Brother Bob
New Member
What are Baptist doing talking about speaking in an unknown tongue? 
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!
To be strictly fair, Brother Bob, though I believe speaking in tongues is not Biblical, none of the Baptist distinctives mitigate against it.Originally posted by Brother Bob:
What are Baptist doing talking about speaking in an unknown tongue?![]()
mcdirector, I finally went back and read the article here. (I'm embarrassed I waited so long.Originally posted by mcdirector:
There is a thread on the Other Denominations about the SBC and missionaries and tongues.
As I read through it, I realized that my concerns with tongues revolve around my understanding of how tongues are used in modern day churches. I will readily admit all my evidence is from listening to others and readings.
I can across this article which was written for a church in MS, but it is full of scriptural guidance for the speaking in tongues.
Speaking in tongues
I'm not listing this article as an end-all to the discussion, but the scriptures listed put tight-enough regulations on tongues that they should be rare.
Not so sure about that JoJ!! It would scare me anyway.By JoJ;
To be strictly fair, Brother Bob, though I believe speaking in tongues is not Biblical, none of the Baptist distinctives mitigate against it.
Nay, but what a Scriptural mission board that must be.Originally posted by mima:
Another question I would like to ask you is this, do you believe that a Baptist missionary board ruling against their missionaries having a private prayer language(let's call it a unknown tongue) will keep the Holy Spirit at bay? Will in fact prevent the Holy Spirit from moving on the set missionaries? My what a powerful missionary board that must be.
The word "unknown" never appears with "tongues" in the Scriptures. That was added by men in order to "clarify" things.we both know the Bible speaks about speaking in a unknown tongue.
mima, I must agree but disagree with you here. First of all, I agree that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for power for God's service, in particular for evangelism. R. A. Torrey did a very extensive study of the Holy Spirit, and wrote in his book The Holy Spirit, "There is not one single passage in the Bible, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament, where the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is spoken of, where it is not connected with testimony or service" (p. 118). Based on that statement, I myself read through the entire Bible, marking every mention of the Holy Spirit's power, and I agree completely with Torrey.Originally posted by mima:
Concerning the question of Baptist and tongues. Let us look at a little scripture. Mark 1:8 (John the Baptist is speaking here) says," I indeed baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost". Question, is there two distinct difference baptisms spoken of here? There obviously is two different baptisms, John is baptizting with water as he says, the other person(whom I believe to be the Lord Jesus Christ) shall baptize with the Holy Ghost. John and somebody else makes two different baptizters, one with water and the other with the Holy Ghost.
The above outline to me clearly show two different people, two different baptisms, and two different kinds of baptizeing one of water and one of the Holy Ghost.
Now let's go to the book of ACTS 1:5(where the Scripture indicates that the Lord Jesus Christ is speaking) says," for John truly baptized with water, but ye should be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence".
Again two different baptisms are being spoken out here. Notice also that there is a gap between the times of one baptisms taking place and the next baptism taking place .
Next let's turn to the book of ACTS 1:8(where again the Lord Jesus Christ is speaking) it says," but ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria and into the outermost part of the world".
What is this power spoken of in ACTCS 1:8? Have you ever heard a preacher who thought had this power? This power obviously doesn't come up on anybody until after the Holy Ghost comes upon them. And a sure indication of this power, given by the Holy Ghost, is that the person will be a witness unto the Lord Jesus Christ. Does this power have anything to do with tongues, those of us that have experienced tongues are certain that the answer is yes!!!!! Is it possible to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and not with power? NO! I do not believe that is possible. Perhaps those who receive the gift of tongues, for what ever reason, need to have an extreme measure of strength to be witnesses unto the Lord. I could name many many reasons why I believe this, but maybe a little side story will suffice.
At a church service a lady comes to me and wants me to pray about her alcoholic husband. Okay I said as I reached to get my wife's hand(she too has a prayer language) and so now three others were holding hands and we began to pray, first me, then my wife, who suddenly goes into "tongues". After some time my wife stops and I lean over to the lady and say, I understood what my wife was saying and you can expect something to happen almost immediately!! The alcoholic husband accepted the Lord Jesus Christ later that same night!!!
mima, I take exception to this. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that if one is filled with the Holy Spirit he will of necessity have a private prayer language. Therefore, anyone who doesn't have a private prayer language is, ergo, not filled with the Spirit.Originally posted by mima:
Brother Bob: you recently made the following statement in one of your post."What are Baptist doing talking about speaking in an unknown tongue? " Now I'm sure you know the Bible much better than myself therefore we both know the Bible speaks about speaking in a unknown tongue. So my question to you would be this. Just because we are Baptist should we not talk about things that are in the Bible? This seems to be very exclusive, very exclusively "Baptist". Another question I would like to ask you is this, do you believe that a Baptist missionary board ruling against their missionaries having a private prayer language(let's call it a unknown tongue) will keep the Holy Spirit at bay? Will in fact prevent the Holy Spirit from moving on the set missionaries? My what a powerful missionary board that must be.
You may stretch it to mean that it's unknown to the person speaking it, but it is not an unknown tongue; it is a real language. The word "unknown" has been added by the translators to try to "clarify" something, and as is so often the case, they have done the opposite.Originally posted by npetreley:
For what it's worth, Bob, Hope is right. The word "unknown" is not in the Greek. But it is implied by the context. Why would there be a need for interpretation if it was known?
Well said, Bro Bob. What comes next? I used to say "Lent", but I see Baptist's are now adopting this Catholic "man made Holy Time".Originally posted by Brother Bob:
What are Baptist doing talking about speaking in an unknown tongue?![]()
You may stretch it to mean that it's unknown to the person speaking it, but it is not an unknown tongue; it is a real language. The word "unknown" has been added by the translators to try to "clarify" something, and as is so often the case, they have done the opposite.Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
For what it's worth, Bob, Hope is right. The word "unknown" is not in the Greek. But it is implied by the context. Why would there be a need for interpretation if it was known?
It seems to me that 1 Cor 14:23 can be interpreted two ways. If they were all speaking in some unknown (angelic, whatever) language, then someone who came in would think they were crazy.Originally posted by Brother Bob:
Then in my case it would be English. If it was implied I guess for translation sake is why it is in the KJV
If not in there then why the following Scripture if it was a known tongue, please? along with several others in same context, I agree if not there it certainly was implied?
1 Corinthians, chapter 14
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?
It seems the word glossa (tongues) should of been translated as languages also if we are going to start questioning the translation. Agree