Why the Emphasis on Tongues?

[music4Him]

Originally posted by Don:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />MEE:
Below is the answer to your question, that is on page four. As you can see, I said, "...they were saved."

Direct answer, please. Were they saved in Acts 2, or before? </font>[/QUOTE]Well depending on what your defintion of saved is....
Romans 10:9 says to confess and belive in thine heart that God raised him from the dead.

I'm pretty sure they were saved cause.....
John 20:20- (doubting Thomas) 31
How could they have not belived?

Music4Him

 

[Don]

Waiting for MEE...because her answer doesn't sound like yours....

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />MEE:
Below is the answer to your question, that is on page four. As you can see, I said, "...they were saved."

Direct answer, please. Were they saved in Acts 2, or before? </font>[/QUOTE]Don??? How many ways do you want me to say, "They were saved!" I said that the 120 believed in repentance, according to John and must have been baptized, unto repentance. Since they were still alive at the time that the NT Church was born, when they were in the upper room, they were no longer under the law or what John preached, but were to abide under the new plan of salvation, which is under Grace.

I said that before. Didn't you understand what I was meaning?

Why do I get the feeling that this is a loaded question?

MEE

 

[Don]

The problem is, it's not a loaded question. I'm just hoping to get a simple, straight answer.

I'm assuming that you're saying they were saved BEFORE the events in Acts 2, but that based on your wording, the dispensation of grace didn't start until Acts 2?

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:
The problem is, it's not a loaded question. I'm just hoping to get a simple, straight answer.

I'm assuming that you're saying they were saved BEFORE the events in Acts 2, but that based on your wording, the dispensation of grace didn't start until Acts 2?

Yes, because the baptism of John was only for repentance. Under Grace, one has to repent and be baptized into Jesus Christ, and receive the Spirit of God. While, under the Law only the leaders were led by the Spirit, which the people followed. Under Grace, each person has the Spirit and is led by God Himself.

You can read in Acts 19 where the ones only knowing the baptism of John had to be baptized over, in the name of Jesus Christ, and Paul laid hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues.

MEE

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by MEE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by music4Him:
Thanks Mee

I thought I broke the board or something and I didn't want to sound like a broken record. LOL

Oh music4Him, you sound like a happy person!

I looked at your profile and found that you like like playing music. If you want, since you are in the (I think) the central time zone, click on to this link, on Sunday. www.christtemplechurch.net

It is our church's web site. If you can pick it up, it is live, from 9:00 AM, 11:00 AM, and 6:00 PM EST. We've had to go to three services on Sunday to accomodate the people.

To the left, click where it says enhanced or static..depending on you plugin. There you will hear some of the best must a church has to offer. We are in big demand everywhere. Not bragging, but our choir, accompanied with the annointing of the Holy Ghost, is just plain wonderful!

Try it, you'll like it.

MEE

</font>[/QUOTE]Hey mee,
You go to very uplifting church!!!!

 

[Don]

Originally posted by MEE:
Yes, because the baptism of John was only for repentance. Under Grace, one has to repent and be baptized into Jesus Christ, and receive the Spirit of God. While, under the Law only the leaders were led by the Spirit, which the people followed. Under Grace, each person has the Spirit and is led by God Himself.

You can read in Acts 19 where the ones only knowing the baptism of John had to be baptized over, in the name of Jesus Christ, and Paul laid hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues.

MEE

Unfortunately, that confused me again (remember, I'm kinda dense). Are you saying that the apostles got baptized again at Pentecost?

 

[music4Him]

MEE

Ditto on the church I saved it to my favorites. (BTW, CYE (Check your email)

Music4Him

 

[music4Him]

Don,
Are you asking also did the apostles get baptized 2 times? Once when in John 20:21-22 & Acts 1:2 and then in Acts 2:1-4? It kinda looks like it huh?

Music4Him

 

[Don]

No, not baptized; saved. Did the apostles get saved twice?

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:
No, not baptized; saved. Did the apostles get saved twice?

No Don, they were always saved. While they were under the time frame of John the Baptist, they were still under the Law, but were in the midst of being ready to go into the NT Church. Don't you agree that the Church was born on the Day of Pentecost?

You may associate the word *Pentecost* with something that you don't believe in, by thinking of a Pentecostal Church. The Day of Pentecost is only a festival of the Jews. It is just a fact that the NT Church was born, on that day. (Acts 2:1-4)

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
Yes, because the baptism of John was only for repentance. Under Grace, one has to repent and be baptized into Jesus Christ, and receive the Spirit of God. While, under the Law only the leaders were led by the Spirit, which the people followed. Under Grace, each person has the Spirit and is led by God Himself.

You can read in Acts 19 where the ones only knowing the baptism of John had to be baptized over, in the name of Jesus Christ, and Paul laid hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues.

MEE

Unfortunately, that confused me again (remember, I'm kinda dense). Are you saying that the apostles got baptized again at Pentecost? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes! Why would Peter tell the rest of the Jews to repent, be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and that they would receive the Holy Ghost, and for the rest of them not to be re-baptized, in the name as it was commanded in Matt. 28:19? The name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ, as Peter said in Acts 2:38. Interesting huh?

The ones at Ephesus (Acts 19) knew only the baptism of John. They had to be re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. John's baptism, unto repentance, wasn't valid once the NT Church was born.

MEE

 

[Don]

MEE, there's no scriptural proof that the apostles were re-baptized in Acts 2. It's a conclusion from an assumption which can neither be proven nor disproven.

Now, before we go off on any other tangents, my original question way back on page 2 was:

Can you please show scriptural delineation(s) between the gift of tongues and speaking in tongues as evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit?

From there, we went off on the two points that you posted:

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.

So, as simply as you can, please remembering that I'm being dense about this, would you please explain why the event in Acts 2, which was clearly the result of the Holy Spirit, fits the designation of the gift of tongues as explained in these two points?

 

[music4Him]

Hey how about just find all the scripture about "tongues" and then tell what they mean?

(****These scriptures are what came up on a search on the word tongues only****)

Mark 16:17 -
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We are going to be able to speak a different language to tell others the gospel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Acts 2:3 -
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well this seems self exsplinatory (sp?)?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Acts 2:4 -
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in other tongues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Acts 2:11 -
Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey they are telling others about God in what I am supposing not their original tongue?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Acts 10:46 -
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Acts 19:6 -
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 12:10 -
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:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are these 9 gifts of the spirit for today?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 12:28 -
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are some of these like the 9 gifts mentioned in verse 10?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 12:30 -
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No not all speak with tongues, but some do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 13:1 -
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In other words is Paul saing he speaks with tongues like men or messengers.....if he don't speak in love, it won't do much good?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 13:8 -
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is where some people say tongues arn't for today, that they ended 70AD...but...Tongues haven't ended, because don't we still have knowledge?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 14:5 -
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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tongues to edify church after a interpretation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 14:6 -
Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With interpretation it will be a revelation or word of knowledge, or a prophesy, or doctrine(would this be a scripture quoted during interpretation?).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 14:18 -
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 14:21 -
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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tongues are for a sign
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 14:22 -
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 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?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well this one gets me if I try to disprove tongues. Cause first all they all come together and all speak with tongues....right? Then it says unlearned, the verse don't say stangers or I'd assume they were talking about a forginer...right? or unbelivers this would go back to 1Cor14:22 for tongues as a sign. But then why would they say that the ones speaking tongues are mad?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Cor 14:39 -
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speak with tongues if you are given/recive the gift (1Cor.12:4-11)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rev 7:9 -
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can't help to think that if we asked the Lord to help us speak to someone who doesn't speak our language that He would do it. After all He gave all the different launguages? ie (at the tower of babble) Well?

Music4Him

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by atestring:

Hey mee,
You go to very uplifting church!!!! [/QB]

Thanks atestring! We have only been there for about three years. We chose to leave our other church of thirty some years. Long story!

This new church is fabulous! It's a previlege to get up on Sunday morning and attend Sunday school and church...then back again on Sunday night.

If I can't attend..I just go to the web and watch the worship service.

Completely in love with it...

MEE

 

[Don]

Music4Him, the question is the difference between the gift of tongues, and speaking in tongues as evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

None of the verses you posted, nor your comments about any of them, make a distinction between the two.

Yet most tongues-supporters say there is.

All I'm asking for is the scriptural proof that shows the distinction, and the answer to my question above: "Please explain why the event in Acts 2, which was clearly the result of the Holy Spirit, fits the designation of the gift of tongues as explained in these two points?"

--------------------------------------------------

Now, for an explanation for you:

1Cor 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?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well this one gets me if I try to disprove tongues. Cause first all they all come together and all speak with tongues....right? Then it says unlearned, the verse don't say stangers or I'd assume they were talking about a forginer...right? or unbelivers this would go back to 1Cor14:22 for tongues as a sign. But then why would they say that the ones speaking tongues are mad?

First, it says "if they all come together and all speak with tongues." This seems to indicate that they were coming together and all speaking in tongues, and encouraging this practice.

"Unlearned", in this case, is referring to those that haven't been taught about Christianity.

Why would the unbeliever or the unlearned say the tongues-speakers were mad, especially if speaking in tongues is a sign for the unbeliever? This is explained in the later verses, where it says let all things be done orderly; if you speak in tongues, do it by two, or three, and have an interpreter.

If everyone in the congregation is speaking in tongues all at the same time, how will it sound to the outsider? Especially if what is being practiced is the "private language between an individual and God"? (for which there is no evidence; 1 Corinthians 14:4 is talking about speaking in tongues without an interpreter, and has been interpreted to mean a private, individual, spiritual conversation with God; to which Paul spends the next dozen or more verses saying is not our goal).

Further, you missed a few verses:

1 Cor 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"except ye utter by the tongue" - don't mumble, grunt, or snort
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 Cor 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you speak in a tongue you don't recognize, one that you don't normally speak, PRAY for an interpretation!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 Cor 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At first, this verse seems to support "praying in the spirit"--but then we see "my understanding is unfruitful". Why is that important? Because the very next verse tells us to "pray with the spirit, and pray with the understanding also." Paul himself says it's not enough to pray without understanding.

Now, to give you an indication, I once did a search on the entire Bible for the following words: tongue, tongues, language, languages, voice, voices, angel, angels.

I suggest you do the same. Take your time; there'll be a lot of verses to go through.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:
MEE, there's no scriptural proof that the apostles were re-baptized in Acts 2. It's a conclusion from an assumption which can neither be proven nor disproven.

Now, before we go off on any other tangents, my original question way back on page 2 was:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Can you please show scriptural delineation(s) between the gift of tongues and speaking in tongues as evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit?

From there, we went off on the two points that you posted:

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.

So, as simply as you can, please remembering that I'm being dense about this, would you please explain why the event in Acts 2, which was clearly the result of the Holy Spirit, fits the designation of the gift of tongues as explained in these two points? </font>[/QUOTE]Don, just what are you trying to get me to say? I've answered you the same thing, in different ways and I even gave you a link. What do you want to understand that wasn't in the link or that I haven't already said. You don't believe anything I'm telling anyway. So, why ask?

MEE

 

[Don]

I apologize, MEE: I either haven't seen your answer to that direct question, or I'm not realizing that you've directly answered it. Sometimes, especially with the things that are going on in my life right now, I need people to speak to me like I'm a four-year old; just ask my wife.

The link you provided is the thing in question, because it's the link you provided that gives us the two points you brought up. I'm asking you to clarify these two points.

I ask so that you can increase my understanding. I've already admitted to you once that I may have been incorrect about something; so why are you being so negative and mean-spirited towards me?

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:
I apologize, MEE: I either haven't seen your answer to that direct question, or I'm not realizing that you've directly answered it. Sometimes, especially with the things that are going on in my life right now, I need people to speak to me like I'm a four-year old; just ask my wife.

The link you provided is the thing in question, because it's the link you provided that gives us the two points you brought up. I'm asking you to clarify these two points.

I ask so that you can increase my understanding. I've already admitted to you once that I may have been incorrect about something; so why are you being so negative and mean-spirited towards me?

OK Don, I'm really in a good mood. OK? So, don't take this that I'm being "mean-spirited" as you put it.

It seems to me that the two points that I posted, from the link, explains what you are asking.

Aren't you asking about the difference in the two operations of speaking in tongues, as in the "gift of tongues," not required for salvation and the "baptism of the Holy Ghost" that is required for salvation?

If not, rephrase your question!

MEE

 

[Don]

Sort of; I'm asking more about the two points from the article you posted a link to.

The article is where you drew the two points from; I know, because I've read the article. And while there's more to discuss about it, I'm focusing on this apparent self-contradiction for the moment.

According to the two points, speaking in tongues as evidenced by the Holy Spirit is for the believer only, and there is no interpreter.

According to the two points, the gift of tongues is a sign for the unbeliever, and does require an interpreter.

HOWEVER, in Acts 2, we know for a fact that speaking in tongues was the result of being filled with the Holy Spirit, and that it was a sign for the unbelievers present.

In other words, according to the two points, what happened in Acts 2 was indicative of the gift of tongues, not the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

But we know from scripture itself that it was the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

So my question has been, and remains, how do YOU explain the contradiction?