SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Help make this the DEFINITIVE learning thread

[zeke37]

sorry i'm coming in late on this threat and i really don't have time to read 12 pages of content so I apologize in advance if I am just going through the same old arguments. But with my experience with tongues I find a lot of people do not cover all aspects so I thought I would share my own thoughts on the subject as I have put some time into it in the past.

First of all we need to establish that tongues are still a part of the church today because some denominations believe tongues was only meant for the apostolic period and no longer is needed. Here is the verse that both sides use to defend themselves:

1 Corinthians 13:8-12
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. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

The important part here is how "when the perfection comes, the imperfect disappears" is interpreted. Some claim this is talking about the canon of the Bible or beginning of the church and say that since we have these things (the perfect) the imperfect (namely tongues) will cease. Some will point to the fact that when it is talking about tongues a different verb is used then when it talks about prophecy and knowledge. The verb is pauō when talking about tongues and katargeō when talking about prophecy and knowledge. These words essentially mean the same things but some have suggested that the verb for tongues is much stronger so this is the reason why tongues should not be present today but prophecy and knowledge can be.

What I say to that is lets look at the context of these verses. Chapter 13 does not start a new subject it is Chapter 12 that declares the subject which is about spiritual gifts. Chapter 13 is stressing these gifts are nothing without love and it not demonstrating why certain gifts are greater than other gifts or that some will no longer be needed where others will be. For example lets look at the following verses:

1 Corinthians 12:30
Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

1 Corinthians 13:1-3
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

1 Corinthians 3:9
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

These are cases where Paul is not singling out the gifts it is where Paul is merely using whatever gifts he mentions as examples but the message is for all spiritual gifts not just the ones he mentions. So in 13:9 it doesn't matter what verb Paul uses he is just using different verbs as a writing style. The context of the passage has nothing to do with when if tongues is present in the church today it is to do with all spiritual gifts are nothing without love because love will always be here and spiritual gifts will pass away when perfection comes.

What is perfection? well it is the second coming of Christ or when the new heaven and earth are established. Spiritual gifts represent something that is lacking in our part. We are empowered with them because we are flawed and are lacking and these gifts help us see things that we are cannot see or do things we would otherwise not be able to do. However there will be a time when we will no longer be flawed and lacking as we are and so spiritual gifts will not be needed but of course love will always remain. So this verse does not say tongues is not present anymore it says all gifts of spirit should be acted with love and will remain until things are made perfect.

Now that we have established that tongues are still active today we need to establish the difference between the tongues in acts and the tongues in 1 Corinthians or if there one at all.

In Acts we see tongues happening 3 times, in Acts 2:1-4, Acts 10:44-46 and Acts 19:4-7. These are the only times in the entire bible we see tongues being spoken in a narrative. What is similar about these things? Well they all happen during the first experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We see the baptism of the Holy Spirit in other times like in Acts 4 but this is a subsequent experience of the Holy Spirit and not the first time the people mention received it. So this "first time" is an important distinction. We see only 2 other times where the baptism of the Holy Spirit is experienced for the first time in Paul's conversion which is Acts 9:17-19 and with Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8:14-17. These areas do not say these people began to speak in tongues however they also do not mention any sort of evidence.

What does this mean? Well the baptism of the Holy Spirit should show some sort of evidence that it has come upon you. If there is no evidence then there is no way of knowing. The Holy Spirit does have an impact on us so we need to show a sign of that impact. The Holy Spirit will manifest itself in a same fashion as it does any other times so when one is baptized with the Holy Spirit we look for evidence like we see in the gifts of the Holy Spirit not other things like shaking or barking like a dog because these are not consistent with the Holy Spirit. So in all cases there is a sign that shows us we are baptized with the Holy Spirit and that sign is consistent with how the Holy Spirit operates and we see examples of that through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. When Acts speaks of times like Paul's conversion or Simon the Sorcerer where the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens for the first time but there is no specific evidence we are to assume that the Holy Spirit has manifested itself the same way it would every other times. These cases of Paul and Simon do not talk about tongues or any other manifestation because their context is not about the manifestation it is about "Paul's conversion" or "Simon trying to buy the Holy Spirit" The author is not trying to show the manifestation of the Holy Spirit the author has a more pressing subject that he is writing about so the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is not important to the subject. In the case of Simon it is clear Simon saw a manifestation because he was prompted to offer money for this power and was then rebuked for trying to buy it. And in the case of Paul there is no manifestation spoken of but that is not important the text is not trying to show how the Holy Spirit operates it is trying to show Paul's conversion. So there are 5 times in acts where the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens for the first time with believers 3 of these times speaking in tongues followed it and the other 2 there is no manifestation described. 1 of the times prophesy is mentioned but it is clear that tongues has a dominate relationship with the baptism of the Holy Spirit and is a very dominate sign at the first time during pentecost. The other two times it is assume the Holy Spirit manifests itself the same way it does in the other 3 which is only consistent with tongues.

What about Corinthians? How does that play with this whole thing because it says in Corinthians

1 Corinthians 12:4-6
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

1 Corinthians 12:7-11
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, ... to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, ... All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

1 Corinthians 12:30
Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

So from these verses the message in Corinthians says that we are ALL baptized with the same Spirit and the Spirit will give us each different gifts as he determines. The whole passage speaks of the church being of one body and each person is a different part. Not all are the same part but each have their own role and not all will have the same gifts. So this then would extend to the gift of tongues because clearly this passage is saying we are ALL baptized Holy Spirit and so the accounts in acts should be no different than the teaching in Corinthians.

Well this is the confusing part of the Holy Spirit. Are we all baptized in the Holy Spirit upon conversion? Well in Acts we have conflicting message with this. We see in Acts 8 with Simon the Sorcerer the believers received the baptism of the Holy Spirit after their conversion. In fact they had to send for apostles to come to lay hands on them to received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and who knows how long that took, a week, a month, a year? We also see in Acts 10 believers receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with Water. In Acts 19 it talks of believers first being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (water baptism) and then the baptism of the Holy Spirit came upon them through laying on of hands. So this idea of the baptism of the Holy Spirit does show that it is a separate process of the Holy Spirit. It is not happen necessarily with conversion and it is not being baptized with Water. So we cannot assume that when Paul speaks of it in Corinthians that he means that "all believers" are baptized in the Holy Spirit as mentioned in the the baptism of the Holy Spirit is in Acts. It is not clear what he means by "baptism" but there is a contrast of this idea that the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens upon conversion. So Paul is not suggesting here that as soon as you are converted you are also baptized with the Holy Spirit. He may have used the word "baptism" differently or the audience he was speaking to perhaps might have all been baptized with the Holy Spirit so "ALL" was the audience he was speaking to. But it is clear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a separate experience then conversion and the two should not be confused together.

It is important to look at the greek word that is used for spiritual gifts. The unique word here is "charisma" which is translated into "gifts" or "spiritual gifts". the Root word of charisma is charis which is the word we use for grace. Charisma is also a word used to grace so we see this is a deep connection with charisma and with grace. Now we all know grace is given to us upon conversion so these "gifts" or "charisma" seems to also be rooted into this process. So in this case Paul is talking about Spiritual Gifts that are given to use as the Holy Spirit sees fit upon conversion. These gifts are developed and practiced as Corinthians further expands on. However this word "Charisma" is not used in acts. When it speaks of "the gift" of the Holy Spirit it is using the word "dōrea" which simply means "gift" or "the gift". "The gift" in Acts is not the same as "gifts" in Corinthians so they cannot be interpreted the same way. the context of the passage in Corinthians is teaching on the spiritual Gifts not on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, as it shows in Corinthians and in Acts, the manifestations of the Holy Spirit is consistent and we see examples of it in both Acts and Corinthians but they are not necessarily talking about the same thing. Corinthians is talking about gifts of the Holy Spirit where Acts is talking about baptism of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a separate process and the gifts of the Holy Spirit is something that is developed and given to us upon salvation.

Since we know it is the same spirit in both cases both Acts and Corinthians show us how the spirit operates and in the case of Corinthians it actually teaches us how specific gifts work. But the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not the gifts of the Holy Spirit they are separate things. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a overwhelming of the Spirit that is not constantly upon on. We see for example it happening subsequent times in Acts 4 so the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not something that is constant with us and it will happen as the spirit sees fit. However the gifts of the Holy spirit is something is constant with us upon conversion. The Holy Spirit dwells within us upon conversion but this isn't to be confused with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit helps us to use our spiritual gifts as the Spirit sees fit. Since Corinthians does talk about tongues it can be used to help understand tongues in Acts but it is not the same thing. One is talking about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the other is talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

in the bible tongues means languages, not private charismatic or ecstatic prayer

 

[sunlover1]

in the bible tongues means languages, not private charismatic or ecstatic prayer

It does mean languages

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

in the bible tongues means languages, not private charismatic or ecstatic prayer

Paul never mentioned anything ecstatic about speaking in tongues. There is no thought in his teaching linking the use of tongues with any kind of hyped up emotions. The idea of of "ecstatic" comes from misinformed commentators who might have attended or heard about one or two meetings of the Pentecostal lunatic fringe. Most standard Pentecostal and Charismatics whom I know would poo poo the idea that anyone had to get into a hyper emotional state to speak or pray in tongues.

I would say that any negative comment about Charismatic tongues from any person who had never been associated with a Pentecostal/Charistmatic church as a long-term member or church leader, would be unreliable and full of misinformation. Frankly, they would be just spouting parrot fashion stuff they had heard, rather than spending quality time with Pentecostal believers, getting to know them, and seeing Pentecostalism as it really is from the inside, rather than one or two attendances at a rowdy Sunday night meeting where there could be a combination of the stable members and the lunatic fringe. Most people who are genuinely wanting to find out the truth about Charismatics would discuss issues with stable responsible members and be prepared to listen and be teachable.

But prejudice about Pentecostal/Charismatic issues blinds people and stops them finding out what is real and true and being able to distinguish it from the fleshly practice. And so they throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Wouldn't some anti-Charismatics be more honest and ethical by going back to their own churches and getting on with serving God in their own areas, stop slandering and defaming Charismatics and Pentecostals and leaving them alone to get on with serving God in their own way?

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Paul never mentioned anything ecstatic about speaking in tongues. There is no thought in his teaching linking the use of tongues with any kind of hyped up emotions. The idea of of "ecstatic" comes from misinformed commentators who might have attended or heard about one or two meetings of the Pentecostal lunatic fringe.

Would you mind describing how you distinguish between a hyper-active, tongue speaking "normal" Pentecostal member from a member of the "Pentecostal lunatic fringe"?

Are they still part of the "Pentecostal lunatic fringe" if they have someone there to interpret for them?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Would you mind describing how you distinguish between a hyper-active, tongue speaking "normal" Pentecostal member from a member of the "Pentecostal lunatic fringe"?

Are they still part of the "Pentecostal lunatic fringe" if they have someone there to interpret for them?

In my twelve years with the Pentecostal church, I never saw a hyper-active tongues speaking member. I never saw many hyper active Pentecostals at all. The ones I saw were normal Christians enjoying church, worshiping God and enjoying the preaching of the Word, just like any other Christians.

Perhaps the Pentecostal church is quieter than those in the USA where I believe there are many more hyper-active people in it.

All the the 12 years, I saw only one person holy rolling on the floor, and he was viewed as an oddity in a church which was considered to be at the cutting edge of Pentecostalism at the time.

The "lunatic fringe" people who I met had issues other than speaking in tongues, and these people were clearly recognised by the leadership as such.

The leaders of every Pentecostal church I worked with were stable, experienced men of God who preached sound doctrine and strong taught self control in any approach to God in worship. One pastor I knew used to pray for people who became hyper in his services, because he believed that they needed setting free from a contrary spirit that was causing them to behave that way.

The only differences that I have seen between Pentecostals and other denominations is that Pentecostals believe in using the nine gifts of the Holy Spirit, where other denominations are content with three hymns, a reading, a couple of prayers, and preaching. There are no prophecies, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, miracles, exercises of extra faith, discerning of spirits, or healing in those services. The basic conduct of members in both types of churches is basically the same. Pentecostals usually are somewhat more passionate about their faith and show more enthusiasm about Christ and what He has done for them, and are more expressive in their worship of Him, but I would not say that they are hyper-active.

Maybe you have had such a limited fellowship with Pentecostals that you have only seen a limited few of what would be considered as the "lunatic fringe" in most Pentecostal churches.

 

[sunlover1]

Most standard Pentecostal and Charismatics whom I know would poo poo the idea that anyone had to get into a hyper emotional state to speak or pray in tongues.

Right and I've never met any of these ... luny types either.
My church is just as conservative as the next if you were to visit..
well except for our worship perhaps. We do get ...quite joyful
(God still likes joy, amen? )

 

[zeke37]

Paul never mentioned anything ecstatic about speaking in tongues. There is no thought in his teaching linking the use of tongues with any kind of hyped up emotions. The idea of of "ecstatic" comes from misinformed commentators who might have attended or heard about one or two meetings of the Pentecostal lunatic fringe. Most standard Pentecostal and Charismatics whom I know would poo poo the idea that anyone had to get into a hyper emotional state to speak or pray in tongues.

IMO you are in the minority if you are NOT part of the "lunatic fringe" with regards to tongues.

that is the majority and why overall,
the word ecstatic is used to describe the charismatic/Pentacostal tongue

I would say that any negative comment about Charismatic tongues from any person who had never been associated with a Pentecostal/Charistmatic church as a long-term member or church leader, would be unreliable and full of misinformation.

of course you would say that.
I've seen mild and lunatic fringe and everything inbetween
at the same service...
but always the lunatic fringe is represented

2 of my good friends are Pentacostal

Frankly, they would be just spouting parrot fashion stuff they had heard, rather than spending quality time with Pentecostal believers, getting to know them, and seeing Pentecostalism as it really is from the inside,

hey, that would be me!!!! as just explained

rather than one or two attendances at a rowdy Sunday night meeting where there could be a combination of the stable members and the lunatic fringe. Most people who are genuinely wanting to find out the truth about Charismatics would discuss issues with stable responsible members and be prepared to listen and be teachable.

unless what you are teaching is not biblically or emotionally sound.

But prejudice about Pentecostal/Charismatic issues blinds people and stops them finding out what is real and true and being able to distinguish it from the fleshly practice. And so they throw out the baby with the bathwater.

indoctrination of some,
has their tradition of man,
making void the Word of God...
changing the meaning of a whole chapter,
to pretty much the exact opposite of the intent

turning the rules for spreading the Word of Christ into all languages,
into charismatic private prayer vs.
congregational charismatic interpretation

Wouldn't some anti-Charismatics be more honest and ethical by going back to their own churches and getting on with serving God in their own areas, stop slandering and defaming Charismatics and Pentecostals and leaving them alone to get on with serving God in their own way?

perhaps it is put on some of those anti-Charismatics
to be a voice of reason and understanding to the masses

to not only give others an alternative understanding of tongues,
one that makes sense and is not confusing
or opposite of what tongues already means in the bible,
for those with legit questions....,
but also to help the immature grow in Christ
and drop seeds that will one day grow with God's help
and allow them to come out of their cultic delusion/tradition of man,
no matter how well intended they may be

to be men in understanding

 

[zeke37]

It does mean languages

sure does,
it does not mean charismatic private prayer

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

IMO you are in the minority if you are NOT part of the "lunatic fringe" with regards to tongues.

that is the majority and why overall,
the word ecstatic is used to describe the charismatic/Pentacostal tongue


of course you would say that.
I've seen mild and lunatic fringe and everything inbetween
at the same service...
but always the lunatic fringe is represented

2 of my good friends are Pentacostal


hey, that would be me!!!! as just explained


unless what you are teaching is not biblically or emotionally sound.


indoctrination of some,
has their tradition of man,
making void the Word of God...
changing the meaning of a whole chapter,
to pretty much the exact opposite of the intent

turning the rules for spreading the Word of Christ into all languages,
into charismatic private prayer vs.
congregational charismatic interpretation



perhaps it is put on some of those anti-Charismatics
to be a voice of reason and understanding to the masses

to not only give others an alternative understanding of tongues,
one that makes sense and is not confusing
or opposite of what tongues already means in the bible,
for those with legit questions....,
but also to help the immature grow in Christ
and drop seeds that will one day grow with God's help
and allow them to come out of their cultic delusion/tradition of man,
no matter how well intended they may be

to be men in understanding

As I pointed out in the other thread: You are giving your reasons you don't believe it is God's will for you. Your views are subjective, just like mine. Others who read them are free to choose for themselves.

But I do want to make the point is that if a person doesn't believe in the gifts of the Spirit as they are practiced today, then that person does not believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit as practiced among Pentecostals and Charismatics today. The trouble is that they are the only churches that are demonstrating anything like the evidence of being baptised and filled with the Spirit as described in the New Testament.

If in churches, prophecy, miracles, healing are not happening, then there is no demonstration of the Spirit, therefore there is no evidence that the Holy Spirit is active in the services. This is because the nine gifts of the Spirit are the ways in which the Spirit is active in Christian services. If these are not activated, there is no evidence that the Spirit is there at all. If churches decide to reject the operation of the gifts of the Spirit, then they are rejecting the method in which the Spirit works to strengthen Christians. Therefore all the service has left are natural activities based on the flesh, because the Spirit, being rejected, is absent.

It is true that the Lord said, "When two or three are gathered together in my Name there I am in the midst", He may be present as an observer, but He can't do much because He has ordered it that He works among Christians by the operation of the Spirit. If the Spirit is not permitted to work through Christians with the spiritual tools that He has provided, then He has to stand in a corner, bound and made helpless by unbelief - the rejection that the Spirit works through supernatural gifts today.

What this means is that services are made up of three hymns, a Bible reading, some prayers and a moral sermon, with a cup of tea and scones afterward. So, instead of Christians going home full of the Spirit, they are going home full of tea and scones!

This is the outcome of a dry, formalised religiousity that is all that exists if the Holy Spirit cannot freely be active in church services.

 

[sunlover1]

If in churches, prophecy, miracles, healing are not happening, then there is no demonstration of the Spirit, therefore there is no evidence that the Holy Spirit is active in the services. This is because the nine gifts of the Spirit are the ways in which the Spirit is active in Christian services. If these are not activated, there is no evidence that the Spirit is there at all. If churches decide to reject the operation of the gifts of the Spirit, then they are rejecting the method in which the Spirit works to strengthen Christians. Therefore all the service has left are natural activities based on the flesh, because the Spirit, being rejected, is absent.

Everyone loses.

What this means is that services are made up of three hymns, a Bible reading, some prayers and a moral sermon, with a cup of tea and scones afterward. So, instead of Christians going home full of the Spirit, they are going home full of tea and scones!

But they don't realize the difference Oscarr... so... perhaps this is what they prefer.
And it IS somewhat 'scary' to get out of that comfort zone and taste and see.
I would still be having scones and tea if it weren't for people praying for me i bet.

 

[zeke37]

As I pointed out in the other thread: You are giving your reasons you don't believe it is God's will for you.

no...the reason given are for all of us, not just me

Your views are subjective, just like mine. Others who read them are free to choose for themselves.

I agree...they are free to choose

But I do want to make the point is that if a person doesn't believe in the gifts of the Spirit as they are practiced today, then that person does not believe in the baptism in the Holy Spirit as practiced among Pentecostals and Charismatics today.

of course

The trouble is that they are the only churches that are demonstrating anything like the evidence of being baptised and filled with the Spirit as described in the New Testament.

or, not even close

If in churches, prophecy,

prophesy is not what you think it means, in 1Cor14
prophesy in 1Cor14 is speaking about the already written prophesy's found in the bible

miracles, healing are not happening, then there is no demonstration of the Spirit, therefore there is no evidence that the Holy Spirit is active in the services.

evidence is undeniable..
charismatic tongues are deniable
what happened in Acts2 was not deniable

This is because the nine gifts of the Spirit are the ways in which the Spirit is active in Christian services. If these are not activated, there is no evidence that the Spirit is there at all. If churches decide to reject the operation of the gifts of the Spirit, then they are rejecting the method in which the Spirit works to strengthen Christians. Therefore all the service has left are natural activities based on the flesh, because the Spirit, being rejected, is absent.

you assusme chariamstic tongues as a gift,
and others do not

It is true that the Lord said, "When two or three are gathered together in my Name there I am in the midst", He may be present as an observer, but He can't do much because He has ordered it that He works among Christians by the operation of the Spirit. If the Spirit is not permitted to work through Christians with the spiritual tools that He has provided, then He has to stand in a corner, bound and made helpless by unbelief - the rejection that the Spirit works through supernatural gifts today.

What this means is that services are made up of three hymns, a Bible reading, some prayers and a moral sermon, with a cup of tea and scones afterward. So, instead of Christians going home full of the Spirit, they are going home full of tea and scones!

This is the outcome of a dry, formalised religiousity that is all that exists if the Holy Spirit cannot freely be active in church services.

what does scones and tea have to do with tongues?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

what does scones and tea have to do with tongues?

The expression was taken from a Chinese pastor who ministered to us once. He said that Chinese Evangelical Christians went home filled with the Spirit after their Sunday services, and that Western Christians went home full of tea and scones.

 

[Paul.]

well, when I speak, I can certainly hear myself and my language just fine

Yes you do and so do I when I talk to other people. That is the way everyone experiences ordinary verbal communication. It follows that, since Acts 2 is not describing ordinary verbal communication, your experience during ordinary verbal communication is therefore not necessarily the same as what the disciples experienced during a miraculous work of God. Do you agree?

 

[zeke37]

Yes you do and so do I when I talk to other people. That is the way everyone experiences ordinary verbal communication. It follows that, since Acts 2 is not describing ordinary verbal communication, your experience during ordinary verbal communication is therefore not necessarily the same as what the disciples experienced during a miraculous work of God. Do you agree?

you could never convince me that they did not themselves understand each other.

whether the langauge that came out of their mouth was their own or not....

they certainly understood each other...

 

[Paul.]

well, when I speak, I can certainly hear myself and my language just fine

Yes you do and so do I when I talk to other people. That is the way everyone experiences ordinary verbal communication. It follows that, since Acts 2 is not describing ordinary verbal communication, your experience during ordinary verbal communication is therefore not necessarily the same as what the disciples experienced during a miraculous work of God. Do you agree?

you could never convince me

I am not here to convince you, I am here to discuss what the Bible says, to understand other Christians interpretations of God's Word and to have my own interpretations scrutinized.

you could never convince me that they did not themselves understand each other.

whether the langauge that came out of their mouth was their own or not....

they certainly understood each other...

What scripture has convinced you that each disciple understood what the other disciples were saying when they spoke in tongues in Acts 2?

 

[zeke37]

1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.



14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

hi

so, what they did was prophesy...
it has to be understood to be prophesy...


the miracle that happend then, was directly for teaching with understanding.
They spoke to each other for that purpose, to understand perfectly...
and then to the crowd...

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

the miracle that happend then, [/COLOR]was directly for teaching with understanding.
They spoke to each other for that purpose, to understand perfectly...
and then to the crowd...

Of course you missed out some significant verses between your quotes which list all the different languages that were spoken by the 120. Now these were native Galileans. So you mean that they had a natural fluent knowledge of all the languages listed? So these Galileans had learned and could fluently speak the language and dialects of Crete, Arabia, Parthia, Asia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Libya, and Rome? These people had never been further afield than their native Galilee and Jerusalem, and you are telling me that they were able to educate themselves and be able to speak the national languages and regional dialects of all these countries without ever going there? How do you explain that?

This is what puzzled all these pilgrims when they heard their own dialects being spoken, because they knew that the people speaking were Galileans who could never have known all those languages. That's what they said: "How can this be, seeing that these people are Galileans?" Galileans were known as simple folk who depended on fishing for a living. Everyone knew that they would not have been sophisticated enough to have a fluent command of all the languages and regional dialects of the then known world. That is why some, who may have heard as gibberish the languages they did not understand, said that these people were drunk and just babbling in an alcoholic stupor. That's when Peter got up and explained what was going on.

It is quite convenient that you would miss those verses out because any person reading the verses closely would have reasonable doubts about your theory that when the 120 spoke the languages, they could all understand each other. Given the description of the languages spoken, it was a total impossibility for that to be.

Those verses describing the languages put such a hole in your theory big enough for a London bus to be driven through with plenty of room to spare!

 

[zeke37]

Of course you missed out some significant verses between your quotes which list all the different languages that were spoken by the 120.

I did not miss them...

I was answering Paul's question about my opinion

Now these were native Galileans. So you mean that they had a natural fluent knowledge of all the languages listed?

of course not...the miracle that God sent obviously did tho.

So these Galileans had learned and could fluently speak the language and dialects of Crete, Arabia, Parthia, Asia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Libya, and Rome?

no...it was a miracle gift from God...for a reason..
and it was not self edification
it was to spread the mighty works of God (Christ Messiah) to all of those present

These people had never been further afield than their native Galilee and Jerusalem, and you are telling me that they were able to educate themselves and be able to speak the national languages and regional dialects of all these countries without ever going there? How do you explain that?

those are your misconceptions...
I never ever thought that, let alone have said that

This is what puzzled all these pilgrims when they heard their own dialects being spoken, because they knew that the people speaking were Galileans who could never have known all those languages. That's what they said: "How can this be, seeing that these people are Galileans?" Galileans were known as simple folk who depended on fishing for a living. Everyone knew that they would not have been sophisticated enough to have a fluent command of all the languages and regional dialects of the then known world.

Oscarr, I agree with you on this point...
I don't know how youcould have ever thought I did not

That is why some, who may have heard as gibberish the languages they did not understand, said that these people were drunk and just babbling in an alcoholic stupor. That's when Peter got up and explained what was going on.

no...every single man there heard it in his own language, bar none...
even the ones that Peter lifted his voice up to.

It is quite convenient that you would miss those verses out because any person reading the verses closely would have reasonable doubts about your theory that when the 120 spoke the languages, they could all understand each other.

why? it was a gift of God that allowed for perfect understanding...
for words to become prophesy to those who hear them...as in the fulfillments of Messianic references in Isaiah and the Pslams among others..
of course they understood each other...

the other cases in Acts do not have a crowd of others to hear and understand,
but instead it is only the one group...
so that throws your theory out,
that the tongues were not understood by those speaking them

Given the description of the languages spoken, it was a total impossibility for that to be.

for what to be? are you suggesting that the Gift from God that allowed for perfect understanding
was not given to the very ones that were actually speaking?
how obsurd

Those verses describing the languages put such a hole in your theory big enough for a London bus to be driven through with plenty of room to spare!

again...you're way off the deep end here Bro..

tootles

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

[/COLOR][/SIZE]
I did not miss them...

I was answering Paul's question about my opinion

Fair enough.

of course not...the miracle that God sent obviously did tho.


no...it was a miracle gift from God...for a reason..
and it was not self edification
it was to spread the mighty works of God (Christ Messiah) to all of those present

We are agreed there.

those are your misconceptions...
I never ever thought that, let alone have said that

I think that I was referring to your comment that you believe that the 120 understood the different languages they were speaking as if they learned them somewhere. But I see from your later comment that you are saying something a little bit different.

Oscarr, I agree with you on this point...
I don't know how youcould have ever thought I did not

It's good that this is clarified for both of us.

no...every single man there heard it in his own language, bar none...
even the ones that Peter lifted his voice up to.

OK.

why? it was a gift of God that allowed for perfect understanding...
for words to become prophesy to those who hear them...as in the fulfillments of Messianic references in Isaiah and the Pslams among others..
of course they understood each other...

Ah! So you are saying that when they started speaking the languages, God gave them the gift of understanding what they themselves were speaking. That's an interesting theory. It's a pity that the Scripture does not say that, but I have concede that it was a possibility but not probable.

the other cases in Acts do not have a crowd of others to hear and understand,
but instead it is only the one group...
so that throws your theory out,
that the tongues were not understood by those speaking them

The Scripture doesn't specify one way or the other. We are having to depend on Paul's later teaching about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 to give us more clues about the nature of the gift.

for what to be? are you suggesting that the Gift from God that allowed for perfect understanding
was not given to the very ones that were actually speaking?
how obsurd

Well, it is not beyond the ability of God to do that. That's why I said that it is a possibility. But in the absence of any specific statements in Scripture to support it, it has to remain an interesting theory, like evolution...

again...you're way off the deep end here Bro..

tootles

You wouldn't expect any less than a good solid debate from me over these issues, would you?

The intrepid warriors are still slugging it out after the less resilient ones are giving up on this thread. But continue to bring it on! I;m having fun!

 

[zeke37]

Fair enough.

We are agreed there.

I think that I was referring to your comment that you believe that the 120 understood the different languages they were speaking as if they learned them somewhere. But I see from your later comment that you are saying something a little bit different.



It's good that this is clarified for both of us.

OK.

Ah! So you are saying that when they started speaking the languages, God gave them the gift of understanding what they themselves were speaking. That's an interesting theory. It's a pity that the Scripture does not say that, but I have concede that it was a possibility but not probable.

I'd say it is more than probable thaty they understood each other...
they were after all, alone with each other in the house
at least at first...
...
there is nothing, biblically, up to THIS point in scripture,
to suggest that there was ever any charismatic prayer language or that tongues means something other than languages

our speaking tongue/language is either understood or it is not...


I think it would be wrong to assume that they did not understand each other,
especially when scripture says that they ALL understood...
regardless of where they were from...

The Scripture doesn't specify one way or the other.

well, it does...

1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

so, they knew what they heard...and so did Peter, as he clarifies...

12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Peter understood what was happening,
and what he was saying...
he understood perfectly...
enough to know it was the same thing Joel spoke about in Joel2,
and that it was prophesy...
(about the wonderful works of God...ie. Christ)

they would not know that it was what Joel spoke of or that it was prophesy,
if they themselves did not understand...

We are having to depend on Paul's later teaching about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 to give us more clues about the nature of the gift.

nope...1Cor14 is not about a charismatic prayer language
nor is it about the cloven tongues of fire that is seen and heard in Acts2

Well, it is not beyond the ability of God to do that. That's why I said that it is a possibility. But in the absence of any specific statements in Scripture to support it, it has to remain an interesting theory, like evolution...

what is theoretical, is when you say
they did not understand when speaking that cloven tongue...
that is the unproven theory..

there is nothing to suggest that they did not understand..
infact, the more than suggestion is quite the opposite.

You wouldn't expect any less than a good solid debate from me over these issues, would you?

nope....I enjoy it myself.

The intrepid warriors are still slugging it out after the less resilient ones are giving up on this thread. But continue to bring it on! I;m having fun!

alrighty-then