tongue speakers please answer

I thought this topic was getting locked today?

 

You wanted my opinion, so here it is. If there is a church today where tongues is real, then it's a true church, but one where God's Word is not "perfected". (That's not to say, that it is perfected everywhere there are no tongues.) However, where it is real, it will be temporary, for God wants us to move on unto perfection. (Please don't apply the contemporary definition of "perfection" here.)

You asked.

Now, time for lights out.

 

I apologize. The guidelines have changed, and there is no longer a limit on the length of threads. I had been very busy and spent little time on the board lately. I'm glad the Vebmeister bumped that little announcement to the top in the Moderators forum.

I hope I haven't caused a problem now that a whole new thread has started.

 

No problem, my friend. It's the same discussion regardless of the thread anyway, and on the other thread I think the subject was finally exhausted completely (not that this has stopped the discussion, of course, but no more original points are being made on either side). I've certainly made every argument that can be made on the subject from my understanding of Scripture, some repeatedly, and they are all there for anyone to see. The ones who need to understand them refuse to open their minds in spite of the overwhelming logic of my posts (I'm so humble, aren't I? ). That's why I've bowed out from posting any further about this issue.

 

First my dear brothers and sisters, I greet you in the name of my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Now on to the subject at hand. I believe the question is pertaining to speaking in tongues. I first received the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues when I was 16 years old, ALONE, in my bedroom. I had heard about it and told the Lord that if it was real to give it to me. He did, but because I was in a traditional church that taught against just about everything including women preachers and speaking in tongues, except fornication. When I turned 21 years old, 2 weeks later I visited a Pentecostal church and was convicted by the preached word of God (it was preached by a man). I went to the altar on my own and kneeled to pray. A dear sister at the church came and begin to minister to me in ENGLISH. I did not know at the time they spoke in tongues as no one did so during the service. As the sister ministered to me what God gave her (and it had to be God because she spoke things about me no one knew), she begin to tell me to just thank God for my life (I had contemplated suicide). As I begin to lift my hands in thanksgiving to the Lord, she pulled away from me. No one laid hands on me, no one got in my ear speaking in tongues, none of that. The next thing I knew I was being picked up off of the floor and I was speaking in tongues and weeping with joy. This was just about 17 years ago. I was shown in scripture what I had experienced. Someone has already given you all scriptures in Acts validating speaking in tongues so I won't repeat them. I will, however, take you to some other scriptures explaining tongues.
1 Corinthians 14:2 "For if your gift is the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking to God but not people, since they won't be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious." (NLT) Verses 3-5 goes on to say that the one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord. (This is when God gives Word of wisdom or knowledge, or when interpretation of tongues comes forth. I have this gift as well.) The one who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally in the Lord. Then the writer says he wished that all spoke in tongues but that even more he wishes that all were able to prophesy.
So tongues are scriptural and you will speak in tongues when you receive the Holy Ghost. Those that speak in tongues have their own prayer language (that maketh intercession for us to the Father) which is different from the gift of tongues. The gift of tongues usually is followed immediately by interpretation, especially if there is a non-believer in the midst.
Another poster wrote that a man with an experience is not responsible to a man with an argument (paraphrased). This is true. I offer no argument and quite frankly for those of you who seem to believe that speaking in tongues is only done by charismatic Pentecostals are wrong. There are many Baptists who speak in tongues. I don't know if they post here but they do exist.
Also, speaking in tongues can not be "taught". Anyone who says so is not of God. Anyone who does teach how to speak in tongues is out of order. The Spirit of God gives the utterance. Some may tarry for years before they finally do speak in tongues, going to church Sunday after Sunday, prayer meeting after prayer meeting, etc. and it still may be years. If one does not have a repented heart they will not receive the Holy Ghost and will not speak in the heavenly language. I read one post where someone said that a greek speaking person heard someone "speaking in tonges" in a church service say something to the affect "I love the devil". I am sorry, that person didn't have the Holy Ghost. They had something but it definitely wasn't the Holy Ghost because when God gives you something it is to glorify Him and if someone walks in and overhear you they will be able to know you are glorifying God.
I hopes this helps those that want to argue the validity of speaking in tongues. I can't say I will or will not post again. But I really think this argument is not fertile to the kingdom of God. We go from faith to faith and victory to victory in Christ. Some don't eat meat, some don't wear pants (women), so on and so forth. Arguing about tongues is the same as telling all Baptist women who wear pants, make-up, jewelry, and cut their hair that they are not saved and going to hell. For the record, I am an Interdenominational Pentecostal and we don't have those hangups. If God doesn't convict you then it's not sin for you. So now if you can see the silliness in arguing how one covers the outer man, then you should see the silliness of arguing the validity of speaking in tongues.

 

Welcome to BB, JFAL. It is good that you came out and identified yourself as an interdenominational Pentecostal. Pentecostalism, along with the modern-day tongue-speaking movement only began at the beginning of the twentieth century. So I guess all those people from the end of the first century to the end of the nineteenth had no evidence of the filling of the Holy Spirit according to your theology, and according to history. In fact, according to your statement they did not receive the Holy Ghost at all! You see this tongues movement is really a new development in history. It can't be traced in every century going back to the Apostles. It was present in the Apostolic Age. It ceased. Then it began in a very different form from what the Bible describes it to be, in the twentieth century. I guess all those people in the 1800 years in between are just condemned, or at the very least barren and without any spiritual fruit. That would include William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Hudson Taylor, and John Bunyan, and others. They never spoke in tongues. They were some of the greatest missionaries and preachers this world has ever seen. But your theology says that they never even had the Holy Spirit. Now what do you make of that??
DHK

 

The #1 problem with JFAL's post is the following statement:

This is an error, because it necessarily leads to the conclusion that if I'm not convicted that murder is a sin, then it's not a sin for me. If I'm not convicted that fornication is a sin, then it's not a sin for me.

He also mentioned that he received the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, and that he was alone at the time. I humbly refer him to the post I made about requiring evidence being equivalent to placing a yoke on the people.

Finally, it's apparent that he's read through the thread (a major undertaking, and he has my respect for doing so); however, he doesn't address any of the salient points that people like DHK have made, such as: What exactly is the gift of tongues? What language did he speak in? If tongues are a sign for unbelievers, then why did he receive the gift when he was alone? And many, many more.

 

It amazes me! 16 pages now talking about this subject and noone has cleared the matter up yet! Shoot! The original Constitution of the United States of America was drafted with less paper than that--and it cleared up the matter with King George--just like that! Sure, it "ticked" him off for a little while--but look where we are today! Tony Blair doesn't seem to mind no longer being responsible for feeding more "subjects" than he has to.

The problem with tongues in in the control mechanism. Folks can claim to speak in a thousand different tongues("who-stola-my-honda"--say it real fast, over and over! You'll get the hang of it!)--who can't seem to control the one they have in their mouth!

 

Oops! My above post--should read--The Declaration of Independance--instead of the Constitution. Scratch through that phrase there!

But I've listened to some of that tongue speaking stuff--I tell ya! If you go back to those first few chapters of Acts--what happened there at Pentacost and those first few months/years of the church's infancy--was a very meaningful thing to those early believers. But this stuff nowadays--is no more meaningful to me than hearing "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickeled peppers!"

 

Apostolic Doctine - Speaking in Tongues
... History also proves that speaking in tongues was the evidence of the Holy Spirit
baptism in the early church, and has not ceased to be a Biblical experience ...
www.altupc.com/articles/tongues1.htm - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

Click on the link, to see if this helps, in any way as to what the meaning of "speaking in tongues" really means!

 

This is an error, because it necessarily leads to the conclusion that if I'm not convicted that murder is a sin, then it's not a sin for me. If I'm not convicted that fornication is a sin, then it's not a sin for me.

He also mentioned that he received the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, and that he was alone at the time. I humbly refer him to the post I made about requiring evidence being equivalent to placing a yoke on the people.

Finally, it's apparent that he's read through the thread (a major undertaking, and he has my respect for doing so); however, he doesn't address any of the salient points that people like DHK have made, such as: What exactly is the gift of tongues? What language did he speak in? If tongues are a sign for unbelievers, then why did he receive the gift when he was alone? And many, many more.</font>[/QUOTE]Don I totally agree with the first part of your post.

God bless

 

I messed up with trying to quote on my last post. I put my responses in the body of the quote so please, I forgive me, as I am just figuring this posting thing out.

 

I assume you mean this scriptural reference?

May I address this?

You completely left out v.1, didn't you?

"Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."

And your own reference to v.5:

"I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying."

Would you care to back this up? Especially in light of the repeated statement "that the church may receive edifying"?

You see, this is the main problem with how you've presented the gift of tongues: As a personal thing we should each desire. If you carefully read 1 Corinthians 14, the thing that should pop out at you is Paul's repeated emphasis not on self, but on edification of others. If you promote seeking the gift for yourself, then what you are doing is taking emphasis away from edifying others.

More than anything else, this could be considered the reason Paul wrote the letter of rebuke to the church at Corinth: They were selfish.

And I didn't see a response to the errors I pointed out in your message. Do you care to address those, or would you rather not?

 

This is an error, because it necessarily leads to the conclusion that if I'm not convicted that murder is a sin, then it's not a sin for me. If I'm not convicted that fornication is a sin, then it's not a sin for me.

He also mentioned that he received the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, and that he was alone at the time. I humbly refer him to the post I made about requiring evidence being equivalent to placing a yoke on the people.

Finally, it's apparent that he's read through the thread (a major undertaking, and he has my respect for doing so); however, he doesn't address any of the salient points that people like DHK have made, such as: What exactly is the gift of tongues? What language did he speak in? If tongues are a sign for unbelievers, then why did he receive the gift when he was alone? And many, many more.</font>[/QUOTE]Okay, the statement I made about conviction must have been too broad for some of you since you made reference to murder (I take it that you're actually trying to be funny). What I was referring to is how "some" people condemn people to hell for things that are not necessarily sin, such as clothing. If a woman wears pants, there are some who condemn her to hell immediately saying she is not saved simply because of her pants. I also made reference to that illustration in my post if you go back and read it again. We all know that if you are truly saved and seeking God, that you will be convicted of fornication, murder, adultery, covetousness, idolatry, lieing, etc. Those are clearly not the "sins" I was referring to in my post.
Oh yeah, by the way, I am a she, not a he.
As far as my testimony about receiving the Holy Ghost while I was alone, I also mentioned that because I was in a very traditional church that condemned everything, I was not aware of what happened. It was years later that I found out what that was, when I spoke again in tongues, it was familiar to what had happened 5 years previously. I don't quite get what you're saying about "requiring evidence being equivalent to placing a yoke". I don't feel "yoked" at all.
I did address the question about tongues. I can't help that my scriptural explanation wasn't plain enough for you. As I stated in that post, I offer no apologies for believing the way I believe, I also argue not the validity of speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance when one receives the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost, which descended from heaven as Jesus ascended, is very much real today and will remain in the earth until Jesus returns to take His bride home. Whether you believe in the rapture, whether you're pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib, is not an issue and I won't get into that debate.
I will inform you all now that I will probably only post a couple of more times then I will cease. I don't believe in arguing the Word of God, nor do I argue with people who I feel are quite earnest in the study of the Word of God, as I believe you guys are. If we all believe in Jesus, that He is the first and the last, the only begotten of the Father, then we are brothers and sisters in the Lord and should conduct ourselves as such until we come into the unity of the faith.

 

What I make of that is that you twist what people say at an attempt to prove an argument for which you really don't have proof.
By the way, DHK, you did not address the scriptural reference I used in my post.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Your reference has been addressed by Don. I did not twist what you said. You have twisted the Scriptures to try to make a case for tongues, a gift which ceased with the Apostolic Age. The word tongue simply means language. They spoke with other languages. In what other languages do you speak. When you speak in tongues what are the languages that you are speaking in: Cree, Aramaic, Punjabi, Norwegian? What language do you speak? And how do you know that you are giving a correct translation. Maybe you are praising Satan instead of God. How do you know?
DHK

[ July 10, 2002, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

For those who may like to see the side of truth about "speaking in tongues."

How long will tongues continue to be manifested?

"Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail: whether there be tongues, they shall cease: whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." I Cor. 13:8-10. The phrase, "when that which is perfect is come," is translated from the Greek phrase "to teleion". The word "teleion" is a singular neuter term which refers to Jesus Christ. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, p. 618, defines the phrase "to teleion" as used in I Cor. 13:10: "The perfect state of all things, to be ushered in by the return of Christ from heaven." Paul said, "Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part: but then (when that which is perfect is come) shall I know even as
also I am known." I Cor. 13:12. When the church, having reached her state of perfection, stands face to face in the presence of God, there will be no need for prophecies, tongues and knowledge. But until that which is perfect (Jesus Christ) is come, that which is in part will remain. And as long as there remains prophecies and knowledge, tongues shall not cease. So Paul instructed the church to COME BEHIND IN NO GIFT, WAITING FOR THE COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. I Cor. 1:7.

 

My,my, I see we have a new one on Board~Welcome, my dear, to the BAPTISTBoard; ain't it great?! I just love it here. I make a mess & don't nobody mind too much-sometimes they do, but they are kind about it.

Having read your intro, I have a small problem: ya see, I've been saved by the Blood of the Lamb for pert-near 50yrs. Now, I never spoke in them tongues or any of that hogwash, but I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt I AM saved and the Holy Ghost dwells within my tired old self. Oh, He's there, alright, no doubt about it! Now you come on here saying stuff like 'cause I didn't do that gibberish you call 'tongues', that I don't have Him(well, really, He has ME & will KEEP me until the day of Redemption). You say one who speaks this gibberish is strengthened personally in the Lord. Child, I am full to brim with His glory, joy & peace & it is my privilege to yield daily to His blessed control.

By your own testimony, which I find to be very similar to everyone else that seeks a religious
"thrill", satan definitely will grant your desire. That old devil will give you such a "feeling" like you ain't never had before! But, BEWARE; there is often tragic mental & spiritual fallout to those who are involved in this heresy.

You would condemn to Hell, all those poor souls who "tarry" for years, as you say seeking "it", because they didn't "speak-in-tongues"! The KJBible says that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.(Rom.8:9)KJV. And last, but not least, there are NO Baptists that speak in tongues; if they do this, they are not a TRUE Baptist. Have ya ever wondered why there is no record of tongues-speaking after the death of the Apostles? Have ya ever once asked yourself why Jesus didn't speak in tongues?

 

When the church, having reached her state of perfection, stands face to face in the presence of God, there will be no need for prophecies, tongues and knowledge[MEE]

Then why will there be need for FAITH and HOPE???

 

Well, Granny not for "The Church." She will be with the Lord. "It will all over but the shoutin."

Now for the ones left behind, they may need "faith" and "hope" that they make it through the seven years of tribulation.

BTW, why act so "ugly" to our new member? She only said what she believed. Keep in mind, this is a discussion forum!

MEE