Speaking In Tongues

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

On that occasion they did, there were 17 nationalities present. Diverse tongues was needed. Look at the whole of scripture, single verse theology is a terrible way to make doctrine.

Do you have even a single verse that tells us that tongues was the initial evidence only that one time? If not, maybe we should expect our experience to be the same.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I would start with Paul's instructions on Spiritual gifts.

Initial evidence is not the same as spiritual gifts. Not everyone who spoke in tongues in Acts 2 had the gift of tongues.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Lastly, we are to be fruit inspectors, not gift inspectors. Peace, love, joy, forbearance, long suffering are fruits of the Spirit. There are two heresies with tongues, the first is when people condemn all tongues as "of the devil", that's false. Yes the enemy counterfeits tongues, they are 'tongues of angels' after all, the other heresy is saying tongues are the only evidence of the Spirit, that's also false.

If you read my post again you will see that I have not said that tongues is the only evidence. It is the only initial evidence. The fruit of the Spirit is the evidence that a person continues to walk in the Spirit.

Can you show me a verse that says "tongues is the initial evidence"? You're teaching Philosophy, not systematic theology. Paul directly says not all speak with tongues. The apostles did at Pentecost because there were 17 nationalities present, everyone needed to understand what Peter was trying to say and the fruit of his sermon led 3,000 people to Christ. You simply cannot make doctrine from a single verse. As said previously that's called "single verse theology". Proper application of theological doctrines are to incorporate the whole of scripture, line upon line, precept upon precept.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Can you show me a verse that says "tongues is the initial evidence"?

I showed a verse where all who received the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues. If you can't provide Scripture that shows that the experience of receiving the Holy Spirit has changed from their experience, then your teaching is not based on Scripture.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

You're teaching Philosophy, not systematic theology.

It's funny that you would accuse me of teaching philosophy when you are the one not teaching according to Scripture and also teach the trinity which came from Babylon and philosophy.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Paul directly says not all speak with tongues.

Paul was saying that not all have the gift of tongues. There is a difference between gift of tongues and initial evidence.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

The apostles did at Pentecost because there were 17 nationalities present, everyone needed to understand what Peter was trying to say and the fruit of his sermon led 3,000 people to Christ.

If that was the only reason, why did they all speak in tongues and not just 17 of them?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

You simply cannot make doctrine from a single verse. As said previously that's called "single verse theology". Proper application of theological doctrines are to incorporate the whole of scripture, line upon line, precept upon precept.

This coming from one who has a no verse doctrine. I would think that a person who wants to receive the Holy Spirit would want their experience to be the same as the experience recorded in Scripture.

"45And 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 Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:45-47 KJV)

Peter and those who came with him, knew that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit because they spoke in tongues. They had the same experience as everyone else who received the Holy Spirit.

reply to post by truejew


You're pointing to a single example, from a single verse, where the situation was one where 17 different nationalities were present. Not only is that poor systematic theology because it's based on one example and one verse and not the whole of scripture on the topic, but it also fails rule #1 of Biblical hermaneutics which is to always account for historical and cultural context. In systematic theology you need 3 supporting verses for any major doctrine to be considered valid.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

You're pointing to a single example, from a single verse, where the situation was one where 17 different nationalities were present. Not only is that poor systematic theology because it's based on one example and one verse and not the whole of scripture on the topic, but it also fails rule #1 of Biblical hermaneutics which is to always account for historical and cultural context. In systematic theology you need 3 supporting verses for any major doctrine to be considered valid.

So in other words, you have no Scripture for your teaching.

reply to post by truejew


You have yet to show your's. There is no scripture that says tongues is the initial evidence for all Christians is all situations. You used only one scripture to show what happened on one occasion, (feast of Pentecost), and the context of that one situation was that 17 different nationalities were present. That isn't dogmatic for all Christians in all situations, it's "single verse theology" which is terrible hermeneutics, and you failed to produce any verses that state something to the effect of "tongues is the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism". There is no verse that says that in the scripture.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

You have yet to show your's. There is no scripture that says tongues is the initial evidence for all Christians is all situations. You used only one scripture to show what happened on one occasion, (feast of Pentecost), and the context of that one situation was that 17 different nationalities were present. That isn't dogmatic for all Christians in all situations, it's "single verse theology" which is terrible hermeneutics, and you failed to produce any verses that state something to the effect of "tongues is the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism". There is no verse that says that in the scripture.

You do not think that our experience of receiving the Holy Spirit should be the same as those in the two Scriptures mentioned?

If the speaking in tongues was only to benefit the 17 nationalities, why did all speak in tongues. Only 17 would have been needed.

Why did Peter and those with him understand speaking in tongues as evidence that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit in Acts 10?

Pretty much sums up my view on speaking in tongues.

Originally posted by Lysergic


Pretty much sums up my view on speaking in tongues.

Mocking the Holy Spirit can only lead you to a place you don't really want to go.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by Lysergic


Pretty much sums up my view on speaking in tongues.

Mocking the Holy Spirit can only lead you to a place you don't really want to go.

I'm sure Sacha Baron Cohen doesn't mind.

reply to post by truejew


Because as I stated earlier, it's AN evidence, not THE evidence. I'm not condemning tongues, I'm condemning the heresy that tongues is the only evidence of the Holy Spirit. It's one evidence, however the fruit of the Spirit is of far greater importance that any one gift of the Spirit. Some outstanding men of God throughout history never spoke with tongues, Charles Haddon Spurgeon being one. Tongues are great, but not everyone has that gift. The person who heals the sick shouldn't look down on a person who speaks with tongues and say " well, you can't heal the sick, you don't have the Holy Spirit..". Likewise the person who raises the dead shouldn't say the same thing. Therefore the people who speak with tongues shouldn't look down on those who cannot.

Peace, joy, love, patience, and longsuffering are much greater than gifts. Mine is discernment and prophecy, I cannot speak in tongues. But then again others cannot prophesy, and that's not reason for me to claim they don't have the Holy Spirit. No man can call Christ Lord without the Holy Spirit.

There are actually 2 gifts of tongues that are mentioned. The first is quite simple.

Acts 2:1-12 2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

I think most people agree when reading this that the disciples were speaking foreign languages. They got a crash course in speaking another language from the Holy Spirit. Take that Rosetta Stone.
The second gift is not as simple.

But I believe that God has revealed to me what the second gift is.

1 Cor 2:12-14 NIV: (12) We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. (13) This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. (14) The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 12:10 To another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
1 Corinthians 13:1-13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

If you read through this a few ties it appears that Paul is talking about words that have been given him by the Holy Spirit. It appears that tongues are a type of wisdom given from God. It also appears that only those who possess the Spirit of God will understand the words of wisdom that he is speaking in these tongues. It also appears that some will be given the gift to interpret tongues. But who do they interpret too?

So now that you understand the basics take a look at the next passage.

1 Corinthians 14:1-19 14 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.

13 For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17 You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.

18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Paul makes it clear that speaking in tongues is really only beneficial to the one speaking. He is glad that he speaks in tongues well but prefers to use intelligible words when in church. He also clearly states that anyone who has the gift to speak in tongues should desire the gift of interpretation so that they can understand what they are saying. If tongues are spoken in church than someone must interpret.

Lets look at all the details.

The believers who were receiving the Holy Spirit were also receiving wisdom from the Holy Spirit. They were able to utter this wisdom in tongues. The Apostles understood that they were speaking this wisdom. Paul says several times that you need to be able to interpret tongues both for yourself and for the church. So the wisdom that is given to you by the Holy Spirit should also be something that you understand. However, someone who has not received the gift of the Holy Spirit cannot understand the wisdom of the spirit. Thus the need for interpretation.

The second type of tongues. "Speaking the wisdom of God".

If tongues really is a simple as speaking the wisdom of God, and Paul considers himself better than most, it's likely Paul's letters were written with this wisdom.

I believe quite simply the reason for 40,000 denominations of Christianity and all the confusion about who is right lies in this simple fact. Paul wrote his letters in tongues "the wisdom of God"
.
I prayed for the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation and this is the answer that came to me. I did not ask anyone but God and believed that he would give me the gifts I prayed for.

I think Peter makes mention of this in one of his letters.

2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

I'm not condemning tongues, I'm condemning the heresy that tongues is the only evidence of the Holy Spirit.

There is a difference between "only evidence" and initial evidence. I do not teach "only evidence".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Some outstanding men of God throughout history never spoke with tongues, Charles Haddon Spurgeon being one.

"22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:22-23 KJV)

You still have not answered my posts.

reply to post by truejew


What does Matthew 7:22-23 have to do with what I said? When Christ said on "that day" He is referring to the day of judgment, Christians are not present at that judgment. And furthermore, all people will be confessing He is Lord and bowing the knee to the glory of the Father.

In addition, your "outstanding man of God", Charles Haddon Spurgeon, was a Calvinist. John Calvin was a heretic and murderer. Now let's review the fruit of the Spirit.

"19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:19-23 KJV)

Neither Calvin nor Spurgeon had the initial evidence. Both also have the works of the flesh, not the fruit of the Spirit.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

What does Matthew 7:22-23 have to do with what I said? When Christ said on "that day" He is referring to the day of judgment, Christians are not present at that judgment. And furthermore, all people will be confessing He is Lord and bowing the knee to the glory of the Father.

Spurgeon is not a Christian.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

What does Matthew 7:22-23 have to do with what I said? When Christ said on "that day" He is referring to the day of judgment, Christians are not present at that judgment. And furthermore, all people will be confessing He is Lord and bowing the knee to the glory of the Father.

Spurgeon is not a Christian.

You've got to be kidding. He's one of the greatest preachers/evangelists in the history of Christianity.

You do realize there is a difference between infilling and the baptism of the Holy Spirit correct?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

What does Matthew 7:22-23 have to do with what I said? When Christ said on "that day" He is referring to the day of judgment, Christians are not present at that judgment. And furthermore, all people will be confessing He is Lord and bowing the knee to the glory of the Father.

Spurgeon is not a Christian.

You've got to be kidding. He's one of the greatest preachers/evangelists in the history of Christianity.

He is associated with John Calvin, a murderer and both teach heresy.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
You do realize there is a difference between infilling and the baptism of the Holy Spirit correct?

They are the same. We are born again of water and the Spirit one time, not two