Tongue Speaker's Survey

[shrume]

I understand the reluctance, but the truth is this; Satan's kind of supernatural tongue existed before Pentecost; it is just vain & profane babbling.

Speaking in tongues is not "Satan's kind of supernatural tongue".

Isaiah 8:19 is Biblical proof of that.

Isaiah 8:[SUP]19 [/SUP]And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

1 Thessalonians 5:[SUP]21 [/SUP]Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.[SUP] 22 [/SUP]Abstain from all appearance of evil.

If we are to abstain from all appearances of evil, then something is wrong here when tongue speakers gives excuses for their tongue not coming with interpretation by reading it into Paul's words at the expense of the context and content of tongues throughout 1 Corinthians 12 - 13 - 14 chapters.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with speaking in tongues to yourself without interpretation.

John 16:13 plainly states that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself in ALL BIBLES. He can only speak what He hears; The Spirit OF God; the Spirit OF the Father' The Spirit OF Christ; CANNOT become the Spirit OF the Spirit. He cannot speak for Himself; He can only speak what He hears, therefore He cannot use God's gift of tongues which has been stated plainly is of other men's lips to speak unto the people when Paul gave the bottom line on tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20-21 so that believers are not misunderstanding his words for what tongues are for.

As I stated before, John 16:13 has nothing to do with speaking in tongues.

And again, tongues is not a "gift". It is one of the nine manifestations of the gift of holy Spirit.

So I believe these believers when they say they felt a spirit come over them, bringing that tongue, as they are assuming it is the Holy Spirit and making excuses for why it does not come with interpretation as being a prayer language of the Holy Spirit which is Biblically INCORRECT.

There is no need to "feel a spirit come over you" to speak in tongues.

Scripture cannot go against scripture as no lie can be of the truth.

It is a lie to teach that speaking in tongues to yourself without interpretation is not of God. If you are in a meeting and do not want to interpret, then you are to speak quietly to yourself, and to God.

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

God does not imitate Satan and Satan's tongue is not of other men's lips to speak unto the people.

Your understanding of what tongues is is incorrect. Tongues is not "speaking unto the people" It is speaking to God:

1 Cor 14:
2) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

You have been warned by John the Apostle not to believe every spirit, but test them. That is all I can do is bring this warning to your attention so that you may bring it to Jesus at that throne of grace for help is what I say is true or not.

What you are saying is not the truth, Enow.

I was not offended, my brother.

I would have been...

I understand that when it comes to tongues, believers do take it personally because it is something they want to be of God as supernaturally personal as it does gets with tongues, but it isn't when it does not come with interpretation.

That is not the truth.

There can be no compromise on this issue because God is not the author of confusion to suddenly switch from speaking unto the people mode with His gift of tongues to confusion mode at a whim.

Tongues is not "speaking unto the people". It is speaking to God (1 Cor 14:2).

When it is done in the church, it is to be interpreted so the church can be edified.

 

[shrume]

That does not take into account that all the hearers turned to one another in amazement and asked, "How is it that each one of us hears what is being spoken in our own language?" The possibility of 12 Apostles having learned a couple of languages each (a very common thing in that culture) would not bring amazement to the hearers.

Tongues is not learned. The apostles were not speaking languages they knew. They were speaking in tongues, and the languages they were speaking were understood by those present.

 

[shrume]

Acts 1:[SUP]15 [/SUP]And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

There were more than just 12 in the upper room on the day of Pentecost. FYI

The outpouring of Holy spirit occurred in the Temple, not the upper room.

And the holy Spirit was initially given to the twelve, not 120.

 

[shrume]

Any one praying normally are praying in the Spirit.

That's not true.

Praying in the Spirit is speaking in tongues. Praying with your understanding is praying in your known language, in our case English.

1 Cor 14:
14) For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15) 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.

That is YOU praying; not the Holy Spirit.

Both speaking in tongues and praying with your understanding is YOU praying. YOU choose to speak in tongues, and YOU choose to pray with your understanding.

 

[Grace777x70]

That's not true.

Praying in the Spirit is speaking in tongues. Praying with your understanding is praying in your known language, in our case English.

1 Cor 14:
14) For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15) 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.


Both speaking in tongues and praying with your understanding is YOU praying. YOU choose to speak in tongues, and YOU choose to pray with your understanding.

I agree 100%. It is as plain as the nose on our faces if we look into the right mirror.

 

[Willie-T]

The outpouring of Holy spirit occurred in the Temple, not the upper room.

And the holy Spirit was initially given to the twelve, not 120.

That's a hard nut to crack with so many people who want to insist that the Holy Spirit was given in the "Upper Room." I just gave up trying to talk rationally about the location.

 

[Enow]

I can't say what the official doctrine is about this for all Pentecostal denominations, but the A/G, the largest denomination globally has a position paper which addresses the role of the Spirit in salvation. The believer receives the seal of the Spirit at salvation, it teaches, and should be baptized with the Spirit as well.

Enow seems to think of this idea as some kind of great heresy. But reading through Acts, is it any less reasonable of a position than to say one is baptized with the Holy Spirit at salvation? Do all receive empowerment like we read of in Acts? In two passages in Acts, the Spirit falls on believers after they accept the Gospel and are baptized.

It is a great heresy because Paul says it is a great heresy when he exposed the lie by reminding believers of the tradition we have been taught as to when the only time we had received the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2:[SUP]13 [/SUP]But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:[SUP] 14 [/SUP]Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.[SUP]15 [/SUP]Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Now let us discuss what I think you are referring to in Acts in support of that lie, since you did not give an exact reference.

Acts 19:1-7 is not applicable to that lie because Paul happened upon disciples of John the Baptist's; not believers in Jesus Christ. Paul had to tell them about Jesus as being the One that John the Baptist was preaching about; then they believed in Him because then they got water baptized in Jesus's name and THEN they had received the promise of the Holy Spirit.

They never had the Holy Spirit before because they were not believers, let alone disciples of Jesus Christ.

Acts 8th account does not apply to support that lie because Luke testified that the Holy Spirit was not in any of them until Peter & John had come down.

Acts 8:[SUP]14 [/SUP]Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:[SUP]15 [/SUP]Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:[SUP]16 [/SUP](For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)[SUP] 17 [/SUP]Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

They were not saved until they had received the promise of the Holy Spirit. So you cannot treat that as a two event of receiving the Holy Ghost either with salvation.

In Acts 4th account, you need to follow from the first verse.

Acts 4:1And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,[SUP]2 [/SUP]Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.[SUP] 3 [/SUP]And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.[SUP]4 [/SUP]Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand....

Later on after the two that were released, those people that heard the word and believed was the company the two released, went into. When they had heard Peter & John of their account with the Jews in authority, it was these new believers that prayed. Evidence is how they responded after they had prayed as changed lives in sharing everything.

Acts 4:[SUP]23 [/SUP]And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.[SUP] 24 [/SUP]And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:[SUP]25 [/SUP]Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?[SUP] 26 [/SUP]The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.[SUP] 27 [/SUP]For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,[SUP] 28 [/SUP]For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.[SUP]29 [/SUP]And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,[SUP] 30 [/SUP]By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.[SUP] 31 [/SUP]And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. [SUP]32 [/SUP]And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, [SUP]35 [/SUP]And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.


So The Holy Spirit did not fall on Peter & John "again" in that place BUT on these now new believers praying that they would be great witnesses like Peter & John. The changed lives afterwards proves that they were new believers that never had the Holy Spirit until that moment when they were saved.

There is no incident where believers already having the Holy Ghost, are receiving the Holy Ghost again.

There are reports by Luke of being filled with the Holy Ghost to signify HOW the disciples were speaking or doing the things that they did so that readers knew that they had done so as led by the Spirit and not by their will or their own power.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 reproves the lie that any saved believer can receive the Holy Ghost again. Believers read the extra supernatural experience into scripture in the Book of Acts the way they are doing with tongues with no interpretation, and yet their misapplication does not line up with the truth plainly written in the epistles to the churches.

There is only one hope of our calling and thus one baptism with the Spirit ( Ephesians 4:4-6 )

There is only one drink of the One Spirit that we ALL have been baptized by ( 1 Corinthians 12:13 )

The born again of the Spirit is the salvation moment Jesus spoken about to Nicodemus in John 3rd chapter.

Anyone not having the Spirit of Christ is none of His and thus not saved until they do; Romans 8:9

Having the Holy Spirit in us is having eternal life that we are saved by trusting Jesus Christ; Ephesians 1:11-15

We are complete in Christ and therefore we are Spirit- filled at our salvation as a testimony that we are saved.

Colossians 2:[SUP]6 [/SUP]As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:[SUP] 7 [/SUP]Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.[SUP] 8 [/SUP]Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.[SUP]9 [/SUP]For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.[SUP] 10 [/SUP]And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

There is no receiving the Holy Spirit again apart from salvation. It is a real event, but it is a lie, and not of Him at all.

 

[Enow]

The account of the apostles picking another to take Judas' place took place in the upper room.

The account of receiving holy spirit was on the day of Pentecost, this was a yearly festival . . . Here "there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven". This multitude, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, came together hearing the apostles, Galileans, speak the language of Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asisa, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, parts of Libya and visitors from Rome . . . the apostles were speaking the mighty works of God. Some believed . . . some mocked.

I agree that it went on to share one of those days where they were picking an apostle to replace Judas Iscariot, but in those days when they were waiting.... I believe there was about 120 in that upper room when Pentecost had come for that to be a great noise heard throughout that neighborhood.

Acts 1:[SUP]15[/SUP]And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

It did not take them more than one day to pick a replacement, right? I read that as reporting while they were waiting in those days as commanded by the Lord to wait, in one of those days, they had picked a replacement for Judas Iscariot.

Anyway, I believe that is how many disciples were there since there were more than 12 nations listed there for them 12 to be speaking all of them.

Acts 2:1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. [SUP]2 [/SUP]And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. [SUP]4 [/SUP]And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. [SUP]5 [/SUP]And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. [SUP]6 [/SUP]Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. [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.

More than 12 listed here and so more than 12 disciples were present in that upper room on the day of Pentecost.

It is an assumption, granted; but a reasonable one from the scripture that has been given. If they were about 120 disciples waiting around in those days in Acts 1:15, then when Pentecost had come when they were ALL in one accord in that room..... as Acts 2:1 began.....

 

[Enow]

The outpouring of Holy spirit occurred in the Temple, not the upper room.

How easy it is for Luke to report that, but he did not.

I see this:

Acts 2:[SUP]5 [/SUP]And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

No temple mentioned here. Why not say there were Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven at the temple in Jerusalem that day?

Why report this?

Acts 2:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

If they were all in the Temple or going there anyway, they would not be hearing it abroad for the reason that the multitude came together where they were if they were already in the Temple or heading there.I would think the priests would be mentioned as I am sure they would have kicked them out for interrupting their services.Did the disciples in Acts 1:15 did this selection of a replacement for Judas Iscariot in the Temple too? Nope.How many were there when they did? About 120.

And the holy Spirit was initially given to the twelve, not 120.

Reason that out. Judas Iscariot was one of the 12, right? He's dead. If in Acts 1:15 they chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot, out of what... about a 120 .

So when I read in those days in Acts 1:15 wherein about a 120 were in the room, it was one of those days when they had replaced Judas Iscariot, while they were waiting for the Lord as commanded.

When there are more than 12 nations listed, there had to be more than 12 in that upper room when they began speaking in tongues. Anyway... Luke never gave a number except in Acts 1:15 and so about a 120 can create a great noise to be heard abroad than 12 disciples speaking in tongues.

Acts 1:[SUP]13 [/SUP]And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. [SUP]14 [/SUP]These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. [SUP]15 [/SUP]And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)......

The place had to be the upper room, not the Temple when Acts 2:1 happened.

Acts 2:1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

 

[Enow]

I agree 100%. It is as plain as the nose on our faces if we look into the right mirror.

That's a hard nut to crack with so many people who want to insist that the Holy Spirit was given in the "Upper Room." I just gave up trying to talk rationally about the location.

Luke reported the place where they had all gathered together initially; from that point on, there was no mention of waiting in the Temple nor a visit to the Temple for the place in keeping His commandment to wait.

Acts 1:[SUP]13 [/SUP]And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.[SUP]14 [/SUP]These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.[SUP]15 [/SUP]And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Acts 2:1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

You guys can believe otherwise, but I believe they would be kicked out of the Temple for creating a disturbance.

And about 120 disciples can be heard abroad to gather the multitude towards them than just 12, and when there are more than 12 nations listed..... there had to be more than 12 there to speak all that.

 

[Grace777x70]

That's quite a feat to get 120 people in one of these....

 

[peacefulbeliever]

I agree that it went on to share one of those days where they were picking an apostle to replace Judas Iscariot, but in those days when they were waiting.... I believe there was about 120 in that upper room when Pentecost had come for that to be a great noise heard throughout that neighborhood.

Acts 1:[SUP]15[/SUP]And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

It did not take them more than one day to pick a replacement, right? I read that as reporting while they were waiting in those days as commanded by the Lord to wait, in one of those days, they had picked a replacement for Judas Iscariot.

Anyway, I believe that is how many disciples were there since there were more than 12 nations listed there for them 12 to be speaking all of them.

Acts 2:1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. [SUP]2 [/SUP]And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. [SUP]4 [/SUP]And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. [SUP]5 [/SUP]And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. [SUP]6 [/SUP]Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. [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.

More than 12 listed here and so more than 12 disciples were present in that upper room on the day of Pentecost.

It is an assumption, granted; but a reasonable one from the scripture that has been given. If they were about 120 disciples waiting around in those days in Acts 1:15, then when Pentecost had come when they were ALL in one accord in that room..... as Acts 2:1 began.....

It is an assumption - drawing a conclusion that the apostles and 120 others were in the upper room for the choosing of another apostle and stayed there up UNTIL "THE DAY OF PENTECOST was fully come". Now you are correct in saying it doesn't say how long it took them to choose . . . Neither does it say how long they were in the upper room BUT the day of Pentecost, or The Feast of Weeks, or Shavuot, was one of the three main festivals for which all males were required to bring a sacrifice before the Lord. That is a lot of people . . . They were all in one place, in one accord, a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, filled the house . . . house can mean "house of God, tabernacle".

Of those there who received his (Peter) word were baptized, and there were added that day about 3,000 souls. . . Nope, not happening in the upper room . . . I would say that was some kind of revival!!!!

 

[shrume]

How easy it is for Luke to report that, but he did not.

I see this:

Acts 2:[SUP]5 [/SUP]And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

No temple mentioned here. Why not say there were Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven at the temple in Jerusalem that day?

Why report this?

Acts 2:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

If they were all in the Temple or going there anyway, they would not be hearing it abroad for the reason that the multitude came together where they were if they were already in the Temple or heading there.I would think the priests would be mentioned as I am sure they would have kicked them out for interrupting their services.Did the disciples in Acts 1:15 did this selection of a replacement for Judas Iscariot in the Temple too? Nope.How many were there when they did? About 120.


Reason that out. Judas Iscariot was one of the 12, right? He's dead. If in Acts 1:15 they chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot, out of what... about a 120 .

So when I read in those days in Acts 1:15 wherein about a 120 were in the room, it was one of those days when they had replaced Judas Iscariot, while they were waiting for the Lord as commanded.

When there are more than 12 nations listed, there had to be more than 12 in that upper room when they began speaking in tongues. Anyway... Luke never gave a number except in Acts 1:15 and so about a 120 can create a great noise to be heard abroad than 12 disciples speaking in tongues.

Acts 1:[SUP]13 [/SUP]And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. [SUP]14 [/SUP]These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. [SUP]15 [/SUP]And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)......

The place had to be the upper room, not the Temple when Acts 2:1 happened.

Acts 2:1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

The 12 disciples ABODE in the upper room. That's where they were living. There would have been no women allowed in the room where the 12 were staying.

Acts 1:
14) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

They would have been together in prayer and supplication WITH THE WOMEN in the Temple, not the upper room.

Also, houses in Jerusalem were small. Even today with our relatively large houses, almost nobody has a room that would accommodate 120 people. OTOH, the Temple complex was ~37 acres. Plenty of room there. And you cannot get a "multitude" of people in an upper room, whereas you can in the Temple.

God did not do this thing behind the closed doors of an upper room.

 

[Enow]

Why should I care about the results of your poll?

For the progress of our discussion. I had asked you to create that poll, and you did not. I waited long enough and did it, even though having a poll under my name may not be seen by all tongue speakers when they have me on ignore.

This is further proof that you do not understand what tongues are and what they are for.

Your judgment is not righteous. You are judging according to your gross and total ignorance.

So in other words, you cannot defend your tongues without interpretation against those who gained that tongue by apostasy? And if you cannot reprove how they got that tongue as this tongue is real to them, you cannot stop them nor reprove them when they invoke the Holy Spirit to fall on them in those other movements of the Spirit in receiving other sensational signs in the flesh like the "slain in the Spirit" and the "drunk in the Spirit" and the "holy laughter" movement.

If that is how they got their supernatural tongue which comes with no interpretation, then they will ignore you about how they are receiving other signs by seeking to receive the Holy Spirit again and again after salvation.

You can put that on the backburner all you want, my brother, but I reckon you will be having a hard time reproving those astray until you do discern that iniquity with His help at that throne of grace ( praying normally, in asking Him, of course ).

I believe in God's gift of tongues are ONLY for speaking unto the people; 1 Corinthians 14:20-22

I believe John 16:13 that testifies that the Holy Spirit cannot use God's gift of tongues as His means for prayer.

But carry on. You'll get no more responses from me.

I understand. Thanks for sharing what you had been sharing. My concern for you shall be given to the Lord since only He can cause the increase. HUGS (((((((((((((((((((((((((( shrume ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) I love you in Christ, brother.

 

[Enow]

The 12 disciples ABODE in the upper room. That's where they were living. There would have been no women allowed in the room where the 12 were staying.

Acts 1:
14) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

They would have been together in prayer and supplication WITH THE WOMEN in the Temple, not the upper room.

In context, brother.

Acts 1:[SUP]13 [/SUP]And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. [SUP]14 [/SUP]These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Luke listed the men in the upper room and verse 14 is the conclusion from that list as "These all continued..."

There is no law against men and women praying together outside the Temple. However, there is a law against women speaking in the Temple.

Also, houses in Jerusalem were small. Even today with our relatively large houses, almost nobody has a room that would accommodate 120 people. OTOH, the Temple complex was ~37 acres. Plenty of room there. And you cannot get a "multitude" of people in an upper room, whereas you can in the Temple.

God did not do this thing behind the closed doors of an upper room.

That is a reasonable explanation, but the scripture recorded about being 120 in that place. So there had to be such a place for about 120 people.

Acts 1:[SUP]13 [/SUP]And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. [SUP]14 [/SUP]These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. [SUP]15 [/SUP]And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)......

The place had to be the upper room, not the Temple when Acts 2:1 happened or they would be kicked out.

Acts 2:1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

There is nothing to say that they were in the upper room still when the multitude had come together outside their dwelling. I understand your P.O.V. when confining them all in the upper room, but I believe they went outside the dwelling to the multitude that was gathering in the streets since it was for their benefit... not their own.

 

[shrume]

For the progress of our discussion. I had asked you to create that poll, and you did not. I waited long enough and did it, even though having a poll under my name may not be seen by all tongue speakers when they have me on ignore.

So in other words, you cannot defend your tongues without interpretation against those who gained that tongue by apostasy?

Nobody "gains a tongue" by apostasy. Christians can speak in tongues because they have the indwelling gift of Holy Spirit.

And if you cannot reprove how they got that tongue as this tongue is real to them, you cannot stop them nor reprove them when they invoke the Holy Spirit to fall on them in those other movements of the Spirit in receiving other sensational signs in the flesh like the "slain in the Spirit" and the "drunk in the Spirit" and the "holy laughter" movement.

I have already mentioned to you that things like "slain in the spirit", drunk in the Spirit", "holy laughter" are wrong.

Our discussion has been about speaking in tongues privately (without interpretation), not about the various ways some Pentecostals/Charismatics "experience" things. If someone wants to discuss their experience, I'm willing to do so.

If that is how they got their supernatural tongue which comes with no interpretation, then they will ignore you about how they are receiving other signs by seeking to receive the Holy Spirit again and again after salvation.

People gain the ability to speak in tongues the moment they are saved.

You can put that on the backburner all you want, my brother, but I reckon you will be having a hard time reproving those astray until you do discern that iniquity with His help at that throne of grace ( praying normally, in asking Him, of course ).

Again, if people on this forum who do the things mentioned above want to discuss it, I'm willing.

I believe in God's gift of tongues are ONLY for speaking unto the people; 1 Corinthians 14:20-22

You can believe whatever you like, but:

1 Cor 14:
2) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

For you to hold to your belief, you must flatly deny 1 Cor 14:2.

Concerning 1 Cor 14:21-22:
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.

Verse 21 is a reference to Isa 28:11.
11) For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

That is not a prophesy of speaking in tongues. Israel had been disobedient, and because of that, God was not able to protect them from their enemies. They were about to be conquered by the Assyrians, who would speak to them in the Assyrian language, which the Israelites did not understand. That they had been conquered by an enemy nation should have been a sign to them that they had strayed from God.

Just as hearing the strange Assyrian language was a sign to Israel, tongues should be a sign to unbelievers. If an unbeliever hears someone speaking in tongues, he should realize that something strange (to him) is happening, and want to learn more.

I believe John 16:13 that testifies that the Holy Spirit cannot use God's gift of tongues as His means for prayer.

The Holy Spirit does not "use" God's manifestation of tongues as his means for prayer. CHRISTIANS use the indwelling gift of the holy Spirit to pray in the spirit (speak in tongues) as well as operate the other eight manifestations.

I understand. Thanks for sharing what you had been sharing. My concern for you shall be given to the Lord since only He can cause the increase.

God gives the increase, but people need to be TAUGHT.

30) And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

People need to hear the truth before they can believe it, and your understanding of tongues is not the truth.

HUGS (((((((((((((((((((((((((( shrume ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) I love you in Christ, brother.

Thanks! Same to you, Enow.

 

[shrume]

...That is a reasonable explanation, but the scripture recorded about being 120 in that place...

Yes. But "that place" where 120 people, including women, were gathered to pray, was the Temple, not the upper room.

...looks like something else we will continue to disagree on...

 

[Enow]

Speaking in tongues is not "Satan's kind of supernatural tongue".


There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with speaking in tongues to yourself without interpretation.

Here is a report found in a book documentating a Catholic nun possessed and speaking in tongues that did not come with interpretation. There are other reports that gives line of discernment that God's gift of tongues cannot be this kind of tongue.

[video=youtube;CBJyp7USS9g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJyp7USS9g[/video]

 

[shrume]

Here is a report found in a book documentating a Catholic nun possessed and speaking in tongues that did not come with interpretation. There are other reports that gives line of discernment that God's gift of tongues cannot be this kind of tongue.

I believe what I do because of scripture, not Youtube videos put out by naysayers.

 

[WingsOfFidelity]

As I read through this thread I noticed no one ever mentioned that tongues, along with prophecy and other gifts have ceased. I tried to find a post I had read a long time ago from a Christian Chat Forum I used to attend but instead stumbled upon this article:

.The Gift of Tongues

Tongues "Will Cease"The gift of tongues was a divinely bestowed supernatural ability to speak in a human language that had not been learned by the one speaking. According to the Apostle Paul, when believers exercised the gift of tongues in church, they were to speak one at a time, and only two or three were to speak in a given service (1 Cor. 14:27). Furthermore, when tongues were spoken in the church, they were to be interpreted by someone with the gift of interpretation so that the others might be edified by the God-given message (1 Cor. 14:5, 13, 27). In this way, tongues did not serve as a private prayer language, but rather—like all spiritual gifts—as a means by which one might serve and edify the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:7; 1 Pet. 4:10).
In 1 Corinthians 13:8 Paul made an interesting, almost startling, statement: “Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.” In the expression “love never fails,” the Greek word translated “fails” means “to decay” or “to be abolished.” Paul was not saying that love is invincible or that it cannot be rejected. He was saying that love is eternal—that it will be applicable forever and will never be passé. Tongues, however, “will cease.” The Greek verb used in 1 Corinthians 13:8 means “to cease permanently,” and implies that when tongues ceased, they would never start up again. Here is the question that this passage poses for the contemporary charismatic movement: if tongues were supposed to cease, has that already happened, or is it yet future? Charismatic believers insist that none of the gifts have ceased yet, so the cessation of tongues is yet future. Most non-charismatics insist that tongues have already ceased, passing away with the apostolic age. Who is right?
It should be noted that 1 Corinthians 13:8 itself does not say when tongues were to cease. Although 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 teaches that prophecy and knowledge will cease when the “perfect” (i.e., the eternal state) comes, the language of the passage—particularly the middle voice of the Greek verb translated “will cease”—puts tongues in a category apart from these gifts. Paul writes that while prophecy and knowledge will be “done away” (passive voice) by “the perfect,” the gift of tongues “will cease” in and of itself (middle voice) prior to the time that “the perfect” arrives. When did this cessation of tongues take place? The evidence of Scripture and history indicate that tongues ceased in the apostolic age.

Evidence from Scripture

What biblical or theological evidence is there that tongues have ceased? First, the gift of tongues was a miraculous, revelatory gift, and the age of miracles and revelation ended with the apostles. The last recorded miracles in the New Testament occurred around A.D. 58, with the healings on the island of Malta (Acts 28:7-10). From A.D. 58 to 96, when John finished the book of Revelation, no miracle is recorded. Miracle gifts like tongues and healing are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians, an early epistle. Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss gifts of the Spirit at length—but no mention is made of the miraculous gifts. By that time miracles were already looked on as something in the past (Heb. 2:3-4). Apostolic authority and the apostolic message needed no further confirmation. Before the first century ended, the entire New Testament had been written and was circulating through the churches.
The revelatory gifts had ceased to serve any purpose. And when the apostolic age ended with the death of the Apostle John, the signs that identified the apostles had already become moot (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12).
Second, tongues were intended as a sign to unbelieving Israel (1 Cor. 14:21-22; cf. Is. 28:11-12). They signified that God had begun a new work that encompassed the Gentiles. The Lord would now speak to all nations in all languages. The barriers were down. And so the gift of languages symbolized not only the curse of God on a disobedient nation, but also the blessing of God on the whole world.
Tongues were therefore a sign of transition between the Old and New Covenants. With the establishment of the church, a new day had dawned for the people of God. God would speak in all languages. But once the period of transition was past, the sign was no longer necessary.
Third, the gift of tongues was inferior to other gifts. It was given primarily as a sign (1 Cor. 14:22) and was also easily misused to edify self (1 Cor. 14:4). The church meets for the edification of the body, not self-gratification or personal experience-seeking. Therefore, tongues had limited usefulness in the church, and so it was never intended to be a permanent gift.

The Evidence from History

The evidence of history also indicates that tongues have ceased. It is significant that tongues are mentioned only in the earliest books of the New Testament. Paul wrote at least twelve epistles after 1 Corinthians and never mentioned tongues again. Peter never mentioned tongues; James never mentioned tongues; John never mentioned tongues; neither did Jude. Tongues appeared only briefly in Acts and 1 Corinthians as the new message of the gospel was being spread. But once the church was established, tongues were gone. They stopped. The later books of the New Testament do not mention tongues again, and neither did anyone in the post-apostolic age.
Chrysostom and Augustine—the greatest theologians of the eastern and western churches—considered tongues obsolete. Writing in the fourth century, Chrysostom stated categorically that tongues had ceased by his time and described the gift as an obscure practice. Augustine referred to tongues as a sign that was adapted to the apostolic age. In fact, during the first five hundred years of the church, the only people who claimed to have spoken in tongues were followers of Montanus, who was branded as a heretic.
The next time any significant tongues-speaking movement arose within Christianity was in the late seventeenth century. A group of militant Protestants in the Cevennes region of southern France began to prophecy, experience visions, and speak in tongues. The group, sometimes called the Cevennol prophets, is remembered for its political and military activities, not its spiritual legacy. Most of their prophecies went unfulfilled. They were rabidly anti-Roman Catholic, and advocated the use of armed force against the Roman Catholic church. Many of them were consequently persecuted and killed by Rome.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Jansenists, a group of Roman Catholic loyalists who opposed the Reformers’ teaching on justification by faith, also claimed to be able to speak in tongues in the 1700s.
Another group that practiced a form of tongues was the Shakers, an American sect with Quaker roots that flourished in the mid-1700s. Mother Ann Lee, founder of the sect, regarded herself as the female equivalent of Jesus Christ. She claimed to be able to speak in seventy-two languages. The Shakers believed sexual intercourse was sinful, even within marriage. They spoke in tongues while dancing and singing in a trancelike state.
Then in the early nineteenth century, Scottish Presbyterian pastor Edward Irving and members of his congregation practiced speaking in tongues and prophesying. Irvingite prophets often contradicted each other, their prophecies failed to come to pass, and their meetings were characterized by wild excesses. The movement was further discredited when some of their prophets admitted to falsifying prophecies and others even attributed their “giftedness” to evil spirits. This group eventually became the Catholic Apostolic Church, which taught many false doctrines, embracing several Roman Catholic doctrines and creating twelve apostolic offices.
All of those supposed manifestations of tongues were identified with groups that were heretical, fanatical, or otherwise unorthodox. The judgment of biblically orthodox believers who were their contemporaries was that all those groups were aberrations. Surely that should also be the assessment of any Christian who is concerned with truth. Thus, we conclude that from the end of the apostolic era to the beginning of the twentieth century there were no genuine occurrences of the New Testament gift of tongues. They had ceased, as the Holy Spirit said they would (1 Cor. 13:8). The gift of tongues is not for today.

Adapted from John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992). For a fuller treatment of the gift of tongues, consult this resource.

https://www.gracechurch.org/about/distinctives/gift-of-tongues?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1