Speaking in Tongues- did all in the NT do it?

[RefrusRevlis]

The issue of speaking in tongues has come up in a few threads I have participated in, but these were to some degree off-subject, so I thought it would be good to start a thread on the subject.

It has been asserted that all Christians should speak in tongues. The objection I have to this is that 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 clearly says that all do not speak in tongues.

1 Corinthians 12:28-31

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.  29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?  30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. NKJV​

In verse 29 the Greek word mh (me) is used. This word anticipates a negative answer. The NASB identified this fact and renders: "all do not...... are they?"


So, not all speak in tongues. The objection is raised: this is only referring to church meetings, for consider earlier in the chapter:


1 Corinthians 12:4-11

There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.  There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord.  And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:  for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.​

The argument is made that this earlier section refers only to the church meetings (and thus the context for the whole chapter is the church meeting?). This position is not supported by the text. ​

Furthermore, you cannot take this supposition from verses 4-11 and apply it to to the later section in 1 Corinthians. "Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?  30 Have all the gifts of healing?) does not apply only to the meetings. It is quite clear these roles are not restricted to meetings, but are ministries "tied" to individuals within the body of Christ. ​

A question that must be brooched is "What is speaking in tongues?" Quite clearly those demonstrated in Acts 2 were human languages. Is the claim that people who speak today speak other languages? In my experiences in a Pentecostal church before I became a member of Christ's church, was that these were not human languages, but just a selesction of sounds made by well-intentioned men and women.
Refrus​

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The issue of speaking in tongues has come up in a few threads I have participated in, but these were to some degree off-subject, so I thought it would be good to start a thread on the subject.

It has been asserted that all Christians should speak in tongues. The objection I have to this is that 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 clearly says that all do not speak in tongues.

1 Corinthians 12:28-31

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.  29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?  30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. NKJV​

In verse 29 the Greek word mh (me) is used. This word anticipates a negative answer. The NASB identified this fact and renders: "all do not...... are they?"


So, not all speak in tongues. The objection is raised: this is only referring to church meetings, for consider earlier in the chapter:


1 Corinthians 12:4-11

There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.  There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord.  And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:  for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.​

The argument is made that this earlier section refers only to the church meetings (and thus the context for the whole chapter is the church meeting?). This position is not supported by the text. ​

Furthermore, you cannot take this supposition from verses 4-11 and apply it to to the later section in 1 Corinthians. "Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?  30 Have all the gifts of healing?) does not apply only to the meetings. It is quite clear these roles are not restricted to meetings, but are ministries "tied" to individuals within the body of Christ. ​

A question that must be brooched is "What is speaking in tongues?" Quite clearly those demonstrated in Acts 2 were human languages. Is the claim that people who speak today speak other languages? In my experiences in a Pentecostal church before I became a member of Christ's church, was that these were not human languages, but just a selesction of sounds made by well-intentioned men and women.
Refrus​

Ok I am game.

The entire context of 1 Cor. 12, 13, 14 is one of corporate etiquette . . . the listings in the latter part of 12 have to do with gifts that are used in ministry . . . so will all participate in the public usage of tongues in relation to the edification of the Body . . . no.

Should all speak in tongues as part of their personal walk with Christ . . . yes. Will all . . . no.

As for Acts 2 . . . how well do you know Greek?

 

[revrobor]

Those who insist that all Believers should speak in tongues are Pentacostal groups and certain groups who call themselves "Spirit-filled". These also insist that it is the evidence of "baptism in the Spirit". A good case can be made that the evidence is Power, the power the Holy Spirit gives us when He indwells us. There is no Scriptural support for claiming that all Believers should speak in tongues. All the gifts of the spirit are active today including tongues which is given by the Spirit as HE choses.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Those who insist that all Believers should speak in tongues are Pentacostal groups and certain groups who call themselves "Spirit-filled". These also insist that it is the evidence of "baptism in the Spirit". A good case can be made that the evidence is Power, the power the Holy Spirit gives us when He indwells us. There is no Scriptural support for claiming that all Believers should speak in tongues. All the gifts of the spirit are active today including tongues which is given by the Spirit as HE choses.

No Scriptural evidence . . . how about Paul's clear desire that all speak in tongues?

 

[jesush8ter]

Confucioussay...
Whoever made this post is gay and will never get laid

 

[revrobor]

No Scriptural evidence . . . how about Paul's clear desire that all speak in tongues?

It was Paul's desire NOT God's command. And his statement was as much support for the fact that all DO NOT speak in tongues as you claim it is for all to so speak.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

It was Paul's desire NOT God's command. And his statement was as much support for the fact that all DO NOT speak in tongues as you claim it is for all to so speak.

Are you saying that Paul's writings are not inspired?

And I didn't claim that all will so speak . . . but that I feel all should.

 

[RefrusRevlis]

Should all speak in tongues as part of their personal walk with Christ . . . yes. Will all . . . no.

Huh? Are you suggesting tongues are meant to be a prayer language? If so, give me some scriptural support for this position? Wasn't the point of tongues to be a sign for unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22) - in Acts 2 the Jews assembled from various places in the world heard the words of God in their own tongues.

Refrus

 

[TaraD78]

I really feel that this is a gift from God. I know many who do speak and many who don't. God has many gifts for us and I feel this is one of them. Not all will have this gift. I do not have this gift. I may someday and I may not. But a person shouldn't be looked down upon just because they can't. Also I was taught that there should always be a interpreter there when speaking in tongues.
God Bless
Tara
MyGodlyPlace.com

 

[Starcrystal]

Those who insist that all Believers should speak in tongues are Pentacostal groups and certain groups who call themselves "Spirit-filled". These also insist that it is the evidence of "baptism in the Spirit". A good case can be made that the evidence is Power, the power the Holy Spirit gives us when He indwells us. There is no Scriptural support for claiming that all Believers should speak in tongues. All the gifts of the spirit are active today including tongues which is given by the Spirit as HE choses.

I fell for the pentecostal game in the 80s.... and prayer lines where hands were layed on for the baptism in the spirit with the so called "evidence of speaking in tongues." What I saw was a bunch of relatively new converts mimicing the "tongues" being spoken by the elders. Furthermore I saw numerous cases of tongues being blurted out with no hint of an interpretation. If we read in I Corinthians we see that tongues should not be spoken aloud unless there be interpretation.

In Acts there are 2 places that suggest the filling of the Spirit can be evidenced by things other than tongues:

Acts 4:31 - "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness."

Acts 19:6 - "the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
(Although tongues is mentioned here, so is prophecy which is another gift of the Spirit. Hence I believe any gift manifestation, or simply speaking the word with boldness can be evidence of the infilling).

We must also consider I Cor 14:1 "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."
and 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."

It was Paul's desire NOT God's command. And his statement was as much support for the fact that all DO NOT speak in tongues as you claim it is for all to so speak.

Amen.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Every new believer in the New Testament did receive the baptism of the Holy spirit and they all did speak in tongues...every instance recorded.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Huh? Are you suggesting tongues are meant to be a prayer language? If so, give me some scriptural support for this position? Wasn't the point of tongues to be a sign for unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22) - in Acts 2 the Jews assembled from various places in the world heard the words of God in their own tongues.

Refrus

Yes . . . Paul says that the use of tongues privately is edifying for the individual . . . and that the direction of the usage is "Godward" (vertical towards God verses horizontal towards men).

Tongues as a sign for Jews was only the function in Acts 2 . . . not so in 10 or 19 . . . matter of fact tongues functioned as a sign TO BELIEVERS in Acts 10, 11 and ff.

The primary purpose for the function of tongues is edification of the Body . . . any other function is secondary.

A common misperception of Acts 2 is that the hearers heard the Gospel . . . but that isn't what Luke says . . . he uses the word megaliea and not euanggelion . . . they heard of the "mighty things" of God. This is an ascription of praise and glory . . . rather than a presentation of the Gospel . . . for otherwise Peter's sermon is redundant and superflous.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I fell for the pentecostal game in the 80s.... and prayer lines where hands were layed on for the baptism in the spirit with the so called "evidence of speaking in tongues." What I saw was a bunch of relatively new converts mimicing the "tongues" being spoken by the elders. Furthermore I saw numerous cases of tongues being blurted out with no hint of an interpretation. If we read in I Corinthians we see that tongues should not be spoken aloud unless there be interpretation.

In Acts there are 2 places that suggest the filling of the Spirit can be evidenced by things other than tongues:

Acts 4:31 - "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness."

Acts 19:6 - "the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
(Although tongues is mentioned here, so is prophecy which is another gift of the Spirit. Hence I believe any gift manifestation, or simply speaking the word with boldness can be evidence of the infilling).

We must also consider I Cor 14:1 "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."
and 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."



Amen.

Not any tongue aloud . . . any tongue aloud in the congregation.

And the Acts 4 wasn't the initial filling but a subsequent filling of those who had already been filled . . . so it really doesn't apply to the Pentecostal position.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Not any tongue aloud . . . any tongue aloud in the congregation.

And the Acts 4 wasn't the initial filling but a subsequent filling of those who had already been filled . . . so it really doesn't apply to the Pentecostal position.

Did you mean "aloud" or "allowed"?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Did you mean "aloud" or "allowed"?

Funny . . . LOL

Me tinx U know what I's meanith

 

[Floatingaxe]

Funny . . . LOL

Me tinx U know what I's meanith

Hehe, actually I wasn't sure! I think I need a coffee!






(...was it "aloud"?)

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Hehe, actually I wasn't sure! I think I need a coffee!






(...was it "aloud"?)

Yes . . . any tongue spoken ALOUD (ie out loud as opposed to silently or under one's breath) when:
1. Unbelievers
2. Ungifted/Ignorant believers (ignorant in the gifts)
are present, or at least have the potential to be present, should be intepreted.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Yes . . . any tongue spoken ALOUD (ie out loud as opposed to silently or under one's breath) when:
1. Unbelievers
2. Ungifted/Ignorant believers (ignorant in the gifts)
are present, or at least have the potential to be present, should be intepreted.

I believe that. It's the gift of exhortative tongues and is meant to be interpreted.

 

[Svt4Him]

The gifts in Corinthians also include faith. If one takes it to mean these gifts are given to some Christians only, then does that mean there are Christians who don't have faith (as salvation is through faith)?

As for praying in tongues, although this is a corporate setting, the principle is the same:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Starcrystal]

Not any tongue aloud . . . any tongue aloud in the congregation.

And the Acts 4 wasn't the initial filling but a subsequent filling of those who had already been filled . . . so it really doesn't apply to the Pentecostal position.

That is what I meant. I was in churches where unbelievers were present, the elders were speaking in tongues, people going up for prayer who spoke in tongues.... people in the congregation standing up and jumping and blurting out tongues.... and the unbelievers often left still unbelievers.

What about this then? I have known people, including myself who were filled with the Spirit and manifested gifts other than tongues. I have spoken in legitimate tongues a few times. I have also spoken in what I think were mimiced tongues under the emotionalism of the service.
However, I know for a fact God manifested both prophecy and discernment of spirits before I ever spoke a word in tongues. The prophecy was of predictive nature and did come to pass exactly. (Not vague either like some of the prophecies you hear) and the discernment hit the nail on the head about the condition of people I didn't even know and the dark things they were involved with. These gifts have manifested from time to time over the past 22 years. They don't happen daily or even weekly but I know they are gifts of the Spirit and therefore evidence of the filling.

By the way something really cool happened yesterday after I posted here. I went to the post office and there is a Church of God across the street. I noticed something white fliting around the steeple and saw it was a bird. It landed on the little white cross on top of the steeple and I saw then it was a pure white dove! I walked up to the church to watch it closer. It stayed on the cross for about 2 minutes then spread its wings and flew around the steeple again, then took off to land in a tall radio antenea. Dove = symbolic of Holy Spirit, landing on the steeple of a pentecostal church right after we were here talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit!