Since a deaf person cannot speak in tongues, only thumbs, seems to me this is a logical refutation of the Charismatic view (held by awaken) that all Christians must speak in tongues! :thumbs:
-
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!
The Work of the Holy Spirit
- Thread starter Tom Butler
- Start date
- Status
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God? Do you believe the utterance is given by the Holy Spirit?
First, I have always said tongues was a known language. Refreshing happens more than once and it comes by the presense of the Lord!
The sad part is that most ignore it all together! The Work of the Holy Spirit is still here today, tongues being one of the manifestation of Him!
I was talking about churches in general do not discuss this subject!
I gathered from our last discussion about this that you harbored bad feelings toward anyone that believed this. True churches will not be destroyed...Unless they kick the Holy Spirit out and deny the power!
I get excited about the Work of the Holy Spirit! Jesus finished His work when he came in the flesh! We are now in the Work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was poured out on the Day of Pentecost to remain with the church until we are complete and presented to the Lord Jesus at His coming.
Well, I will give you a better mathematical analysis! Most people that believe that tongues along with other manifestations of the Holy Spirit ceased use ONE word... out of ONE chapter...out of ONE book...out of the entire Bible to prove they have ceased! ALL the work of the Holy Spirit is important!
Again, Go back! I am not the first one to post about tongues/praying in the spirit. I first posted many wonderful works of the Holy Spirit! I did not specifically name tongues. I said that He adminstered the spiritual gifts.
I ask you as I have others...
Why would this one be different when all the other examples showed them speaking in tongues as a manifestation.
You can not SEE when we receive the indwelling Holy Spirit! Something manifested in order for Simon to SEE! But we will leave this one alone since it does not say for sure! Common sense and past examples of the Holy Spirit should be pretty evident.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have NEVER said all CHRISTIANS MUST speak in tongues! So your attack on my belief is WRONG!
Can you show me an example of tongues being a way to communicate the gospel in a language they did not know?
Can you show us in scripture why you have come to this conclusion?
I agree with this statement!
I do not see where that would edify anyone! That said...can you tell me what was going on in Acts 2 when ALL of the 120 were speaking in tongues at the same time and no one interpreted? (Remember only a believer can manifest the nine gifts of the Holy Spirit )
How do you get that speaking to God can only be done in church? Speaking in tongues WITHOUT the interpretation is the limitation here... besides the order in which it was to be done.
Believers do not need a SIGN to believe! THey already believe!
The only discipline Paul gave in chapter 14 is that tongues without the interpretation was not to be done in the gathering because it does not edify. If you speak in tongues in church pray that you may interpret so all can be edified!
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler
New Member
I went back to Acts 2 to review what happened. Those who heard the 120 were Jews. Jews from, I think, 15 different countries. They were the ones who heard in their own language. There was no need for an interpreter. What Paul was talking about in I Corinthians 14 does not appear to be the same type of event.
Paul said the tongues were a sign to the Jews. That's why I raised the question whether tongues should be forbidden if no Jews are present, or if lost Gentiles are present,
I Cor 14:23 says if unbelievers are present, and they hear people speaking in tongues, they'll think the believers are crazy.
The context to be that of a church gathering. Paul is giving instructions on how to behave in church. Paul's instructions in Chapter 14 are clearly designed to correct the misuse of tongues at FBC Corinth.
Paul said the tongues were a sign to the Jews. That's why I raised the question whether tongues should be forbidden if no Jews are present, or if lost Gentiles are present,
I Cor 14:23 says if unbelievers are present, and they hear people speaking in tongues, they'll think the believers are crazy.
The context to be that of a church gathering. Paul is giving instructions on how to behave in church. Paul's instructions in Chapter 14 are clearly designed to correct the misuse of tongues at FBC Corinth.
Can I ask you what kind of sign do you think it was to the Jews? I read in that passage(1 Cor. 14:22) it was a sign to unbelievers.
That was if they were speaking all at once without an interpreter.
Yes! But that correction can go for all churches! What did he say in that chapter that we can not use today?
Paul does not limit the manifestation of the Holy Spirit to JUST a church gathering!
Faith can be manifested outside church!
Healing was manifested outside the church!
Word of wisdom
Word of knowledge
etc....
So why would you limit tongues to just the assembly? Paul does not! He says he speaks in tongue more than any there...but in church he would rather speak in words with his understanding! He speaks in tongues outside the church!
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom, had a few extra minutes this morning. Opportunity to read this thread and consider the points being presented. You've touched on something that I've wondered about, from time to time.
Isn't the miracle, primarily in hearing, itself?
Simple example: Picture 5 people in a crowd and one person speaking. Each of the 6 speaks and understands a different language. When the speaker begins to praise our Saviour, the 5 see his lips move. Yet, they hear and understand, in their native tongue.
Acts 2: KJB
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Here the scripture doesn't say that those listening heard anything other than their own language. (v6, v8, v11) Note, too, how many different dialects may have been involved. Yet, 3000 were baptised. If this were solely about what comes out of the mouth, how many times would the same words, different language, would have to have been repeated for the same results?
By way of illustration using a modern approach. At UN meetings, a speaker may utter words in any language. Yet, all those present & equipped, hear those words in their language of choice.
-- Just a layman's question. Time to put the wondering to rest.
Let me answer that one.
First the Bible says that "speaking in tongues" was the miracle. It was the miracle, one of them, that they had heard, and the one that they were accused of as being drunk.
What happened then? It simply says
Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Acts 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
These were not long messages. They were short statements of praise; declarations of what God had done--the wonderful works of God. Some of them may have been as short as: "He is risen."
There were about 13 different languages present. It is very likely that only the apostles spoke and that they spoke turn by turn, one language after another. One would say something in one language--only a sentence or two at the most, and then another in another language, and so on.
This is my opinion. Why? God is not the author of confusion, but of order. It was the method given later for the churches as described in 1Cor.14.
What made me think of it? Ironically, when watching the end of that series on "The Bible." Their depiction of Pentecost was similar to what I just described. It makes sense.
Peter told the crowd in verse 33 of Acts 2 that Jesus shed forth what God the Father had promised ...the HOly Ghost!..."he hath shed forth this, which ye now SEE and HEAR." What they witnessed that day was Holy Spirit being manifested through believers! Tongues was the manifestation described in Acts 2!
They spoke in languages they themselves did not know but the ones hearing did!
They spoke in languages they themselves did not know but the ones hearing did!
They spoke in languages they themselves did not previously know. The gift is that God gave them the ability to speak now in languages both they would understand and that the hearers would understand. They weren't speaking gibberish. They were speaking an actual language, and understood what they were saying. That is why it is called "the gift of languages."
I must offer an apology. Wrong choice of words in the way I phrased my post.
That people who couldn't verbally communicate, with understanding of each other, were granted the gift of communication ie a miracle. My post should have been phrased to indicate the method of communication within the frame work of a miracle from God.
Agree that God is not the author of confusion. In fact that is part of the basis for my question. If Peter spoke the same phrase over and over again in different languages, there would have been confusion among the listerners until he spoke the phase in each one's language. Far less confusion if the words coming from Peter's mouth in his language (and his understanding of same) were heard by all of the listeners, in their native tongue, at the same time.
I didn't see that episode of The Bible, so don't have that reference point.
Thanks for your reply.
Tongues was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit that was shed forth that day! Yes! they spoke in an unlearned language! Nowhere does it ever say that the speaker himself knows or understands the language they are speaking. UNLESS they pray for an interpretation!
prove this!!!
No one brought up gibberish except you! We all agree so far that it was a language! So that comment was uncalled for and does not benefit the debate!
Again! Prove they themselves understood what they were saying!
That is not what it says in Acts 2. It does not say in Acts 2 that they had to pray for an interpreter. This was just before the church was formed.
Nowhere does it say that the speaker himself did not know or understood the language that he was speaking. If he didn't understand, then how would he know what he was speaking. Was it magic?
Prove that it didn't happen.
I don't have to read your interpretation into scripture. You have to give evidence of your interpretation; not the other way around. It was "the gift of languages." It is not hard to understand to understand that phrase, unless you have been indoctrinated by some other false doctrine.
If they didn't speak gibberish then obviously they spoke in real languages and could understand what they were saying, and could think about what they were going to say next. IOW they were not babbling fools.
Prove that they weren't.
Where does it say he himself understood?
No, you added they understood! Paul says different..so I will take Paul's word over yours!
Tongues is not understood by the speaker...else he would not have to pray for the interpretation! He would already know it!
Tongues his spirit prays but his understanding is unfruitful!
He speakes in tongues but in the assembly he would rather speak with his understanding! Therefore Paul is saying he does not understand tongues but he does understand his own language! (1 Cor. 14:18-19)
Clarke's Commentary-
How hear we every man in our own tongue - Some have supposed from this that the miracle was not so much wrought on the disciples as on their hearers: imagining that, although the disciples spoke their own tongue, yet every man so understood what was spoken as if it had been spoken in the language in which he was born. Though this is by no means so likely as the opinion which states that the disciples themselves spoke all these different languages, yet the miracle is the same, howsoever it be taken; for it must require as much of the miraculous power of God to enable an Arab to understand a Galilean, as to enable a Galilean to speak Arabic.
How hear we every man in our own tongue - Some have supposed from this that the miracle was not so much wrought on the disciples as on their hearers: imagining that, although the disciples spoke their own tongue, yet every man so understood what was spoken as if it had been spoken in the language in which he was born. Though this is by no means so likely as the opinion which states that the disciples themselves spoke all these different languages, yet the miracle is the same, howsoever it be taken; for it must require as much of the miraculous power of God to enable an Arab to understand a Galilean, as to enable a Galilean to speak Arabic.
Taking a close look at the crowd which had gathered in Acts 2..
These were Jews from other nations who were in Jerusalem during the festival of Pentecost, and they were able to speak to one another in a common language because they said to each other, "how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?" Many commentaries suggest that these Jews all spoke Greek (the common language of the time), although Hebrew is another strong possibility. These Jews were living in Jerusalem for some period of time and they all knew a common language, and they were able to speak to each other and understand each other.
Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, which was the first time that any of the disciples actually spoke to the crowd at Pentecost. Bible scholars generally agree that Peter spoke in one language, and that the crowd was able to understand him (see for example The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Walvoord and Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary, p.358). Some people have assumed that when Peter addressed the crowd, there must have been a miracle of hearing which allowed the crowd to understand Peter (because the crowd was made up of people from different countries).
So maybe the miracle of hearing is not right?
These were Jews from other nations who were in Jerusalem during the festival of Pentecost, and they were able to speak to one another in a common language because they said to each other, "how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?" Many commentaries suggest that these Jews all spoke Greek (the common language of the time), although Hebrew is another strong possibility. These Jews were living in Jerusalem for some period of time and they all knew a common language, and they were able to speak to each other and understand each other.
Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, which was the first time that any of the disciples actually spoke to the crowd at Pentecost. Bible scholars generally agree that Peter spoke in one language, and that the crowd was able to understand him (see for example The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Walvoord and Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary, p.358). Some people have assumed that when Peter addressed the crowd, there must have been a miracle of hearing which allowed the crowd to understand Peter (because the crowd was made up of people from different countries).
So maybe the miracle of hearing is not right?
Thomas Helwys
New Member
If you do not have the gift of tongues, you do not have a prayer language, either. That is what the Bible says. Period.
I believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit is available to all! o all have to speak in tongues? NO!
But the scripture you guys use to try to prove that not all speak in tongues is taken out of context! That scripture is speaking about ministries..and not all have the calling to minister in tongues and interpretation in the assembly!
most important question would be ...
Has that Gift ceased in the body of christ? Think that it has!
Pentacost had the tongues from the HS, real languages spoken, as a sign to isreal and the Jews that Jesus was/is their promised messiah, and the tongues were used to confirm that both Samiritans/gentiles were to be saved by same Messaihas the jews were, for they heard the tongues just as a tpentacost! Showed them had received the 'gift of the HS"
So the tongues were used to confirm salvation to all, so ceased being needed for that purpose...
Tongues/interpretation of them used in local churches, as forthgoing revelation from the HS to group, to confirm jesus, and to give direct/insight...
Now we have the completed bible, that purposed not needed, so they ceased !
NEVER recordedas a "personal prayer " tongue either!
And NOT evidence of a "baptism in the HS" seperate and distinct after salvation, for now paul commands us to seek the refilling of the HS, not the Baptism!
- Status