Speaking in tongues

[Bob Carabbio]

I don't think we should do anything that causes confusion. I thought the purpose of tongues was to avoid confusion.

This turns out to be one of the MAIN "Cessationist" arguments from the '70s since many Cessationist denominational groups were suddenly faced with Members who had been Baptised in the Spirit - when their "Official Denominational Theologies" were that stuff like that didn't happen any more.

Their NORMAL response was to give the "offenders" the "Left Foot of fellowship" to get RID of 'em, and get back to business as usual. Many thousands of folks were tossed OUT of their churches during the '60s and '70s.

I'll wager the the morning AFTER Jesus died, there was a crew of Levites at work, busily mending the torn Veil in the temple, so things could get back to normal.

The simple FACT is that God OFTEN "Causes confusion", when a group, or a "Denominational system" runs counter to His Will/Plan. It wasn't satan who "confused the languages at "Babel", after all.

"Tongues", of course never is said to have the purpose of "Avoiding Confusion" (although some pentecostal folks Claim that it's the "Reversal of Babel". Religious folks say all kinds of dumb things, of course).

The simple FACT is that in 1900, and again in the early '60s God gifted folks who were Baptised in the Holy SPirit to "Speak in tongues". And it CAUSED CONFUSION among this who FOUGHT God's Move tooth and nail. EVERY TIME God has moved, it has caused confusion for folks that OUTSIDE of His plan, whether it's Philistines, Roman Catholics, or Southern Baptists.

Jesus Himself warned that He DIDN'T come to bring "Peace" (Mat 10:34)

Simple as that.

 

[Biblicist]

This turns out to be one of the MAIN "Cessationist" arguments from the '70s since many Cessationist denominational groups were suddenly faced with Members who had been Baptised in the Spirit - then their "Official Denominational lines" were that stuff like that didn't happen any more.

Their NORMAL response was to give the "offenders" the "Left Foot of fellowship" to get RID of 'em, and get back to business as usual.

I'll wager the the morning AFTER Jesus died, there was a crew of Levites at work, busily mending the torn Veil in the temple, so things could get back to normal.

The simple FACT is that God OFTEN "Causes confusion" when a group, or a "Religious paradigm" runs counter to His Will/Plan. It wasn't satan who "confused the languages at "Babel", after all.

"Tongues", of course never is said to have the purpose of "Avoiding Confusion" (although some pentecostal folks Claim that it's the "Reversal of Babel". Religious folks say all kinds of dumb things, of course).

the simple FACT is that in 1900, and again in the early '60s God gifted folks who were Baptised in the Holy SPirit to "Speak in tongues". And it CAUSED CONFUSION among this who FOUGHT God's Move tooth and nail. EVERY TIME God has moved, it has caused confusion for folks that OUTSIDE of His plan, whether it's Philistines, Roman Catholics, or Southern Baptists.

Simple as that.

That's a very good observation.

 

[Biblicist]

"You don't need to know what "pentecostals" believe, you only need to know what the bible teaches"

I think all of us want to know what the bible teaches. I'm just a seeker trying to understand your interpretations. Do you think pentecostals believe what the bible teaches about it?

Okay, but don’t forget, you were the one who came onto a Pentecostal/charismatic forum to find out exactly what Pentecostals thought on some issues. I would like to think that Pentecostal doctrine and Biblical doctrine are one and the same but as there are reportedly 300-500 million Pentecostals and charismatics, this then means that there is no such thing as a “Pentecostal/charismatic theology” as both movements are represented by countless denominations.

Considering that there are many different views on many subjects, if you were to look at how Pentecostals and charismatics understand the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (be it soteriological or of subsequence) and with the role of tongues as an indicator of the BHS, as these two things are both fundamental doctrines within the Full Gospel movement, then this would definitely be a good place to start.

"The speaker does not understand what they say, that's the whole point, to get beying our understanding, into the love and peace iof God that passes undetrstanding. It's peculiar to the new testament where people have a Father-son/daughter relatonship with God."

Is there any bible that teaches that the speaker is not supposed to understand. I thought that Paul taught the Corenthiens to have an interpreter so people could understand. I thought the purpose at Pentecost was so people could hear and understand in their own language.

I addressed this point in my earlier posts but Paul does unequivocally say in 1 Cor 13:1 “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels. . .” and in 1 Cor 14:2 he says, “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

Paul goes to some length in 1 Cor 14:2-25 with explaining why uninterpreted tongues must never be allowed within the congregational setting (contrary to what we still see in some Pentecostal churches). If Paul had of expected that a visitor (particularly one who was unsaved) might have understood what the Spirit was saying then he certainly would have spent some time addressing this issue as it could easily introduce some problems for the local congregation. Could you imagine some phoney saying that one of the elders of the church had just blasphemed the Holy Spirit – it would be an absolute nightmare.

My goodness, just because people believe different things about tongues doesn't make them out to be atheists does it?

With my 40 plus years in Pentecost I would have to say that every atheist that I have met has been both understandably confused and bewildered by the claim of the Christian who says that he can pray in the Spirit to the Father in an Angelic/heavenly tongue – and in my opinion, that are justified in doing so as how can the world be expected to understand the things of the Spirit.

As for those who are still within the cessationist fold, many are simply experientially cessationist not so much from conviction but due to having been raised within a congregational setting that has little understanding of the ministry and person of the Holy Spirit – I’ve been there and experienced this myself, at least for my first 18 months; so I am certainly conscious that many so called “cessationists” are at best passive and not pro-active cessationists. As for the long-term hardcore cessationist who has been heavily pro-active with their stand against the Biblical record, then their hardness of heart toward the Spirit can be deemed to be more than just a bit problematic.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

when the gift of tongues is truly present, God will use it and interpret it to those who need it in whatever language he sees fit. The speaker might be literally saying la,la,la but if the Spirit is in it, that could be heard as an eloquent exhortation in any language.

I've also heard testimonies of this phenomenon (from missionaries in the Nazarene Denomination). Also Speaking In ONE language, but being heard in several - AND being spoken to in a language one does not know, but understanding what is being said.

Of course these aren't ONLY manifestations of "Tongues" that occur, but they have been reported occasionally.

 

[Smoky]

"The simple FACT is that God OFTEN "Causes confusion", when a group, or a "Denominational system" runs counter to His Will/Plan. It wasn't satan who "confused the languages at "Babel", after all."


1 Corinthians 14:33 (NKJV)
33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

 

[Biblicist]

"The simple FACT is that God OFTEN "Causes confusion", when a group, or a "Denominational system" runs counter to His Will/Plan. It wasn't satan who "confused the languages at "Babel", after all."


1 Corinthians 14:33 (NKJV)
33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

You would have noted the parenthesis around "Causes confusion" which describes not God as the source of the confusion but with how mortal man frequently gets into a self generated tizzy when the Father intervenes in ways that we are not happy with. A good example of this was with how the Pharisees went into a rage when Jesus was speaking about the Kingdom at his trial - little has changed down through the centuries.

 

[tturt]

Some Scriptures that might help:

All tongues can be interpreted (I Cor 14:13).

There's a diversities of Godly tongues (I Cor 12:28) As already stated private individual and not private.

Some purposes for tongues are to magnify G_d (Acts 10:10), self edification (I Cor 14:4) church edification ( I Cor 14:27-28); builds up our faith and keep ourselves in the love of God (Jude 1: 20-21); can pray in The Spirit (I Cor 14:14; Ephesians 6:18; Rom 8:26-27; 1 Corinthians 14:4,15) and they're a sign TO unbelievers OF believers (I Cor 14:22 and Mark 16:17)

Also, this book might interest you "Seventy Reasons to Speak in Tongues" Dr. Hamon.

 

[Receiver]

"You don't need to know what "pentecostals" believe, you only need to know what the bible teaches"

I think all of us want to know what the bible teaches. I'm just a seeker trying to understand your interpretations. Do you think pentecostals believe what the bible teaches about it?

"Pentecostals" I have met say it's what happens when you receive the "second blessing" an empowerment of people who are already "saved".

The bible teaches that the baptism in the Spirit is how we receive New Testament salvation, see 1 Cor. 12:13; Acts 11:14-18.

In Titus 3:5 we are saved bny the "washing" of trhe Holy Spirit. That "washing" is a complete washing, i.e. the baptism.

"The speaker does not understand what they say, that's the whole point, to get beying our understanding, into the love and peace of God that passes undetrstanding. It's peculiar to the new testament where people have a Father-son/daughter relatonship with God."

Is there any bible that teaches that the speaker is not supposed to understand. I thought that Paul taught the Corenthiens to have an interpreter so people could understand.

Like most people, even "church-goers" you have probably never been to a meeting run like Paul (or rather God) details in 1 Corinthians 14. It would make understanding the passage easier if you did!"

An interpretation is needed precisely because people will not understand.

I thought the purpose at Pentecost was so people could hear and understand in their own language.

They recognised real languages (they were bi-lingual Jews fraom all over the known world) ... everyone was left in doubt and confusion because they overheard the disciples speaking to God about the kingdom of God.

"they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." (Acts 2v12-13)

It's like if I'm walking down the Champs Elyses in Paris I may overhear two Americans talking about people they know, I will recognise their words but that doesn't mean they are talking to me, and I am unlikely to be able to explain what they say.

The disciples realised this, stopped speaking to God in tongues and Peter began to preach to the crowd ... then they understood and 3000 were added that day, i.e. 3000 were baptised and received the Spirit.

 

[Biblicist]

. . . It's like if I'm walking down the Champs Elyses in Paris I may overhear two Americans talking about people they know, I will recognise their words but that doesn't mean they are talking to me, and I am unlikely to be able to explain what they say.

The disciples realised this, stopped speaking to God in tongues and Peter began to preach to the crowd ... then they understood and 3000 were added that day, i.e. 3000 were baptised and received the Spirit.

I like both of these comments and I must admit I don't think that I've considered if Peter (along with the Twelve) actually stopped what the Disciples were doing, waited until they stopped or even moved away from the Disciples so that they could talk to the Jews. I must admit that in all probability that Peter would have had to have stopped the 120 due to the proximity of the crowd - interesting thought.

 

[Receiver]

I like both of these comments and I must admit I don't think that I've considered if Peter (along with the Twelve) actually stopped what the Disciples were doing, waited until they stopped or even moved away from the Disciples so that they could talk to the Jews. I must admit that in all probability that Peter would have had to have stopped the 120 due to the proximity of the crowd - interesting thought.

Acts 2:14 says "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice"

So, he definitely raised his voice, the English seems to indicate that they stood up (whereas before all 120 were sitting?), and the 12 were looked to by the rest so as soon as the others saw & heard what Peter & the 11 were doing they would have stopped speaking in tongues.

it was 9am, was that an official prayer time in the Temple?

 

[Biblicist]

Acts 2:14 says "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice"

So, he definitely raised his voice, the English seems to indicate that they stood up (whereas before all 120 were sitting?), and the 12 were looked to by the rest so as soon as the others saw & heard what Peter & the 11 were doing they would have stopped speaking in tongues.

it was 9am, was that an official prayer time in the Temple?

Over the past year I have tried to look into both the location of the outpouring of the Spirit and even if they were sitting and standing; not that these two points are heavy theological concerns but as the questions exist it would be rather nice to get a definitive answer. Having looked into some of the better sources, sadly, it seems that we will be doomed to wait until the Lord returns before we will be able to get a definitive answer (not that we will probably care), of course, this won't stop the specialists from trying to find a solid solution.

Even though the populist line of thought is that the 120 were meeting in an upper room, it seems that you are more than aware that the consensus is that they were probably meeting in one of the Temple courts. As for the 120 sitting, where Peter and the Eleven 'stood' to speak to the crowd, the linguists seem to feel that by 'standing' that this could be an euphemism for making an effort to get the crowds attention so that someone can speak. The saying, "Go and take a stand on the issue" might have some bearing on this?

So if the 120 were either sitting, standing or both, if Peter was standing and some of the others weren't, then Luke's use of 'standing' could maybe be referring to Peter's decision to grab the attention of the crowd so that he could speak to them.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I've read that the "Upper Room" of Acts 2 was the same room of the Last Supper, so if true that would exclude the Temple me thinks....

As far as the standing up thing goes, I think it just indicated that Peter and the 11 took the opportunity to "stand up" for the gospel. It could be a literal standing, but he may have already been so. I think Luke was indicating a spiritual standing/moral thing...

Peter took a stand for Jesus type statement. After all that is what the Spirit was given for...

 

[Receiver]

I've read that the "Upper Room" of Acts 2 ......

ah but it was Acts 1v13, a day or so after Jesus' ascention. The Holy Spirit was not given until days later. It is unlikely that 120 would remain cooped up in a house that long, and anyway we have previously been told by Luke (24:51) that they were "were continually in the temple".

Also Pentecoast was one of the 3 great feats when God required all males to appear before him, i.e. at the prescribed place, The Temple (Deut. 16:16).

That would also explain how so many other people over-heard.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

ah but it was Acts 1v13, a day or so after Jesus' ascention. The Holy Spirit was not given until days later. It is unlikely that 120 would remain cooped up in a house that long, and anyway we have previously been told by Luke (24:51) that they were "were continually in the temple".

Also Pentecoast was one of the 3 great feats when God required all males to appear before him, i.e. at the prescribed place, The Temple (Deut. 16:16).

That would also explain how so many other people over-heard.

Doesn't really matter if it were in the upper room or Temple, not something I'm prepared to disagree over. You may well be right...

 

[Biblicist]

Doesn't really matter if it were in the upper room or Temple, not something I'm prepared to disagree over. You may well be right...

Craig Keener spent a fair amount of time with these two questions in his monumental four volume work on Acts where he provided a lot of interesting tidbits. He mentioned that it could be possible that they 120 met in a large house (though unlikely) and if it was in a large house then the house would have probably been located in the northern precincts of Jerusalem adjacent to the Temple site as this was where most of the larger homes were apparently located.

As for the importance of these two questions, well, really they're not all that important, but for those who have a particular interest with the Day of Pentecost and with Acts in general, then we are sort of obliged to find out (where possible) not only what the various passages mean but how they fit into the research that has been obtained within the fields of linguistics, culture and history.

One good application of our knowledge of these passages is with how some of the Jews thought that the Galileans were maybe drunk. If the 120 were located in the open, say within the Temple precinct, then the crowd would have only heard bits and pieces of what they were saying; it would have been a difficult task for most of the nearby Jews to clearly hear what someone was saying in their particular language particularly as there were so many speaking in a fairly confined area.

Even if we were able to pick out someone speaking in our own language, as they were rather rustic Galileans, then their strong Galilean accent would have probably muddied the dialogue a bit. We can add to this with the knowledge that the Galileans would have taken inappropriate breathing breaks which a native speaker would never do; this would have made it a bit hard for the hearer as they (along with all of us) would be expecting a speaker to use appropriate breathing breaks at the end of a sentence; so many of their sentences would have stopped in the middle of a particular line of thought which would be frustrating to those who were fluent in a particular language, so it would be easy to presume that maybe they were simply repeating some learned sentences but of course not everyone was thinking this way which is why many approached the Twelve.

A couple of years ago one of my daughters (an Australian) was working in Canada at Home Depot, after a while one of her bosses (who must have had a great sense of humour) decided to put here on the PA as our Australian accent tended to put a smile on their customers faces as she struggled to come to grips with the Canadian way of saying things. It seems that we say Deppo where North Americans say Deeepo or something like that.

For what it's worth, the crowd may have approached the Twelve as they may have been standing/sitting together apart from the main group as they undoubtedly would want to quickly communicate with one another - but this is only a presupposition.

 

[Alithis]

they spilled out onto the street ..full of the holy Ghost excited jubilant
ecstatic ...bubbling exuberance . for life and death is in the power of the tongue and the tongues speaks from the abundance of the heart and their hearts had just become FULL of the Holy Ghost and living words of life flowed out just as the lord Jesus promised .".out of your belly shall flow river of living water " ... it was joyously noisy ..any one hearing it would come to see what on earth was going on and they heard many people speaking in tongues in jubilant exclamations of the greatness of God and many heard many others in their own tongues ..

its all very simple really

 

[Biblicist]

they spilled out onto the street ..full of the holy Ghost excited jubilant ecstatic ...bubbling exuberance. for life and death is in the power of the tongue and the tongues speaks from the abundance of the heart and their hearts had just become FULL of the Holy Ghost and living words of life flowed out just as the lord Jesus promised .".out of your belly shall flow river of living water " ... it was joyously noisy ..any one hearing it would come to see what on earth was going on and they heard many people speaking in tongues in jubilant exclamations of the greatness of God and many heard many others in their own tongues ..

its all very simple really

"It's simple! What Bible version do you have; I don't know of any version that has "they spilled out onto the street"?

 

[Alithis]

"It's simple! What Bible version do you have; I don't know of any version that has "they spilled out onto the street"?

haha a lot of ,shall we call it, poetic licence
but if you've been in a revival
situation where a lot of folks are being baptized in the holy Ghost-at the same time- ...it can initially have an appearance of mayhem ..human emotions overflow with ecstatic release..i would say it also went on for some time ..time enough that ..word spread .. (they didn't txt their mates )people gathered ..i would strongly suggest some people probably fell down laughing and some wept in inexpressible Joy ...so much so some considered they were all sloshed on alcohol .. and the same criticisms that raise their voice today was raised then.." they are mad" "they are drunk" "they are unorganized ..its not god he is a god of order" the usual stuff ....heh come on you know ,we've heard every criticism out there ..

i'm just saying ,when you read the chapter it was a chaotic loud exuberant spontaneous exceedingly joyous event ...one thing i cant imagine is a circle of pious looking men standing with heads bowed and hands clasped in quiet prayers in other languages .
this was momentous ..a crowd of people inundated with the power of the Holy Ghost who has awaited this moment since the fall of mankind into sin..all speaking in tongues ..(doesn't say all of them spoke in the same tongue )..only that every one heard them in his own tongue ..but then if you listen to a crowd babbling your always only going to hear those speaking in your own language the most ..which was notable as the crowd was mostly folks of one language ..
i think people get over technical about it and miss the simplicity is all

 

[Receiver]

Doesn't really matter if it were in the upper room or Temple, not something I'm prepared to disagree over. You may well be right...

Sure, it's not important either way.

I do think it's fitting that it should be the Temple:

The dedication of The Temple:
"the Levites which were the singers ... having cymbals and psalteries and harps ... and with them an hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets... the priests could not stand to minister ... for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of God." (2 Chronicles 5:12-13)

The start of The Church:
"(the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) ... they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance ...But Peter, standing up with the eleven" (Acts 1:15; 2:4, 14)

 

[Biblicist]

haha a lot of ,shall we call it, poetic licence

Okay, that explains your comment - your forgiven.

but if you've been in a revival
situation where a lot of folks are being baptized in the holy Ghost-at the same time- ...it can initially have an appearance of mayhem ..human emotions overflow with ecstatic release..i would say it also went on for some time ..time enough that ..word spread .. (they didn't txt their mates )people gathered ..i would strongly suggest some people probably fell down laughing and some wept in inexpressible Joy ...so much so some considered they were all sloshed on alcohol

As I am one of those who embraced the Fullness of the Spirit during the end of the Charismatic Renewal of the 60’s and 70’s, I guess that this could allow me to take the high ground as we regularly experienced powerful moves of the Spirit during these times, to the point, that whenever I visit the ‘mighty’ Hillsong in Sydney that I tend to find it a bit flat and dare I say – even boring; though they do provide some superb cappuccino’s after their meetings.

I should point out that I am speaking from within the context of the Western world where the Believers in the Majority world probably feel that our best is probably a bit tame.

.. and the same criticisms that raise their voice today was raised then.." they are mad" "they are drunk" "they are unorganized ..its not god he is a god of order" the usual stuff ....heh come on you know ,we've heard every criticism out there ..

Now we’re getting back to the point of the discussion that “Receiver” and I had moved into. Here’s where some detailed study of the Day of Pentecost can have some benefits which I mentioned in post 35:

“One good application of our knowledge of these passages is with how some of the Jews thought that the Galileans were maybe drunk. If the 120 were located in the open, say within the Temple precinct, then the crowd would have only heard bits and pieces of what they were saying; it would have been a difficult task for most of the nearby Jews to clearly hear what someone was saying in their particular language particularly as there were so many speaking in a fairly confined area.

Even if we were able to pick out someone speaking in our own language, as they were rather rustic Galileans, then their strong Galilean accent would have probably muddied the dialogue a bit. We can add to this with the knowledge that the Galileans would have taken inappropriate breathing breaks which a native speaker would never do; this would have made it a bit hard for the hearer as they (along with all of us) would be expecting a speaker to use appropriate breathing breaks at the end of a sentence; so many of their sentences would have stopped in the middle of a particular line of thought which would be frustrating to those who were fluent in a particular language, so it would be easy to presume that maybe they were simply repeating some learned sentences but of course not everyone was thinking this way which is why many approached the Twelve”.​

Even though we tend to scoff at the scoffers as probably being similar to the hardcore cessationist of our day; many of their concerns were probably still quite legitimate. When we combine the strong rustic Galilean accent with their poor syntaxial delivery, then a lot of what they were hearing must have sounded ridiculous.

i'm just saying ,when you read the chapter it was a chaotic loud exuberant spontaneous exceedingly joyous event ...one thing i cant imagine is a circle of pious looking men standing with heads bowed and hands clasped in quiet prayers in other languages .

I’m not so sure. Prior to the Holy Spirit falling on the 120, from what we can tell from the Scriptures, it seems that they were a collection of timid fraidy-cats who were possibly terrified of what the Jews might do to them if they were to realise that they were follower of Jesus.
Of course once the Holy Spirit fell upon the 120 then the ‘fraidy-cats’ turned into mighty lions.

this was momentous ..a crowd of people inundated with the power of the Holy Ghost who has awaited this moment since the fall of mankind into sin..all speaking in tongues ..(doesn't say all of them spoke in the same tongue )..only that every one heard them in his own tongue ..but then if you listen to a crowd babbling your always only going to hear those speaking in your own language the most ..which was notable as the crowd was mostly folks of one language ..
i think people get over technical about it and miss the simplicity is all

I’m not so sure that I would ever refer to the monumental and intricate events of the Day of Pentecost as being all that simplistic; this must have been a very complicated day and I wish that Luke had provided us with some more information – for example, how did they deal with the many hundreds who gave their lives to the Lord and when were they filled with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues?

Even though a more detailed analysis of the Day of Pentecost can certainly have its rewards, it's not something that most people need to bother themselves with.