Speaking in Tongues: Its Origins [Ancient and Modern], Purpose, and Power

Correction:
My comment (Post #480) was the response to Post #470.
- About the 'Vineyard movement'..(#470)

I like what you're saying about how you go through the scriptures and don't try to press it in someone. I don't agree that it's for everyone, though. Each has their own gifts. I don't believe everyone has the gift of tongues. I don't myself. I think there's a reason for that. I think there are some that won't be reached that way. I'm open to it if that's how God wants to use me, but I don't think it's required. I once transcribed a talk from a well-known Christian speaker, one I'd even heard before in person, where she said that a person had not actually received the Holy Spirit if that person did not speak in tongues. I really disagree with that and lost some respect for her that day. Anyhow, I do like your approach. Thanks for sharing.

You're welcome. Yes the statements by some that you don't have the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues is serious error. Every Born Again Christian has the Holy Spirit or they are not born again yet.

Most all pentecostal churches and denominations believe that you must be born again first and receive the Holy Spirit before you are eligible for the experience called the "enduement of Power from on High to be a witness" or the "baptism of the Holy Spirit"

The statement that you have not yet experienced the enduement of power from on High to be a witness if you have not spoken in tongues is what the AOG and many Pentecostals believe.

That is NOT saying that you do not have the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues. Not saying that at all.

Can someone say "it's not for me" or chose to turn down the gift of speaking in tongues if it is available to them? Yes, they can. But they will change their mind if the keep learning and growing in grace. It is a very strange concept to the mature to say to God.. "I know that you have offered me a gift and I know that you would not offer me something I would not want if I understood it, but I am going to pass, thank you very much God" No, no one would say that if they were thinking correctly. Their mind has to be befuddled with erroneous thoughts about the gift to say that, such as fear that God would give them something that would make them appear weird to their friends. Or fear that God would harm them. Or something sort of thinking that is erroneous.

Now can people turn it down because they don't think it is real? Sure, but that it different than turning it down while believing it is a gift God wants them to have.

You either believe God wants you to have it and therefore you also want to have it, (if you are thinking correctly) or you have reasons why you don't think it is available for you, or you are not worthy, (sin in your life) or you don't believe that God is really offering it to you, but who is it that actually believes God is giving this gift today, wants to give it to them, but they say "no thanks God?" Who would do that? I can't imagine it. Except for the "I still have serious sins of the flesh I need to quit first" mentality and I can relate to that. I can understand why someone can believe it is available and say it is not for me if they were thinking they were living too sinfully and needed to work on other things before asking for the gift of tongues. I get it. I think this experience can help them get past that sinful living however and they should just go ahead and surrender all and ask for this outpouring. They will discover that their lack of seriousness about sin changed the day they received this experience and that spiritual sloth was cured.

The AOG, Four Square, and COG do not teach you have not yet experienced the enduement of power from on High to be a witness if you have not spoken in tongues. We believe in scripture speaking in tongues is the initial evidence, however, Prophesying is also confirmation. many people is many churches say many things yet are not in line with the "denominations" position on this topic.

AS an AOG Minister our 16th foundational truth and for cardinal belief say no such thing.

The thing is, presumably Peter the first time he preached to Gentiles hearing some or all of them speak in tongues and some or all of them magnify God does not prove that if someone has not spoken in tongues, that he or she is not baptized with the Holy Spirit. If we look in Acts 2, Peter quotes a passage about the outpouring of the Spirit and people prophesying, having dreams and visions.

That is NOT saying that you do not have the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues. Not saying that at all.

Can someone say "it's not for me" or chose to turn down the gift of speaking in tongues if it is available to them? Yes, they can. But they will change their mind if the keep learning and growing in grace. It is a very strange concept to the mature to say to God.. "I know that you have offered me a gift and I know that you would not offer me something I would not want if I understood it, but I am going to pass, thank you very much God" No, no one would say that if they were thinking correctly. Their mind has to be befuddled with erroneous thoughts about the gift to say that, such as fear that God would give them something that would make them appear weird to their friends. Or fear that God would harm them. Or something sort of thinking that is erroneous.

Now can people turn it down because they don't think it is real? Sure, but that it different than turning it down while believing it is a gift God wants them to have.

You either believe God wants you to have it and therefore you also want to have it, (if you are thinking correctly) or you have reasons why you don't think it is available for you, or you are not worthy, (sin in your life) or you don't believe that God is really offering it to you, but who is it that actually believes God is giving this gift today, wants to give it to them, but they say "no thanks God?" Who would do that? I can't imagine it. Except for the "I still have serious sins of the flesh I need to quit first" mentality and I can relate to that. I can understand why someone can believe it is available and say it is not for me if they were thinking they were living too sinfully and needed to work on other things before asking for the gift of tongues. I get it. I think this experience can help them get past that sinful living however and they should just go ahead and surrender all and ask for this outpouring. They will discover that their lack of seriousness about sin changed the day they received this experience and that spiritual sloth was cured.[/QUOTE]


I Corinthians 12:
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
10...to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Not everyone gets 'divers tongues' from the Spirit. These are distrubted 'as He wills.' We this specically in verse 30:

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

From what I've read, the Greek strongly indicates the answer is 'no', like we might in English, 'Not all speak in tongues, do they?"

I grew up Pentecostal and in my late teens as I studied the Bible, I thought Pentecostals had it all together doctrinaly: church style, ecclesiology, pneumatology, etc. I studied through all the passages on the baptism with the Holy Spirit. I saw passages about receiving the Spirit, filled with the Spirit, the Spirit coming on people, being full of the Spirit, etc. in Acts to see where the doctrines I'd been taught came from. In the A/G, I was in Teen Bible Quiz, so I'd memorized I Corinthians and knew those verses. Eventually, I realized there was an issue with the very-much-over-stated initial evidence doctrine. One thing that caused me to admit it to myself was realizing it was one of the weakest parts of the Oneness argument that one had to speak in tongues to be saved. That doesn't jibe well with Pauline soteriology.

I think one reason why a lot of Pentecostals, preachers in particular, do not like letting go of initial evidence because it messes up their methodology. They lead people through steps. For example, repeat this prayer in faith to get saved (some do that, and hopefully they actually tell them the gospel first), then maybe water baptism, if they are from the small minority that believe in one-time post-conversion 'zap sanctification, they lead them through that, then lay hands on them and try to get them to, or encourage them to speak in tongues. It could be that some people that you lay hands and believe God to be filled with the Spirit might actually get filled/baptized with the Spirit even if they do not speak in tongues. The problem is the 'second class Christian' mentality. And if Acts 6 is about appointing deacons, then should a church not have deacons who do not speak in tongues, since the men in Acts 6 had to be filled with the Spirit? Paul actually indicates that divers tongues is a manifestation of the Spirit, and that not everyone will manifest it. So if we want clarity on how to interpret those statements in Acts 10 and 11 about tongues in Cornelius' house, we can look at Paul's letters.

I know there are those who will say that 'initial evidence' is not what Paul has in mind. 'Initial evidence' tongues are also 'tongues', that are spoken in. The only reason to think Paul's words do not apply is 'Because I said so' or 'Because this preacher said so' or 'Because my tradition says so.'

There are also those people who prophesy, have revelatory dreams or visions- manifestations Acts 2 mentions, and manifest other gifts who have not spoken in tongues. Paul says to be filled with the Spirit and to speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. There are other ways the Spirit manifests in believers He has filled besides tongues.

Well you might not have meant what you wrote as I have noticed that you seem to have some difficulty in writing.

It is not the position of the AOG that one can claim that they are baptized in the Holy Spirit because they have the gift of prophesy but they do not speak in tongues.

The position of the AOG is that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence, not prophesying.

If someone tells me that they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit and received power to be a witness just like in Acts 2 I will ask them "Have you spoken in tongues" and if they say no, I will say that according to the scriptures I don't think that they have received this gift yet.

But they should continue asking and when they do speak in tongues that will be the sign that they have received. Now that is what the initial evidence statement actually means and that has been the position of the AOG since it began.

If they say they have not spoken in tongues yet but they have the gift of prophesy and that they don't believe that they need to speak in tongues they would not be given credentials by the AOG.

As a matter of fact ministers who make the statement "I do not believe that someone has to speak in tongues to have experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit" they would be asked to resign their credentials.

Here is a statement from the Position Papers of the AOG and also the 8th Fundamental Truth.

"Speaking in Tongues. Speaking in tongues is the initial, empirical indication that the infilling has taken place "
https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/Baptism-in-the-Holy-Spirit

"
8. THE INITIAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance."
https://ag.org/Beliefs/Statement-of-Fundamental-Truths#8

The whole point of these statements is "How do you know if you have received this gift?" "You will speak in tongues" and not... "you will prophesy"

Now you may have this opinion but it is not the position of the AOG and they will ask you not to teach that in the pulpit if that is your view. Actually they will probably tell you that if you were honest you would resign your credential since you do not agree with the AOG statement.

I have a feeling you meant something other than how you wrote it.

Gordon Fee has a good commentary on 1 Cor. He makes a solid case for the Greek and for the context that Paul is talking about those who speak in tongues in the congregation and then one who interprets for mutual edification. Not all do it. One at a time in order and not all will prophesy, but one at a time in order. Therefore the "do all speak in tongues" is not meant to suggest that not all of the 120 spoke in tongues because we know that they did, but that not all in the assembly will use that gift. Context is everything.

I don't need your insults on my writing ability.

Again you are incorrect about the AOG position. You started with # 8

#7 is where you should have started with.


7. THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian Church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry.



8. THE INITIAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance.

In addition, the Positional Paper doesn't capture all the AOG says about this topic.

As an example. the paper doesn't address nor could it or is it intending to do so.

Many have had the experience of speaking in tongues who are minsters in the AOG that was not heard by other people but were used in the gift of Prophecy or interpretation of tongues. The AOG sees this too as a valid witness to one being filled or empowered by the Holy Spirit.


They spoke in tongues once and never again. And that my friend is from the AOG Superindenant and many others. Grind you axes guy all you want.

That would mean that they agree with AOG statements that one must show evidence of speaking in tongues to have experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And so I don't know why you are arguing against that saying that the AOG does not teach that, and then basically saying that they do with that statement that you made of the one time event. I think you realize that it is true that the AOG does teach that one must have spoken in tongues to say that they have experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I am shocked that you don't know that. That is why I thought it was some kind of english syntax thing. Surely you could not possibly think that the AOG does not teach that one must speak in tongues to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. I just could not imagine any AOG with credentials not knowing that, which is why I assumed it was a case of accidental wording. It was not to insult you.

Now that I know you actually did mean that, I now see that you have changed your original statement from they don't teach that, to "as long as they speak in tongues at least once" which basically is conceding that the AOG does teach that one must speak in tongues to have received that Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Now the question would be do YOU believe that also?

Do you believe that if someone prophesies but has never spoken in tongues that they have received the same baptism of the Holy Spirit. What if they have never spoken in tongues even one time, would you say that they have still been baptized in the Holy Spirit because they prophesied?

These are things that were hashed and rehashed at the beginning of the movement and these are the things that make the AOG unique from other denominations. This initial evidence of Tongues statement was established so that they could answer the question, "how do you know if it is the same thing as the biblical experience?" and their answer is "you will speak in tongues." Not you can prophesy. You might do both but tongues was considered the main sign, in the scripture so that is what they expect and teach that you should expect.

It will be a point of contention until Jesus comes. I do believe that tongues is how you know.

My understanding is that Fee does not believe that if someone has not spoken in tongues that this proves he is not filled with the Spirit. Does he make tge point you are making in his commentary.

Paul fid not say that the 120 do not speak in tongues. He indicated that not all believers speak in tongues. Why try so hard to fit Paul's writings into the framework of the initial evidence doctrine? Why not evaluate the doctrine by the scriptures Paul wrote

I bid you good day. Not going to have my words twisted by you or listen to your insults. I am fine with ignoring you in this setting thank you.

I'm not sure you got quite so upset.

But I wonder about authentically A/G someone is who writes it AOG instead of A/G. It kind of reminds me of a joke a friend of mine who grew up in the denomination (ooops...'movement') said, "For all have sinned and come short of the Assemblies of God."

Well, I apologize for offending you. I was not intending to put you down. I suppose if you look at the thread I responded to your initial reply in a defensive attitude since I perceived that you were saying I had misrepresented what the Assemblies of God believes. I didn't need to come on so strong. Please forgive me, I don't want to argue with anyone either. I always get convicted when it turns into arguing.

I picked up AOG from other posters. It seemed to be what others understood more often.

Paul said that he would that they all spoke in tongues but not in the church. In the church two or three at the most, so in that sense not all would speak in tongues. But in that case one could speak to himself and to God. So all can speak in tongues in the sense that they can receive that same gift as the 120, the 12, and the household of cornelius where all did speak in tongues, but if there was no interpreter to speak in tongues between themselves and God (quietly) and not all would speak in tongues in the assembly while another interpreted since that would be out of order.

And he said he spoke in tongues more than them all but not in the church.

All can speak in tongues which is why he said that he would that they all did, but not all will speak in tongues in the assembly which is what he spent significant amount of time explaining. It is not hard to understand.

We can't take a phrase of his, isolate it and teach something he did not intend.

Also we must reconcile it with the rest of scriptures.

All 120 spoke in tongues in the upper room. Also when other groups received they all spoke in tongues. Such as Acts 19 and the 12 disciples at Ephesus.

This consistent pattern which Luke brings out is because Luke is not simply writing as an historian but as a theologian in his own right and referencing events that contributed to his own theological agenda (inspired of course). Luke is specific about pointing out that all of these spoke in tongues in each event. He makes it clear and doesn't leave anyone guessing who all spoke in tongues. It is almost like you are hoping that not all spoke in tongues in these events but Luke seems to be very clear about it. He makes a point of it.

Just to make sure it is impossible to make a mistake on this he specifically gives numbers more than once, here is another example:

Acts 19 6And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7There were about twelve men in all.


This makes it clear to most people who read it that Luke is saying that all 12 of these men spoke in tongues and prophesied.

If you go about trying to imagine some kind of scenario where it does not mean all 12 did this it becomes an obvious straining against the plain meaning of the text.

But my point is that Luke wrote it this way on purpose because Luke had a theological purpose throughout Acts that included doctrine on the Holy Spirit that he wanted to reveal by revealing these patterns when the first believers received this gift and spoke in tongues. He gave the number in the upper room and said they all spoke in tongues and he was also very careful to make sure in plain language that the women were included in the speakers.

Peter called what the 120 were doing in speaking in tongues and magnifying God a fulfilment of Joel's prophesy that both men and women would prophesy. So Peter equates the tongues with prophesy. And so it is in a sense.

Therefore, when Paul says do all speak in tongues, in the context of what he was teaching "speaking in tongues in the church with and interpreter, and then only two or three at a time" then No, not all do that. But it is not fair to Paul to take his statement outside of the context of his teaching on how to use the gifts in decency and in order in the assembly and say that Paul said not all of the 120 in the upper room spoke in tongues, which Paul did not say nor did he intend such a thought. Nor did Luke ever say that some of these may not have spoken, Luke makes it clear that they all did. So we must reconcile both which is not hard when you keep Pauls statements within the context of his subject matter.

I agree because the bible makes it clear that speaking in tongues is the evidence that a person has received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:1-4, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6) What revival there would be if people would just accept what the bible teaches.

I don't agree that Peter was equating tongues and prophecy, but I'm not part of that movement, so I'm studying to see how that is explained. That's a problem, though. I never like it when anyone says that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. There may be more meaning that you can get from studying the original language and context, but it still means what it says at the surface. I was studying the Jehovah's Witness beliefs when my neighbor was a missionary for them, and that's what they do all over the place. They're very proud to say they use the same Bible and haven't changed it, but they have all these notes about how the Bible doesn't mean what it says here and there. It's a big red flag for me.

Many years ago, I got corrected on an A/G forum when I let an AOG slip. It's A/G, or like the logo-- AG. I have heard that outloud at an Assemblies of God, 'AG.'

I am not saying that Peter equates the gift of tongues with the gift of prophesy that Paul wrote about in 1 Cor chapters 12 - 14. I am saying that Peter said that what the crowd "heard and saw" which was them speaking in tongues and magnifying God, was the fulfilment of Joel's prophecy that their sons and daughters would "prophesy."

Now why would Peter call speaking in tongues prophecy? Because God pouring out His Spirit on people and then them speaking in tongues, speaking forth utterances inspired by the Holy Spirit through them is in the category of "the prophetic" gifts. Any speaking gifts inspired by the Holy Spirit belongs to the "prophetic" gifts and so to the Jewish mind seeing them, both men and women speaking in tongues was the fulfilment of "they shall prophesy"

Of course another interpretation could be that they prophesied in addition to speaking in tongues as when we are told that the 12 in Ephesus did in Acts 19 but it seems odd that it would not be mentioned here, unless the "magnifying God" was intended to be the reference to the Prophesying that Peter was mentioning rather than speaking in tongues. But I think that the supernatural element of the flames, the wind, and the tongues was all part of his understanding that they were prophesying with these utterances in tongues.