Stupid Question / Looking for a bit of Insight / Deaf-Mute

[Kavik]

First, let me preface this post by saying that I’m not trying to sound wise, it’s a legitimate question I’m hoping to get some better insight into……

In some Christian paths, for a person to be ‘saved’, they must undergo a ‘spirit baptism’; this, in turn, is required to be ‘evidenced’ by a phenomenon called ‘speaking in tongues’.

Seems fairly straightforward, however, what happens if the individual in question is deaf or mute, or both, or, for whatever physical/mental reasons cannot produce speech (their own language or otherwise)??

Do they speak “tongues” it in their head, are they somehow exempt from this requirement? How does it work with these individuals??

Yes, I know for some paths, “tongues” do not need to be evidenced; I’m asking about those traditions in which it is, for all intents and purposes, a doctrinal “requirement” based upon their beliefs.

 

[Blain]

It's not a stupid question at all. But even if they were deaf or mute since when is God limited by human limitations?

 

[Kavik]

Yes, agreed; but if one has to adhere strictly to the "evidence of tongues" doctrine, how is the above dealt with?

 

[Musicus]

Seems to me it would first be evidenced by a healing of the tongue. I don't know of any "doctrine" covering this.

 

[MarcR]

I do NOT see any Scriptural basis for any expectation that a saved person will speak in tongues.

1 Cor 14:19-23
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
KJV


1 Cor 14:39-40
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
KJV

That which we are instructed NOT TO FORBID can certainly not be required.

 

[Musicus]

Seems to me it would first be evidenced by a healing of the tongue. I don't know of any "doctrine" covering this.

There are other Spiritual gifts that would be evident I think if God didn't make that person 'whole'. I don't have any scripture to back that up, but I'm looking. I think it's a darn good question.

 

[Kavik]

@ MarcR - neither do I, but that's a story for another day.

@ Musicus - Yes, that seems reasonable too; i.e. that other gifts may become apparent with the individual that would 'evidence' their baptism in the Spirit.

But again, if your doctrinal beliefs are such that 'baptism in the Spirit' must carry the "initial evidence of tongues" - what then?

Or, is it possible that deaf/mute individuals are not at all drawn to these particular Christian denominations so it becomes strictly an academic question?

 

[tourist]

@ MarcR - neither do I, but that's a story for another day.

@ Musicus - Yes, that seems reasonable too; i.e. that other gifts may become apparent with the individual that would 'evidence' their baptism in the Spirit.

But again, if your doctrinal beliefs are such that 'baptism in the Spirit' must carry the "initial evidence of tongues" - what then?

Or, is it possible that deaf/mute individuals are not at all drawn to these particular Christian denominations so it becomes strictly an academic question?

Where in the bible does it say that baptism in the Spirit must carry the initial evidence of tongues? Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit and not indicative of one's salvation. Even demons speak in tongues. If it is a requirement for those who are born again to speak in tongues than it is no longer a gift. If this is true than virtually no one has obtained salvation and reading and studying the Word of God and praying for it to applied in one's life would be pointless. In infant that dies did not speak in tongues unless you include babbling. Is this little child not saved?

 

[Depleted]

@ MarcR - neither do I, but that's a story for another day.

@ Musicus - Yes, that seems reasonable too; i.e. that other gifts may become apparent with the individual that would 'evidence' their baptism in the Spirit.

But again, if your doctrinal beliefs are such that 'baptism in the Spirit' must carry the "initial evidence of tongues" - what then?

Or, is it possible that deaf/mute individuals are not at all drawn to these particular Christian denominations so it becomes strictly an academic question?

When the Lord saved me, I landed in such a group as that. I suffered with that for eight years, because I never could speak in tongues, so ended up thinking I wasn't "really saved."

Just remembering the mindset of the people I landed in, this scenario cannot happen. Not that God can't do it, but they can't do it. They also believe "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of God."

Ipso facto, a deaf person can't come to faith because they can't hear, so they'd never try to reach out to such a person. (Hey, didn't handle mute, but did deal with deaf and mute.)

 

[Depleted]

Where in the bible does it say that baptism in the Spirit must carry the initial evidence of tongues? Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit and not indicative of one's salvation. Even demons speak in tongues. If it is a requirement for those who are born again to speak in tongues than it is no longer a gift. If this is true than virtually no one has obtained salvation and reading and studying the Word of God and praying for it to applied in one's life would be pointless. In infant that dies did not speak in tongues unless you include babbling. Is this little child not saved?

Kavik isn't denying that. He's asking how the people who think tongue-talking is a requirement handle those who physically can't talk with tongue.

 

[JB2018]

First, let me preface this post by saying that I’m not trying to sound wise, it’s a legitimate question I’m hoping to get some better insight into……

In some Christian paths, for a person to be ‘saved’, they must undergo a ‘spirit baptism’; this, in turn, is required to be ‘evidenced’ by a phenomenon called ‘speaking in tongues’.

Seems fairly straightforward, however, what happens if the individual in question is deaf or mute, or both, or, for whatever physical/mental reasons cannot produce speech (their own language or otherwise)??

Do they speak “tongues” it in their head, are they somehow exempt from this requirement? How does it work with these individuals??

Yes, I know for some paths, “tongues” do not need to be evidenced; I’m asking about those traditions in which it is, for all intents and purposes, a doctrinal “requirement” based upon their beliefs.

This is God you are talking about. This is the great am I. This is the one who separated night from day , placed the stars, moon, sun, etc in its rightful place. This is the one who spoke and things began to form. He is not limited by anything. If he had the ability to open a donkey's mouth and allow it to speak (Numbers 22:28) , then surely he can speak through someone who is deaf.

 

[RickyZ]

if your doctrinal beliefs are such that 'baptism in the Spirit' must carry the "initial evidence of tongues" - what then?

Your question is based on an error.

Thus, any response will be in error as well.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

When the Lord saved me, I landed in such a group as that. I suffered with that for eight years, because I never could speak in tongues, so ended up thinking I wasn't "really saved."

Just remembering the mindset of the people I landed in, this scenario cannot happen. Not that God can't do it, but they can't do it. They also believe "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of God."

Ipso facto, a deaf person can't come to faith because they can't hear, so they'd never try to reach out to such a person. (Hey, didn't handle mute, but did deal with deaf and mute.)

This is ridiculous - not just your response but the whole idea of the thread! A deaf person CAN "hear" the word of God - just as they can learn many other things! They can't speak because they can't hear . . . . NOT because they are DUMB!

BTW, I do believe tongues is the "evidence", i.e. the "manifestation" of the gift of holy Spirit - but a doctrinal "requirement" - NO.

 

[Musicus]

But again, if your doctrinal beliefs are such that 'baptism in the Spirit' must carry the "initial evidence of tongues" - what then?

Then reconsider what you believe. Scripture doesn't back it.

 

[Kavik]

Some interesting responses - thanks.

Yes I agree with what most are saying about the idea that the question is essentially based on an error; however, as I understand it, there are certain Christian denominations that hold that 'baptism in the Spirit' is initially evidenced by "speaking in tongues". If, at some point, they do not start 'speaking in tongues', they are not truly 'saved' (I can't think of the name(s) of these particular denominations - AoG maybe?).

I had thought it was part of their doctrinal beliefs, but perhaps not. Yes, a deaf person, assuming they can read and write, can certainly "hear" the word of God.

The question has more to do, as "Depleted" alluded to, what happens in this situation when a person undergoes a Spirit baptism, but (for whatever reason) is incapable of producing speech, thus is unable to demonstrate "initial evidence of tongues" that is required (or perhaps I should say...that they are, uh, "strongly encouraged" to produce)? Are they, in the eyes of the church, exempt from demonstrating 'initial evidence of tongues'?

 

[RickyZ]

So in effect you are asking a particular denomination (whatever that may be) to defend their erroneous doctrine?

 

[RickyZ]

Is there a denomination that believes someone born without legs cannot be saved because they cannot "walk the walk"?

 

[Locutus]

I guess they could sign in tongues......but most of us wouldn't know either way..

 

[Depleted]

This is ridiculous - not just your response but the whole idea of the thread! A deaf person CAN "hear" the word of God - just as they can learn many other things! They can't speak because they can't hear . . . . NOT because they are DUMB!

BTW, I do believe tongues is the "evidence", i.e. the "manifestation" of the gift of holy Spirit - but a doctrinal "requirement" - NO.

You just like to argue, don't you?

I haven't seen the "peaceful" part of you in years. I do vaguely remember you used to be peaceful, but now everything is all about arguing.

 

[Depleted]

Some interesting responses - thanks.

Yes I agree with what most are saying about the idea that the question is essentially based on an error; however, as I understand it, there are certain Christian denominations that hold that 'baptism in the Spirit' is initially evidenced by "speaking in tongues". If, at some point, they do not start 'speaking in tongues', they are not truly 'saved' (I can't think of the name(s) of these particular denominations - AoG maybe?).

I had thought it was part of their doctrinal beliefs, but perhaps not. Yes, a deaf person, assuming they can read and write, can certainly "hear" the word of God.

The question has more to do, as "Depleted" alluded to, what happens in this situation when a person undergoes a Spirit baptism, but (for whatever reason) is incapable of producing speech, thus is unable to demonstrate "initial evidence of tongues" that is required (or perhaps I should say...that they are, uh, "strongly encouraged" to produce)? Are they, in the eyes of the church, exempt from demonstrating 'initial evidence of tongues'?

It is something out of AoG, but it isn't all of AoG.

My memories come from the early 1970s. I think it might have been a more accepted teaching back then. And yet I know, for sure, that there are AoGers on this site who see that and think, "What in the world are they talking about? Never heard that. Boy, is that dumb!" I'm hoping that's a sign that people thought that out and figured, "Not even" along the way. lol