Speaking in tongues
- Thread starter salty227
- Start date
-
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.
H
Pentecostal doctrine believes in two encounters with the Holy Spirit.
The first is when you are saved. When you are saved you receive the HS.
The second is a 'second blessing' which is for empowerment.
At Jesus' baptism, he received the spirit. DO you think he wasn't saved beforehand???? Do you think he didn't have the spirit beforehand???
In Acts this pattern is repeated a number of times, with the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-16, with Paul in Acts 9:17, with the Corinthians in Acts 19:4-6. It wasn't a once off thing.
Also there appears to be TWO different phenomena of tongues.
The First is in Acts 2, where people speak in different human tongues to people. This still happens today at times. I know of a missionary called Charles Haupt, who worked amongst the bushmen. There are two different bushman dialects. He knew one but didn't know the other. One day he was traveling and got stuck, completely stuck in the middle of the kahalari bush. He came across some bushmen, who spoke the other dialect. At that time for a few minutes he was enabled to speak and understand the other dialect.
The second is referred to in 1 Corinthians. This is about personal edification. Paul mentions speaking in the tongues of men and angels (1 Cor 13:1). When used in a congregational setting, he says there should be interpretation, BECAUSE of its misuse in that situation. He also encourages all to prayer in tongues (1 Cor 14:5). Clearly this gift is different because people don't understand what is being said, as opposed to Acts 2, where everybody understood.
Unfortunately there is too much talk about tongues, without real scriptural understanding, and with too much judgment of other Christians (James 3:1).
The first is when you are saved. When you are saved you receive the HS.
The second is a 'second blessing' which is for empowerment.
At Jesus' baptism, he received the spirit. DO you think he wasn't saved beforehand???? Do you think he didn't have the spirit beforehand???
In Acts this pattern is repeated a number of times, with the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-16, with Paul in Acts 9:17, with the Corinthians in Acts 19:4-6. It wasn't a once off thing.
Also there appears to be TWO different phenomena of tongues.
The First is in Acts 2, where people speak in different human tongues to people. This still happens today at times. I know of a missionary called Charles Haupt, who worked amongst the bushmen. There are two different bushman dialects. He knew one but didn't know the other. One day he was traveling and got stuck, completely stuck in the middle of the kahalari bush. He came across some bushmen, who spoke the other dialect. At that time for a few minutes he was enabled to speak and understand the other dialect.
The second is referred to in 1 Corinthians. This is about personal edification. Paul mentions speaking in the tongues of men and angels (1 Cor 13:1). When used in a congregational setting, he says there should be interpretation, BECAUSE of its misuse in that situation. He also encourages all to prayer in tongues (1 Cor 14:5). Clearly this gift is different because people don't understand what is being said, as opposed to Acts 2, where everybody understood.
Unfortunately there is too much talk about tongues, without real scriptural understanding, and with too much judgment of other Christians (James 3:1).
L
this is a very clear explanation of mainstream charismatic doctrine on tongues.
I don't agree with it, but it is very hard to argue against this position as it is backed by Biblical accounts. All arguments against it are based in logic and theological philosophy, not solely on Scripture.
What I can say from Scripture is this: not all who receive the Spirit are given the gift of tongues, because some are given other gifts, like prophecy and so on. Tongues has always been considered as one of the lesser gifts within the Bible. Prophecy and teaching are considered greater.
I don't agree with it, but it is very hard to argue against this position as it is backed by Biblical accounts. All arguments against it are based in logic and theological philosophy, not solely on Scripture.
What I can say from Scripture is this: not all who receive the Spirit are given the gift of tongues, because some are given other gifts, like prophecy and so on. Tongues has always been considered as one of the lesser gifts within the Bible. Prophecy and teaching are considered greater.
Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
(1 Corinthians 14:1-5)
could someone explain how this section of scripture is encouraging us all to pray in tongues?
because it looks like this has nothing to do with prayer at all, and here a few verses down Paul seems to encourage quite the opposite:
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.
What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.
(1 Corinthians 14:13-15)
On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
(1 Corinthians 14:1-5)
could someone explain how this section of scripture is encouraging us all to pray in tongues?
because it looks like this has nothing to do with prayer at all, and here a few verses down Paul seems to encourage quite the opposite:
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.
What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.
(1 Corinthians 14:13-15)
as i understand it, this is what "praying in tongues" or "prayer language" sounds like according to scripture:
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
(Romans 8:26)
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
(Romans 8:26)
From what you've said I'm just getting the impression that there may be something a bit off here. A lot of this sounds like spiritual elitism and empire building. If your church is fostering an attitude of spiritual superiority over other believers and that the only way people can serve God and build his kingdom is to serve within the ministries of your church, this is not good. Pray for discernment to know whether what is happening in this church is really of God or not.
I've been in churches and ministries across the spectrum from not believing that tongues can actually exist today to declaring that tongues are available to every believer and all should speak in tongues and having times in the service that they're like "can we just all pray in tongues for a moment". I have yet to hear a convincing biblical argument for either extreme. Tongues proponents will use any reference to praying in the spirit as people using tongues, but I'm not sure how accurate that interpretation of it is (makes it sound like the only way we can be connected with God's spirit in prayer is by tongues).
What we can know from scripture is that speaking in tongues was one of the major initial signs of the coming of the power of the holy spirit ( John 20:22 bears mentioning as Jesus breathes on his followers and tells them to receive the holy spirit before pentecost here but there is no speaking in tongues). It happened on the day of pentecost and was a dramatic revelation of God's power, it happened in cornelius' home (the first non-Jews to get the HS), and there are a few other accounts of it in the book of Acts. 1 Cor 12-14 is also instructive reading. This passage seems to indicate that there was some form of ongoing speaking in tongues that was being practiced by some (if not all) believers. But what the tongues proponents never talk about is how Paul says prophecy is superior in this passage (although many places that promote tongues also promote sharing prophetic words).
I would ask your pastor many of the same questions you brought up in your post. They are good questions. His reaction to your questions and explanations or lack thereof should give you a good idea of whether your church will continue to be biblically based and accountable to the scripture or if they will just make you feel like a horrible person for having honest questions about what God is doing. All the best to you.
I've been in churches and ministries across the spectrum from not believing that tongues can actually exist today to declaring that tongues are available to every believer and all should speak in tongues and having times in the service that they're like "can we just all pray in tongues for a moment". I have yet to hear a convincing biblical argument for either extreme. Tongues proponents will use any reference to praying in the spirit as people using tongues, but I'm not sure how accurate that interpretation of it is (makes it sound like the only way we can be connected with God's spirit in prayer is by tongues).
What we can know from scripture is that speaking in tongues was one of the major initial signs of the coming of the power of the holy spirit ( John 20:22 bears mentioning as Jesus breathes on his followers and tells them to receive the holy spirit before pentecost here but there is no speaking in tongues). It happened on the day of pentecost and was a dramatic revelation of God's power, it happened in cornelius' home (the first non-Jews to get the HS), and there are a few other accounts of it in the book of Acts. 1 Cor 12-14 is also instructive reading. This passage seems to indicate that there was some form of ongoing speaking in tongues that was being practiced by some (if not all) believers. But what the tongues proponents never talk about is how Paul says prophecy is superior in this passage (although many places that promote tongues also promote sharing prophetic words).
I would ask your pastor many of the same questions you brought up in your post. They are good questions. His reaction to your questions and explanations or lack thereof should give you a good idea of whether your church will continue to be biblically based and accountable to the scripture or if they will just make you feel like a horrible person for having honest questions about what God is doing. All the best to you.
I was in charismatic churches for 15 years before I left. The whole speaking in tongues thing was too much for show. If I had seen tongues of fire and a rushing wind, I might have stayed. Instead I saw a lot of people trying to outdo each other. I am not going to criticize if someone wants to do this in their own home for whatever reason. Or if it actually is in a language that someone else speaks and understands.
But that is not my experience. The modern charismatic movement is not Biblical. There is no "baptism in the Holy Spirit" in the bible. Put it into any translation on Biblegateway.com and you will come up with nothing.
As a Baptist, your pastor is leading you astray. Even if this phenomena was true, how could he demand that everyone get it or else? If this is a gift from God, you don't demand it to get it. Your pastor sounds like he has been pulled into a cult.
I would leave the church, if the elders do not reign him in. If he wants to be a charismatic, tell him to go to a charismatic church. Just utter nonsense what your pastor is doing! He is trying to control everyone, based on his experience, not the Bible.
But that is not my experience. The modern charismatic movement is not Biblical. There is no "baptism in the Holy Spirit" in the bible. Put it into any translation on Biblegateway.com and you will come up with nothing.
As a Baptist, your pastor is leading you astray. Even if this phenomena was true, how could he demand that everyone get it or else? If this is a gift from God, you don't demand it to get it. Your pastor sounds like he has been pulled into a cult.
I would leave the church, if the elders do not reign him in. If he wants to be a charismatic, tell him to go to a charismatic church. Just utter nonsense what your pastor is doing! He is trying to control everyone, based on his experience, not the Bible.
Paul said he spoke in many different toungues more than all of you
which means he was multilingual
clear that toungues should have been translated LANGUAGES
king james committe screwed up
so one guy takes it wrong, gets possessed and starts babbling and states he has a new religion and makes lots of money.
it catches on cause it is an easy way to go to heaven anyone can do it
but it is a trap
once you babble you think you dont have to walk the path of sanctification (lawful righteous christian life)
yo think yo are in
you are not.
which means he was multilingual
clear that toungues should have been translated LANGUAGES
king james committe screwed up
so one guy takes it wrong, gets possessed and starts babbling and states he has a new religion and makes lots of money.
it catches on cause it is an easy way to go to heaven anyone can do it
but it is a trap
once you babble you think you dont have to walk the path of sanctification (lawful righteous christian life)
yo think yo are in
you are not.
Last edited:
This is man-made doctrine, not taught in the scriptures. It may actually have been invented by John Calvin. If anyone knows of someone who taught it before him, please let me know.
In the Bible, signs confirmed the word preached. And it wasn't a once-for-all thing where once a miracle was done, the word was confirmed. On the contrary, Peter did miracles in Jerusalem. But when he went to Joppa, he didn't say, "I'm not going to heal this crippled man, Aeneas, to confirm this message, because this word was completely confirmed in Jerusalem by the miracles I did there. And if you want to know that the word was confirmed, we will write down the miracles in the book because reading about the miracles performs the exact same function as seeing them with your own eyes."
I wonder what would happen if you telling an outspoken new atheist that reading about a miracle is the same as seeing it themselves and see what they say.
Jesus said, "Except ye SEE signs and wonders, ye shall not believe."
Sergius Paulus believed the teaching of the Lord after he SAW Elymas blinded.
In the Bible, signs confirmed the word preached. And it wasn't a once-for-all thing where once a miracle was done, the word was confirmed. On the contrary, Peter did miracles in Jerusalem. But when he went to Joppa, he didn't say, "I'm not going to heal this crippled man, Aeneas, to confirm this message, because this word was completely confirmed in Jerusalem by the miracles I did there. And if you want to know that the word was confirmed, we will write down the miracles in the book because reading about the miracles performs the exact same function as seeing them with your own eyes."
I wonder what would happen if you telling an outspoken new atheist that reading about a miracle is the same as seeing it themselves and see what they say.
Jesus said, "Except ye SEE signs and wonders, ye shall not believe."
Sergius Paulus believed the teaching of the Lord after he SAW Elymas blinded.
I've been around Pentecostals more than Charismatics. Maybe some people try to 'outdo' others. I spent much of my youth in a Pentecostal group that believed that tongues in church needed to be interpreted, and don't remember people trying to 'out do' each other there. I'm not saying it couldn't happen.
Try using 'with' instead of 'in' and 'baptized' instead of 'baptism', then search for it.
Here is an example.
Acts 1:5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Try using 'with' instead of 'in' and 'baptized' instead of 'baptism', then search for it.
Here is an example.
Acts 1:5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
I don't believe all speak with tongues. And it's not something that should be forced, either. People can pray for a gift, but they shouldn't be coerced into trying to generate something themselves.
Some people assume that speaking in tongues is only for evangelism. But that doesn't have support in scripture. In I Corinthians 12-14, tongues and interpretation are among the gifts given to the body for the common good. They edify the church.
In Acts 2, God arranged to have people present who would understand the tongues He gave the disciples. But in I Corinthians 14, this was apparently not the case in church meetings where 'no man understandeth him' and an interpreter was needed. In Acts 2, we do not read that the apostles preached the Gospel in tongue. They spoke of the wonderful works of God. But people repented after they heard Peter preaching the word, apparently in some common language.
Paul was very careful how he worded I Corinthians 14 to correct the Corinthians' mistake of speaking in tongues without intepretation in church-- an activity that only edified the individuals doing it, while activities done in the assembly should edify the congregation. During his discussion of the issue we learn that.
- speaking in tongues is edifying to the speaker.
- it only edifies the congregation if it is interpreted
- the speaker's understanding is 'unfruitful' when he speaks in tongues (he doesn't understand.)
- when one prays in tongues his spirit prays
- one can give thanks well in tongues.
Paul finally gives some specific instructions regarding speaking in tongues in verses 27-28. The church may not forbid speaking in tongues, but speaking in tongues must be done according to these guidelines, which require the one speaking in tongues to be silent in the church (and speak to himself and to God) if there is no interpreter. Paul's instructions for the church, which he later explains are commandments of the Lord, allow for 'every one of you' to edify the congregation in accordance with the order he gives in the chapter. The speaker in tongues may speak according to this order, and so may the interpreter. The prophets may speak, and all may prophesy. Verse 26 shows us that individuals may share psalms or teachings as well.
Paul describes tongues as a sign to them that believe not. Like the northern tribes in the book of Isaiah who would not hear when God spoke to them of men of other tongues and other lips, so is the case of those who hear speaking in tongues. The sign 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me' is fulfilled when people hear speaking in tongues and respond with unbelief. We see this in the example Paul gave in I Corinthians 14 of all in church speaking in tongues and the unbeliever or unlearned who come in saying 'ye are mad.' In Acts 2, we see that some responded to speaking in tongues with scoffing and accusations of drunkenness as well.
Some people assume that speaking in tongues is only for evangelism. But that doesn't have support in scripture. In I Corinthians 12-14, tongues and interpretation are among the gifts given to the body for the common good. They edify the church.
In Acts 2, God arranged to have people present who would understand the tongues He gave the disciples. But in I Corinthians 14, this was apparently not the case in church meetings where 'no man understandeth him' and an interpreter was needed. In Acts 2, we do not read that the apostles preached the Gospel in tongue. They spoke of the wonderful works of God. But people repented after they heard Peter preaching the word, apparently in some common language.
Paul was very careful how he worded I Corinthians 14 to correct the Corinthians' mistake of speaking in tongues without intepretation in church-- an activity that only edified the individuals doing it, while activities done in the assembly should edify the congregation. During his discussion of the issue we learn that.
- speaking in tongues is edifying to the speaker.
- it only edifies the congregation if it is interpreted
- the speaker's understanding is 'unfruitful' when he speaks in tongues (he doesn't understand.)
- when one prays in tongues his spirit prays
- one can give thanks well in tongues.
Paul finally gives some specific instructions regarding speaking in tongues in verses 27-28. The church may not forbid speaking in tongues, but speaking in tongues must be done according to these guidelines, which require the one speaking in tongues to be silent in the church (and speak to himself and to God) if there is no interpreter. Paul's instructions for the church, which he later explains are commandments of the Lord, allow for 'every one of you' to edify the congregation in accordance with the order he gives in the chapter. The speaker in tongues may speak according to this order, and so may the interpreter. The prophets may speak, and all may prophesy. Verse 26 shows us that individuals may share psalms or teachings as well.
Paul describes tongues as a sign to them that believe not. Like the northern tribes in the book of Isaiah who would not hear when God spoke to them of men of other tongues and other lips, so is the case of those who hear speaking in tongues. The sign 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me' is fulfilled when people hear speaking in tongues and respond with unbelief. We see this in the example Paul gave in I Corinthians 14 of all in church speaking in tongues and the unbeliever or unlearned who come in saying 'ye are mad.' In Acts 2, we see that some responded to speaking in tongues with scoffing and accusations of drunkenness as well.
The interpreter can also intepret his own words. I Corinthians 14 says that he that prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues-- unless he interpret. Also, verse 13 says for he who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret. The part that we can weigh and verify is the interpretation, anyway. How is speaking in tongues and interpreting that much different from prophesying?
I have been in NUMEROUS meetings over the last 30 years when an utterance in the gift of tongues has been given and it has been interpreted by different individual Christians! (the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues being operated by the Holy Spirit, 1Cor 12v11)
It would appear to me you just don't understand the different functions of the gift of tongues, I suggest you read This (the gift of tongues is covered in number 8) and This
Yahweh Shalom
It would appear to me you just don't understand the different functions of the gift of tongues, I suggest you read This (the gift of tongues is covered in number 8) and This
Yahweh Shalom
