Baptized by Holy Spirit

[shad]

So if you have not received the fullness of Christ (perfection) in manifestation yet, you and I are still only going to use the gifts in a limited way

So Are you saying if we don't speak in tongues, we are not received the fullness of Chist? I would like to ask one question at a time to communicate well.

 

[Rick W]

I realize this may not be squarely focused with the topic but one thing I've observed when Christians speak. The unbeliever has little or no understanding of what's being said. Another Christian can indeed understand and may offer an interpretation to the unbeliever.

;)

:D

 

[mondar]

1Co 13:8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;
1Co 13:10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things.

I know it says that it shall be "done away with" but we have to be fair when we read this and admit that Paul says this will happen when....................1Co 13:10 .... when that which is perfect is come,

One the things not easily seem in the english text is the voice of the verbs. The voice for prophecies and knowledge in verse 8 is passive. The voice for the verb that relates to tongues is middle.

This pattern follows in verse 9. Notice tongues is not mentioned in verse 9. In verse 9 Paul says we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but he omits mentioning speaking in tongues. I suggest the reason he omits the mention of tongues is because of the voice of the verbs in verse 8. The "perfect" is the acting force that causes Prophesy and Knowledge to pass away.

In essence, I dont think one can exegetically establish a relationship between tongues and the coming of the perfect.

So far I have offered no answers as to why the verb "cease" in verse 8 is in the middle voice. Of course the middle voice is difficult to relate in english. It speaks of the action being preformed by the subject upon itself. So then, tongues will cease of themselves. This also fits with the perfect not being related to tongues ceasing.

This raises the question when do tongues cease, and why did they cease.

I believe it was Vic C who said....

What is a sign and who were signs for, then and now? < That would be a good side-study.

To this I reply B I N G O.

Vic C is certainly asking the right questions. When will the sign of tongues cease of itself? Could it be when it gives the sign to the event it signifies? What event did NT tongues signify? To answer this one must ask what purpose the sign of tongues fulfilled. 1 Cor 14 says...
21 In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe.
Of course the event quoted by Paul is not the beginning. One must go all the way back to Deuteronomy to understand why the Assyrians were speaking to the Jews an Aramean. In the curses of Deuteronomy, foreign tongues were a sign of Jewish disobedience. So then, in Acts, God was giving the Jewish unbeliever a sign that the Jewish nation was being partially and temporarily rejected on the basis of the curses in Deuteronomy.

Then comes the tongues events in the diaspora. The Jews were again presented with this sign of their disobedience.

If I can conclude with a small item of speculation. This whole biblical phenomenon makes me wonder what they saints of Acts two were saying to the unbelieving Jewish crowd when they spoke in the languages of the world. I know there is no way for me to know, but I suspect that they were calling the unbelievers to repentance.

 

[Vic C.]

... Tongues is for a sign, not to those who believe, but to those who dont believe....thus the reason we see the amazement in Acts where tongues happened...it was a SIGN to those who NEEDED a sign to believe. Just as Peter was forced to believe that the gentiles had been included in this covenant when they also spoke in tongues.

As true believers we should have no need to see such a sign.

Right here is pretty much the answer I was looking for to the question I posted.

Thanks FoC.

Added: Thanks also to mondar, I just read your post.

 

[Cornelius]

So if you have not received the fullness of Christ (perfection) in manifestation yet, you and I are still only going to use the gifts in a limited way

So Are you saying if we don't speak in tongues, we are not received the fullness of Chist? I would like to ask one question at a time to communicate well.

No, I am not saying that.

We first receive the fullness of Christ by faith.But the Bible teaches us that we will also receive the fullness by manifestation.(Rom 8 manifestation of the sons of God)

Like Follower pointed out, tongues is not mentioned in that scripture, but I used it , because that is the scripture that people use to prove that spiritual gifts are no more . That they have passed away.

Tongues is not a sign of maturity in Christ. It it something that the Bible always mentions (in Acts)when it tell us about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. They go together.Have a look yourself and see that the two gets mentioned together, when they lay hands on people or when the Holy Spirit just comes on people in Acts. There were always something that pointed to the fact that the Holy Spirit was now upon them.

I am just looking at the Bible pattern. I am refusing to look at today's church , because their teaching differ so much from that which I read in the Bible.

C

 

[Vic C.]

Speaking of patterns in Scripture...

Since 1 Cor 13:1 was brought up, lets explore it.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Does the context actually suggest two different languages? Why not use the word "or" instead of "and" which would suggest something plural. Personally, I'm not seeing any evidence of tongues of angels being an indistinguishable and/or heavenly language... nowhere in scripture. Is there any Biblical evidence that Angels speak anything other than a language known to the person(s) in which they were communicating?

 

[Cornelius]

Speaking of patterns in Scripture...

Since 1 Cor 13:1 was brought up, lets explore it.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Does the context actually suggest two different languages? Why not use the word "or" instead of "and" which would suggest something plural. Personally, I'm not seeing any evidence of tongues of angels being an indistinguishable and/or heavenly language... nowhere in scripture. Is there any Biblical evidence that Angels speak anything other than a language known to the person(s) in which they were communicating?

I guess we could then also ask: Do angels speak to each other in a human language when they speak in heaven? Some would say they speak in Hebrew LOL but somehow I doubt it.

When they speak to a human, they surely speak in a human language to them. In Bible times, they spoke Hebrew to the Hebrews, and in modern times they have spoken in English or whatever language the person speaks.

C

 

[shad]

Tongues is not a sign of maturity in Christ. It it something that the Bible always mentions (in Acts)when it tell us about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

It was only one time mentioned with the tongues.

They go together.Have a look yourself and see that the two gets mentioned together, when they lay hands on people or when the Holy Spirit just comes on people in Acts.

Please show me where. I see only one time.

There were always something that pointed to the fact that the Holy Spirit was now upon them.

It was not always with the tongues.

I am just looking at the Bible pattern. I am refusing to look at today's church , because their teaching differ so much from that which I read in the Bible.

I don't see much difference what you say from any other tongue speaking churches.

 

[Vic C.]

I guess we could then also ask: Do angels speak to each other in a human language when they speak in heaven? Some would say they speak in Hebrew LOL but somehow I doubt it.

Actually, I won't speculate here. ;) For all we know, they communicate is ways unknown to us... maybe the are telepathic. God surely is.

When they speak to a human, they surely speak in a human language to them. In Bible times, they spoke Hebrew to the Hebrews, and in modern times they have spoken in English or whatever language the person speaks.

C

Absolutely... and we have both Biblical and (hopefully) personal examples of this, which is my point. Both of us are being sticklers for Biblical proof, all I'm looking for is an example of "Tongues of Angels" being anything other than a known language. Surely if God wants us to "assume" there is a heavenly language spoken by angels, HE would have given us more than just one verse to contemplate.

"Where's the beef?" :biglaugh "Show me the money."

Ok, I'll cease for using more "pop" quotes. :D

 

[mondar]

Speaking of patterns in Scripture...

Since 1 Cor 13:1 was brought up, lets explore it.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Does the context actually suggest two different languages? Why not use the word "or" instead of "and" which would suggest something plural. Personally, I'm not seeing any evidence of tongues of angels being an indistinguishable and/or heavenly language... nowhere in scripture. Is there any Biblical evidence that Angels speak anything other than a language known to the person(s) in which they were communicating?

A few grammatical comments...
If I were home and able to look this up I would be more certain. I am at work, and use biblegateway.com to look up verses. The 1881 Westcott Hort has the verb λαλÉ. I think this can be a subjunctive form. If I remember right, when a subjunctive is used with εαν it is a conditional clause.

conclusions from the grammar...
It is doubtful if we can say Paul even spoke in tongues at all. He could be using a conditional clause to propose a hypothetical situation. So then, Paul might not necessarily claiming to speak in any tongues. He is saying "If" I speak in tongues, and I might be doing that or I might not.

The structure of this verse is certainly an "If... then" kind of structure.

If Paul or someone hypothetically speaks in tongues and does not have love.....
Then (δε μη) is the slight contrastive conjunction. Then, this hypothetical person would be like brass or a symbol.

So then, I agree, I am not sure we can put a lot of weight on 1 Cor 13:1 to assert the tongues of angels?

If we look at 1Cor as a correction upon the Corinthian practice, it makes me wonder if it was not the Corinthian misuse of Tongues in which the claim came that one might speak in the language of angels.

 

[Vic C.]

If we look at 1Cor as a correction upon the Corinthian practice, it makes me wonder if it was not the Corinthian misuse of Tongues in which the claim came that one might speak in the language of angels.

Mondar, I wouldn't doubt it. They did pick up on some uncommon practices that weren't part of the first century church. Immediately what comes to mind is their practice of baptizing for the dead, as their pagan neighbors were doing.

 

[Imagican]

The letter to The Corinthians concerning tongues WAS a 'letter of REBUKE'. Paul, having heard of thier 'falling back' into previous customs and such AND their 'lack of maturing in Christ' inspired the epistle. This is purely evident in the MANNER in which his words were offered.

While 'some churches' use the words of Paul to justify their 'false teachings', what Paul offered is that ANYTHING other than what he OFFERED were 'false tongues'.

His RULES or 'conditions of the proper use of tongues' are outlined quite clearly. But if we simply take them on an individual basis, it becomes CLEAR what ARE and what ARE NOT proper uses of 'tongues'.

One: Tongues are NOT for them that BELEIVE, but for them that BELIEVE NOT.

There MUST BE an interpreter.

One MUST speak as the Spirit gives utterance.

One, two or NO MORE THAN THREE IN A GATHERING and THEN, ONLY BY COURSE, (which means IN ORDER).

Take ANY ONE of these individually and they can be used to discern whether tongues being spoken are BEING spoken in truth or whether they are 'something else'.

For IF one MUST be LED by The Spirit, then The Spirit would ONLY lead them in the PROPER USE of tongues.

Doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to figure this one out.

And then take into consideration that these 'neo-tongues' being practiced today are ONLY a little over a hundred years in practice, one must WONDER where they 'went' for the previous eighteen hundred years..............................

God IS able to offer what so ever He CHOOSES. This is without doubt. But we also must take into consideration that SOME THINGS were 'given' for a PURPOSE and often a "TIME", then we are able to discern the TRUTH behind the 'words offered'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Tomlane]

Imagican, I couldn't agree with you more. We must have the same spiritual teacher, the Holy Spirit.

The only thing I can add to what you have given is that the Jews require a sign is why God gave Israel tongues because the Holy Spirit is just that a spirit and God up until this time had always dealt mostly with Israel in the physical realm with signs and blessings. Also since God gave them to speak in tongues as proof of things changing why don't those who have made a religion out of blabbering have tongues of fire and a might rushing wind at their meetings if their utterings are really from God?

1 Corinthians 1:22  For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16  But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Tomlane

 

[Cornelius]

Also since God gave them to speak in tongues as proof of things changing why don't those who have made a religion out of blabbering have tongues of fire and a might rushing wind at their meetings if their utterings are really from God?

http://www.amazon.com/Like-Mighty-Wind- ... 0892211237

Here is a link. Buy the book and read the account where God again came like a mighty wind and with tongues of fire . He changed the whole church in one second. I met Mal Tari in person. He was the only one who did not received tongues that night and battled a long time with it.

This church saw water turned into wine, people walked on water, the children were sent to do mission work and angels physically went with them. Many more miracles are recorded in the book.

I am always amazed that Christians are in fact the MOST difficult people to convince that God is a miraculous God. I have always found this amazing. Why is it that Christians have more "proof" that God prefers using doctors, than faith to heal people ? Why do all the things that have to do with the supernatural have resistance in the modern church? Do you guys think that we need excuses for the fact that we do not believe anymore that God can indeed and will indeed do this?

Oh I know that most will say He can. But they never see it in their lives. If we do see it, it is mostly because God has had grace on us and not because of our faith in His promises.

Do you think that , this might be one of the reasons that God is bringing tribulation over His people. So that we again can turn to Him? There is nothing like a tribulation to cure vain teachings. When there is really no food on your table, and nobody who can help.............then prayer and faith does seem to be the most logical step

We are coming that , in fact some of us are already there. God has decided to turn the world economy off. All that will be left, is Him.

C

 

[Cornelius]

1 Corinthians 1:22  For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16  But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Tomlane

This is good advice. Although it has nothing to do with speaking in tongues, nor has it do do with praying in tongues (Two VERY different things) but it is good advice because many do not study enough, so they cannot divide the Word rightly, so when they speak about the Word it is profane and a vain babbling. We do have a lot of that in church today and we can hear this from many pulpits today.

C

 

[shad]

Tongues is not a sign of maturity in Christ. It it something that the Bible always mentions (in Acts)when it tell us about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

It was only one time mentioned with the tongues.

They go together.Have a look yourself and see that the two gets mentioned together, when they lay hands on people or when the Holy Spirit just comes on people in Acts.

Please show me where. I see only one time.

[quote:wjo1g7qb] There were always something that pointed to the fact that the Holy Spirit was now upon them.

It was not always with the tongues.

I am just looking at the Bible pattern. I am refusing to look at today's church , because their teaching differ so much from that which I read in the Bible.

I don't see much difference what you say from any other tongue speaking churches.[/quote:wjo1g7qb]

C, would you reply to this please? thank you.

 

[Cornelius]

I did in fact already give the scriptures, there are more than one.We only need two scriptures or three , according to the Bible , before something becomes established We have at least three clear ones.

Speaking in tongues is not a sign of salvation.Our fruit are.

But speaking in tongues is mentioned in Acts, whenever somebody were baptized in the Holy Spirit.

1) Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

2) Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

There are more, but you can look at my first post.

Bible says:Deu 19:15 ........ at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.

We have two witnesses here that says, the Holy Spirit and tongues goes together.

 

[Cornelius]

Found another one........


3)Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

 

[Cornelius]

Before Pentecost, when people were filled with the Holy Spirit, they also always DID something. They always prophesied :

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit;
Luk 1:42 and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. (Read the whole thing, she was prophesying )

Luk 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied,

Talking of Saul: 1Sa 10:10 .......and the Spirit of God came mightily upon him, and he prophesied among them.

Num 11:25 And Jehovah came down in the cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied,...........

1Sa 19:20........... the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.

1Sa 19:23 ......... the Spirit of God came upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied,.......

Joe 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

 

[Vic C.]

C, would you reply to this please? thank you.

Yes, I'm still waiting for my answer also.

Both of us are being sticklers for Biblical proof, all I'm looking for is an example of "Tongues of Angels" being anything other than a known language. Surely if God wants us to "assume" there is a heavenly language spoken by angels, HE would have given us more than just one verse to contemplate.

Understand we're not picking on you, but we're trying to understand from a Biblical point of view how you come to the beliefs you hold, besides personal experience. In other words, where is the Biblical proof that tongues is an unknown prayer language used by angels and the Spirit?

Also, I'd like to understand why it is you dismiss the various explanations given here by some concerning the role of tongues as a sign for a specific group.