Speaking in tongues and the Holy Spirit

[electedbyHim]

Outside Biblical sources with citation:

Tertullian (c. 160-220 AD):
Tertullian, in his work Against Marcion, makes a reference to the gifts of the Spirit, including speaking in tongues. He writes, “Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer, only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him” (Against Marcion, Book 5, Chapter 8). Tertullian’s challenge to Marcionites to demonstrate the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues, as validation of divine inspiration, underscores the importance of tongues as a sign of the Spirit in the early Church.

The Testimony of Tertullian​

Tertullian, the celebrated theologian of North Africa, was another who came under the influence of Montanus. Although he traveled widely and was an out-standing scholar, his references to the gift of tongues are meager and betray his connection with Montanism. In trying to show that the soul has a kind of corporeality, he describes the soul’s attributes, one of which is the ability to possess spiritual gifts. To illustrate the point, he cites an example of a Montanist woman who says she has conversed with angels and has had other ecstatic experiences.36 He does not actually mention the gift of tongues here, but he does describe her as having “gifts of revelation, which she experiences in the Spirit by ecstatic vision….”37 If this is a witness to the activity of the gift, it is a weak witness and certainly is far from the normal Christian experience of that day.

Tertullian makes a specific reference to the gift of tongues in his work Against Marcion.38 Even here he does not actually say anything about tongues in his time. He is taking Paul’s epistles and pointing out the apologetic value found in each letter. He takes them epistle by epistle and chapter by chapter. When he comes to the spiritual gifts as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12–14 , he acknowledges that all do not have the same gifts, but that the Spirit has given different gifts to different men.39 He merely discusses what Paul says about the gifts and makes no reference to the use of the gift in his time. He calls on Marcion to duplicate these gifts as exhibited by the apostles, but does not say that he has seen or knows of any one who exercises the gift.

---

36 36. Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 9.
37 37. Ibid.
38 38. Tertullian, Against Marcion, V, 8.
39 39. This means that he knows that everyone did not possess the gift and God did not intend that all speak in tongues.

 

[electedbyHim]

Outside Biblical sources with citation:


Origen (c. 184-253 AD):
Origen, though more cautious about the miraculous gifts in his time, acknowledges their presence in the early Church. In Against Celsus, he writes, "The Holy Spirit gave signs and wonders in the early days of the Church; many people spoke with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Contra Celsum, Book 7, Chapter 8). This acknowledgment, though brief, ties the practice of speaking in tongues to the early Church’s experience of the Holy Spirit.

The Testimony of Origen​

While all of Origen’s theology may not be orthodox, he is recognized by all as being one of the ablest scholars of his day. He not only was acquainted with affairs of his day through extensive reading, but he also traveled widely himself and had students from all over the world attending his classes. If the gift were widespread or even practiced at all, certainly Origen should have known something about it and would have mentioned it somewhere in his voluminous writings. Yet he has no clear statement regarding the gift and his testimony indicates that the extraordinary gifts were gone.

It is in his answer to Celsus that Origen has something to say about spiritual gifts.46 Celsus made the charge that the Old Testament prophets are like certain ones in Phoenicia and Palestine who go through foolish motions and gestures, then say they have a prophecy. He is quoted by Origen as saying: “To these promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning: for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own purposes.”47 Origen’s answer to such a charge is quite pertinent to this discussion. He says that though the Holy Spirit gave signs and outward demonstrations of His presence at the beginning of Christ’s ministry and after His ascension, these things have diminished and are no longer widespread.48 Furthermore he says Celsus is speaking falsely when describing what he had heard: “For no prophet bearing any resemblance to the ancient prophets have appeared in the time of Celsus.”49 What Origen is saying is that no longer are there any of these gifts in operation! Origen does not say the gift of tongues is flourishing at his time, but rather that such gifts have diminished!

---

46 46. Origen, Against Celsus, VIII, 8–11.
47 47. Ibid., VIII, 9.
48 48. Ibid., VIII, 8. He does, however, say some select ones have certain manifestations, but he does not elaborate.
49 49. Ibid., VIII, 11.

 

[electedbyHim]

The Testimony of Montanus​

About the only clear statement regarding the manifestation of tongues is found in Eusebius’ description of the activity of Montanus. He writes: “So that he was carried away in spirit, and was wrought up into a certain kind of frenzy and irregular ecstasy, raving, and speaking, and uttering strange things and proclaiming what was contrary to the institutions that had prevailed in the church….”40 Although the term tongues is not expressly used, it is very obvious, as Lietzmann remarks, that in the experience Montanus “showed all the manifestations of glossalalia.”41

The significance of the testimony of Montanus is seen in the following observations. First, he was considered a heretic. He did not conform to the Scriptures and even those around him acknowledged this.42 Second, his particular heresy was in the realm of Pneumatology and his emphasis on the chrismata.43 Yet even with all this emphasis, the Montanist activity was considered to fall far short of the gifts as exercised by the apostles.44 Third, Lietzmann points out that at first this phenomena of ecstacy and glossalalia did not spread rapidly or widely.45 This would seem to indicate that their extremes were not a part of usual Christian experience. If this had been a common practice, then it would have been more natural for many to accept this as being a part of the normal Christian life.

---

40 40. Eusebius, op. cit., V, 16.
41 41. Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 194.
42 42. Eusebius, op. cit., V, 16–19.
43 43. See Reinhold Seeberg, op. cit., I, 105; Adolf Harnack, op. cit., II, 95–104.
44 44. Cf. Eusebius, op. cit., V, 17. “They will never be able to show that any of the Old or any of the New Testament were thus violently agitated and carried away in spirit.”
45 45. Lietzmann, op. cit., p. 195.

 

[Rookie]

No, I actually thought I had answered the question. It's apparent to me that you're not interested in a real conversation. I think you've completely misread much of what I was saying. But oh well, if you prefer to tell me what I mean instead of hear me explain what I meant, we won't get anywhere, will we?

If you believe so then you could just not reply since life has to be so complicated right?

 

[RandyK]

If you believe so then you could just not reply since life has to be so complicated right?

I hold out hope that you will come to recognize that you misunderstood. Your response seems unnecessarily defensive.

I pointed out that I see the problem as Christians reading too much of their own doctrinal assumptions into the Bible, whereas if we just let the Bible speak for itself, we will not form doctrines like, 1) Pentecostals have access to all of the Gifts of the Spirit, and 2) to be Baptized in the Holy Spirit all Pentecostals should speak in Tongues, or have a Prayer Language.

When we read in Acts 2 that all spoke in Tongues on the Day of Pentecost, what does that say about the percentage of Christians who need to speak in Tongues today? It depends on your doctrinal position. But the Scriptures themselves do not draw teaching or a rule from that account.

This was my opinion as to why Tongues is spoken in such large numbers among Pentecostals. It was *not* my view of anything *you* are doing. You may have misread that?

I was just trying to answer the questiton, which had been somewhat obscured by the fact I have been approaching that issue with someone else, and didn't want to unnecessariliy repeat everything I had already said. But you may not have been privy?

 

[Rookie]

pointed out that I see the problem as Christians reading too much of their own doctrinal assumptions into the Bible, whereas if we just let the Bible speak for itself, we will not form doctrines like, 1) Pentecostals have access to all of the Gifts of the Spirit, and 2) to be Baptized in the Holy Spirit all Pentecostals should speak in Tongues, or have a Prayer Language

OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Dang I feel ridiculous now, I thought you were accusing me of that. I'm so sorry

It was *not* my view of anything *you* are doing. You may have misread that?

Yeah I misread it I thought you were accusing me of eisegesis. My bad

 

[hawkman]

Nobody today is raising the dead, nobody is prophesizing, nobody is giving a mere shrug of the shoulders being bitten by a pit viper, nobody is commanding the paralyzed to walk, etc,etc,etc,etc, & etc.
It is no coincidence that that only visible "gift" being claimed today is the one that can be faked .

I have seen my daughter healed twice after prayer for two different problems , and once much to the doctor's disbelief because he had said surgery was needed .

 

[RandyK]

OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Dang I feel ridiculous now, I thought you were accusing me of that. I'm so sorry


Yeah I misread it I thought you were accusing me of eisegesis. My bad

Yes, I thought you misunderstood me. I have a lot of "bad days" where my communication skills are atrocious. But then again, we're talking "God talk"--easy to fall short in that! ;)

I thought you raised some excellent questions that I was trying my hand at answering. I'm a Pentecostal, and have had to answer these kinds of questions in my life. I must say that much is believed based on conjecture, and that probably includes myself. But I do best just trying to not read too much into the Scriptures, such as what happened on the Day of Pentecost means for us all.

No, I didn't at all mean to suggest you did anything wrong. My suggestion was that in trying to answer your questions we try to avoid drawing any conclusions beyond what we're told in Scriptures. You raised a very good question that we all may have trouble answering properly. Thank you!!

 

[RandyK]

I have seen my daughter healed twice after prayer for two different problems , and once much to the doctor's disbelief because he had said surgery was needed .

Supernatural demonstrations seem to happen only under certain circumstances, such as when an entire nation, devoted to God, came out of Egypt into a desert needing help desperately. Even then, the problems seemed to overwhelm any excitement over miracles!

The Apostles likely received a special gifting in order to verify Jesus as Messiah during his earthly ministry, and they probably did special miracles like Elijah and Elisha simply because they were the Lord's foundation for a future Church--the Church had to have confidence that they represented the Lord, just as Israel had to have confidence in Elijah that they should go back to serving just one God, and not Baal.

I'm not a believer in Cessationism, however. I just think we ought to let God deliver miracles at the times of His choosing. I think many miracles, of various kinds, happen throughout our lives. It seems as if God takes no time to throw a party in His own honor to show how great He is! ;) When He does a miracle, there is no advertisement attached, no requirement for repayment.

I could give a number of examples of what I consider to be bona fide miracles in my life's history. But I don't want to bore you. God can do anything, but what He does is according to His wisdom, knowing how we will react as flawed people.

 

[hawkman]

I pointed out that I see the problem as Christians reading too much of their own doctrinal assumptions into the Bible, whereas if we just let the Bible speak for itself, we will not form doctrines like, 1) Pentecostals have access to all of the Gifts of the Spirit, and 2) to be Baptized in the Holy Spirit all Pentecostals should speak in Tongues, or have a Prayer Language.

Let me ask about number 1 . Are you saying there are some Gifts Christians no longer have access to ? If so who took away this access ?

 

[RandyK]

Let me ask about number 1 . Are you saying there are some Gifts Christians no longer have access to ? If so who took away this access ?

No, I'm saying we should avoid trying to make the exact experience of the Apostles our own expected experience. We should avoid trying to walk on water just because Peter did. We should avoid taking on an entire army by ourself just because Samson did.

There are periods of time when spiritual gifts seem to be distributed differently, in different ways, in different orders of magnitude. For example, the circumstances around Nazareth seemed to dictate to Jesus that he should do fewer miracles, if any at all. On the other hand, when Jesus had died, and his people needed new leadership, the Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost, replete with regalia, band, and pomp/circumstance.

Doctrine in the Bible doesn't seem to suggest that we should just go out as if called to be apostles and perform miracles of healing. On the other hand, we are called to prayer and to expect that God hears us when we are praying in His name and in the right spirit, ie praying for the right things. We should expects signs and wonders to in some way confirm important messages we're conveying to others. That may simply be the wonder of "circumstantial coincidences," or whatever?

My own personal belief is that we should treat God as the omnipotent One He is, and yet let Him be who He is, and not try to "make happen" anything we "think" should happen. If we follow Him and obey His word to our hearts He will honor that with His presence in our lives, and show His love for us in many ways.

But to answer your question more specifically, I am indeed suggesting that as individuals we should not expect to have access to gifts God has not called us to demonstrate. He may have called us all to have supernatural wisdom, but some God has made to be counsellors in government, and they need to have supernatural wisdom almost on demand.

Some appear to be called to healing ministries. I may be called to seek the Lord for healing when I need it, but that doesn't mean I can expect to have a healing ministry.

I don't speak in Tongues. I once thought I did, but now believe it was a fraudulent "Prayer Language" that had been indoctrinated into me. I don't prophesy, although I think there is a prophetic element at work in me in many other ways besides giving prophecies to others.

I have experienced something others call "the word of knowledge," where I know things about others that is only known by supernatural means. I don't see other Christians having this gift often. God has given each of us a set of gifts, but different from what He gives others. So now, we should not, as individuals, expect to have "all the gifts."

I don't want to put too much limitations on this. Paul was apostle, prophet, and teacher. Some, however, are largely evangelists, even though they may be able to teach as well. We should focus on what God has called us to. I don't really have a handle on it--this is just how I've seen it. Thanks for the question.

 

[Rookie]

Yes, I thought you misunderstood me. I have a lot of "bad days" where my communication skills are atrocious. But then again, we're talking "God talk"--easy to fall short in that! ;)

I thought you raised some excellent questions that I was trying my hand at answering. I'm a Pentecostal, and have had to answer these kinds of questions in my life. I must say that much is believed based on conjecture, and that probably includes myself. But I do best just trying to not read too much into the Scriptures, such as what happened on the Day of Pentecost means for us all.

No, I didn't at all mean to suggest you did anything wrong. My suggestion was that in trying to answer your questions we try to avoid drawing any conclusions beyond what we're told in Scriptures. You raised a very good question that we all may have trouble answering properly. Thank you!!

Yessir, my bad again, I have no problem admitting when I blew it.

But yes hopefully one day someone will be able to provide an adequate explanation on why this is continuing in the church and hopefully find ways to raise awareness about it.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Nobody today is raising the dead, nobody is prophesizing, nobody is giving a mere shrug of the shoulders being bitten by a pit viper, nobody is commanding the paralyzed to walk, etc,etc,etc,etc, & etc.
It is no coincidence that that only visible "gift" being claimed today is the one that can be faked .

I have seen my daughter healed twice after prayer for two different problems , and once much to the doctor's disbelief because he had said surgery was needed .

I believe all healing is of God.
And the prayers of the faithful do "availeth" much healing.

Jas 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

But clearly that is not what I was referencing .
I am referencing the instantaneous power of the gift from God to raise the dead and restore body parts as described in scripture.
I thank you however because your misunderstanding of what this particular gift of healing entails as scripturally described as compared to how it's meaning gets commonly downgraded well beyond what God has done demonstrates exactly what I see being downgraded here where the gift of tongues is concerned.
And not for the Godliest of reasons I might add:

Gal 5:26
Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

 

[hawkman]

I thank you however because your misunderstanding of what this particular gift of healing entails

Zero misunderstanding .

But clearly that is not what I was referencing .
I am referencing the instantaneous power of the gift from God to raise the dead and restore body parts as described in scripture.

The doctor said my daughter's only choice was surgery .

My daughter had a protruding hernia , after prayer the hernia was gone never to return .

Abdominal wall was restored .

If the doctor ever ran into us he would ask if he could see my daughters stomach , he had a hard time grasping what had taken place with the healing .

 

[Consecrated Life]

Zero misunderstanding .

The doctor said my daughter's only choice was surgery .

My daughter had a protruding hernia , after prayer the hernia was gone never to return .

Abdominal wall was restored .

That is not what scripture details in the healing of the lame from birth being risen to their feet instantaneously .
Your Dr. was wrong as is the case often times with Dr.'s
My mother had a completely broken hip that we were told would require replacement surgery , however due to other issues of medication being cleared from her system the surgery was postponed for 5 days. On day 5 the Dr. wanted another Xray and the complete break had already begun healing together .
She went on to heal completely, never to need surgery.
I had prayed for her being healed from a surgery she never underwent.
Yet an all knowing God actually gave me more than I had asked in her healing as she never has to endure the risk of surgery, which in her case was a very significant factor.
I was under no illusion that my praying was the responsible healing gift, as I did not even know what was the best course of action or inaction in her case. It was the Great Physician hearing my prayer and doing what I did not even know was needed.
God does sometimes hear our prayers to heal , and He sometimes choses a different course.
But to equate that to the biblical gift of instantaneous miraculous gift of healing is comparing apples and oranges.
But again you are being illustrative in continuing to give further example of the way the original gift of God in tongues has been identically circumscribed & downgraded in this thread to fit the realm of profitless flesh in the interests of the flesh.

Gal 5:26
Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

 

[hawkman]

Your Dr. was wrong as is the case often times with Dr.'s

I am not saying I am the one with the Gift of Healing in case that is what you are thinking .

My mother had a completely broken hip that we were told would require replacement surgery , however due to other issues of medication being cleared from her system the surgery was postponed for 5 days. On day 5 the Dr. wanted another Xray and the complete break had already begun healing together .
She went on to heal completely, never to need surgery.

PRAISE GOD for the miracle of your mother's healing ! !

I had prayed for her being healed from a surgery she never underwent.
Yet an all knowing God actually gave me more than I had asked in her healing as she never has to endure the risk of surgery, which in her case was a very significant factor.
I was under no illusion that my praying was the responsible healing gift, as I did not even know what was the best course of action or inaction in her case. It was the Great Physician hearing my prayer and doing what I did not even know was needed.

PRAISE GOD , even with your lack of faith in miracle healing God still provided a miracle for your mother ! What a blessing . Thanks for sharing this . Lack of faith sometimes with me too , I have to admit .

God does sometimes hear our prayers to heal , and He sometimes choses a different course.

No doubt , that is true .

But to equate that to the biblical gift of instantaneous miraculous gift of healing is comparing apples and oranges.

Instantaneous healing is not always the case .

Blind man had to walk to the pool .

6When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,

7And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

Lepers healed as they went .


12And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off:

13And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.

14And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed.

Again not instant healing .

22And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.

23And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.

24And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.

25After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.

Pay attention here , it says "shall recover" , I don't see instantaneous mentioned .


17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

But again you are being illustrative in continuing to give further example of the way the original gift of God in tongues has been identically circumscribed & downgraded in this thread to fit the realm of profitless flesh in the interests of the flesh.

Gal 5:26
Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

I do not have a college education , please if you can tell this to me in another fashion that maybe a hick from the sticks can understand .

 

[Tenchi]

True, the observation that tongues-speaking did not accompany every recorded instance of conversion in Acts is very true and highlights the nuanced nature of spiritual experiences in the early church.

It also defies the idea that tongues-speaking at conversion ought to be expected, or is a necessary indicator of genuine spiritual rebirth.

Picture this: On a profound day of spiritual awakening, an individual in the crowd feels a powerful conviction, their heart pierced by the unmistakable touch of divine truth. They turn to Peter, their soul aching with the desire for redemption and a deeper connection with God. Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost and acting under the Spirit’s guidance, commands them to repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and promises the gift of the Holy Ghost. This powerful directive underscores the essentials of the apostolic experience.

This has nothing to do with my point, which was that tongues-speaking at conversion was neither uniformly the case in Acts (or anywhere else in the NT) nor taught to be expected as a sure sign of conversion.

Yet, it’s intriguing to consider that, even though the New Testament does not explicitly state that everyone who felt such conviction sought the entire apostolic experience, the expectation remains that those genuinely yearning for everything God offers would indeed pursue it with all their heart.

Well, tongues-speaking was so marginal in its value spiritually, that the Spirit did not provoke it at the conversion of three thousand people at the end of Acts 2. The Philippian jailer's entire household was converted but none of them spoke in tongues at their conversion, either. It does not appear to me, then, that the Spirit was keen to make tongues-speaking a common or necessary feature of spiritual regeneration.

If one feels deeply convicted, stirred by the Holy Ghost, and fully desires the entirety of what God has made available to His people, it seems only natural to seek out the full measure of the Spirit's blessings, including the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. Such a heartfelt pursuit reflects a true longing for a complete spiritual experience, one that embraces every aspect of God's promise.

This is just a roundabout way of saying that those who don't "seek out the full measure of the Spirit's blessing" are not heartfelt in their pursuit of God, or deeply convicted, or stirred by the Holy Spirit, or fully desire the entirety of what God has made available to His people, or truly long for a complete spiritual experience. Which is false and obnoxious. This statement defines an entirely unbiblical two-tier spiritual community: The elite tier occupied by tongues-speakers and the rest who are not desiring and pursuing the "complete spiritual experience." Nowhere in the NT is such a two-tier structure based on tongues-speaking ever described or taught.

These instances suggest that, in the early church, speaking in tongues was a notable and observable sign associated with the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost. However, it is important to note that while speaking in tongues was a significant initial indicator, the broader New Testament teaching emphasizes that spiritual maturity and regeneration are evidenced by a transformed life, fruit of the Spirit, and alignment with God's will, beyond the initial sign of tongues.

Tongues-speaking at conversion might have been an interesting indicator of conversion but it wasn't significant in the sense that it indicated something particularly special about the nature of the instance of conversion.

And, yes, as I explained in my first post to this thread, the truest indicator of spiritual regeneration is the life and work of the Holy Spirit in the believer that transforms the believer, conforming to the "image of Christ" (Romans 8:29). This transformation is the truest, surest demonstration of the genuineness of a person's conversion, not tongues-speaking, which pagan religions have been practicing for millennia, or ecstatic experiences (aka "slain in the Spirit") which pagan's also for millennia have experienced in their demonic rites, but the Holy Spirit acting as only he can within the believer, altering their fundamental desires, their thoughts, and their conduct such that Christ is more and more manifested in and through them (2 Corinthians 4:7-11; Romans 8:9-16).

Early church fathers and medieval scholars laid the groundwork by associating baptism with regeneration, a view upheld by Reformation theologians who emphasized the necessity of baptism for salvation. Contemporary scholars continue to support this interpretation, viewing baptism as a visible sign of the inner spiritual renewal accomplished by the Holy Spirit. This consensus reflects a robust tradition that links baptism and spiritual rebirth as integral to entering the kingdom of God. Anyone who doesn't hold this view is in the minority.

This is all rather a red-herring in view of the fact that this thread is about tongues-speaking particularly. But I will say that the "baptism" of the believer is the spiritual "baptism" performed by the Holy Spirit, described by Paul in Romans 6. This "baptism" has nothing whatever to do with water.

And appealing to the majority as a basis for the correctness of a view is a fallacious argument. The majority have been wrong many times throughout human history.

The argument that speaking in tongues is not mentioned after the Corinthian epistles to suggest it is not for every believer overlooks the broader context of spiritual gifts as described in the New Testament.

No, it doesn't. It simply recognizes the marginal place tongues-speaking occupies in the NT.

In the letters to the Corinthians, Paul provides extensive teaching on the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues, prophecy, and healing, establishing a framework for their practice and purpose within the church.

Actually, the only reason Paul wrote what he did in 1 Corinthians 14 about tongues-speaking was that it was being abused (by the women in the church, former pagans, used to being "loud and proud" in pagan religious rites, babbling ecstatically - ie wildly - as was the custom in such rites) and causing chaos in the Corinthian church. It is doubtful Paul would have remarked on the business of tongues-speaking as he did had its abuse not been going on. It wasn't, then, some concern over the spiritual necessity of tongues-speaking that moved Paul to write as he did in 1 Corinthians 14.

However, the absence of detailed discussion on specific gifts in later epistles does not imply their cessation or irrelevance.

About tongues-speaking, I think it does - especially in view of the fact that other doctrinal matters were spoken of much more often in the Pauline epistles and in the epistles of John, Peter, and James.

The lack of mention of tongues or other gifts in certain letters should be understood in light of the fact that the foundational teaching on spiritual gifts had already been established and integrated into the church's life.

You've asserted this before and now here again - but still as an entirely assumed belief. Instead, the near-total absence of teaching on tongues-speaking in the NT strongly suggests its marginal and non-essential place in Christian life and work. Far more important were issues concerning faith, love, grace, holiness, suffering, peace, endurance, the Atonement, justification, spiritual warfare, life in the Spirit, etc.

Historical references to the continuation of this practice serve not as a replacement for Scripture but as a witness to the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in the church. They demonstrate that the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues, were not isolated to the apostolic era but continued to be experienced by believers throughout church history, in fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

So? Again, in Scripture, the emphasis on tongues-speaking is almost nil in comparison to the many other much more greatly emphasized doctrines and practices of the Christian faith. This means something: Tongues-speaking wasn't important.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

It’s important to recognize that the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit is not merely a one-time event but a foundational aspect of His entire being. The fact that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit means that His very nature was intertwined with the Spirit from the moment of conception.

I understand you want the conception of Christ to mean what you say it does here. But all that Scripture indicates to us about Jesus's conception is that it was divinely accomplished. That's it. Until the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, Scripture is silent on the role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus's growth to adulthood. You must layer on what you assume is the case about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as you do in this quotation.

This divine nature includes the constant indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as seen throughout His life and ministry.

But this isn't so. Scripture doesn't offer a description of his entire life. See above.

While Jesus was already fully indwelt by the Holy Spirit from conception, His baptism by John the Baptist was a pivotal moment where the Spirit's descent in the form of a dove served as a public affirmation of His identity as the Messiah. This event did not indicate that Jesus was receiving the Holy Spirit for the first time, but rather, it was a manifestation of the Spirit’s empowerment for His ministry, signaling the start of His role as the anointed one who would fulfill God’s redemptive plan.

I think it did signify the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus in a manner not typical of his life prior to his baptism by John, as well as, marking to onlookers the true nature of Christ and the beginning of his three-year "earthly ministry" that took him to the cross. Again, it is not stated in the text of any of the Gospels that Jesus was always "fully indwelt" by the Holy Spirit, only that his conception was accomplished by the Holy Spirit coming upon his mother, Mary. So, there is nothing from Scripture itself that obliges me to take your view that he was constantly, fully indwelt by the Holy Spirit from birth.

This statement oversimplifies the profound theological implications of Christ’s divine conception.

No, it simply respects what Scripture says, not adding to it as you're doing.

Limiting the significance of Jesus’s conception to just the act of being "so-conceived" neglects the ongoing work of the Spirit in His life, which was evident from the moment of conception through His ministry, miracles, and even His resurrection.

But the Gospels don't offer a complete account of Christ's life from conception to the cross. You don't know, then, how the Holy Spirit did, or didn't, act upon him as child. Except for a brief account of his wandering from his parents as a child, we have no account whatever of Jesus's life prior to age thirty. It seems before he began to preach and perform miracles in the manner recounted in the Gospels, Christ's life was singularly unremarkable. This is confirmed by the people of his own hometown who scoffed at him:

Matthew 13:53-58
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there.
54 He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?
55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."
58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.

If the Holy Spirit had been upon Jesus all throughout his life in anything like the manner in which he was upon Jesus after his baptism by John, the people of Jesus's hometown would have respected - even revered - him as a miracle-worker and great sage. Instead, they dismiss him, recognizing him only as the "carpenter's son," nothing more. This, it seems to me, strongly disconfirms your idea that he was always indwelt by the Holy Spirit in the manner he was post-baptism by John.

The argument that if tongues-speaking were vital, Jesus would have exemplified it, reveals a misunderstanding of the purpose of Jesus' ministry and the role of spiritual gifts in the New Covenant.

No, it simply observes what is plainly indicated in Scripture. Doing so does not necessitate "misunderstanding the purpose of Jesus's ministry and the role of spiritual gifts in the New Covenant. Thinking that it does is a false dichotomy, which is another common fallacy of reasoning.

Jesus, being the source of all spiritual power, did not need to exhibit tongues-speaking because His life and ministry were the ultimate demonstration of God's power and authority.

If that "ultimate demonstration" was devoid of tongues-speaking, what does that say about the value of tongues-speaking? Exactly what I've been saying it means. Think of it in this way: If the ultimate chocolate cake, the absolute last word in the very best chocolate cake possible, doesn't include raisins, what does this say about the need for raisins in a chocolate cake? Obviously, that they are not needed in the making of the such a chocolate cake. So, too, tongues-speaking. If the ultimate demonstration of God's authority and power in Jesus didn't involve tongues-speaking, we shouldn't be trying to make it essential to the demonstration of God's authority and power in our own lives.

To suggest that Jesus needed to perform every spiritual act that would later be available to believers undermines the unique and progressive revelation of God's plan.

I haven't suggested this. You've made a Strawman of my statements, here. Which is another fallacious means of argument.

The statement that "the gift of tongues, along with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, was a promise to be fulfilled after His earthly ministry" is not an ad hoc extrapolation but is rooted in a careful reading of Scripture through a Oneness Practical Symbolic Exegesis Perspective.

Well, obviously, not every Christian is going to employ this exegetical method, nor are they obliged, as Christians, to do so.

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as promised in Joel 2:28-29 and fulfilled in Acts 2,

But the prophecy of Joel wasn't fulfilled in Acts 2.

Acts 2:14-23
14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.
15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day.
16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:
17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.
21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’
Where were the old men dreaming dreams, and the young men seeing visions, and servants prophesying, as Peter and his fellow believers stood in the street preaching the Gospel in various tongues? Nowhere. Where were the wonders in the heavens and signs on the earth of blood, fire, vapor and smoke? Nowhere. None of these things were present as Peter and the first born-again believers preached the Gospel in Acts 2. Did the sun go dark and the moon turn to blood? Nope. So, then, it seems to me quite bizarre to hold that the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The events of Acts 2 didn't get anywhere close to doing so.

To dismiss this as an extrapolation overlooks the significance of the timing and purpose of these events as outlined in Scripture.

No, it simply observes the place that tongues-speaking actually occupied in the NT Church, which is almost no place at all.

 

[hawkman]

We should avoid trying to walk on water just because Peter did.

If Jesus was walking on the water and called you to Him I am thinking you would try , I sure would .

We should avoid taking on an entire army by ourself just because Samson did.

If God anointed us in the fashion of Samson and sent us into battle we would go .

No, I'm saying we should avoid trying to make the exact experience of the Apostles our own expected experience.

Thanks for saying this ! So , the early circuit riders on horse back riding from church to church to minister to the people much like the apostles did through all kinds of bad conditions . I have heard of their experiences , God supplies the power where the need is for his faithful .

Do I expect an "experience " as the apostles had , I might if I was doing the same work the apostles were doing with the same amount of faith .

My own personal belief is that we should treat God as the omnipotent One He is, and yet let Him be who He is, and not try to "make happen" anything we "think" should happen.

The power is through the Holy Spirit as He wills it . All the glory goes to God .

I have experienced something others call "the word of knowledge," where I know things about others that is only known by supernatural means. I don't see other Christians having this gift often.

Sometimes a "word of knowledge" comes in a dream to me . I understand what you say .

So now, we should not, as individuals, expect to have "all the gifts."

Wow , if one did have all the Gifts , don't forget Satan will certainly have his eye on you if this is so .
The greater the gift(s) , the greater the responsibilities . A Christian needs to understand what they are asking for and be ready . I prayed to God , " Give me something to do for the Kingdom of God " , the results are an eye opening experience , to say the least .

 

[electedbyHim]

Not many people actually understand what was going on in the Corinthian church and why Paul had to write his letter to them. The following is a small sample of what influenced the Corinthians.

The Influence of the Pagan Cults on Glossolalia in the Church at Corinth​

To what degree did the mystery cults affect thinking and worship of the Corinthian church, and how did that influence Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 12–14 ?

If the church was affected by these pagan cults, one would expect to see evidence of these in Paul’s letter, for example, certain allusions or terms that the Corinthians or Paul used. One must not assume that Paul was fluent in mystery terminology, but he certainly was aware of those terms which were in common circulation, as Kennedy properly postulates.

We cannot picture [Paul] engrossed in the cure of souls without recognizing that he must have gained a deep insight into the earlier spiritual aspirations of his converts, and the manner in which they had sought to satisfy them. Even apart from eager inquirers, a missionary so zealous and daring would often find himself confronted by men and women who still clung to their mystic ritual and all the hopes it had kindled. It was inevitable, therefore, that he should become familar, at least from the outside, with religious ideas current in these influential cults.31

Similar Attitudes in Worship

Se!f-centered worship. Ecstatic religion by its very nature is self-oriented. Christians were to use their Christian χαρίσματα for the common good, but the pagans were totally concerned about their own personal experience, an attitude also prevalent among Corinthian Christians.

Women in worship. Women had an important place in the mystery cults, especially in the emotional and vocal realm. This was especially true in the Dionysian cult. Livy in his History of Rome wrote that the majority of Dionysian worshipers were women.35 The practice in the early Christian church and in the synagogue from which the church derived much of its order was for the women not to participate much in the vocal activities of the community. This aspect of the pagan cult could be what Paul was counteracting in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36.36 The believers were to conform to the practice of all the congregations of God in having vocal expressions limited to men. Also the use of ἄνδρας (“males”) rather than ἄνθρωπους (“men”) in regard to public prayer (1 Tim 2:8) may give evidence of the consistency of this custom.

The Daemon (δαιμόνιον). The desire or at least reverence for the δαιμόνιον may be seen in the Corinthian church. In their pagan past the spirit would enable them to come into contact with the supernatural and to experience a oneness with the god in the state of ecstasy. These same attitudes existed among believers at Corinth. They had difficulty in accepting the fact that an idol (behind whom was a δαιμόνιον) was nothing and that meat sacrificed to an idol was just meat (1 Cor 8:1–7). They were zealous for spirits (1 Cor 14:12). Some have said that πνεῦμα here is synonymous with “spiritual gifts,” but this is an unlikely use of πνεῦμα. Also 1 Corinthians 12:1–3 demonstrates that they were not distinguishing the difference between speaking by the Spirit of God and speaking by means of the δαιμόνιον in their previous pagan worship, by whom they were led to false worship.

Ecstasy.

Ecstasy was common in all mystery religions. The reason for this common experience is well stated by Nilsson:

Not every man can be a miracle-worker and a seer, but most are susceptible to ecstasy, especially as members of a great crowd, which draws the individual along with it and generates in him the sense of being filled with a higher, divine power. This is the literal meaning of the Greek word “enthusiasm,” the state in which “god is in man.” The rising tide of religious feeling seeks to surmount the barrier which separates man from god, it strives to enter into the divine, and it finds ultimate satisfaction only in that quenching of the consciousness in enthusiasm which is the goal of all mysticism.37

Unquestionably the Corinthian church was involved in ecstasy though many scholars today would not concede that they spoke ecstatic utterances.

Glossolalia in the Cult and in the Church

Speaking in tongues was not unique to the Christian faith. This phenomenon existed in various religions. “There also the pneumatikos, by whatever name he might be called, was a familiar figure. As possessed by the god, or partaking of the Divine pneuma or nous, he too burst forth into mysterious ejaculations and rapt utterances of the kind described in the New Testament as glossai lalein.”38

Possibly the carnal Corinthians, recent converts from the pagan religions, were failing to distinguish between the ecstatic utterance of their past and the true gift of tongues given supernaturally by the Holy Spirit.

There can be little question that the glossolalia in the Book of Acts were languages. The problem lies in the nature of tongues in 1 Corinthians. Gundry has forcefully argued that tongues in Arts and 1 Corinthians are intelligible, human languages.39 The major problem with this view, in reference to Corinth, is given by Smith:

If speaking in tongues involved a supernatural speech in a real language, then every such utterance required a direct miracle by God. This would mean, in the case of the Corinthians, that God was working a miracle at the wrong time and wrong place! He was causing that which He was directing the Apostle Paul to curtail.40

Is there a point of reconciliation for this contradiction? One may be that Paul used γλὼσσα for both ecstatic utterance and human language in 1 Corinthians, much as people do today with the term. One may wonder why Paul did not use μάντις when he referred to ecstatic utterance, but his method of argumentation may give the answer to this. Another possibility is given in Gundry’s own article.

Even if it were admitted that ecstatic utterance such as was practiced in Hellenistic religion was invading Corinthian Church meetings, Paul would be condemning it by presenting normative Christian glossolalia as something radically different in style as well as in content.41

---

31 31. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions (London: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.), pp. 280-81.
32 32. Eduard Lohse, The New Testament Environment, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976), p. 240.
(Richard Kroeger and Catherine Kroeger, “Pandemonium and Silence at Corinth,” The Reformed Joumal 28 [June 1978]: 7).
34 34. Alexander Rattray Hay, What Is Wrong in the Church? vol. 2, Counterfeit Speaking in Tongues (Audubon, NJ: New Testament Missionary Union. n,d.), p. 26.
35 35. Cited from Kroeger and Kroeger, “Pandemonium and Silence,” p, 7.
37 37. Martin P. Nilsson, A History of Greek Religion, 2d ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1964), p. 205.
39 39. Robert H. Gundry, “‘Ecstatic Utterance’ (N.E.B.)?” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (October 1966): 299-307.
40 40. Charles R. Smith, Tongues in Biblical Perspective (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1973), p. 26.
41 41. Gundry, “Ecstatic Utterance (N.E.B.)?” p. 305 (italics added).