely, helpful, uplifting, beautiful gift - it is from God, how could it be anything else? And it is not doubt very beneficial to those who have this gift, and use it.

But the OP actually stated that if someone doesn't speak in tongues, they don't have the Holy Spirit, and therefore do not belong to God.
THAT is what I am challenging - and since I wrote my post, with Scripture, the OP seems to have gone into hiding. There is no Scriptural proof that if you do not speak in tongues, you are not saved and/or do not belong to God. I don't, and I know I have the Holy Spirit.

I agree. Speaking in tongues is not proof we are saved. However, only those who are saved can speak in tongues.

 

[GUANO]

The truth of whether or not the manifestation is 'real' is between God and the person doing it. In this case, individual faith is key. Having been raised Pentecostal I have seen my share of somewhat offensive uses of the 'gift', however, taking it on to myself to judge the authenticity of the phenomena and possibly make light of something a person truly believes (has faith) is motivated by the Holy Spirit is downright spiritually dangerous.

For issues such as this, I look to Romans 14:
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living...

..I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Tongues, glossolalia, whatever you would like to call it, is the same today as it always was. The 'miracle' factor varies from individual to individual and circumstances play a factor. I have not personally seen anything on the scale of what was described at Pentecost but I have personally experienced similar. I once heard perfect English while others heard the 'gibberish' most of you describe. I then heard someone repeat verbatim what I heard the other person say, and the person who 'interpreted' it themselves didn't actually hear it, they were speaking from a spirit of prophecy while they were doing a bit of convulsing (lol). The message itself didn't seem to be of any real significance to the congregation, the whole display that day was just for me I think. It occurred at a church that I grew up at, and I was always really annoyed by their displays and often questioned to myself (and God) whether it was legit.

At the end of the day, the 'practice' has been around for thousands of years, in Christianity and many other religions and you can even find similar phenomena performed by hypnotists. The authenticity and 'source' of each and every manifestation is something that most of us will not know and will 'wonder' about. Let's not wonder and be offended to the point of denying another person's faith and blaspheming the Holy Spirit. If it's unclean to you, then it's unclean to you and you shouldn't do it. Let both parties continue on.

Personally I do not speak gibberish openly any more for some of the reasons others have pointed out. I am aware of it's authenticity on some occasions and vanity on others. I still speak it sometimes to myself and have no issue with it. I'd just warn against making light of how the Holy Spirit could potentially work through others.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

I agree. Speaking in tongues is not proof we are saved. However, only those who are saved can speak in tongues.

Not true. there is such a thing as demonic tongues

 

[Strong in Him]

I agree. Speaking in tongues is not proof we are saved. However, only those who are saved can speak in tongues.

Agreed.
But if a saved person doesn't speak in tongues, that does not prove that they are not saved, or don't have the Spirit - which is what the OP is saying.

 

[swordsman1]

If you're referring to the gift of tounques rather then the sign in acts then that's applicable. The gift not everyone can have and requires an interpreter because it's a message from god for the congregation. A sign on the other hand is just a sign of being saved but also for personal edification in prayer and worship. A gift like prophecy for example isn't just something you just can get it requires an approval or annoiting from god. Typically it takes time until god approves of someone to hold such a gift if they are chosen to have it

So the tongues in Acts is different from the tongues in 1 Corinthians? One is miraculously speaking another language you haven't learned and the other is... errr... miraculously speaking another language you haven't learned?

Where is the scriptural reference for your claim that the 'sign of tongues' is for personal edification? 1 Cor 14:4? If so then that is referring to the Corinthian 'gift of tongues', is it not?

Isn't the 'gift' of tongues in 1 Cor 14:22 also described as a 'sign'?

The terminology in Acts and Corinthians is also exactly the same (glossa, laleo, etc). Luke was no doubt writing under the apostolic authority of Paul (being his lifelong friend and travelling companion). If it was something different Paul would have instructed Luke to make the distinction clear, but no, Luke uses the exact same terminology that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians.

Seems to me they are one and the same. It was a gift that could be used as a confirming sign and also one that could edify the church when translated in meetings.