-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Clear up confusion about tongues!
- Thread starter awaken
- Start date
- Status
Acts 2:1-4 clearly says that the entire group of 120 disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit and all spoke with tongues after the Holy Spirit arrived. The encounter with Paul suggests that all 12 men "spake with tongues and prophesied. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles at Cornelius' house suggests that all were filled with the Spirit and spoke with tongues. If only some did--I believe the Bible would say so. Unless you are desperate to find anything that disproves the notion that tongues is a gift that any believer can experience--the Scriptural evidence suggests that speaking in tongues is a "primary indicator" of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Yet, I know that all true believers possess the Holy Spirit and many have never yielded to Him in this area. The primary blockage to this gift is false teaching, which creates unbelief. Unbelief against any of the gifts of the Spirit will hinder or completely block their expression. In my opinion, false teaching and the unbelief it generates concerning these administrations of the Spirit hinders God's power from operating in the modern church.
Bob Hope
Member
So now you are saying tongues never existed because we do not have an example of Jesus speaking in tongues? What are you going to do with Acts 2, 10, 19, Mark 16, 1 Cor. 12-14? Throw it out because Jesus did not speak in tongues?
You won't find tongues in demonstration in the OT although you will find this gift prophesied about in Isaiah 28:11-12. These two gifts, tongues and interpretation of tongues are distinctive of this Holy Spirit dispensation, or age, which began with the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.
Mark 16 Jesus tells them what will follow believers and speaking in new tongues is one of them!
Do I have to speak with tongues to be saved?
I hear this question often and the answer is NO. There is no support from the Scripture for this belief. It's a false teaching that causes a lot of confusion. I get concerned when I hear Christians say, "Do I have to speak in tongues?" You get the impression that God is forcing them into some kind of punishment or torment. Speaking in tongues is nothing like that. It's a spiritual gift from God to you.
Those opposed to the gifts of the Spirit attempt to make believers think it's something evil--or that it's some kind of extreme emotionalism, irrational behavior or even mental illness. These perceptions are part of their defense. They use fear and the Christian's ignorance of the Scriptures to dissuade listeners. To answer the question--No you don't have to speak in tongues. And yes, you can be a true believer in Christ and not speak with tongues. Jesus Christ and Saint Paul never listed it as a requirement for salvation--and neither do I. Millions of Christians have decided that they don't want this gift because they've been told it doesn't apply today. If that's what you really want, God will honor your decision...
I hear this question often and the answer is NO. There is no support from the Scripture for this belief. It's a false teaching that causes a lot of confusion. I get concerned when I hear Christians say, "Do I have to speak in tongues?" You get the impression that God is forcing them into some kind of punishment or torment. Speaking in tongues is nothing like that. It's a spiritual gift from God to you.
Those opposed to the gifts of the Spirit attempt to make believers think it's something evil--or that it's some kind of extreme emotionalism, irrational behavior or even mental illness. These perceptions are part of their defense. They use fear and the Christian's ignorance of the Scriptures to dissuade listeners. To answer the question--No you don't have to speak in tongues. And yes, you can be a true believer in Christ and not speak with tongues. Jesus Christ and Saint Paul never listed it as a requirement for salvation--and neither do I. Millions of Christians have decided that they don't want this gift because they've been told it doesn't apply today. If that's what you really want, God will honor your decision...
Michael Wrenn
New Member
And millions of Christians have not received this gift even though they have been open to it because this gift is not given to every Christian, and nowhere in th Bible does it say that it is for every Christian. In fact, it says quite the opposite.
And why also this emphasis on tongues, as if it was the most important gift? According to Paul, it is not. And yet I don't see an equal emphasis given to prophecy, which Paul says is a greater gift. Why is tongues made the litmus test of some "higher" or "fuller" spiritual experience, and not prophecy? Or what about love, which Paul says is the supreme gift? I see a lot of inconsistency and unscriptural teaching in the Pentecostal/Charismatic view of the gifts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Because it is.
It is usually that too.
It is quite irrational. Paul said it was. "Will they not say, ye are mad."
It can lead to that unfortunately. And it can lead to much, much worse.
I use Scripture, my knowledge of it, and what I have seen already through 35 years of full time ministry. I don't believe I am wrong.
The United Pentecostal or Oneness movement certainly do. In fact so do the Mormons.
The best decision one can make is to stay away from the Charismatic movement like the plague. Their teachings have done more harm to the the teachings of Biblical Christianity then any other movement that claims to be Christian.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
You don't avoid the Charismatic movement. You welcome it. At least that is what your website says.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
You never get tired of telling lies about me, do you?
Here is what is said in our Principles: "The CAC believes in all the gifts of the Spirit, while not holding to a Pentecostal or Charismatic interpretation of them."
It's difficult to have an honest conversation with someone who is fundamentally dishonest.
The Charismatic movement encompasses a wide umbrella. It includes those like the United Pentecostal who believe that speaking in tongues is evidence that you have been saved to the FGA. Even under the FGA there is a variety. Some are conservative enough that the only place where tongues would be spoken would be in their own homes.
You believe in the gifts of the Spirit; hence you believe in the gift of tongues. That makes you a Charismatic. End of discussion.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
The gifts of the Spirit are delineated for us twice in the 1Cor.12.
They have different purposes.
1. Some are revelatory, specifically those mentioned in 13:8, as well as a couple of others.
2. They are a sign to the Jews (esp. tongues) 14:21,22.
3. They are a sign to authenticate the apostles to verify them as apostles and their message that it is from God (2Cor.12:12; Heb.2:3,4)
Those are the three main reason for the gifts of the Spirit.
1. The NT is complete. We no longer need revelatory gifts.
2. All of the apostles died by the end of the first century. There is no need for any of the spiritual gifts.
3. There are no first century Jews here. They heard the sign, saw it, repented not, and judgment came in 70 A.D. The Temple was destroyed and the nation was scattered and never became a nation again until 1948.
The gifts of the Spirit have ceased, and there is no evidence that they are operational today. In fact it is a new phenomena that started in 1905. For 1900 years history remains silent concerning tongues, with the exception of cults and false religions. Now with the advent of the Azuza movement and the Kansas City Prophets, a new movement sprang, a fraudulent imitation of what was genuinely practiced 1900 years before that time.
Because tongues is the most misunderstood gift!
I showed in Acts 2,10, 19 etc. that they all spoke in tongues. Not all are called to speak in tongues in assembly and interprete, but all that are Baptized can "pray in the spirit."
Curious..what is your view backed up with scripture?
Be careful of religious persuasive speech...it is not always about Biblical truth, but protecting unbiblical religious tradition in order to keep the public committed to it. Why is tradition important? Some churches and denominations build their entire doctrine on it. If the tradition becomes questionable, entire religious organizations will crash and burn. If you carefully examine the verbal clashes between Jesus Christ and the Pharisees (religious leaders of Christ's time)--they were fought between the two "theologies" of religious tradition and Biblical truth. Both "appear" to be supported from the Scriptures. The Pharisees had to confront Jesus because he was a threat to their system. If they failed to confront this threat the entire religious structure they had built would fall. Jesus couldn't be defeated verbally or "theologically"--so they crucified him.
The same battle is going on today--and it's more intense than ever. Some Christians have no idea of the hidden battle that rages behind the pulpits of the church. If you have to discredit something find all the negative things and exaggerate their importance. If positive facts that contradict your position are introduced into the discussion--you must diminish their importance or discredit them entirely if you want to win the argument and protect a cherished tradition. These are some of the tactics of "liberal theology"--and it's not godly. Yet, many skilled theologians practice its principles on the unsuspecting public. It's about winning...and protecting certain unbiblical traditions of religious organizations. It's not always about truth.
Does Paul say negative things about speaking in tongues. Yes he does. Yet, he discusses the negative because the Corinthian Church was misusing the gift. His purpose in drawing attention to the negative is to teach them about the positive side and the proper use of the gift when used in the public assembly of the church. Proper use is important. Without proper use (maintaining order in the public assembly) the church meeting falls into confusion and the gospel is threatened. Saint Paul's discussion of the improper use of tongues was never intended to invalidate the gift. Yet, the religious critic's goal of discussing the abuse of the gift is to cast doubt, diminish or eliminate the use of it entirely. If pastors, teachers and theologians decide that Spiritual gifts are to be removed from Christian life...how many other things in the New Testament Scriptures have they also decided to remove? This is a question we should all ask.
How do we know that Paul wasn't attempting to invalidate speaking in tongues? He tells us in the Scriptures below:
"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (1 Cor 14:18)
"Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." (1 Cor 14:39)
Paul told the Corinthian church that he spoke in tongues more than they all did. I don't think he was lying. If Paul lied--then the whole foundation of our salvation found in his other teachings are in question. If Paul's claim is true then he spoke in tongues a lot, if he exceeded the Corinthians. He apparently believed that the gift had a lot of merit. If Paul believed this--maybe we should treat it the same way.
The same battle is going on today--and it's more intense than ever. Some Christians have no idea of the hidden battle that rages behind the pulpits of the church. If you have to discredit something find all the negative things and exaggerate their importance. If positive facts that contradict your position are introduced into the discussion--you must diminish their importance or discredit them entirely if you want to win the argument and protect a cherished tradition. These are some of the tactics of "liberal theology"--and it's not godly. Yet, many skilled theologians practice its principles on the unsuspecting public. It's about winning...and protecting certain unbiblical traditions of religious organizations. It's not always about truth.
Does Paul say negative things about speaking in tongues. Yes he does. Yet, he discusses the negative because the Corinthian Church was misusing the gift. His purpose in drawing attention to the negative is to teach them about the positive side and the proper use of the gift when used in the public assembly of the church. Proper use is important. Without proper use (maintaining order in the public assembly) the church meeting falls into confusion and the gospel is threatened. Saint Paul's discussion of the improper use of tongues was never intended to invalidate the gift. Yet, the religious critic's goal of discussing the abuse of the gift is to cast doubt, diminish or eliminate the use of it entirely. If pastors, teachers and theologians decide that Spiritual gifts are to be removed from Christian life...how many other things in the New Testament Scriptures have they also decided to remove? This is a question we should all ask.
How do we know that Paul wasn't attempting to invalidate speaking in tongues? He tells us in the Scriptures below:
"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (1 Cor 14:18)
"Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." (1 Cor 14:39)
Paul told the Corinthian church that he spoke in tongues more than they all did. I don't think he was lying. If Paul lied--then the whole foundation of our salvation found in his other teachings are in question. If Paul's claim is true then he spoke in tongues a lot, if he exceeded the Corinthians. He apparently believed that the gift had a lot of merit. If Paul believed this--maybe we should treat it the same way.
I gave Scripture for each and every point. It is you who opines on this thread, and board.
Paul refused to speak in tongues within the church (1 Cor. 14:19) and gave Biblical and rational reasons why he refused to do so.
He told his readers to grow up and gave the SCRIPTURE whereby they could use the gift of tongues more maturely.
1 Cor. 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
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.
he quotes the Biblical purpose for the gift of Tongues. He is quoting Isaiah 28:11-12 where Isaiah predicts that God would give a sign to "this people" the jews which they would not believe - "yet for all that they will not hear me, saith the Lord." The JEWISH PEOPLE. The Jewish people were not "unlearned" unbelievers but knew the scriptures in spite of their unbelief and refusal to believe in Christ. However, gentiles were not merely unbelievers but "unlearned" and they would see tongues only as a sign of crazy or "mad" people:
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
Can you see that he first states who are the proper recipient of tongues "this people" the Jews who knew the scriptures and who the gift was not for "unlearned" type of unbeleivers (gentiles). One was learned in the scriptures and would see tongues as a sign of the promised rest but the other would see it was sign that you were mad?
Thus Paul concludes that tongues are not a sign "to them that beleive, but to them that believe not." Paul spoke in tongues more than all of them because he used it Biblically as a "sign" to the Jews that the promised "rest" (Isaiah 28:12) had come - Jesus Christ. He refused to use it in the church becauase it was not a sign for believers and the church is an assembly of believers. However he did not forbid the use of tongues under certain restrictions.
Where then did he speak in tongues more than all the church combined? He was a missionary and his practice was always to go to the Jews first and then to the gentiles. He used it OUTSIDE the church for the express Biblical purpose God designed it for as a "sign" to "this People" or Israel.
- Status