Speaking in tongues

[saved1975]

My pastor wants everyone in church to speak in tongues. We are Baptist but believe in the gifts and practice them. Does speaking in an unknown tongue gives the evidence that we are spirit filed and saved believers? I have friends who are believers in Jesus and they do not practice this. They lead a spirit filled life and are wonderful people of the faith. What does it mean for the whole church to be toungers in the spirit? Who will this edify and how do we interpret this if everyone is babbling? I for one want to be able to know what is being said. He said that he was in Croatia and spoke in tongue, and the people understood him because he was speaking in their native tongue about the Lord. I love the Lord with all my heart and soul,and I have just only talked to him in my native tongue English in which he knows. In speaking in tongue does that make me a super saint and put me on a higher level than other believers? I think after 20 years, I should be at another level in this spiritual journey. I am trying not to use the word Christian...because my pastor says that is the wrong terminology.. We are saved believers. This sets us apart from others who say and use the term Christian..yet they really are not and to remember Christian is not a denomination. Our mandate is to get them to the church..Lead them to Christ...Form community.... Put them to work within the church and pray for church growth and tongue talkers!!!. Is tongues still needed?...or is it just a preference for those who want it?
Just asking.

One doesn't need to speak in tongues to be saved, Tongues comes with the baptism in the Holy Ghost, which people can received after they are saved.
In every Biblical account of people being baptised in the Holy Ghost, They spoke in tongues, Which makes tongues the Biblical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost.

There are five Biblical accounts of people being baptised in the Holy Ghost.

[1] Acts 2: 4.

[2]Acts 8: 14-21. The word, "Matter", in v21, means, Tongue, dialect language,
They had the same experience as those in Acts 2: 4.

[3]]Acts 9: 17. We know Paul spoke in tongues,
He said he thanks God that he speaks in tongues more then ye all, 1 Cor 14: 18.

[4]Acts 10: 44-46.

[5]Acts 19: 2--6.

 

[notuptome]

One doesn't need to speak in tongues to be saved, Tongues comes with the baptism in the Holy Ghost, which people can received after they are saved.
In every Biblical account of people being baptised in the Holy Ghost, They spoke in tongues, Which makes tongues the Biblical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost.

There are five Biblical accounts of people being baptised in the Holy Ghost.

[1] Acts 2: 4.

[2]Acts 8: 14-21. The word, "Matter", in v21, means, Tongue, dialect language,
They had the same experience as those in Acts 2: 4.

[3]]Acts 9: 17. We know Paul spoke in tongues,
He said he thanks God that he speaks in tongues more then ye all, 1 Cor 14: 18.

[4]Acts 10: 44-46.

[5]Acts 19: 2--6.

Acts 2:4 says that they were filled with the Holy Spirit not baptized. The Greek does not support your usage of the word baptism in the context.

That unravels your entire premise. The only thing that you could say is that every time someone spoke in tongues they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Many, many were baptized with the Holy Spirit when they received Christ as Savior through the preaching of the word of God. Very, very few ever spoke in tongues. When Peter preached and 5000 got saved we do not see them speaking in tongues.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

Acts 2:4 says that they were filled with the Holy Spirit not baptized. The Greek does not support your usage of the word baptism in the context.

Might I suggest before you continue posting that you read through the book of Acts in it's entirity.

Christ had already said, as recorded in Acts 1,
4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.
5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
(NIV)

 

[presidente]

Do you accept or reject the teaching of the Bible that the Spirit gives gifts to the body as the Spirit wills?

Biblical teaching is readily accepted. Modern Pentecostal teaching is easily rejected because it does not agree with biblical teaching.

If you accept the teaching of the Bible that the Spirit gives gifts to individuals in the body as He wills, as recorded in I Corinthians 12, then you believe that the Spirit gives tindividuals gifts including the working of miracles, gifts of healings, prophecy, tongues and interpretation of tongues.

If that is the case, you should not dismiss any account or report of someone actually operating in one of these gifts.

Prophecy today is the forth-telling of what is written in Gods word.

You do not have the authority to redefine 'prophecy' to mean something other than what it means in the context of scripture.

Tongues as known languages are readily received but tongues as unknowable utterances are pure folly.

Unknown to who? The people present, or to God? If the former, you reject the Biblical tongues mentioned in I Corinthians 12.

Those who claim to discern spirits are the least likely actually to do so.

What is your source of revelation for making just a claim? Or are you just spouting nonsense?

 

[presidente]

Eph 4:8 "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men."

How long will these gifts last that Christ gave to men?

Eph 4:13 "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,..."

"Till" is a time limiting word, it has a finishing point

"Unity" carries the idea of oneness

"the faith" refers to the NT gospel




'Paul made the same point to the Ephesians. Miracles—the “gifts” given by Christ (Ephesians 4:8)—were to last “till the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:13, emp. added). Two significant observations emerge from this latter verse. First, the word translated “till” (Middle English for “until”) is mechri, and was used as a conjunction to indicate the terminus ad quem [finishing point] of the miraculous offices (mentioned in vs. 11) bestowed as gifts by Christ. [For treatments of the use of mechri in this verse, see Thayer, 1977, p. 408; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 517; Moulton and Milligan, 1982, p. 407; Blass, et al., 1961, pp. 193-194; Robertson, 1934, pp. 974-975; Dana and Mantey, 1927, p. 281; see also the use of the term in Mark 13:30 and Galatians 4:19]. Nicoll observed:

The statement of the great object of Christ’s gifts and the provision made by Him for its fulfillment is now followed by a statement of the time this provision and the consequent service are to last (1900, 3:332, emp. in orig.).

​

Paul was “pecifying the time up to which this ministry and impartation of gifts are to last” (Vincent, 1890, p. 390, emp. added).

Second, the phrase “the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God” often is misunderstood to refer to the eventual unifying of all believers in Christ. But this conclusion cannot be correct. Both Scripture and common sense dispel such a notion. Complete unity within Christendom will never occur. Those who profess affiliation with Christianity are in a hopeless state of disunity. Catholicism and Protestant denominationalism are fractured into a plethora of factions and splinter groups—literally thousands of divisions and disagreements. Nor will unity ever be achieved even within churches of Christ. Even first-century congregations did not attain complete internal unity.

In contrast with this interpretation, notice the use of the articles in the phrases: “the faith” and “the knowledge.” Contextually, Paul was referring to the system of faith alluded to so often in the New Testament. Jude urged his readers to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). Paul referred to himself when he quoted others as saying, “He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc” (Galatians 1:23). Luke reported that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). Elymas the sorcerer sought to “turn aside the proconsul from the faith” (Acts 13:8). The early disciples were exhorted to “continue in the faith” (Acts 14:22). As a result of Paul’s repeat visits to Lycaonia, “the churches were strengthened in the faith” (Acts 16:5).

So “the faith” and “the knowledge” refer to the completed body of information that constitutes the Christian religion. Indeed, eight verses earlier (Ephesians 4:5), Paul already had referred to “the faith” as the summation and totality of Christian doctrine—now situated in the repository of the New Testament. An honest exegete is driven to conclude that once the precepts of New Testament Christianity had been revealed on Earth, the miraculous element no longer was necessary. Miracles lasted until “the faith” was completely revealed. They had served their purpose, in the same way that scaffolding is useful while a building is under construction. However, once construction is complete, the scaffolding is removed and discarded as unnecessary and superfluous paraphernalia."
https://apologeticspress.com/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=264&topic=78
Dave Miller PhD

This is just circular reasoning. The author wants to arrive at an interpretation where unity doesn't mean unity, and argues in that direction. Maybe the first century church had disunity and internal divisions, as do churches now. That doesn't prove his point. It argues against it, because we haven't attained to the unity of the faith spoken of in the passage, here yet. And there are still those blown about by winds of doctrine. Neither have we we attained to the full measure of the stature of Christ, yet.


If you hold to this interpretation, do yo unbelieve evangelists and pastors still exist? Elders are commanded to pastor in Acts 20 and I Peter 5. Do you believe the church exists without elders now?

 

[presidente]

No one is given miraculouos gifts today, those gifts fullfiled thier purpose some 2000 years ago and ceased, vanished away.

The Bible doesn't teach that the purpose for miracles has been fulfilled. You can't show that in scripture.

The 'despise not prophesying' applied to the first century church when they did have gifts, not applicable today.

That's just an excuse for despising prophesyings. An excuse for disobedience does not justify disobedience.

I wonder why your Bible has so many commands and instructions---for the church-- that are included in it. Why would God have those things put in the Bible if they aren't adequate? I suppose you consider yourself smart enough to determien which instructions written to wide audiences in the epistles should be followed and which should be disregarded.

There are no prophets of God today, just false prophets.

That's based on your theory. But if I look at the Bible, I see Jesus warning against false prophets, and encouraging receiving prophets, and claiming He would send prophets. Ephesians shwos us that He ascended and gave gifts, including prophets, to men. The Bible also shows there were prophets even in a predominantly Gentile church far from Jerusalem. Revelation mentions prophets and witnesses prophesying, apparently after the book would be completed.

 

[presidente]

There are still evangelists, pastors and teachers but none have the gifts.

I think you should look up the word 'charisma' in the Greek. It is related to the word for 'grace.' When God gives someone a gift, he grants that a person be able to do a certain things. Gifts can be things like working miracles or healings, but gifts include administration, teaching.

What a bleak view of the church you must have if you think people now teach and evangelize without the grace of God empowering to do so. I suppose they must rely on their flesh, on their own flesh.

Your way of thinking seems very foreign to what I read in the New Testament. You are proposing a view of how God operates in the church for which we have no scripture. The Bible doesn't anticipate it or prepare us for it. There is no scripture for how the church should operate without the grace of the Spirit at work. It's just different from what the New Testament presents.

 

[saved1975]

[QUOdisciples were sptome;1499888]Acts 2:4 says tbaptized in the Holy werdisciplest have the baptism in the Holy Ghostled with the Holy SpiGhostt not baptized. The Greek does not support your usage of the word baptism in the context.

That unravels your entire premise. The only thing that you could say is that every time someone spoke in tongues they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Many, many were baptized with the Holy Spirit when they received Christ as Savior through the preaching of the word of God. Very, very few ever spoke in tongues. When Peter preached and 5000 got saved we do not see them speaking in tongues.

For the cause of Christ
Roger[/QUOTE]



Please read Acts 1: 4-5 & v 8, now read Acts 2: 1--4, the baptism in the Holy Ghost and the filling are the same thing in these cases.
The disciples in Acts 8: 14--17, were saved but they didn't have the baptism in the Holy Ghost until the Apostles laid hands on them.
Paul was saved three days before he was baptised in the Holy Ghost.
The disciples were saved but they weren't baptized in the Holy Ghost until Paul laid hands on them,
If the rebirth was the baptism in the Holy Ghost, why would Paul ask the disciples if they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed.

 

[posthuman]

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
(Genesis 11:6-7)

And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
(Acts 2:7-11)


unless a tongue be interpreted, it works nothing but confusion. obviously we shouldn't be celebrating and encouraging confusion.
the work of God is to humble the work of men, and to raise up the name of the Lord, who has power over both the tongue and the ear.

isn't it wonderful how He built a true spiritual tower, reaching up to the heavens, on the foundation of Christ the Son? and this sign sealed it's dedication that day!

 

[saved1975]

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
(Genesis 11:6-7)

And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
(Acts 2:7-11)


unless a tongue be interpreted, it works nothing but confusion. obviously we shouldn't be celebrating and encouraging confusion.
the work of God is to humble the work of men, and to raise up the name of the Lord, who has power over both the tongue and the ear.

isn't it wonderful how He built a true spiritual tower, reaching up to the heavens, on the foundation of Christ the Son? and this sign sealed it's dedication that day!

Tongues that aren't foreign languages, Acts 2: 4--11, and tongues that don't need an interpretation, 1 Cor 12: 10.
Never "Work nothing", as you say,
There are tongues that build us up, 1 Cor 14: 4.
There are tongues that are our spiritual praying, 1 Cor 14: 14--15.
There are tongues that we use to praise God, 1 Cor 14: 15--17.
There are tongues that speak mysteries, A mystery is a hidden secret, Not hidden from us, But hidden for us.
And one way to get the revelation of these mysteries, is found in 1 Cor 14: 13.

Tongues aren't confusing to those who know the Bible, And they should explain to new comers what's going on.

 

[posthuman]

Tongues that aren't foreign languages, Acts 2: 4--11, and tongues that don't need an interpretation, 1 Cor 12: 10.

in Acts 2, all the people that heard them "interpreted" -- and it was a sign to them. many foreign languages are specifically mentioned in the scripture here. so interpretation was surely "necessary" or they would have heard nothing but confusion.

in 1 Corinthians 12:10 -- "to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. "
why do you suppose interpretation is mentioned? because it isn't necessary?

Tongues aren't confusing to those who know the Bible, And they should explain to new comers what's going on.

a strange language is confusing to anyone who doesn't understand it.
why do you think Paul in the letter to the Corinthians taught that unless it can be interpreted, one speaking in tongues should keep silent?
i'll tell you exactly why, for Paul also told us exactly why:
the last thing he had to say about it in that epistle:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
(1 Corinthians 14:33)

do you think the Lord wants us all to babble like pagans, not knowing what ourselves or anyone else is saying? to what end?

 

[Animus]

[video=youtube;GVSLc0cqlZM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVSLc0cqlZM[/video]

Thought this was good.

 

[notuptome]

Please read Acts 1: 4-5 & v 8, now read Acts 2: 1--4, the baptism in the Holy Ghost and the filling are the same thing in these cases.
The disciples in Acts 8: 14--17, were saved but they didn't have the baptism in the Holy Ghost until the Apostles laid hands on them.
Paul was saved three days before he was baptised in the Holy Ghost.
The disciples were saved but they weren't baptized in the Holy Ghost until Paul laid hands on them,
If the rebirth was the baptism in the Holy Ghost, why would Paul ask the disciples if they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed.

It does little good to read if you are going to be extremely imprecise in your use of the ideas presented. The Holy Spirit was extremely precise in the words He used in writing the bible. Baptism and filling are not the same thing or God would have said it that way. Sound doctrine requires study and guidance from the Holy Spirit. Those who do not learn will be tossed about with every wind of doctrine and always be unstable.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[saved1975]

in Acts 2, all the people that heard them "interpreted" -- and it was a sign to them. many foreign languages are specifically mentioned in the scripture here. so interpretation was surely "necessary" or they would have heard nothing but confusion.

in 1 Corinthians 12:10 -- "to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. "
why do you suppose interpretation is mentioned? because it isn't necessary?



a strange language is confusing to anyone who doesn't understand it.
why do you think Paul in the letter to the Corinthians taught that unless it can be interpreted, one speaking in tongues should keep silent?
i'll tell you exactly why, for Paul also told us exactly why:
the last thing he had to say about it in that epistle:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
(1 Corinthians 14:33)

do you think the Lord wants us all to babble like pagans, not knowing what ourselves or anyone else is saying? to what end?

The tongues in Acts 2, didn't need an interpretation, The disciples spoke in different foreign languages so that the people from different places heard them speaking in the country that they came from.

There are tongues that need an interpretation, But that is just one of the many manifestations of tongues that are recorded in the New Testament, I have shown some of them in my previous post.

Tongues are confusing to those who don't know about it, That's why I said they should be explained.
But they aren't confusing for the one's who know the Bible.


Paul meant if there is no interpreter in the meeting, No one give a tongue that needs an interpretation, He didn't mean not to speak in any of the other kinds of tongues.

God isn't the God of confusion, But a lot of people are confused when it comes to tongues.

Don't call God's most Holy gift, "Babble", And YES God DOES want us to speak in tongues that no one can understand, As I have said, there are tongues that build us up, and there are tongues that is our spirit praying, Surely God want's us to speak in them, Why do you thing He gave them to the Church??.

 

[saved1975]

It does little good to read if you are going to be extremely imprecise in your use of the ideas presented. The Holy Spirit was extremely precise in the words He used in writing the bible. Baptism and filling are not the same thing or God would have said it that way. Sound doctrine requires study and guidance from the Holy Spirit. Those who do not learn will be tossed about with every wind of doctrine and always be unstable.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

When one is baptised in the Holy Ghost, They are full of Him, So baptism and filled are the same thing, You cannot be baptised in the Holy Ghost without being filled with Him, And you cannot be full of the Holy Ghost until you have had the initial baptism in the Holy Ghost.

I have proved [From the Bible], That there is an initial baptism in the Holy Ghost, And when they were baptised in the Holy Ghost, They were filled.

A close study of the Bible proves that there is one baptism and many fillings.
Both Jesus and John the Baptist mention the baptism in the Holy Ghost, Acts 2: 4--5. Matt 3: 11.
And Acts 2:4 when the disciples were baptised in the Holy Ghost, It says they were filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues.
You are entitled to your own opinions, But I will stay with what the Bible teaches.

 

[presidente]

[video=youtube;GVSLc0cqlZM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVSLc0cqlZM[/video]

Thought this was good.

The video you posted is not good. It is awful. There is no excuse for twisting the passage as he does. 'Musterion' is always used positively in Paul's writings. Paul explained the mystery of Christ. There is no reason to eisegete the idea of mystery religions into this passage. In one sermon, MacArthur says they are speaking to 'a god.'

If I am not mistaken, Ireneaus addressed the idea that the Corinthian gifts were from a different god when he addressed Marcion's false doctrines in 'Against Heresies.' Marcion believed the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New Testament. Anyway, MacArthur's view on this is argued against in one of the first books written against heresy. I don't think John MacArthur is teaching Marcionism, but he may be making a similar argument to the one the heretic did (or at least arriving at one of the heretics conclusions.)

If one really believes John MacArthur on this, and reads the chapter that way, then it stands to reason that Paul wanted the Corinthians to engage in pagan activities because he continues to write, "I would that ye all spake with tongues..." And then he would be trying to persuade them to interpret pagan tongues to edify the congregation.

If that isn't a blasphemous idea, isn't it close to it? Jesus warned Pharisees who were attributing the works of the Spirit to a demon of the unpardonable sin. John MacArthur described one of the gift of the Spirit in the very text of scripture as 'pagan.' That's playing too close to a kind of blasphemy which we would all do well to avoid.

Btw, I found this, much better, video on YouTube. Though it doesn't have the fancy pictures, it debunks the argument made in the video you posted.

Were Corinthian tongues pagan like John MacArthur says? - YouTube

 

[presidente]

It does little good to read if you are going to be extremely imprecise in your use of the ideas presented. The Holy Spirit was extremely precise in the words He used in writing the bible. Baptism and filling are not the same thing or God would have said it that way. Sound doctrine requires study and guidance from the Holy Spirit. Those who do not learn will be tossed about with every wind of doctrine and always be unstable.

Jesus called what would happen to the disciples being baptized with the Holy Ghost in Acts 1. In Acts 2, it is called being filled with the Holy Ghost.

Then Peter said, in Acts 10:47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” (NIV)

Peter described what happened in Acts 10 as their receiving the Holy Ghost. Peter had promised receiving the Spirit to those who were baptized in Acts 2.

Acts 11

15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”(NIV)


Here, Peter describes what happens as the Holy Spirit 'came on' them'. He describes the events of Acts 2 and Acts 10 as being 'baptized' with the Holy Spirit.

He says God gave them the 'gift' of the Holy Ghost, which is what Peter promised those who were baptized, their children, and as many as are afar off in Acts 2. The gift was also given to the Gentiles.

 

[Kerry]

People hate tongues because it goes against flesh. It is something they can't control. It is a manifestation of God that they are not comfortable with. Just like when God showed Himself to to Israel and they said never do that again least we die, send us your prophet. The Holy Spirit is the presence of God and flesh must shrink in it. But people don't want that, they want what they can control and what is pleasing to the flesh rather than what is pleasing to God. So they ban it and demonize it.

 

[cjordan38]

Thegift of tounges is when one speaks in languages when the spirit gives the utterence of the gift. When you get filled and baptised you speak in tounges of angels, as Paul said. Its evidence. When you recieve the Holy Ghost you speak in tounges as evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. That tounge is not a gift. A lack of knowledge will have a man perish. Who will kick against the Prick?

 

[ABMF]

There is just one that is in effect, Eph 4:5

[h=3]Deuteronomy 6:4 So does that mean Jesus is not God? Does that Mean the Holy Spirit is not God? Or does it mean[/h]God the Father is not God? Its a qualitative oneness not a quantitative. Hebrews 6 has not lied. Do you Speak in tongues? [h=3][/h][h=3][/h]