Tongues, initial evidence of one having the Holy Spirit

[epistemaniac]

Paul meant that he speaks in more understandable human languages than any of the Corinthians... but rather than speak languages to humans who do not necessarily speak those languages, and thus they do not understand what is being said, Paul said that he would rather speak 5 words they understand than 10,000 words in a language they do not understand.

1 Corinthians 14:19 (ESV) Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue."

But even granting for the moment that Paul is speaking of ecstatic speech, apparently it's relative worth in the church is slight, if 5 words of intelligible speech equal 10,000 words in tongues.

blessings,
ken

 

[Pogo]

I find it interesting that no one seems to consider a most relevant facet of this "speaking in tongues" discussion. Please see the passage below...

Acts 2 KJV
(4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(5) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
(6) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
(7) And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
(8) And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
(9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
(10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
(11) Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
(12) And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

Obviously, as the apostles spoke to the gathered crowd from all over the, then, known world...each person heard the message in his/her native tongue.

Does anyone have any thoughts on why this is even mentioned, since talking in tongues in this manner eliminates the cause of confusion, as well as the need for interpretators?

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[FightingAtheism]

Paul meant that he speaks in more understandable human languages than any of the Corinthians... but rather than speak languages to humans who do not necessarily speak those languages, and thus they do not understand what is being said, Paul said that he would rather speak 5 words they understand than 10,000 words in a language they do not understand.

1 Corinthians 14:19 (ESV) Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue."

But even granting for the moment that Paul is speaking of ecstatic speech, apparently it's relative worth in the church is slight, if 5 words of intelligible speech equal 10,000 words in tongues.

blessings,
ken

"With my mind" and "in a tongue". What's the difference b/w speaking with the mind and speaking with tongues? You don't use your mind when you speak with tongues, your spirit is praying. Consider these verses for a better definition of speaking with tongues:

2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(1Co.14:2)

14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
(1Co.14:14)

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
(1Co.14:15)

Very clear. "Pray with the spirit", "pray with understanding", "my understanding is unfruitful" -this is very clear that it is not earthly languages because your understanding is unfruitful and others understanding is unfruitful ("for no man understandeth him").

 

[FightingAtheism]

I find it interesting that no one seems to consider a most relevant facet of this "speaking in tongues" discussion. Please see the passage below...

Acts 2 KJV
(4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(5) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
(6) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
(7) And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
(8) And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
(9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
(10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
(11) Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
(12) And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

Obviously, as the apostles spoke to the gathered crowd from all over the, then, known world...each person heard the message in his/her native tongue.

Does anyone have any thoughts on why this is even mentioned, since talking in tongues in this manner eliminates the cause of confusion, as well as the need for interpretators?

In Christ,

Pogo

This passage has been brought up many times. In this passage, there was a two-fold miracle going on. The miracle of hearing and speaking. God enabled those who's hearts were open to understand the praises (in the spirit, speaking with tongues) of the disciples. Not all understood the speaking witht tongues because some onlookers made fun of the disciples, and accused them of being drunk (Acts 2:13).

If speaking in tongues is speaking in earthly languages, then why does the Bible mention the gift of interpretation (1 Cor. 12)? And 1 Cor 12:2,14,15 would clearly contradict.

 

[lovely]

Luke 1
13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb Holy Ghost...it doesn't say he spoke in tongues.

Luke 1
39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost...it doesn't say she spoke with tongues, but she did bestow blessings upon Mary.

Luke 1
67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost...he spoke, but not in tongues...he did prophecy, though.

Luke 3
21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased... (Geneology of Christ) then...
Luke 4
1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Jesus was full of the Holy Ghost...it doesn't say He spoke in tongues, but he was led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness.

John 3
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Those who are believers, who are born again, have the Holy Spirit. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians as well, that not all will speak with tongues, but that we are all of the same Spirit and Lord who have the different gifts and administrations given by the Holy Spirit who indwells the beliver. So, they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but do not speak with tongues. (1 Corinthians 12...see my previous post) We are able to confess Christ and call Him Lord only by the Spirit of God. We are able to follow Christ, and please God through the Law of the Spirit by having the Holy Spirit in us. Those who bear fruit unto God have the Holy Spirit, and yet may not have the gift of tongues according to Paul. See Romans 7

Tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit, not THE Holy Spirit. So, when we read that the Holy Spirit teaches us, it is not tongues that teach us. When the Holy Spirit prays for us, it is not tongues that prays for us. When the Holy Spirit comforts us, it is not tongues that comforts us. When the Holy Spirit gives us words to speak and boldness in the Word of God, it is not tongues that gives us the words to speak and boldness in the Word of God. When the Holy Spirit sanctifies us and sheds the love of God in our hearts, it is not tongues that sanctifies us and sheds the love of God in our hearts. When the Holy Spirit gives us wisdom and guidance, it is not tongues that gives us wisdom and guidance.

I Corinthians 14 does not make it clear that this is an 'unearthly' language. It says an unknown tongue, meaning without an interpreter no one knows what is being said...even the one praying...it is an unknown tongue to those who hear. The whole chapter makes the point that tongues, apart from interpretation, do not edify the body and are out of order unless there is an interpreter present. Tongues are languages, and are a gift of the Holy Spirit. While they can be the evidence of the Holy Spirit in a person, they are not the only evidence. There are other gifts, other administrations, and many who do not speak with tongues call Jesus Lord.

lovely

 

[Dave Slayer]

Excellent post, lovely. :amen

 

[emmauk007]

In the first century, when Christians ‘spoke in tongues,’ what they said had meaning to people who knew those languages. (Acts 2:4, 8) Today, is it not true that ‘speaking in tongues’ usually involves an ecstatic outburst of unintelligible sounds?{13:35}
By
this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have
love one to another.

{7:21} Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will
of my Father which is in heaven. {7:22} Many will say to
me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy
name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy
name done many wonderful works? {7:23} And then will I
profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
that work iniquity.

All scriptures quoted are from the KJV

 

[Rick W]

The above post:

Source(s):
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Reasoning from the Scriptures (1989)
Published by Jehovah’s Witnesses
Principal Subject: “Speaking in Tonguesâ€Â
Page(s) 400-403

 

[emmauk007]

I quote Many here attend church. Some here feel that is a mistake and make very pointed posts saying so.
I'm getting tired of reading these posts, mostly opinion, that discredit, belittle and degrade those who are not of that same opinion. People coming here may be affiliated with a church one way or another, a church of their choice and I have to wonder what they think of a Christian forum when reading these posts.
I don't mind discussion, after all this IS a forum but as far as I know attending church is still a Christian activity and promoted by many genuinely saved brothers and sisters.
Please, if anyone has a derogatory comment/opinion in mind toward another member/s exercising their right to attend the church of their choice then please keep it off the board.

Mmmm sounds like one should practice what one preaches

 

[Rick W]

No quoted verses from the New World Translation will be allowed on this site.
Also, please include the link/s from which you are copying your material.
If you have issues with the Terms of Service please PM a member of the staff.

 

[FightingAtheism]

Luke 1
13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb Holy Ghost...it doesn't say he spoke in tongues.

Luke 1
39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost...it doesn't say she spoke with tongues, but she did bestow blessings upon Mary.

Luke 1
67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost...he spoke, but not in tongues...he did prophecy, though.

Luke 3
21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased... (Geneology of Christ) then...
Luke 4
1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Jesus was full of the Holy Ghost...it doesn't say He spoke in tongues, but he was led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness.

33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and [then] I go unto him that sent me.
34 Ye shall seek me, and shall not find [me]: and where I am, [thither] ye cannot come.
35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?
36 What [manner of] saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find [me]: and where I am, [thither] ye cannot come?
37 In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
(Jn.7:33-39)

Until Jesus' resurrection, the Old Covenant was still in place, the New Covenant was after His resurraction. As you can see from the passage, "the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified."

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
(Ac.2:17,18)

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:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
(Joel.2:28,29)

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
(2Co.6:16)


In the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was with them and was on them, but not in them. But in the New Covenant the Holy Spirit can be in us.

 

[FightingAtheism]

Those who are believers, who are born again, have the Holy Spirit. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians as well, that not all will speak with tongues, but that we are all of the same Spirit and Lord who have the different gifts and administrations given by the Holy Spirit who indwells the beliver. So, they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but do not speak with tongues. (1 Corinthians 12...see my previous post) We are able to confess Christ and call Him Lord only by the Spirit of God. We are able to follow Christ, and please God through the Law of the Spirit by having the Holy Spirit in us. Those who bear fruit unto God have the Holy Spirit, and yet may not have the gift of tongues according to Paul. See Romans 7

Paul says that not all will speak in "diversities of tongues". But all who have the Holy Spirit speak in tongues, as a private prayer language. Because tongues is praying in the spirit.

2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(1Co.14:2)

14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
(1Co.14:14,15)

We are able to confess Christ and call Him Lord only by the Spirit of God. We are able to follow Christ, and please God through the Law of the Spirit by having the Holy Spirit in us. Those who bear fruit unto God have the Holy Spirit, and yet may not have the gift of tongues according to Paul. See Romans 7

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
(1Co.12:3)

From this verse you CANNOT assume that we that believe automatically receive the Holy Spirit. Well yes, maybe, the believer should also believe in Jesus' Word, which was to ask for the Holy Spirit. But the interlinear Greek translation is more clearer, which says that "no one without the Holy Spirit can say that Jesus is the Lord." (I have a software for it (ISA), but I can't find the online interlinear translation) You might say that there's no difference, but there is. From this kind of wording you can't conclude that a person who says that Jesus is Lord automatically has the Holy Spirit.

Tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit, not THE Holy Spirit. So, when we read that the Holy Spirit teaches us, it is not tongues that teach us. When the Holy Spirit prays for us, it is not tongues that prays for us. When the Holy Spirit comforts us, it is not tongues that comforts us. When the Holy Spirit gives us words to speak and boldness in the Word of God, it is not tongues that gives us the words to speak and boldness in the Word of God. When the Holy Spirit sanctifies us and sheds the love of God in our hearts, it is not tongues that sanctifies us and sheds the love of God in our hearts. When the Holy Spirit gives us wisdom and guidance, it is not tongues that gives us wisdom and guidance.

Lovely, of course the Holy Spirit is not the tongues itself. Just as the words I utter. I'm just trying to give you the message that you cannot have the Holy Spirit in you without the ability to speak with tongues. The Holy Spirit gives you the ability: "as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). If you read my post, I explain the purpose of speaking with tongues.

I Corinthians 14 does not make it clear that this is an 'unearthly' language. It says an unknown tongue, meaning without an interpreter no one knows what is being said...even the one praying...it is an unknown tongue to those who hear. The whole chapter makes the point that tongues, apart from interpretation, do not edify the body and are out of order unless there is an interpreter present. Tongues are languages, and are a gift of the Holy Spirit. While they can be the evidence of the Holy Spirit in a person, they are not the only evidence. There are other gifts, other administrations, and many who do not speak with tongues call Jesus Lord.

2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(1Co.14:2)

NO ONE, how can it be an earthly language if no one understands him? When one prays in tongues, he prays in the spirit, not using his mind. How can you have the Holy Spirit without the ability to pray in the spirit, which is praying with tongues?

 

[lovely]

FightingAtheism,

I appreciate your responses. In the interest of not falling into a vain dispute, I would like to offer one last thing and leave you to the last word. I want to post an article by Mr. Piper that I found tonight. I don't agree with him about everything, but I believe that he has some good points about this topic that I have not covered already. It only takes a few minutes, please read it.
Here is the link....

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... ly_Spirit/

I have copied it in it's entirety below.

How to Receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit
April 29, 1984
John Piper

Acts 2:32-42

32) “This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33) Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. 34) For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, 35) till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ 36) Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.â€Â
37) Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?†38) And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39) For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." 40) And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41) So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42) And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
The two questions I want to try to answer today are: 1) What does it mean to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? and: 2) How do we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? Our focus will be on the book of Acts and on Luke's intention as he wrote it.

1. What Is Receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit?
One of the most widely used books in contemporary charismatic renewal is The Holy Spirit and You by Dennis and Rita Bennet, an Episcopal priest and his wife. On pp. 64f. the question is posed, "What if I don't speak in tongues? Can I receive the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues?" Answer:

"It comes with the package!" Speaking in tongues is not the baptism in the Holy Spirit, but it is what happens when and as you are baptized in the Spirit and it becomes an important resource to help you continue, as Paul says, to . . . "keep on being filled with the Holy Spirit" (Eph. 5:18). You don't have to speak in tongues in order to be saved. You don't have to speak in tongues in order to have the Holy Spirit in you. You don't have to speak in tongues to have times of feeling filled with the Holy Spirit, but if you want the free and full outpouring that is the baptism in the Holy Spirit, you must expect it to happen as in Scripture . . . If you want to understand the New Testament you need the same experience that all its writers had.

On p. 20 they sum up the classical two-stage Pentecostal teaching:

The first experience of the Christian life, salvation, is the incoming of the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ, to give us new life, God's life, eternal life. The second experience, is the receiving, or making welcome of the Holy Spirit, so that Jesus can cause Him to pour out this new life from our spirits, to baptize our souls and bodies and then our world around, with his refreshing and renewing power. (See p. 275.)

They call this "the scriptural pattern of the 'doctrine of baptisms'."

Tongues and Baptism in the Spirit in Acts

I have two things to say about this, one negative and one positive. I'll take the negative first so I can end with the positive. The negative thing is that I think the Bennets are probably wrong in making tongues a necessary part of the baptism in the Spirit.

Let's walk with them through the book of Acts to see where they get their evidence. It begins in Acts 1:5 where Jesus says to his disciples, "John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Then in verse 8 he says, "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses." The fulfillment of these two promises came on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2:2-4, "And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributed and resting on each one of them and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." The next time tongues is mentioned in Acts is when Peter went to preach at Cornelius' house in Acts 10:44-46. "While Peter was still saying this the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God."

The only other place tongues is referred to in Acts is 19:6. Paul finds in Ephesus some disciples of John the Baptist who had never heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul explains to them that John pointed people forward to Jesus, and so v. 5 says, "On hearing this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." There is one other instance in chapter 8 where the apostles go to Samaria and lay their hands on some believers so that they can receive the Holy Spirit. Tongues is not mentioned, but since the language is the same as at Cornelius' house ("fallen" 8:16; "fell" 10:44), it's likely the Samaritans spoke in tongues, too.

Pentecostals argue that since baptism in the Spirit happened these four times with speaking in tongues, we should regard this as normative. First, the word of the gospel is received by faith. Christ comes into your life by the Spirit. Then, you are baptized in water. And, generally, following water-baptism at some later point, you pray for the baptism in the Spirit and are overwhelmed with a new fullness and freedom and power accompanied by speaking in tongues.

Tongues Not Necessary to Being Baptized in the Spirit

There are five reasons why I am not as confident as the Pentecostals or Charismatics are that speaking in tongues is a necessary part of being baptized in the Spirit.

It is not taught anywhere in the New Testament. It seems risky to me to say, since it happened this way four times it must happen this way all the time.
What Jesus does teach in Acts 1:5 and 8 is that the experience of baptism in the Spirit will bring power to witness into the Christian life. In the terminology of Acts we could say, what a powerless Christian needs is a baptism in the Holy Spirit. And that's a lot of us!
Acts records at least nine other conversion stories, but never again mentions a two-step sequence with tongues (8:36; 9:17-19; 13:12, 48; 14:1; 16:14; 17:4, 34). This shows how difficult it is to establish a norm from the way things happened back then.
It could be that there were special circumstances in Jerusalem, Samaria, Cornelius' house, and Ephesus that made speaking in tongues especially helpful in communicating the truth that the Holy Spirit was creating a new unified body of Jew and Samaritan and Gentile.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:30 that "not all speak in tongues" and the words he uses are for general tongues speaking, not merely for a special "gift of tongues" used in church. He seems to have in view the person who feels ostracized without tongues and says (v. 16), "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body." Paul responds, "Not everybody speaks in tongues!"
For these five reasons I cannot say with the Pentecostals that no Christian has been baptized in the Holy Spirit unless he has spoken in tongues. It seems to me that Luke leaves wide open the possibility that the Holy Spirit might fall upon a person with revolutionizing power over sin and power for witnessing and power in worship and yet not with tongues. To say this person is not the beneficiary of Jesus' promise to baptize us in the Holy Spirit goes beyond Scripture. "You will be baptized with the Holy Spirit . . . and you shall receive power" (Acts 1:5, 8). That is the biblical sign. (Whether or not a Christian should seek to speak in tongues is another issue that we are working on in the evening. See 1 Corinthians 14:5, 18, 39.)

Stressing the Experience of Baptism in the Spirit
Now the positive thing I want to say about the moderate Pentecostal teaching (represented by the Bennets) is that it is right to stress the experiential reality of receiving the Spirit. When you read the New Testament honestly, you can't help but get the impression of a big difference from a lot of contemporary Christian experience. For them the Holy Spirit was a fact of experience. For many Christians today it is a fact of doctrine. Surely the Charismatic renewal has something to teach us here. In sacramental churches the gift of the Holy Spirit is virtually equated with the event of water baptism. In Protestant evangelicalism it is equated with a subconscious work of God in regeneration which you only know you have because the Bible says you do if you believe. It is easy to imagine a spiritual counselor saying to a new convert today, "Don't expect to notice any difference: just believe you have received the Spirit." But that is far from what we see in the New Testament. The Pentecostals are right to stress the experience of being baptized in the Spirit.

Four Reasons Why It Is Right to Do So
Here are four reasons from Acts.

1. Terminology


The very term "baptized in the Holy Spirit" (1:5; 11:16) implies an immersion in the life of the Spirit. "John immersed in water; you will be immersed in the Spirit." If the Spirit overwhelms you like a baptism, you can't imagine him merely sneaking in quietly while you are asleep and taking up inconspicuous residence. That may be the way it starts (Paul may have this early movement in mind in 1 Corinthians 12:13), but if it ends there, Jesus and Luke would not call it a baptism in the Spirit.

2. Power, Boldness, and Confidence


Jesus says in Acts 1:5 and 8 that baptism in the Spirit means, "You shall receive power . . . and you shall be my witnesses." This is an experience of boldness and confidence and victory over sin. A Christian without power is a Christian who needs a baptism in the Holy Spirit. I am aware that in 1 Corinthians 12:13 Paul says that baptism in the Spirit is an act of God by which we become a part of the body of Christ at conversion, so that in his terminology all genuine converts have been baptized in the Spirit. But we have done wrong in limiting Paul's understanding of the baptism in the Holy Spirit to this initial, subconscious divine act in conversion and then forcing all of Luke's theology in Acts into that little mold. There is no reason to think that even for Paul the baptism in the Holy Spirit was limited to the initial moment of conversion. And for sure in the book of Acts the baptism in the Holy Spirit is more than a subconscious divine act of regenerationâ€â€it is a conscious experience of power (Acts 1:8).

3. The Testimony of Acts


In fact the third reason I think this is that when you take your concordance and look up every text in Acts where the Holy Spirit works in believers, it is never subconscious. In Acts the Holy Spirit is not a silent influence but an experienced power. Believers experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit. They didn't just believe it happened because an apostle said so.

4. The Consequence of Faith


The fourth reason we should stress the experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit is that in Acts the apostles teach that it is a consequence of faith not a subconscious cause of faith. As a convinced Calvinist I believe with all my heart that the grace of God precedes and enables saving faith. We do not initiate our salvation by believing. God initiates it by enabling us to believe (Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 2:25; John 1:13). But this regenerating work of God's Spirit is not the limit of what Peter means by baptism in the Spirit. In Acts 11:15-17 Peter reports how the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius just as on the disciples at Pentecost. "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized in water, but you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.' If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us, when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should withstand God?" Notice that the gift of the Spirit, or baptism in the Spirit, is preceded by faith. The NASB correctly says in v. 17 that God gave the Holy Spirit after they believed. So the baptism of the Spirit (v. 16) or the receiving of the gift of the Spirit (v. 17) cannot be the same as the work of God before faith which enables faith (which Luke speaks of in 2:39; 5:31; 16:14; 11:18; 15:10; 14:27). The baptism in the Spirit is an experience of the Spirit given after faith to faith.

Receiving the Spirit Is a Life-Changing Experience
This is why Paul can say in Acts 19:2 when he meets the confused disciples of John the Baptist, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" What would a contemporary Protestant evangelical say in response to that question? I think we would say something like, "I thought we automatically received the Holy Spirit when we believed. I don't understand how you can even ask the question." How could Paul ask that question? He could ask it, I think, because receiving the Holy Spirit is a real experience. There are marks of it in your life. And the best way to test the faith of these so-called disciples is to ask them about their experience of the Spirit. This is no different than what Paul said in Romans 8:14, "All who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God" (see 2 Corinthians 13:5 and 1 John 3:24; 4:12-13). I sometimes fear that we have so redefined conversion in terms of human decisions and have so removed any necessity of the experience of God's Spirit, that many people think they are saved when in fact they only have Christian ideas in their head not spiritual power in their heart.

So you see, the real issue the Charismatics raise for us is not the issue of tongues. In itself that is relatively unimportant. The really valuable contribution of the Charismatic renewal is their relentless emphasis on the truth that receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is a real, life-changing experience. Christianity is not merely an array of glorious ideas. It is not merely the performance of rituals and sacraments. It is the life-changing experience of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ the Lord of the universe.

Two Things That Characterize This Experience
We could talk for hours about what that experience is. In fact, most of my messages are just thatâ€â€descriptions of the experience of the Spirit of God in the life of the believer. But I'll mention two things from the book of Actsâ€â€things that mark the experience of being baptized in the Holy Spirit or of receiving the gift of the Spirit.

1. A Heart of Praise


One is a heart of praise. In Acts 10:46 the disciples knew the Holy Spirit had fallen because "they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling (or magnifying) God." Speaking in tongues is one particular way of releasing the heart of praise. It may be present or may not. But one thing is sure: the heart in which the Holy Spirit has been poured out will stop magnifying self and start magnifying God. Heartfelt praise and worship is the mark of a real experience of the Holy Spirit.

2. Obedience


The other mark I'll mention is obedience. In Acts 5:29 Peter and the apostles say to the Sadducees who had arrested them, "We must obey God rather than men." Then in verse 32 he says, "We are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God gave to those who are obeying him." ("Gave" is past tense; "obey" is present, ongoing tense.) It is inevitable that when the object of your heart's worship changes, your obedience changes. When Jesus baptizes you in the Holy Spirit, and infuses you with a new sense of the glory of God, you have a new desire and a new power (1:8) to obey. Whether or not you speak in tongues, these two things will be your experience if you have been baptized in the Holy Spiritâ€â€a new desire to magnify God in worship and a powerful disposition to obey God in everyday life.

2. How to Receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
I close by pointing you to Peter's instructions for how to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38-41.

The Word of God Must Be Heard


First, the Word of God must be heard. Peter has preached that in God's plan Jesus was crucified, raised, and exalted as Lord over all the universe and that forgiveness of sin and spiritual renewal can be had from him. The Word has been heard.

The Sovereign God Must Call Men and Women


Second, the sovereign God must call men and women to himself, or they will never come. Verse 39:, "The promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, everyone to whom the Lord our God calls to him." No one comes to faith in Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44, 65). The preached Word is heard with conviction and power only when the effectual call of God lays hold on the hearers.

We Must Receive the Word


Third, we must "receive the word." Verse 41: "So those who received his word were baptized." Receiving the Word means that it becomes part of you so that you trust the Christ it presents. You trust his provision for your forgiveness. You trust his path for your life. You trust his power to help you obey. And you trust his promises for your future. And that radical commitment to Christ always involves repentanceâ€â€a turning away from your own self-wrought provisions and paths and powers and promises. And when you really turn to Christ for new paths and new power, you open yourself to the Holy Spirit, because it is by his Spirit that Christ guides and empowers.

We Must Express Faith Through Water Baptism


Finally, we must give an open expression of faith in the act of water baptism in obedience to Jesus Christ. Baptism was the universal experience of all Christians in the New Testament. There were no unbaptized Christians after Pentecost. Christ had commanded it (Matthew 28:18f.) and the church practiced it. So we do today.

Therefore, I invite you to experience the greatest thing in the worldâ€â€Repent, trust Christ, open yourself to the power of his Spirit, be baptized in his name, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

I am going to give another link as well. It covers some of the same information as the article above, but it also touches on the Old Covenant believers and the Holy Spirit.

http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper81/030881m.htm

I think that this is an important topic, and we need to be careful not to let denominationalism usurp the Word of God on anyone's end. As I said, I do not agree with Mr. Piper on all things, but I do agree with these articles for the most part. I leave you with these two, because I can not say more than I have said, and we will probably continue to restate our points over and over...I think we are already entering into that cycle. At this point, I wholeheartedly continue in my disagreement that one must speak in tongues to be saved or have the Holy Spirit.

lovely

 

[Dave Slayer]

Paul says that not all will speak in "diversities of tongues". But all who have the Holy Spirit speak in tongues, as a private prayer language. Because tongues is praying in the spirit.

Then by your own admission you are saying that I do not have the Holy Spirit because I do not speak in a prviate prayer language. You also would be accusing half of professing Christians not have the Holy Spirit because they don't speak in a private prayer langauge. I know many believers who are filled with the Spirit but do not speak in tongues. I find it to be a burden on someone to question their standing with God because they can't utter an unintelligible language.

 

[n2thelight]

Tongues is nothing more than a language

Below is the "tongues" of the book of Acts, and as you can see there was nothing "unknown" about it!

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

other: Greek word #2087 heteros = other or different:

Tongues: Greek word #1100 glossa = a language (specially, one naturally unacquired)

When they spoke this tongue, everybody understood it, the Scripture lists 18 different languages that understood it AT ONCE! Not like today's so-called tongues where only another possessed person can think that he understands it. The Pentecostal Day (Acts ch. 2) tongues were heard and understood by all languages:

Acts 2:4-11
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (KJV)

What is happening in the churches today is so far removed from the Scriptures that one could only suspect demonic influences. Stop babbling, it is not of God!

Also, let us clear-up one more obstacle in this matter. The "Tongue Talker" teachers point to the below Scripture as a justification for their own so-called Tongue Talking in their churches. The Scripture below follows right after the above verse, so that you know that it is the exact same subject being spoken of:

Acts 2:12-16
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; (KJV)

What the Tongues preachers/teachers will tell you is that some men called the speakers "drunk" because they could not understand what they were saying. Based on this, the Tongue teachers assert that when they speak in their babble, which people can't understand, it is the same as in the above Acts Scripture, because, as they arrantly suppose, nobody could understand it.

Not so! First of all we just read that many DID understand, in (all) their own (different) languages even; but that some could not understand. So confused were those who could not understand that they accused the speakers of being so drunk that they couldn't even form words recognizable to the human ear. Paul assures them that the men are not at all drunk.

So in our above Scripture in verse 12 we saw that many did hear, but in verse 13 we saw that some did not hear:

Acts 2:12-13
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Who then are these, whom could not hear (could not understand the speech)? They were unbelievers. Unbelievers cannot hear with understanding the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit, which interprets all things (for the Christian ONLY), is not present in the unbeliever. That is why these certain men, those who were mocking, could not understand what the Holy Spirit was saying through the Inspired speakers. Jesus told us of these in another place:

John 8:43
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. (KJV)

To understand Jesus is to understand the Holy Spirit, for they are One with the Father (1st John 5:7). Jesus said that His sheep hear His voice:

John 10:26-31
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (KJV)

So who were those who could not hear the Holy Spirit? It was those same who would instigate the crucifixion of Jesus Christ:

John 8:42-51
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. (KJV)


Well the spirit of Pharisee'ism is alive and well in many of the compromised & spiritually corrupted Judeo-Christian churches. There is really no such thing as Judeo-Christian, it is new wine in an old (actually another) wineskin that shall burst. It is satan's dilution of the Christian faith.

http://www.biblestudysite.com/tongues.htm

The next time true tounges as in Acts will be spoken is when the elect are delivered up to satan

Mark 13:9, 10 "But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony against them." [9] "And the gospel must first be published among all nations." [10]

Mark 13:11 "But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost [Spirit]."

 

[FightingAtheism]

Tongues is nothing more than a language

Below is the "tongues" of the book of Acts, and as you can see there was nothing "unknown" about it!

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

other: Greek word #2087 heteros = other or different:

Tongues: Greek word #1100 glossa = a language (specially, one naturally unacquired)

When they spoke this tongue, everybody understood it, the Scripture lists 18 different languages that understood it AT ONCE! Not like today's so-called tongues where only another possessed person can think that he understands it. The Pentecostal Day (Acts ch. 2) tongues were heard and understood by all languages:

Acts 2:4-11
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (KJV)

What is happening in the churches today is so far removed from the Scriptures that one could only suspect demonic influences. Stop babbling, it is not of God!

Also, let us clear-up one more obstacle in this matter. The "Tongue Talker" teachers point to the below Scripture as a justification for their own so-called Tongue Talking in their churches. The Scripture below follows right after the above verse, so that you know that it is the exact same subject being spoken of:

Acts 2:12-16
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; (KJV)

What the Tongues preachers/teachers will tell you is that some men called the speakers "drunk" because they could not understand what they were saying. Based on this, the Tongue teachers assert that when they speak in their babble, which people can't understand, it is the same as in the above Acts Scripture, because, as they arrantly suppose, nobody could understand it.

Not so! First of all we just read that many DID understand, in (all) their own (different) languages even; but that some could not understand. So confused were those who could not understand that they accused the speakers of being so drunk that they couldn't even form words recognizable to the human ear. Paul assures them that the men are not at all drunk.

So in our above Scripture in verse 12 we saw that many did hear, but in verse 13 we saw that some did not hear:

Acts 2:12-13
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Who then are these, whom could not hear (could not understand the speech)? They were unbelievers. Unbelievers cannot hear with understanding the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit, which interprets all things (for the Christian ONLY), is not present in the unbeliever. That is why these certain men, those who were mocking, could not understand what the Holy Spirit was saying through the Inspired speakers. Jesus told us of these in another place:

John 8:43
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. (KJV)

To understand Jesus is to understand the Holy Spirit, for they are One with the Father (1st John 5:7). Jesus said that His sheep hear His voice:

John 10:26-31
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (KJV)

So who were those who could not hear the Holy Spirit? It was those same who would instigate the crucifixion of Jesus Christ:

John 8:42-51
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. (KJV)


Well the spirit of Pharisee'ism is alive and well in many of the compromised & spiritually corrupted Judeo-Christian churches. There is really no such thing as Judeo-Christian, it is new wine in an old (actually another) wineskin that shall burst. It is satan's dilution of the Christian faith.

http://www.biblestudysite.com/tongues.htm

The next time true tounges as in Acts will be spoken is when the elect are delivered up to satan

Mark 13:9, 10 "But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony against them." [9] "And the gospel must first be published among all nations." [10]

Mark 13:11 "But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost [Spirit]."

My repeated answer:

In this passage, there was a two-fold miracle going on. The miracle of hearing and speaking. God enabled those who's hearts were open to understand the praises (in the spirit, speaking with tongues) of the disciples. Not all understood the speaking witht tongues because some onlookers made fun of the disciples, and accused them of being drunk (Acts 2:13).

If speaking in tongues is speaking in earthly languages, then why does the Bible mention the gift of interpretation (1 Cor. 12)? And 1 Cor 12:2,14,15 would clearly contradict.

Anyways, here's a clear definition of tongues:

2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(1Co.14:2)

14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
(1Co.14:14,15)

 

[Dave Slayer]

Fighting Atheism, what is it going to take for you to see that the tongues spoken in Acts on the day of Pentecost were earthly tongues? It specifically says:

Acts 2:8 KJV
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were BORN?

It doesn't get any clearer than that. People speak in the native language where they are born. I was born in the USA so my native language is English. People do not speak in a private prayer language as their native language. Just because some of the on lookers accused the tongue speakers of being drunk does not automatically mean they weren't speaking in earthly languages. I am sometimes accused of being drunk when I get silly, but I am still speaking in English.

On the day of Pentecost, the tongue speakers spoke in the languages of those gathered in the crowd. The crowd was made up up foreigners who spoke in various foreign languages. They (the crowd) heard them (the disciples) speak in their (the crowd's) own language. These were earthly native languages and not a private prayer language or an unknown tongue.

You say that the defintion tongues are speaking in a prayer language. I disagree and so do the scriptures. I will show you.

Acts 26:14 ... I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Ezra 4:7... and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.

Revelation 9:11... whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

As you can see from these various scriptures, tongues are earthly languages. None of the tongues mentioned in these passages are praying in an unknown tongue or praying in the spirit. Furthermore, Ezra 4:7 says that an earthly language (Syrian) is being interpreted. This is not speaking of a private prayer language.

The difference between the tongues in Acts and the tongues in Corinthians is that the tongues in Acts needed no interpretation where as they did at Corinth.

I have spent many long hours reading a wide variety of material on tongues and tongue speakers are very relentless to say the least. They all use the same arguments, it's almost like they all have been trained to supply the same answers. I do not buy into their interpretation. I however, am only human so I cannot say my interpretation is always perfect. I will respect your interpretation if you respect mine. We diasgree and that is fine. I am just sick and tired of tongue speakers acting like they are right and everyone else is wrong. And that seems to be the case whenever you enter a debate on tongues.

This is exactly why it is almost a waste of time to even debate it. Both sides have their minds made up and no one has changed their view on tongues. This thread has gone in circles. Everyone is basically restating what they have previously stated. Myself included. I now opt to bow out of this debate. I feel I have presented my view rather well based on my understanding of the scriptures. I am sorry I cannot agree with the opposing viewpoint but such is life. I will have to agree to disagree.

There was a time where I wanted to believe in speaking in tongues. However, after a lengthly study, I was proved otherwise. I feel a whole lot better now than I did before entering my study. I feel as if a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. I no longer carry the burden of worrying about my closeness with God because I don't speak in tongues. I pray to God in English and that has been working just fine. I feel built up from praying to God in my English tongue. :amen

God Bless,

Dave

 

[FightingAtheism]

Fighting Atheism, what is it going to take for you to see that the tongues spoken in Acts on the day of Pentecost were earthly tongues? It specifically says:

Acts 2:8 KJV
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were BORN?

It doesn't get any clearer than that. People speak in the native language where they are born. I was born in the USA so my native language is English. People do not speak in a private prayer language as their native language. Just because some of the on lookers accused the tongue speakers of being drunk does not automatically mean they weren't speaking in earthly languages. I am sometimes accused of being drunk when I get silly, but I am still speaking in English.

On the day of Pentecost, the tongue speakers spoke in the languages of those gathered in the crowd. The crowd was made up up foreigners who spoke in various foreign languages. They (the crowd) heard them (the disciples) speak in their (the crowd's) own language. These were earthly native languages and not a private prayer language or an unknown tongue.

You say that the defintion tongues are speaking in a prayer language. I disagree and so do the scriptures. I will show you.

Acts 26:14 ... I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Ezra 4:7... and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.

Revelation 9:11... whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

As you can see from these various scriptures, tongues are earthly languages. None of the tongues mentioned in these passages are praying in an unknown tongue or praying in the spirit. Furthermore, Ezra 4:7 says that an earthly language (Syrian) is being interpreted. This is not speaking of a private prayer language.

The difference between the tongues in Acts and the tongues in Corinthians is that the tongues in Acts needed no interpretation where as they did at Corinth.

I have spent many long hours reading a wide variety of material on tongues and tongue speakers are very relentless to say the least. They all use the same arguments, it's almost like they all have been trained to supply the same answers. I do not buy into their interpretation. I however, am only human so I cannot say my interpretation is always perfect. I will respect your interpretation if you respect mine. We diasgree and that is fine. I am just sick and tired of tongue speakers acting like they are right and everyone else is wrong. And that seems to be the case whenever you enter a debate on tongues.

This is exactly why it is almost a waste of time to even debate it. Both sides have their minds made up and no one has changed their view on tongues. This thread has gone in circles. Everyone is basically restating what they have previously stated. Myself included. I now opt to bow out of this debate. I feel I have presented my view rather well based on my understanding of the scriptures. I am sorry I cannot agree with the opposing viewpoint but such is life. I will have to agree to disagree.

There was a time where I wanted to believe in speaking in tongues. However, after a lengthly study, I was proved otherwise. I feel a whole lot better now than I did before entering my study. I feel as if a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. I no longer carry the burden of worrying about my closeness with God because I don't speak in tongues. I pray to God in English and that has been working just fine. I feel built up from praying to God in my English tongue. :amen

God Bless,

Dave

Fighting Atheism, what is it going to take for you to see that the tongues spoken in Acts on the day of Pentecost were earthly tongues? It specifically says:

Acts 2:8 KJV
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were BORN?

It doesn't get any clearer than that. People speak in the native language where they are born. I was born in the USA so my native language is English. People do not speak in a private prayer language as their native language. Just because some of the on lookers accused the tongue speakers of being drunk does not automatically mean they weren't speaking in earthly languages. I am sometimes accused of being drunk when I get silly, but I am still speaking in English.

On the day of Pentecost, the tongue speakers spoke in the languages of those gathered in the crowd. The crowd was made up up foreigners who spoke in various foreign languages. They (the crowd) heard them (the disciples) speak in their (the crowd's) own language. These were earthly native languages and not a private prayer language or an unknown tongue.

You say that the defintion tongues are speaking in a prayer language. I disagree and so do the scriptures. I will show you.

Dave, I gave you a very clear interpretation of Acts 2, and 1 Corinthians 14:2,14,15 support my interpretation. It is very clear, otherwise there's a contradiction.

You say that the defintion tongues are speaking in a prayer language. I disagree and so do the scriptures. I will show you.

Acts 26:14 ... I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Ezra 4:7... and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.

Revelation 9:11... whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

As you can see from these various scriptures, tongues are earthly languages. None of the tongues mentioned in these passages are praying in an unknown tongue or praying in the spirit. Furthermore, Ezra 4:7 says that an earthly language (Syrian) is being interpreted. This is not speaking of a private prayer language.

The difference between the tongues in Acts and the tongues in Corinthians is that the tongues in Acts needed no interpretation where as they did at Corinth.

The Greek manuscripts never use the word "tongue" when speaking about an earthly language. The word "tongue" is only used when speaking about the subject of tongues, unknown tongues.

2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(1Co.14:2)

14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
(1Co.14:14,15)

First of all, tongues is not to speak unto men (unless there's an interpreter), but to pray. Secondly, no one understands, not you, not others around you ("for no man understandeth him"). Thirdly, it is praying mysteries in the spirit. Lastly, you can see how verses 14 and 15 say that there's a difference b/w praying with the spirit and praying with the understanding. Big clue. It's an "unknown tongue". It is very, very clear, probably takes an open mind to one understand...

I am just sick and tired of tongue speakers acting like they are right and everyone else is wrong. And that seems to be the case whenever you enter a debate on tongues.

This doctrine is based on scripture! Of course they are correct!

This is exactly why it is almost a waste of time to even debate it. Both sides have their minds made up and no one has changed their view on tongues. This thread has gone in circles. Everyone is basically restating what they have previously stated. Myself included. I now opt to bow out of this debate. I feel I have presented my view rather well based on my understanding of the scriptures. I am sorry I cannot agree with the opposing viewpoint but such is life. I will have to agree to disagree.

And I am shocked of so many passages I bring up and people just ignore them.

I pray to God in English and that has been working just fine. I feel built up from praying to God in my English tongue.

You also need the ability to pray in the spirit.

 

[Dave Slayer]

Fighting Atheism, this is my last and final response to you conerning tongues. I believe I have went over all of the scriptures you have posted in my previous posts. I will not waste my time doing so again. If I missed some, it wasn't intentional. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe, please respect that. We both believe we are right but at least one of us is wrong. I could very well be wrong but I am willing to die believing the way I do. If I am wrong, God will tell me someday. However, by then, it won't matter.

I believe I pray in the spirit when I pray according to the spirit's leading. I do not need you telling me how I should pray. I do not believe I am praying in an unscriptural fashion. I certainly do not pray in contradiction on how Jesus taught us to pray.

Mark my words, this is my last post on tongues. I have stuck around too long as it is. I will spend my valulable time with something better. If you feel you have won this debate, feel free to march around town celebrating.

God Bless,

Dave

 

[Imagican]

It's amazing how EASY it is for people to CHOOSE to believe what they WANT to believe. And then actually attempt to use scripture to prove it.

Tongues are plainly spoken of in the NT. We have evidence of ONLY ONE TYPE OF TONGUES. While there ARE those that would insist that there are TWO. The Bible plainly refers to ONLY ONE.

Unknown tongues were a GIFT of The Spirit, (as the Spirit GIVES UTTERANCE), given TO THE APOSTLES and their direct contacts in order to START The Church. The apostles were commissioned with a monumental task and 'tongues' were a gift offered IN Spirit for them to be ABLE to speak to those of DIFFERENT languages. The MIRACLE of tongues is that there were those that had NEVER learned to speak in particular languages but WERE able to BE understood IN different languages WHEN THEY SPOKE. The evidence of what I offer is contained within the book of ACTS. We have clearly defined statements that 'tongues' were spoken at Pentacost and there were those present that, NOT ONLY understood what was being spoken by the apostles, but in their OWN particular DIALECT, (indicative of the EXACT REGION in which they came from).

Do tongues exist today? If there were a REASON for The Spirit to EMPOWER one with tongues, MOST CERTAINLY. But, are we STILL in the 'church BEGINNING' stage of God's Word? I think NOT.

I have YET to witness 'tongues' as offered up in scripture. I HAVE witnessed what some CALL 'tongues', but these have NOT conformed to that offered up in The Word. Therefore, it only stands to reason that 'someone' created this NEW 'tongues' and taught it irresponsibly to others. And through their ZEAL to produce EVIDENCE of The Spirit, they instead, began to show evidence of A spirit. For we were TOLD to covet the BEST gifts and 'tongues' were NOT listed in these.

Here's the deal folks. Paul tried to 'set straight' the truth behind 'tongues' as offered up BY The Spirit. One, two, no more than THREE in a 'gathering'. And BY COURSE, (in order). There MUST be an interpreter. Women are NOT ABLE to speak in 'tongues' IN a GATHERING. And the most important issue concerning the USE of 'tongues'. They are ONLY able to BE uttered AS The Spirit GIVES utterance. Tongues are FOR A SIGN. NOT for 'them that believe, but for them that BELIEVE NOT'. Now, IF 'tongues' do NOT conform to what is offered here, then they CANNOT be 'TRUE tongues'. Either what I offer is TRUTH, or Paul was a LIAR. So, for those that insist upon inane gibberish BEING tongues. And those that INSIST that women CAN speak them in 'the Chruch'. Or those that believe that they can ALL speak at ONCE or WITHOUT an 'interpreter', you have CHOSEN to believe in something that is NOT Offered THROUGH The Spirit. It's really THAT SIMPLE.

Just because 'someone' TAUGHT you to believe does NOT make what they taught you conform to THE TRUTH.

No different than me coming along and telling people that they MUST FALL DOWN in order to be filled with The Spirit. JUST because I DEMONSTRATED the ILLUSION that WHEN I was filled with the Spirit I FELL DOWN does NOT make it TRUTH. A spirit, NO DOUBT. But THE Spirit CANNOT go AGAINST ITSELF. And the words that Paul offered were THROUGH The Spirit.

Blessings,

MEC