Speaking in tongues?

[Allan]

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.

Yep, and filled is not indwelling but an empowering toward service or ministry. John was not filled with the Spirit continually before birth. That is taking the text beyond what is meant by filling. John was filled with the Holy Spirit regarding his ministry and that was partly identifying the messiah which was what happened in his mothers womb. IOW - what the angel was refering to was that John life was going to identified as a man of God whom God was using to reveal his truths.
Seriously guys, do a study on 'filling' and you see a clear distinction between that and indwelling. Filling refers simply to an empowering. Granted we do not see anywhere that the Holy Spirit did not leave John the Baptist but also does not mean that John was constantly filled. To be pertetually filled means that John from birth lived without walking in the flesh/sin. To waslk in the Spirit, and thus be filled with the Spirit, is to walk in righteousness and according to Paul that is a constant and daily choice. Your version implies that John was not only saved apart from faith but that he lived without sin from birth.

 

[Allan]

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.

Tom, I'll get to this tonight. It isn't really that hard a subject to 'deal' with as you might think ... that is, at least in what I see the context saying. But then again.. who am I?

 

[OldRegular]

Yep, and filled is not indwelling but an empowering toward service or ministry. John was not filled with the Spirit continually before birth. That is taking the text beyond what is meant by filling. John was filled with the Holy Spirit regarding his ministry and that was partly identifying the messiah which was what happened in his mothers womb. IOW - what the angel was refering to was that John life was going to identified as a man of God whom God was using to reveal his truths.
Seriously guys, do a study on 'filling' and you see a clear distinction between that and indwelling. Filling refers simply to an empowering. Granted we do not see anywhere that the Holy Spirit did not leave John the Baptist but also does not mean that John was constantly filled. To be pertetually filled means that John from birth lived without walking in the flesh/sin. To waslk in the Spirit, and thus be filled with the Spirit, is to walk in righteousness and according to Paul that is a constant and daily choice. Your version implies that John was not only saved apart from faith but that he lived without sin from birth.

Questions:

1. Where in Scripture [New Testament] do the words indwelt or indwelling occur?

2. Where in Scripture does it say that one filled with the Holy Spirit cannot or does not sin.

 

[Allan]

Questions:

1. Where in Scripture [New Testament] do the words indwelt or indwelling occur?

You have got to be joking, right???????

Maybe you mean literal words? Oh, in that case it is in the same place we find words like "Trinity", "theocracy", and other such words.

If you honestly don't know then here are some scriptures to help you out.

Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1Cr 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world.
1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is something that 'only' NT believers have and is never said of the OT saints of God. That indwelling of the Holy Spirit (which is at conversion) according to scripture says it is obtained 'by/through faith'. (Gal 3:14)

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Thus the receiving of the Holy Spirit is not prior to the excersizing of ones faith but He is given when one excersizes his faith.

2. Where in Scripture does it say that one filled with the Holy Spirit cannot or does not sin.

I guess a better question is can a person be filled or under the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit and sin?

Scirpture says that if we walk after the Spirit we shall not fulfill the desires of the flesh / sin. And one can only walk after the Spirit if one is allowing Him to lead him/her. Thus Pauls comparision of and between the filling of wine or the Holy Spirit.

 

[Allan]

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.

Ok, understood. (give me a second cause I'm thinking )

1. In scripture, are believers ever commanded to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
2. In scripture, are believers ever commanded to be 'filled' with the Spirit?

Answers:
1. No, because indwelling refers to habitation and as His temple He dwells in us.
2. Yes, because the 'filling' is an empowering to both live godly and for the work of the ministry.

His indwelling produces the Fruit of the Spirit.
His Filling(s) determine their growth rate.

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.

How so? You just described his adult minstry, but where were all the conversions as he should have had as child, pre-teen, teenager. We only see John the Baptist coming into his minstry as a man.

The passage you refering to is speaking more to the point that he is a man whom God has chosen him to do God's work (message of repentance and identifying the Christ) and the 'filling' in his mothers womb was to emphasize both of those points.

Luk 1:15 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.
Luk 1:16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
Luk 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

The fact that the scriptures state he will be filled with the Holy Ghost speaks not so much to the length of time he will be filled but that God will be empowering him to do what God has chosen him to do. The fact that the angel says he will be filled even from his mothers womb simply illstrates the uniqueness and power of his ministry to be. IOW - it isn't about him being always filled but that he will be filled by God in his minstry ordained by God.

Look at the preceding passages to note not only 'what' his minstry will be but also 'when' it will be. So the context itself is not about how long he was to be filled but that he will have the filling of the Holy Spirit in his God appointed ministry so that there can be no doubt God is with him.

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 will use John MacArthur here because he says what I would say but he is better at brevity than I am.

2. CONVICT WITH THE GOSPEL (v. 22)

a. The Pledge to the Disciples

"And when He had said this, He breathed [blew] on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit"

Theologians have tried to figure out if Jesus really gave them the Holy Spirit when He blew and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." The text does not say the disciples did receive the Holy Spirit. You say, "Don't you believe that they received the Holy Spirit right then?" No, I believe the Bible tells us in Acts 2:1-4 that the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. You say, "What is happening in John 20:22?" I believe that this is a pledge, on Christ's part, that the Spirit would come.

If the disciples had truly received the Holy Spirit, they would not have been still locked in the same room eight days later (Jn. 20:26). Jesus Himself said later, "But ye shall receive power, after the Holy Spirit is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto Me..." (Ac. 1:8). In addition to this, the indication in John 21:4, 12 that they didn't recognize Him shows that they didn't have the Spirit. If they had the Spirit at that time, He would have revealed Christ to them. So, this is simply a pledge that they would receive the Holy Spirit a few days in the future. By giving them the pledge of the Spirit, Jesus would then cause them to remember when they did receive the Holy Spirit, that He had personally commissioned and dispensed the Holy Spirit to them. He had said, "When I go to the Father, I will send the Spirit to you" (Jn. 16:7). So He gives them the pledge right here.

 

[Allan]

bump...bump...bump...:laugh:

 

[Tom Butler]

bump...bump...bump...:laugh:

Okay, I see what your saying. All believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but fillings come and go. Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "be not drunk with wine....but be filled with the Holy Spirit..." That suggests that the Ephesian believers, though indwelt, were not always filled (or he wouldn't have gotten on to them about it).

So now, I have to figure out what it was when Jesus breathed on his disciples and said "receive ye the Holy Spirit." (John 14)

And what was it on the Day of Pentecost? The coming of the indwelling? The empowering? The filling?

Today, at salvation, are we baptized and indwelt, or is it one and the same?

That reminds me of what I heard a preacher say one time: "When we're saved, we get all of the Holy Spirit we're ever going to get. But the Holy Spirit doesn't have all of us he's ever going to get." I think he was referring to baptizing/indwelling in the first instance, and filling in the second.

 

[Marcia]

So now, I have to figure out what it was when Jesus breathed on his disciples and said "receive ye the Holy Spirit." (John 14)

I think that this was because they were not indwelt yet by the Holy Spirit and at that point needed the Holy Spirit, the way God gave the Spirit to prophets in the OT.

 

[Allan]

Okay, I see what your saying. All believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but fillings come and go. Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "be not drunk with wine....but be filled with the Holy Spirit..." That suggests that the Ephesian believers, though indwelt, were not always filled (or he wouldn't have gotten on to them about it).

Yes, that was what I was trying to say

So now, I have to figure out what it was when Jesus breathed on his disciples and said "receive ye the Holy Spirit." (John 14)

It is a somewhat difficult passage to understand. My thinking along with others of my particular view is that the passage does not state the Holy Spirit came upon them and that later Jesus told them to wait for the coming of the Comforter who will be with them. That in my mind is the only real problem here.

And what was it on the Day of Pentecost? The coming of the indwelling? The empowering? The filling?

I believe all.

Today, at salvation, are we baptized and indwelt, or is it one and the same?

I believe they are one and the same.
When the Holy Spirit baptises us then scriptures tell us He has placed us into Christ and being placed into Christ is the very act of salvation. For if one is in Christ then he is one with Christ. And if he is one with Christ then he has no sin but is justified, sanctified, righteous, and indwelt by His Spirit. Thus CHrist in us and us in Christ just as He and Spirit are one so are we in Him and Him in us.

That reminds me of what I heard a preacher say one time: "When we're saved, we get all of the Holy Spirit we're ever going to get. But the Holy Spirit doesn't have all of us he's ever going to get." I think he was referring to baptizing/indwelling in the first instance, and filling in the second.

It this he was refering to the filling and not baptism. To be baptised mere to completely immersed or saturated with something, and if that something is the Holy Spirit then it is refering to being placed into Christ (ICor 12)

1Cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

 

[Todd W. White]

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the immersion into the body of Christ of the new Christian. IOW, it happens at the point you get saved.

If you could be baptized by the Holy Spirit more than once, it would mean you could be taken into the Body of Christ, and taken out of the Body of Christ, then placed into the Body of Christ, then taken out of the Body of Christ - in and out and in and out and in and out.

That may be fine Arminian theology, but it isn't in the Bible!

 

[Victorious]

I have heard "tongues" spoken in Pentecostal churches but never considered them authentic.

Historically, tongues and the sign gifts began to wane at the end of the first century. One historian (think it might be Origen) said that "a remnant of the Spirit remained" on some of the holy men of God who knew the apostles but since has ceased. However, isolated incidents occurred between then and now (one in France during the time of heavy persecution.)

I, too, have never been comfortable with the "closed canon of scripture" explanation for tongues ceasing. I do believe that Satan has counterfeited this gift with a surge of false manifestations especially beginning around 1830, the time of what I deem to be the beginning of the Great Apostasy. Various cults popped up around that time - one being Mormonism - and Brigham Young and his followers began to exhibit this "gift."

Bottom line? I can't say the gift has ceased altogether, but in the local church, I have never seen authentic tongues spoken. God can do anything and miracles still happen. I believe there are isolated incidents where God has given this gift, but what we have seen to date is the false which has led to all types of problems (on a maturity level) in the churches. Just another aspect of the great deception. It is possible that the true gift of tongues will reapper during the Great Tribulation and I suspect we will know when, and if, the real thing does come along because that "check in our spirit" won't be there. It will happen in a completely different way than the imitation.

 

[JRG39402]

Something I never understood about the early church speaking in tongues. If there was supposed to be an interpreter in the church, how would the person know if there would be an interpreter before they actually spoke it? Anyone have any ideas?

 

[Allan]

Something I never understood about the early church speaking in tongues. If there was supposed to be an interpreter in the church, how would the person know if there would be an interpreter before they actually spoke it? Anyone have any ideas?

Apparently God would not prompt someone to speak or pray in a tongue unless there 'was' an interpreter present in the congregation of believers.

Now God might tell/show them something but that does not necessarily mean God is prompting them to speak it at that time. The spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet. IOW - God does not take control of the person but that the knowledge obtained via the gift(s) are to be given when person chooses (or maybe better - lead of the Spirit to speak at the right time)

Secondly since Paul is addressing the CHurch body, it is presumed that the person who had the gift of tongues was a member/part of that church body, just as an interpreter would be also. So it would to the body who had what gifts regarding this and thus when it was appropreit to speak.

 

[Tom Butler]

Bottom line? I can't say the gift has ceased altogether, but in the local church, I have never seen authentic tongues spoken. God can do anything and miracles still happen. I believe there are isolated incidents where God has given this gift, but what we have seen to date is the false which has led to all types of problems (on a maturity level) in the churches.

This is sorta where I am, too.

I do understand that the Pentecost tongues, were known languages, whether the miracle was in speaking a language never learned, or in the hearing in their own language. I certainly would not rule out a modern-day application where it was necessary.

If I read correctly, in some churches, people were speaking a language that nobody understood, except maybe one person who interpreted. My question about that is, why? Why did the Holy Spirit move someone to speak to a congregation in something other than the common language of that congregation--Aramaic, Greek, Italian, whatever?

I'm sure there's an answer. Paul acknowledges that it took place, but seems to me he brought it up mainly to criticize it.

It's always been my understanding that the miracles recorded in the Gospels and in Acts were to authenticate the gospel. But that's not the kind of tongues practiced today. So, what is the purpose of the modern tongues movement?

 

[Victorious]

This is sorta where I am, too.

It's always been my understanding that the miracles recorded in the Gospels and in Acts were to authenticate the gospel. But that's not the kind of tongues practiced today. So, what is the purpose of the modern tongues movement?

I believe that it has to do with a great deception that Satan has fostered on the modern church. The purpose of any gift given to the early church was to build up the church. Today, I have yet to see how it accomplishes this. In fact, sorry to say, I have seen where a congregation that becomes involved in this tends to go to extremes - I have read interviews with those who began with tongues and ended up bein "slain in the spirit" and barking like dogs!

Personally, I am not willing to discount the fact that tongues may still be a gift that God gives at His pleasure, but it is not as common as what we've seen so far in general.

 

[Onlybygrace]

'With the completion of the canon of Scripture, there is NO extra-biblical revelation, and the moment that you believe that extra-biblical revelation even exists, you become a cult!' todd white

you see this is exactly why I posted that thread "what do we mean when we say we're biblical?"

Todd is basically saying that if we believe or practice anything outside of the Bible we become cultists. How is that we have that veiw when it comes to things like tongues but not all the other things we practice as local Baptist churches that have no foundation in scripture. We have reduced the body of doctrine to a few cardinals and some personal issues. ALL our church practices should grow out of biblical teaching and all new bible teaching is doctrine because that is what the word means. S o why condemn others so blatantly onpet issues but conveniently ignore the areas where our pragmatic practices depart from biblical instruction...that is hypocrisy!

 

[ajg1959]

'With the completion of the canon of Scripture, there is NO extra-biblical revelation, and the moment that you believe that extra-biblical revelation even exists, you become a cult!' todd white

you see this is exactly why I posted that thread "what do we mean when we say we're biblical?"

Todd is basically saying that if we believe or practice anything outside of the Bible we become cultists. How is that we have that veiw when it comes to things like tongues but not all the other things we practice as local Baptist churches that have no foundation in scripture. We have reduced the body of doctrine to a few cardinals and some personal issues. ALL our church practices should grow out of biblical teaching and all new bible teaching is doctrine because that is what the word means. S o why condemn others so blatantly onpet issues but conveniently ignore the areas where our pragmatic practices depart from biblical instruction...that is hypocrisy!

1 Cor 13 addresses the completeion of the scriptures and the ending of tongues, so that stance is not unbiblical.

And it gets worse that just practicing jibberish in your private prayer life. Some people will tell you that you arent saved unless you speak in tongues. I have seen preachers lay hands on folks and "command" the evil spirits of "the flu" to leave that person, and then start talking in jibberish, and almost fall down because they claim to have felt the "power of God" pass from their body to the sick persons body.

Yes, this type of behavior is unbiblical because it perverts and twists the message of the Bible.

AJ

 

[Anthony]

I confess - I read this entire thread - which may lead some to question my sanity

was Tarzan speaking in tongues?

I have the gift of Gab
I once watched a Balinese shadow-puppet display where the puppeteers spoke in a rapid fire Indonesian dialect - to amuse friends I mimicked this rapid speech and found I could keep it up for minutes without missing a beat - but it was pure gibberish

I was once guested in a Pentecostal church and what I heard was pure gibberish - and was told I didn't have the spirit if I didn't speak in tongues - I left because if pressed to speak in tongues I would have done a rendition of Ray Stevens in "Guitarzan" and been thrown out (yohhhhh-ee-yohweeyoh)

when it comes to "glossolalia" as opposed to tongues;

strike one - glossolalia was used by pagan priests
strike two - recordings of these "tongues" have been played for known "interpreters" and no two interpreted the same message

no strike three - strike one was enough
I don't believe any pagan practice has ever been any part of Christianity

when I hear it I leave and don't go back

God bless

 

[Onlybygrace]

My response here will be primarily to ajg1959 but I would like to contextualise it by quoting from what ajg said and then making an open challenge to all board members...

1 Cor 13 addresses the completeion of the scriptures and the ending of tongues, so that stance is not unbiblical. - AJG1959

Guys, just because something seemingly supportive of a particular viewpoint or doctrinal bias is found in a scritpural verse, does it automatically make that viewpoint or bias "biblical". Again that ios the exact point of the thread I started with the title "What do we really mean when we say we're biblical?" I would encaourage you to participate in that discussion.
We need to clearly define and distinguish what we mean when start throwing the term "biblical" around because clearly, we are not all speaking the same language.

ARE THINGS BIBLICAL BECAUSE THEY ARE FOUND IN THE BIBLE? or ARE THINGS BIBLICAL BECAUSE THEY ARE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION?

Which brings me to the case and comments in point.

This is what 1 Corinthians says on the subject of the cessation of tongues...

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known

1. It is important to note that tongues is not singled out but grouped with other things that we are also told will cease...knowledge and prophesy.

2. Like the list of gifts in 1 Corinthians there is no indication whether the list is exhaustive or exemplery. So either belief is an opinion at best and a guess at worst.

3. The truth of the matter is that all things will cease as we know it, including preaching and the written scriptures.

4. If we are honest we will admit that scripture does not indicate when prophesy, knowledge and tongues will cease, or in what chronological order or to what extent they will cease.

 

[Tom Butler]

I speak in a tongue. It is called English.

Cheers,

Jim

English is also my private prayer language.