Speaking in tongues

[cjordan38]

Acts 2 says the Holy Ghost gave utterance. Believers speak in tounges still after the baptism. Paul himself said to speak in an unknown language is to speak to God. Now one can speak in tounges through the Spirit with the gift of tounges. This is where Paul says he speaks with the tounges of men. But I must say at one time a whole church will not speak in tounges at the same time. Only on the Day of Pentecost did everyone speak at the same time. Now its as the Word says by two at the most three. Also in order to practice speaking in tounges you have to talk to God through prayer and praising him. Then will his Spirit give utterence at its will.

 

[SeaBass]

The great commission: Go ye therefore and teach all nations [ctr ref. "make disciples" or "Christians of all nations"] baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to ovserve all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world - and I will give you earthly languages that you previously did not know so you can preach. Boy, that is stretching it don't ya think?

The day of Pentecost - Acts 2:4 And they were filled with the holy spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. . . .Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language . . .AS THE SPIRIT GAVE THEM UTTERANCE AND THE MIRACLE WAS THAT THE LANGUAGES SPOKEN WERE IN THE LANGUAGE OF THOSE PRESENT but spoken by Galileans. Did they preach - the people present heard the apostles speak in their own tongues the wonderful works of God. v32 - This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Now the first sermon by Peter starting in v14 - hmmmm, I believe was in either Greek or Aramaic . . . . .

Mark's account of the great commission, Jesus told His apostles "they shall speak with new tongues". THis was seen in Acts 2 when the apostles spoke in tongues.

While Peter yet spake these words, the holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the holy spirit - how did they know they had received? For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. I haven't read anything stating that the manifestation of tongues is given for missionaries to preach the gospel.

Again, the promise to speak in tongues was made in the great commission and carried out in Acts 2. How were the apostles to take the gospel to all the world without being able to communicate that gospel to the world?

I have to agree that in most churches - the manifestation of tongues is handled in error and not according to the way in which they were set up to be utilized within the church. Same as what apparently was happening at Corinth and why the letter of reproof and correction by Paul. But to say that speaking in tongues is just a language so that people can be missionaries is belittling the gift of holy Spirit that is given to us from God.

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) [John 7:38,39] And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. [ Luke 24:49] And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the holy Spirit not many days hence. [Acts 1:4,5] Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. [Acts 2:33] Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Spirit. [Acts 2:38]

The promises you put in bold above were made to the apostles in Acts 1. Jesus had promised the apostles when He left earth he would send them the Comforter and in Acts 1:1-5 Jesus was speaking to his apostles here and it was only the apostles in Acts 2 that were baptized with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues.

 

[just-me]

Acts 2 says the Holy Ghost gave utterance. Believers speak in tongues still after the baptism. Paul himself said to speak in an unknown language is to speak to God. Now one can speak in tongues through the Spirit with the gift of tongues. This is where Paul says he speaks with the tongues of men. But I must say at one time a whole church will not speak in tongues at the same time. Only on the Day of Pentecost did everyone speak at the same time. Now its as the Word says by two at the most three. Also in order to practice speaking in tongues you have to talk to God through prayer and praising him. Then will his Spirit give utterance at its will.

1 Corinthians 14:28
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

He also speaks to himself so the person praying understands what he's saying in silence.

How do you speak to God with any clarity when you don't know what you are saying? God doesn't pray to Himself through you or me. In reference to what you said about Paul, if you didn't speak the language that I spoke, and you heard me praying, I would be speaking to God without your understanding. Paul said that "if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth , but my understanding is unfruitful.

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." 1 Corinthians 14:14-15

Paul then said he would "rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 1 Corinthians 14:19

 

[SeaBass]

So in Acts 19 who did the 12 disciples speak in tongues to after Paul laid his hands on them? They were in Ephesus at the time and receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, It would seem that only Paul, Luke and the 12 where present a tthe time, and we know that Greek and Hebrew was the dominate language of the Day in Ephesus, so who did these 12 men speak in tongues to.

The context does not say what languages (glossa) they spoke in but it would have been an earthly language they did not previously know.

 

[Timeline]

OK and why would they be talking in a tongue people already knew and understood?

highwayman, this would be used kind of like a language to another language dictionary except much, much more efficient. Maybe it would be more accurate to say it would be like a computer program where I typed in English and someone in China received it in Chinese so that they could read it (except, of course they were talking and the Holy Spirit changed the words in the ears of the hearers). I am not sure exactly how it is done, but hopefully that will give you an idea why they were using tongues.

 

[ABMF]

Yes, speaking in tongues is the sign of receiving the Holy Spirit. If you don't have Holy Spirit you don't belong to Christ. You can't be saved without it.

Thats not really the case.

 

[ABMF]

No. Speaking in tongues is just ONE of the Holy Spirit's gifts. It's not necessary for salvation.

I understand its not necessary for salvation. I never said it was. The baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in new tongues is a separate event subsequent to salvation.

 

[kennethcadwell]

There are two forms of tongues: that of man when the Holy Spirit gave the apostles the ability to speak in another earthly language, and a language of the angels that Paul speaks about in 1 Corinthians 13 and 14.

Now saying that speaking in tongues is just one gift given by the Holy Spirit and not all will get that gift. Paul makes that clear when he tells his brothers and sisters in Christ that he wished all would speak in tongues, but then he said that he wants them to have the gift of prophecy more.

 

[Timeline]

I realize I might have been a little confusing, I was specifically referring to the way it was used in Acts 2. But I agree with your post Kenneth.

 

[just-me]

There are two forms of tongues: that of man when the Holy Spirit gave the apostles the ability to speak in another earthly language, and a language of the angels that Paul speaks about in 1 Corinthians 13 and 14.

Now saying that speaking in tongues is just one gift given by the Holy Spirit and not all will get that gift. Paul makes that clear when he tells his brothers and sisters in Christ that he wished all would speak in tongues, but then he said that he wants them to have the gift of prophecy more.

Even when angel spoke, and it was recording in the Bible with understanding, I'm sure people could understand the tongues of angels. I find nowhere, that when angels spoke, that they couldn't be understood. Angels are messengers. So are we, just like when Paul said he spoke with the tongues of angels sent to spread the message.

 

[Timeline]

Yes, speaking in tongues is the sign of receiving the Holy Spirit. If you don't have Holy Spirit you don't belong to Christ. You can't be saved without it.

That's not the case at all!

 

[kennethcadwell]

I realize I might have been a little confusing, I was specifically referring to the way it was used in Acts 2. But I agree with your post Kenneth.

I see where you are coming from, even though the apostles spoke in their own languages because of the intervention by the Holy Spirit the men from the other nations heard it as if spoken in their own. In other words the Holy Spirit was the translator.

 

[kennethcadwell]

The angels could be understood by those who they appear to, but as Paul points out in 1 Cor. that since he now can speak that way those who have not received the Holy Spirit yet would not be able to understand him. So he says in that case he would be the only one justified by speaking to them in that language, we are to justify others as well and not be a sounding gong.

Even when angel spoke, and it was recording in the Bible with understanding, I'm sure people could understand the tongues of angels. I find nowhere, that when angels spoke, that they couldn't be understood. Angels are messengers. So are we, just like when Paul said he spoke with the tongues of angels sent to spread the message.

 

[just-me]

The angels could be understood by those who they appear to, but as Paul points out in 1 Cor. that since he now can speak that way those who have not received the Holy Spirit yet would not be able to understand him. So he says in that case he would be the only one justified by speaking to them in that language, we are to justify others as well and not be a sounding gong.

So you believe the tongues of angels are for those that believe, and the tongues of men are for those that don't believe. I don't see that in this verse, for tongues are classified as one spiritual gift, not two.

1 Corinthians 14:22
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 .

I do however think that angels are different species than humans so there are words that can come from them also. At any rate, I believe tongues are languages that somebody can understand in every case. That's why Paul made it clear if there was no interpreter that there would be silence.

 

[presidente]

Please note that in context Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for their unbelief not praising them with promises of miracles.

Regarding 'Except ye SEE signs and wonders, ye will not believe.' Jesus said this after a nobleman asked for Jesus to heal his son.

It's lamentable that people were that way. Yet Jesus still did signs and wonders. Thomas wouldn't beleive in the resurrection, he said, unless he put his finger in the Lord's hand and his hand in His side. Christ told him to do it and 'be not faithless, but believing.' But He said blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have beleived.

People who believe without seeing are more blessed, but that doesn't mean that God in His mercy doesn't at times do miracles, and even do miracles through people, as scripture shows us.

But back to the original point, notice that the signs and wonders had an effect on them that saw them.

See also Acts 13
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.

This doesn't support the idea that miracles were just to once-for-all confirm a book. The miracles had an effect on those who SAW them. That's not the same thing as reading about them in scripture. The first century Jews could have read about the parting of the Red Sea and Moses' other miracles. Jesus said Moses wrote of Him. So why would there be any miracles after Moses to confirm the Gospel if John Calvin's reasoning were true?

Every case recorded in the NT tongues were a sign for the Jewish people present. Regardless of who is speaking it was always a sign to the Jews. Is that the case today? If not what has changed?

Why don't you apply the same reasoning to water baptism? Show me someone who baptized in the Bible who wasn't Jewish? Show me someone who got saved without a Jew being present? Show me evidence of a church in scripture that didn't have a Jew in it? Would you argue that we can't have water baptism, salvation, preaching, or a church without Jews being present?

Paul doesn't say they were a sign for the Jews, but for them that believe not. The Isaiah passage he quotes is about the northern kingdom. The Jews were descended from the people of the southern kingdom.

In my opinion which is never humble tongues as practiced in the modern church are so corrupted and perverted that they are nothing more than a money maker for the church's involved.

I don't see how tongues makes a church more money.

 

[presidente]

just-me,

Good point, are you suggesting that Paul did not know how to speak/understand Hebrew? You may be correct, he always quoted out of the Greek O.T.

He ministered to a Greek speaking audience. If he studied at the feet of Gamaliel, surely he would have studied in Hebrew. He seems to do a bit of his own translating. I'm thinking "Gave gives to men" in Ephesians 4 probably came from Paul's translation rather than the Greek LXX, if I remember right. I'm thinking 'Recieved gives from men' was the more common translation.

Also in the 3 contradictory accounts (Acts ch9, ch 22, ch 26) of the light on the road to Damascus--in one account, he is spoken to in the Hebrew language Acts 26:14.

followjja---follow just jesus always

They aren't contradictory. Other people present heard, but couldn't make out what was said.

 

[presidente]

Mark's account of the great commission, Jesus told His apostles "they shall speak with new tongues". THis was seen in Acts 2 when the apostles spoke in tongues.

The text doesn't say that only the apostles spoke in tongues. There were 120 present, and 17 languages spoken. The idea that only the apostles spoke is an unlikely scenario given the text. In chapter 10 and 19, other believers spoke in tongues as well. I Corinthians 12-14 also mentions members of the body speaking in tongues.

Again, the promise to speak in tongues was made in the great commission and carried out in Acts 2.How were the apostles to take the gospel to all the world without being able to communicate that gospel to the world?

You are making an assumption. Tongues drew attention, scorn, and wonder in Acts 2. People were saved through Peter's preaching, apparently in some language they could all understand.

The promises you put in bold above were made to the apostles in Acts 1. Jesus had promised the apostles when He left earth he would send them the Comforter and in Acts 1:1-5 Jesus was speaking to his apostles here and it was only the apostles in Acts 2 that were baptized with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues.

Peter said the promise of the Spirit was " unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

He also referred to the baptism of the Holy Ghost when the Spirit was poured out on Gentiles.

 

[presidente]

In the great commission, Christ sent His apostles out to teach the world, every creature the gospel. From Acts 2 the aposltes spoke Galiliean. So for the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature required that they be able to speak in other earthly languages other than their own Galilean. So the purpose of speaking in tongues was communication specifically communicating the gospel in various earthly languages so men could hear and have faith, Rom 10:17. AS those in Acts 2 heard "we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born" verse 8. So the apostles were enabled by the Holy Spirit to speak in earthly known languages they previously had not known. There is nothing anywhere in the NT that indicates that the tongues speaking taking place in 1 Cor 14 is any different than the tongue speaking as done by the apostles in Acts 2. So the unintelligilbe utterances as seen in todays charismatic groups is NOT the tongue speaking as done in the bible, NOTHING is commuincated through unintelligible uttererances which defeats the purpose of speaking in tongues in communicating the gospel. I was just recently reading an article where the writer spoke of chaismatic groups that send out missionaries to various parts of the world. Yet before sending them out, those missionaries are given lessons in the native language of the country to which they are being sent....undermining their own credibility in tongue speaking.

I mentioned some of this elsewhere, but you have no scripture for the idea that the purpose of speaking in tongues is for preaching the Gospel. The Bible doesn't teach that, and Acts 2 doesn't give us an example of what you are saying.

I Corinthians 14 shows that speaking in tongues was unintelligible to those present, and so speaking in tongues needs to be interpreted in church to edify the church.

 

[presidente]

that interpretation is completely at odds with Romans 8:26 too, where the same Paul teaches us that the Spirit intercedes in prayer with "groanings too deep for words"

Romans 8:26 is talking about groanings that cannot be uttered. Tongues can be uttered, because the disciples spoke 'as the Spirit gave them utterance.' (Do a word study on the word translated 'uttered' in both verses.)

I believe in speaking in tongues, but Romans 8:26 is often misused as a verse about speaking in tongues.

 

[iwant2serve]

Many people believe that tongues is a human language, but the bible does not support that. In Acts 2 there were about 120 people filled with the Holy Spirit and many heard them in there own language. Now think about this how can one understand anyone when 120 people are speaking 15 different languages?

Speaking in tongues is not something that every believer will do according to 1 cor 12:30

On the being baptized in the Holy Spirit can be debated but Jesus said go to Jerusalem until you are endowed with Power. I believer the true sign of being Filled with the Holy Spirit is your obedience to the word of God boldness to speak the truth of the Bible no matter what comes against you.