What really were the gift of tongues? Acts.. and Corinthians...

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,987
1,014
113
New Zealand
#1
So... I have always thought that the gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit was ..
* earthly languages..
*spoken by someone who doesn't know them..
* given by God..
*for unbelievers from other dialects to hear the gospel.. to share the gospel and spread the early churches.

This is what you see in Acts 2 with the church at Jerusalem.

It's the clearest example of tongues without any influence from Paganism.. or Gnosticism etc.. that affected other churches.

But then you see it a little differently in Corinthians.. and I am wondering..

Was the church of Corinth.. meant to be doing it just like Acts? Or was there more to tongues than just what happened in Acts 2?

Please show biblical support.

Cheers :)

from

Michael
 
Sep 11, 2015
64
0
0
#2
your not supposed to speak in tongues. that was for the deciples. and it says that you cant speak in tounges unless there is someone to interpret so since none of the deciples are around no one can do it. and it looks real silly pretending to speak in a way u couldn't do twice the same. and you cant putting sounds to words. if so write down the sound u make with its corresponding word in english
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,987
1,014
113
New Zealand
#3
your not supposed to speak in tongues. that was for the deciples. and it says that you cant speak in tounges unless there is someone to interpret so since none of the deciples are around no one can do it. and it looks real silly pretending to speak in a way u couldn't do twice the same. and you cant putting sounds to words. if so write down the sound u make with its corresponding word in english
I agree they have passed away.. with the completion of the canon and death of the apostles.. but I still want to know what they really were...

I don't really want to get into the debate of whether they are for now or not.. but just to look biblically at what they really were..
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#4
First to Enlightend we believers of Jesus Christ are disciples !!!

Second to the OP the gift of tongues has two usages, the one at Pentecost in Acts 2 as you have already brought up which is earthly languages. This form of tongues have not ceased but because of so many interpreters now days and people learning to be bilingual it is less done.

I do however remember reading an article awhile back where a man who only spoke English came across another man who spoke only Chinese. When speaking the Word of God to him the Chinese man understood every word he said, and it was not until he got done speaking to the man he noticed as he was told by others he couldn't speak English but somehow understood what he told him. I would like to find that article again !!!

The other is the language of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1) for speaking to God in prayer, and this form is for self-edification. It is to never be done in front of others unless one can interpret what is said, as it would confuse, scare, and cause doubts in others.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
#5
When God speaks all understand without respect to language. Acts 2 is clear evidence of this.

The first reference to languages is Babel. Differing languages and the ensuing confusion was as a direct result of judgment. Tongues in Jewish history has always been a sign of judgment.

Corinth was a church that had corrupted the Holy Spirit's ministry of speaking to unsaved people in their native languages.

There is no evidence of angelic tongues and their usage as prayer language. There is not one recorded instance of angels speaking in a tongue of their own. It is believed that Paul is speaking of hyperbole when his raises the angelic tongues matter and that as a means to teach the disciples of their lack of depth in the subject.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#6
the purpose of tongues:

Brothers, don’t be childish in your thinking, but be infants in regard to evil and adult in your thinking. It is written in the law:

I will speak to these people
by people of other languages
and by the lips of foreigners,
and even then, they will not listen to Me,


says the Lord. It follows that speaking in other languages is intended as a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers.

(1 Corinthians 14:20-22)

a sign for the unbelieving Jews. that God would offer His Salvation to all people.
there were Jews present at every instance of speaking in tongues recorded in Acts.
but how many unbelieving Jews were there at Azusa street?

 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
#7
So... I have always thought that the gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit was ..
* earthly languages..
*spoken by someone who doesn't know them..
* given by God..
*for unbelievers from other dialects to hear the gospel.. to share the gospel and spread the early churches.

This is what you see in Acts 2 with the church at Jerusalem.

It's the clearest example of tongues without any influence from Paganism.. or Gnosticism etc.. that affected other churches.

But then you see it a little differently in Corinthians.. and I am wondering..

Was the church of Corinth.. meant to be doing it just like Acts? Or was there more to tongues than just what happened in Acts 2?

Please show biblical support.

Cheers :)

from

Michael
I'll give you a good piece of advice, Michael..... only accept scripture as evidence for any doctrine. DO NOT accept church history, as it is seriously tainted with sin.

Acts 20:28-31 (KJV) [SUP]28 [/SUP]Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [SUP]29 [/SUP]For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. [SUP]30 [/SUP]Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. [SUP]31 [/SUP]Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Just because the church "quit" doing something, that doesn't mean it was God-led. Look at what the church doesn't do today.:)
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
#8
I'll give you a good piece of advice, Michael..... only accept scripture as evidence for any doctrine. DO NOT accept church history, as it is seriously tainted with sin.

Acts 20:28-31 (KJV) [SUP]28 [/SUP]Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [SUP]29 [/SUP]For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. [SUP]30 [/SUP]Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. [SUP]31 [/SUP]Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Physician heal thyself.
Just because the church "quit" doing something, that doesn't mean it was God-led. Look at what the church doesn't do today.:)
Depends on which church you are talking about. The church that is church or the church that says it's church. The Great Shepherd protects His flock from wolves and all harms.

His flock hears His voice and not the confusion of another tongue.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
#9
I'll give you a good piece of advice, Michael..... only accept scripture as evidence for any doctrine. DO NOT accept church history, as it is seriously tainted with sin.

Acts 20:28-31 (KJV) [SUP]28 [/SUP]Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [SUP]29 [/SUP]For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. [SUP]30 [/SUP]Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. [SUP]31 [/SUP]Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Just because the church "quit" doing something, that doesn't mean it was God-led. Look at what the church doesn't do today.:)
Physician heal thyself.
Depends on which church you are talking about. The church that is church or the church that says it's church. The Great Shepherd protects His flock from wolves and all harms.

His flock hears His voice and not the confusion of another tongue.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
So, which is right..... what you quoted, or what I quoted?

Actually, they're both right. It depends on the individual. Those that press toward the mark (Philippians 3:13-15) will be protected. But those that live a haphazard, nonchalant lifestyle can be taken by wolves. That's what happens with the "falling away", remember?
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,987
1,014
113
New Zealand
#10
When God speaks all understand without respect to language. Acts 2 is clear evidence of this.

The first reference to languages is Babel. Differing languages and the ensuing confusion was as a direct result of judgment. Tongues in Jewish history has always been a sign of judgment.

Corinth was a church that had corrupted the Holy Spirit's ministry of speaking to unsaved people in their native languages.

There is no evidence of angelic tongues and their usage as prayer language. There is not one recorded instance of angels speaking in a tongue of their own. It is believed that Paul is speaking of hyperbole when his raises the angelic tongues matter and that as a means to teach the disciples of their lack of depth in the subject.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Okay, so you are saying the 'angels' reference is like saying
'if i could speak in the tongue of angels it would be nothing compared to the faith, hope and love from Jesus.

Not that paul could speak in an angel tongue, but giving a picture as an example
Is that kind of it?

'
 
Last edited:

Lancelot

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2015
168
13
18
#11
First of all, nobody preached in tongues on the Day of Pentecost, and there was no need to since they all spoke the common language of Koine Greek. They were proclaiming the wondrous works of God in other languages as a sign, but that's not preaching the gospel. The preaching was done by Peter after the crowd gathered around them wondering what was going on.

Second, there are different uses of tongues. The first is what we see at Pentecost, the second is praying in tongues for edification in your private devotions.

The third is for public assembly which requires an interpreter according to Paul.

Fourth there is the ministry of tongues listed along with apostles, prophets, and teachers in I Corinthians 12:30.

And finally there is tongues in intercessory prayer.

Many people make the mistake of thinking there's only one use of tongues and anything that doesn't fit into that category is rejected. Paul said that there are diverse (numerous, or various) kinds of tongues in I Corinthians 12:10. You won't understand the gift of tongues unless you grasp what Paul was referring to.

Read more about it here.
 
E

ember

Guest
#12
yeah...what I want to know, is have you not considered the rest of what the Bible has to say concerning tongues and the other gifts of the Spirit as they are referred to?

you posted in that last dreadful thread on tongues (which I wish I had never participated in) and I answered you...you and I had no disagreement other than that we disagreed on regarding the current use of tongues

however, lancelot above this post, has pretty much supplied simple info with a link

you really do not have a good understanding of this subject matter

hope you look into it more but please understand that most of us absolutely do NOT believe you must speak in tongues to be saved...that's just not in the Bible...tongues have never saved anyone! Only Jesus does
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
#13
First of all, nobody preached in tongues on the Day of Pentecost, and there was no need to since they all spoke the common language of Koine Greek.
Acts 2:7-11 (KJV) [SUP]7 [/SUP]And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? [SUP]8 [/SUP]And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? [SUP]9 [/SUP]Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, [SUP]10 [/SUP]Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, [SUP]11 [/SUP]Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Sorry, dude..... the gift of tongues & prophecy were both used in these scriptures. :)
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,987
1,014
113
New Zealand
#14
yeah...what I want to know, is have you not considered the rest of what the Bible has to say concerning tongues and the other gifts of the Spirit as they are referred to?

you posted in that last dreadful thread on tongues (which I wish I had never participated in) and I answered you...you and I had no disagreement other than that we disagreed on regarding the current use of tongues

however, lancelot above this post, has pretty much supplied simple info with a link
I
you really do not have a good understanding of this subject matter

hope you look into it more but please understand that most of us absolutely do NOT believe you must speak in tongues to be saved...that's just not in the Bible...tongues have never saved anyone! Only Jesus does
Thanks for that Ember. I am starting to get a better impression of what tongues are in the bible.

I am still figuring whether the Corinthians were just distorting the way it was done in Acts or whether there was more to it. Ill look into what lancelot typed.
 
Last edited:
E

ember

Guest
#15
Thanks for that Ember. I am starting to get a better impression of what tongues are in the bible.

I am still figuring whether the Corinthians were just distorting the way it was done in Acts or whether there was more to it. Ill look into what lancelot typed.
My background was anti-tongues so I totally get the other side...

The Corinthians, I believe scripture indicates, were just all speaking in tongues...not as in the Book of Acts .. because Paul basically says to them that he would rather speak 5 words and be understood then speak 10,000 and no one understands

however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. I corinthians 14:19

This is a correction on the use of tongues in public meetings...not a negation of tongues as Paul also goes on to say that he speaks in tongues more than anyone and he also states do not forbid to speak in tongues...so the correction is to do things decently and in order

This church had a number of serious problems and excesses...so tongues is not the focus of Corinthians that I can see

this is really not something to argue about, but it is a major thing for some
 

Lancelot

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2015
168
13
18
#16
Acts 2:7-11 (KJV) [SUP]7 [/SUP]And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? [SUP]8 [/SUP]And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? [SUP]9 [/SUP]Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, [SUP]10 [/SUP]Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, [SUP]11 [/SUP]Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Sorry, dude..... the gift of tongues & prophecy were both used in these scriptures. :)
I'm not sure I understand your point. Sure, there's an element of prophecy in declaring the wonderful works of God, but that's not what got their attention. It was the supernatural aspect of saying those things in the native languages of the hearers. My point was that 1. They weren't preaching in tongues 2. They didn't need to preach in tongues because all of those people understood Koine Greek which is likely the language Peter preached in 3. Tongues as a sign is just one of several uses and manifestations of tongues. Does that help?
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,987
1,014
113
New Zealand
#17
My background was anti-tongues so I totally get the other side...

The Corinthians, I believe scripture indicates, were just all speaking in tongues...not as in the Book of Acts .. because Paul basically says to them that he would rather speak 5 words and be understood then speak 10,000 and no one understands

however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. I corinthians 14:19

This is a correction on the use of tongues in public meetings...not a negation of tongues as Paul also goes on to say that he speaks in tongues more than anyone and he also states do not forbid to speak in tongues...so the correction is to do things decently and in order

This church had a number of serious problems and excesses...so tongues is not the focus of Corinthians that I can see

this is really not something to argue about, but it is a major thing for some
Yeah so I am picking up on the fact Paul was talking about tongues and doing them decently and in order.. with the Corinthian church..

So in Acts 2.. there were many many people speaking in languages of the listeners.. but they did understand..

Looks like in Corinthians.. they were speaking in Holy Spirit given languages without interpreters. Confusion ensuing. Paul then rebuking that practice..

I want to know why tongues would change from Acts to Corinthians? Jews vs Gentile congregations?

There was a series of tapes from John McArthur that really covered this deeply I would like to track down on what was going on with the church of Corinth.. and on the topic of spiritual gifts in general.

I don't agree with him in a number of areas.. but those tapes were really in depth, solid.

Me thinks me need to study more.. :)
 
W

weakness

Guest
#18
When God speaks all understand without respect to language. Acts 2 is clear evidence of this.

The first reference to languages is Babel. Differing languages and the ensuing confusion was as a direct result of judgment. Tongues in Jewish history has always been a sign of judgment.

Corinth was a church that had corrupted the Holy Spirit's ministry of speaking to unsaved people in their native languages.

There is no evidence of angelic tongues and their usage as prayer language. There is not one recorded instance of angels speaking in a tongue of their own. It is believed that Paul is speaking of hyperbole when his raises the angelic tongues matter and that as a means to teach the disciples of their lack of depth in the subject.

For the cause of Christ
Roger[/QUOTE Joel spoke of tongues for the Jews which was fulfilled in Acts where every man heard in their own language. Also Paul said that his Spirit prays but his understanding , this unfruitful, when he knows not what to pray also says he prays in tongues more than they all. I think there are two distinctions.
 

Lancelot

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2015
168
13
18
#19
Corinth was a church that had corrupted the Holy Spirit's ministry of speaking to unsaved people in their native languages.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Corinth was not corrupting the ministry of speaking to unsaved people in their native languages. Again, Paul stated that there are diversities or varieties of tongues. (I Cor. 12:28) He was addressing a different application of tongues. They were misusing tongues in their church meetings by speaking in tongues to saved people at the same time without the gift of interpretation in manifestation. This created confusion, and God is not the author of confusion. Paul said that they should speak one at a time with an interpreter present, and that they should limit these messages to two or three. (I Cor. 14:26-28)
 
E

ember

Guest
#20
Yeah so I am picking up on the fact Paul was talking about tongues and doing them decently and in order.. with the Corinthian church..

So in Acts 2.. there were many many people speaking in languages of the listeners.. but they did understand..

Looks like in Corinthians.. they were speaking in Holy Spirit given languages without interpreters. Confusion ensuing. Paul then rebuking that practice..

I want to know why tongues would change from Acts to Corinthians? Jews vs Gentile congregations?

There was a series of tapes from John McArthur that really covered this deeply I would like to track down on what was going on with the church of Corinth.. and on the topic of spiritual gifts in general.

I don't agree with him in a number of areas.. but those tapes were really in depth, solid.

Me thinks me need to study more.. :)
John MacArthur is a cessationist, isn't he? He would be writing from the viewpoint that tongues have ceases when in fact they have not

It is not that tongues changed so much as there are different uses of tongues...all valid