Speaking in tongues?

[John Toppass]

I was not just speaking of the gift of tongues, but of the stories recounted here. I was saying that those appeared to be God performing a miracle, but were not the gift of tongues (since the event happened just once). A gift and a miracle are not the same thing.

Since the gifts were given and expected to be used, it is only rational to conclude that the gifts were ongoing and not used just once. I don't seem to be able to communicate this point to you.

You are communicating that point, I just don't find it scriptual. Anyone can imply what they want, but when scripture is used there is not a need to do arm twisting and feeling like someone is getting jumped on just because the other party doesnt agree.

 

[Allan]

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit while in the womb, and obviously filled with the Spirit afterward. Filled and indwelt sound like the same thing to me.

No, they are quite different. Poeple in the OT who were filled where not indwelt because we have scripture telling us that the Spirit left them as well. John the Baptist at this point was still operating under the OT principles. (NT principle is being indwelt)
Being filled is to under the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit, willingly. Thus Paul using the comparision of being filled with wine and the Spirit. The believer chooses whether to be filled/under the controling influence of God or the world.

Being indwelt is a permenant state of residency. Thus it refers to a dwelling or a living position verses 'filling' which refers to an empowering.

The Acts 2 definition, in my view is that the tongues were known languages. Whether the miracle was in the speaking or the hearing is beside the point. Those who heard understood in their own language.

I join Tiny Tim in his evaluation of tongues. As a general rule, they're not operative today. But God may give them as an ability wherever he deems it necessary so someone can hear the gospel.

I'll second your point here since I haven't read anything more than the last couple of pages.

 

[Beth]

I don't have it

Are there any here who believe that speaking in tongues is a gift that the Holy Spirit still gives today? Why or why not?

All I know is I do not have this gift...whether the Lord is gifting others with this gift around the world, I just don't know.

Beth

 

[Aaron]

The doubters will have a heyday with this posting!


While lying in bed this morning praying I was considering why some have the gift of tongues and some do not have the gift of tongues. When the Lord spoke to my spirit and said," the gift of tongues is not given to some because of the blindness of "denominational tradition"
---mima on 2/11/09

Sorry, but I do not think the Lord said this.

Are you now the arbiter of God's Spirit? You puttin' God in a box? (I've spoken in tongues, BTW.)

 

[stilllearning]

The Bible says........

1 Corinthians 14:21-22
V.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.

V.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.

--------------------------------------------------
Tongues “were”, a sign for the Jews.
“will I speak unto this people”

As a proof to the Jews, that the Gentiles can be saved.
“not to them that believe, but to them that believe not”

e.g.

Acts 10:44-46
V.44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
V.45 And 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.
V.46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

and then.....
Acts 11:15-16
V.15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

V.16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

--------------------------------------------------
Therefore, regardless of how many “stories” we may hear from distant lands:
Tongues had a purpose 2000 years ago, but no longer do.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Sorry, but I do not think the Lord said this.

Neither do I.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Paul didn't say he did it, he said if he did it, he would be like.......that is what "though" means. Kinda like saying - "though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool"

He also said that he would rather speak 5 words of understanding than 10,000 words that no one understands. Words that edify other believers are more important than one person edifying himself.

 

[chuck2336]

It is not my gift thats for sure. I am bilingual though. I speak both english and Texan!

 

[Marcia]

You are communicating that point, I just don't find it scriptual. Anyone can imply what they want, but when scripture is used there is not a need to do arm twisting and feeling like someone is getting jumped on just because the other party doesnt agree.

So you believe that someone given the gift of mercy or teaching could use it just one time? And that's it for the gifts?

 

[Marcia]

Are you now the arbiter of God's Spirit? You puttin' God in a box? (I've spoken in tongues, BTW.)

Saying I don't believe this came from God is putting God in a box? No, it's called believing the canon of scripture is closed and there is no further revelation.

Do I think God said that there is a sin of denominationalism? I certainly do not.

 

[John Toppass]

So you believe that someone given the gift of mercy or teaching could use it just one time? And that's it for the gifts?

I thought this thread was about tongues. Why do you keep changing the subject? If you want to talk about other gifts then, out of courtesy to the OP, start another thread.
By the way Marcia, I am guilty of this too.

Let me put it as simple as I can (my other posts also say this) All gifts are available for Gods worship and edification. There is nothing in the scripture that says they must be used a certain number of times. Paul explained how some gifts should be used and should not be used and why. (read 1 Corinthians 12-14)

The frequency of the use of these gifts are determined by the need and will of God thru the Holy Spirit. Satan can also duplicate the apperance of what some think is a gift of the Holy Spirit. If a gift does not edify God it is not of God.

 

[OldRegular]

I speak in a tongue. It is called English.

Cheers,

Jim

I thought I spoke English but since I don't say "cheers" I must speak American.:laugh:

 

[Tom Butler]

. Poeple in the OT who were filled where not indwelt because we have scripture telling us that the Spirit left them as well. John the Baptist at this point was still operating under the OT principles. (NT principle is being indwelt)
Being filled is to under the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit, willingly.

Being indwelt is a permenant state of residency. Thus it refers to a dwelling or a living position verses 'filling' which refers to an empowering.

How does John the Baptist not fit this description?

I gather part of your view is based on the idea that John does not belong to the New Testament, but the OT. Mark 1:1 says "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," and immediately speaks of John the Baptist.

 

[Allan]

How does John the Baptist not fit this description?

I gather part of your view is based on the idea that John does not belong to the New Testament, but the OT. Mark 1:1 says "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," and immediately speaks of John the Baptist.

So are you saying that John the Baptist is Jesus Christ since the Mark 1:1 states the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ and immediately speaks of John the Baptist? I doubt it but one can read that into you comment. - Me, I'm just being playful

1st. God does not save contrary to what He has decreed order. That order is believe and be saved. John had not yet believed and was in fact incapable as of yet. The fact he was not indwelt during that time period does not negate the fact that he was indeed saved later on.

2nd. John was only filled by the Holy Spirit not indwelt. We know this because scripture does not ever tell us he such and most importantly Jesus said the Holy Spirit or Comfortor had not yet be given to believers. Thus John falls squarely into that catagory. The Holy Spirit did not have permanent residence in John because that would mean Jesus was incorrect in His statement that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to believers. So there is a huge distinction between the two.

3rd. John belongs in the NT because he is the herald of the coming Messiah.
But did you even read about John following Jesus even though he knew who He was?
Why not?
John was still preaching the message gvien him to preach even when Jesus was out preaching His. How was it that John still had disciples even after he declared that Jesus was the Lamb to take away the sins of the world?
Should He have not sent them away and all of them followed Christ?
When John died he was still under the OT because Christ had not yet been sacrificed nor had the Holy Spirit been given to indwell believers. The NT had not yet been inacted and ratified through His death and resurrection because it is only through those that the NT is even established.

4th. John was declared by Jesus to be the greatest of all the prophets who had ever been born (meaning all of the OT prophets) and yet Jesus also said that the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater that John the Baptist.

Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

Do you see how John was lumped in with the prophets and the law (which are a direct reference to the OT) by Jesus, most notably verses 11 and 13.

And yet John being the greatest of all the prophets, godly and God-fearing men who held fast to faith and conviction, when compared to those of the Kingdom of God is said by Jesus to be the least. Pretty strong statement concerning those men and women of God, of whom some gave their very lives in faith. I'm not saying we are 'more' special because both are special to the heart of God. But it is apparent that we are special in a different way, not better, just different.

 

[ajg1959]

This statement of Paul's was "if I speak with the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love...." This is poetic hyperbole. It is not a statement of fact; it's also hypothetical.

I don't think men can speak with the tongues of angels because we are not angels. Not only that, there is no biblical evidence for men speaking the "tongues of angels."

I totally agree with you Marcia.

Besides, every instance in the Bible where angels are quoted they are speaking the language of men.

Paul is not saying that he actually speaks in the tongues of angels, he is essentially saying 'even if I could" speak in the tongues of angels. He is using the phrase "the tongues of angels" as a theorical example of how important love is in comparison.

AJ

 

[Tom Butler]

2nd. John was only filled by the Holy Spirit not indwelt. We know this because scripture does not ever tell us he such and most importantly Jesus said the Holy Spirit or Comfortor had not yet be given to believers. Thus John falls squarely into that catagory. The Holy Spirit did not have permanent residence in John because that would mean Jesus was incorrect in His statement that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to believers. So there is a huge distinction between the two.

Allan, I do understand that the Holy Spirit operated somewhat differently in the Old Testament. But I also fail to see the distinction between being filled with the Spirit and indwelt.

So I can't get away from Luke 1:15, where the angel told Zechariah that John would be "filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb." It seems to me that John's preaching power and the conversion of many gives evidence that his filling was not temporary.

I also can't get away from John 20:23, where Jesus "breathed on them and said, receive ye the Holy Spirit." How would we describe that occasion? Filling, indwelling, what? It does seem to be different from the Pentecost experience, which obviously empowered the disciples in the upper room. But my point is that the HS was operating prior to Pentecost.

I confess that I haven't sorted it all out. But the scriptures I just quoted must be dealt with when discussing this subject.

 

[Aaron]

Saying I don't believe this came from God is putting God in a box? No, it's called believing the canon of scripture is closed and there is no further revelation.

Do I think God said that there is a sin of denominationalism? I certainly do not.

I'd forgotten I got involved in this discussion.

I was just playing the devil's advocate. I was going to use all the corny cliche's of the modern worship folks to justify my experience, then reveal how I view my experience: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=45559&page=9 (Post 88)

 

[Marcia]

Allan, I do understand that the Holy Spirit operated somewhat differently in the Old Testament. But I also fail to see the distinction between being filled with the Spirit and indwelt.

So I can't get away from Luke 1:15, where the angel told Zechariah that John would be "filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb." It seems to me that John's preaching power and the conversion of many gives evidence that his filling was not temporary.

I also can't get away from John 20:23, where Jesus "breathed on them and said, receive ye the Holy Spirit." How would we describe that occasion? Filling, indwelling, what? It does seem to be different from the Pentecost experience, which obviously empowered the disciples in the upper room. But my point is that the HS was operating prior to Pentecost.

I confess that I haven't sorted it all out. But the scriptures I just quoted must be dealt with when discussing this subject.

\

I agree with Allan. These situations certainly make one think - good for the brain!

John the Baptist was the last of the OT prophets. I think there is a difference between being temporarily filled with the Spirit and indwelt permanently by the Spirit, which happened only after Jesus ascended. I think John the Baptist may have had the Holy Spirit all the time, but it was a special case where God allowed it. It is not the same as when believers receive the Holy Spirit on faith in Christ. I think we can see that by John having the Spirit as an unborn child - this was certainly exceptional and was an act by God, not from an act of faith.

When Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on the disciples, I think that was another temporary situation. Otherwise, why would Jesus say he had to go so the Comforter could come?

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you John 16.7

Also, Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit coming in the future:
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14.26 (also see John 15.26)

 

[Jim1999]

Think about how we talk to-day. We speak of the Holy Spirit acting upon us as we go about the Lord's business. We speak of the Holy Spirit leading us as we seek ministry. We speak of the Holy Spirit indwelling us in eternal redemption. The Holy Spirit is the action of God in us, through us and for us.

Now apply that to the various scriptures and to the function of the Holy Spirit.

He was always there in the Old Covenant, He is ever present in the new Covenant, but has a continual function in Christ's physical absence.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[OldRegular]

2nd. John was only filled by the Holy Spirit not indwelt. We know this because scripture does not ever tell us he such and most importantly Jesus said the Holy Spirit or Comfortor had not yet be given to believers. Thus John falls squarely into that catagory. The Holy Spirit did not have permanent residence in John because that would mean Jesus was incorrect in His statement that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to believers. So there is a huge distinction between the two.

Nonsense!

Luke 1:15, speaking of John the Baptist

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

Acts 2:4 speaking of those at Pentecost

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The same Greek word pletho, translated filled, is used in both passages.