Why the Emphasis on Tongues?

I'm going to assume MEE is getting all her research together.

 

Don, you all are supposed to know all about the subject of "tongues." Why don't you tell me the difference? I'd like to hear your version.

In case you need some help, go to Acts 2,8,10,& 19 and there you will find, when the NT Church was in its infancy, that they all spoke in tongues when they received the "baptism of the Holy Ghost."

1Cor. 14, talks about the "gift of tongues" which takes the "gift of interpretation" to reveal what is being said. These people, at Corinth, already had the Holy Ghost. They were being told how to use (not rebuked) the "gift of tongues." SIMPLE!

Remember..Acts 14:39)...and FORBID NOT to speak with tongues.

Short, but sweet...have to run...on my way to church.

MEE

 

I'm sorry, MEE; perhaps I'm just being dense.

You still haven't explained the difference between the gift of tongues and speaking in tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit.

If anything, you've strengthened the position that they are not different at all.

Show us the scriptures that actually differentiate between the two, please. Or explain the difference between the gift of tongues that the Corinthians were using, and the tongues that the apostles were given in Acts 2.

Are you saying that the only difference is that the gift the Corinthians were using requires an interpreter, while the tongues given in the book of Acts does not?

 

Don, try this link!

http://altupc.com/articles/tongues1.htm

Below is just a portion of what you may be seeking.

The gift of tongues is different from the tongues as the initial evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism. Compare the following:

1. These tongues differ in purpose. The gift of tongues along with the gift of interpretation of tongues has been give unto some in the church to convey a message from God to the congregation as the need requires. I Cor. 12:7, 27, 28. But the tongues as evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost, is the believers personal experience with God, and is not designed to convey a message to the church.
2. Also these tongues differ in operation. The gift of tongues in the church is limited to two or three messages and that by course: and one must interpret I Cor. 14:27. But the tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism is an unlimited manifestation and requires no interpretation.


Hopes this helps,
MEE

 

So, based on those two definitions (I'll read the rest of the article later tonight), then what happened in Acts 2 was the gift of tongues, and not the speaking in tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit.

Correct?

 

No, the Holy Spirit of God was poured out in the second chapter of Acts. It says nothing about the gift of tongues.

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

Study some of the references in the link!

MEE

 

Good. I'm glad we agree on what happened in Acts 2.

Definition #1 says that tongues as evidence from the Holy Spirit baptism--which we both agree is what happened in Acts 2--is the believers' personal experience with God, and doesn't require intepretation.

When the Holy Spirit filled the apostles in Acts 2, it was NOT for the apostles alone. Those in attendance marveled and were amazed because they heard these unlearned men speak in their own languages. Further, Peter acknowledged that this gift wasn't for them alone by reminding them that God said, through Joel, that they would see wonders and signs. And sure enough, 3,000 were saved and made part of the church that day.

So there's my problem with that article, MEE. It says one thing, but scripture actually shows another.

Can you explain further?

 

Carol, Hope you are well!! I just wanted to point out that an interpreter was not needed in Acts 2 because of the way Tongues were being used. Many men of God were going to groups of people, who spoke different languages and speaking the Gospel to them in their language. No interpretation needed unless others of different language were listening and not understanding. Acts 2 was not a worship service and so the normal use of the gift was not needed. In the services however, things were different. When someone of another language was at a service a tongue speaker spoke a message to them and the interpreter would interpret so all that were gathered would be edified. That explains all the verses in 1 Cor. 12-14, which making up a second "tongues" doe not. Carol the thing that bothers me is well, two things. First, If Tongues was the evidence of real salvation, why wouldn't the Bible make that clear. There is little to no evidence for that position yet you it is one of the most important Biblical truths there is if you are right. Second, by saying that Tongues is an evidence of the Holy Spirit, i.e salvation, you have just blotted out from Heaven most of the great Bible teachers and preachers of the last 2000 years. Please think about that seriously and see how exclusive you are making Jesus, instead of seeing him as the one who said, Come to me all who labor and are heavily laden, and I'll give you rest. Jesus also said he is the resurrection and the life and all who believe in him will never die.

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

Brian,

You did not address your comments to me, but I love your last comment about "all who believe in him will never die". I pound that statement into the ground with every incident of witnessing. It is the start and the end of Christianity.

However the two things that bother you should not, as :

1. Salvation is not dependent on speaking in tongues.

2. Speaking in tongues is not evidence of salvation.


For me it was an evidence (after the fact).
Evidence that God gave me that reassured me of His presence. It also settled the issue of tongues with me as it would for anyone who would ask God to settle it once and for all. It was self edifying (no one else was present). It did not need interpreted as the tongues itself was what was amazing to me. If it had been in English, it would have lost its impressive nature. It was nothing I controlled...entirely given to me as I prayed with an open bible after attending a bible study (with our group who does definitely NOT believe in any form of tongues). With raised hands, while voicing "Praise God" I encountered the most beautiful touch from the Master that anyone could imagine. Its impact has lasted 27 years.

"Power from on high" .......?
"Baptised with the Holy Spirit and fire"......?

It sure wasn't the old deceiver or else it backfired on him because I do love to witness about Jesus Christ .

"Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" Rom 10:13

"Ye are cleansed by the Word" John 15:3

Don't be afraid to ask God to settle this issue of tongues. He gives accordingly

Singer

 

Don, I really don't know what you are questioning, in the above.

There were 120 in the upper room that received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, or filled with the Spirit. I'm sure you will agree everyone has to have the Spirit. Right?

Peter told the people that had come together that this 'happening' or baptism was for them also. Then they must have believed Peter when he told them to "Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and that they too would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," just as the 120 had experienced, in the upper room.

Upon believing Peter, they were obedient to what he told them.

Yes, the Bible says that there were 3000 added to the church, on that day.

You say it correctly, so why are you confused?

MEE

 

Brian, you are correct when you say that, in Acts 2, there was no need for an interpreter. The "gift of interpretation" is used when the "gift of tongues" is put into operation.

Acts 2 was a worship service. The Spirit of God comes through worship as far as I can see. I never thought of it in any othe way.

I don't think that you can see the difference between the "baptism of the Holy Ghost" and "the gift of tongues."


I don't know..try reading the link and maybe it will shed some light on the subject.

Brian, "speaking in tongues" as was given in Acts 2, is the "evidence" of being filled with the Spirit of God. It is not the *SPIRIT* but the evidence to let a person know that they have been filled with His Spirit. The Bible does make that clear. Some have either never been taught, they don't see it, or they don't want to see it for what it really means. I don't know. As I said, "try the link!"

MEE

 

Here's the confusion:

Read your own definition--from that article again.

According to that definition, speaking in tongues as the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for YOU, the believer, and YOU ALONE.

Yet the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was clearly a sign for the unbelievers present.

But Definition #2, from the article you presented, is pretty clear that it's the gift of tongues that's supposed to be used as a sign to unbelievers.

But yet again, the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was clearly a sign for the unbelievers present.

How can I say that the event in Acts 2 was clearly a sign for the unbelievers present? By Peter's own words in Acts 2:16-21.

Do you understand my confusion? I've got this article that's telling me the gift of tongues is for the church as a sign, and speaking in tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit is for the believer only. But I've got Acts 2 which shows that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a sign for the unbelievers present, and thus shows no difference between the two.

And don't ask me to read the article; YOU need to be able to explain it, or else you must question your own understanding of it.

 

Here's the confusion:

Read your own definition--from that article again.

According to that definition, speaking in tongues as the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for YOU, the believer, and YOU ALONE.

Yet the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was clearly a sign for the unbelievers present.

But Definition #2, from the article you presented, is pretty clear that it's the gift of tongues that's supposed to be used as a sign to unbelievers.

But yet again, the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was clearly a sign for the unbelievers present.

How can I say that the event in Acts 2 was clearly a sign for the unbelievers present? By Peter's own words in Acts 2:16-21.

Do you understand my confusion? I've got this article that's telling me the gift of tongues is for the church as a sign, and speaking in tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit is for the believer only. But I've got Acts 2 which shows that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a sign for the unbelievers present, and thus shows no difference between the two.

And don't ask me to read the article; YOU need to be able to explain it, or else you must question your own understanding of it. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Don, both the "baptism of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2) and the reference of "the gift of tongues," (1 Cor. 14) if was heard by anyone, would make a believer out of a person because it is supernatural and from God.

If you witnessed, by seeing and hearing, a person receiving the "baptism of the Holy Ghost," like on the Day of Pentecost, wouldn't it make a believer out of you?

What you fail to see is that when one receives the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues, it will be an earthly launguage, as was on the Day of Pentecost.

When the "gift of tongues" is put into operation, it requires the "gift of interpretation" to tell what is being said, by the Lord.

If you will read more from the link, you will find that speaking in tongues is used in different ways.

The gift of tongues, accompanied with the "gift of interpretation" IS NOT required for salvation. It DOES NOT show that one has been filled, at that exact moment, with the Spirit of God. Neither one are the evidence of receiving the Spirit of God. It takes the "gift of interpretation" to reveal what is being said, because it is not an earthly launguage.

Different subject: Your quote from above--

And don't ask me to read the article; YOU need to be able to explain it, or else you must question your own understanding of it. I have tried to explain what you asked, the best way I know how. I even supplied a link, in order to help YOU to understand.

Don't tell me that I NEED to do anything! I can't help it if you can't understand what is needed. OK?

If I took you the wrong way, I apologize, but I don't think so.

MEE

 

Not necessarily, and you know it.

Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
1 Corinthians 14:8 For, if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
1 Corinthians 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?

There is much scriptural evidence that some who hear/see the sign, do NOT become believers because of it.

So I go straight back to the definitions provided by the article. Speaking in tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit is NOT for the believer only, as evidenced by Acts 2.

So when you first spoke in tongues (were first in-dwelt with the Spirit), it was an earthly language. Which language was it?

So are we agreed that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is NOT required for salvation?

You'll recall that in Acts 8, Philip preached and many believed and were baptized; and that later, Peter and John came and laid hands on those same people before they received the Holy Ghost (something which has never been satisfactorily explained by any who practice speaking in tongues--why Philip wasn't "good enough"). In fact, later in Acts 8, we find that believing is required before baptism is allowed.

So Acts 8 clearly tells us that salvation comes before either baptism.

As far as the gift of tongues goes, let's follow that one to its logical conclusion: If there is no interpreter present, what do you do?

 

Don, truthfully, before this goes any further, do you believe that speaking in tongues, as the Spirit of God gives the utterance, exists today?

MEE

 

Hi Carol, You and Don have made for interesting reading. Don, left you a main question to answer and yet you have ignored this all important question. The point was that in Acts 2 you say that was the "evidence" type of tongues, which you say is for the individual person, but the text is clear that this speaking of tongues was for the benefit of others, not self edification. Please explain that counterdiction.

Also, I made a statement on the last page about the fact that if speaking in tongues is the evidence of the Holy Spirit filling someone, what do we do with the thousands and thousands of great Christian writers and preachers over the past 2000 years that never had this "evidence". All these great men of God were mistaken and suffering in Hell now, right? I believe that is what you are saying:
no evidence = no salvation.

Two other questions. Don also asked what language you speak in when you speak in tongues or spoke in tongues, depending what your current practice is. Second, Singer, by your standards only had the evidence once and he was totally alone when it happened. Since he can't reproduce that evidence now was he really filled with the Holy Spirit? and is he still filled, if his tongues haven't happened in 27 years. (I think that is correct, forgive me Singer if I messed that up). Carol, just take the questions one at a time.
Thanks much,

In Christian Love,
Brian

[ February 24, 2004, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

That's okay, Brian, I'm not reading this thread anyhow...I didn't see that

But in view of the fact that salvation doesn't have to reoccur each day, maybe baptism of the H.S. doesn't either.

We can't refill a cup that is already full can we? Havent' you heard of OFAF (Once Filled Always Filled) Just kiddin', Brian.

Singer

 

There is a scripture that says, "do all speak with tongues?". The obvious answer to that question is no!

So, all christians will not speak with tongues.

Now which one of us, if we came to believe that a certain thing WAS from the Lord would refuse it anyway?? Probably none.

So the people who do not beleive in tongues are the ones that will never speak in tongues!!!

That is the way God set it up. They don't believe because they are not supposed to.

Give it a rest!!

God is in control!!

Workng for Jesus,

Tam

 

Heres the scripture you mentioned Tam
1Cor.12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

Heres what I'd like to add that I found in the bible.
1Cor.12:1-11
1
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2
Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6
And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9
To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10
To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11
But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In verse 10 in the bold where it says divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpitation....
How is that person speaking tongues and not understanding what hes saying, when hes saying it and why would an interpeter be needed.... unless he is speaking with the Holy Ghost tongues that Paul speaks of?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1Cor.14:1-5
1
Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What kind of tongues is Paul talking about? Why would anyone speak in a language that no one understands and then have someone to interpret? Not unless it is Spirit given?


music4Him

 

With the full explanation that Music gave in mind, consider this.

If the scales have not been removed from your eyes in regards to tongues, then it is not for you.

The only thing I would remind people of is that Paul said to "forbid not to speak with tongues".

It may not be for you, but it is for SOMEONE else, so leave them alone.!!!