Why the Emphasis on Tongues?

[music4Him]

Don,
I take it that you don't speak in tongues?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Music4Him, the question is the difference between the gift of tongues, and speaking in tongues as evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well I just assumed it was a gift either way. I didn't never read two distinctions into it. In Acts when the Holy Ghost showed up....He sat on every one, the people spoke with tongues and went out and told Parathians, and Medes and Elamites and dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers(forigners) in Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians. all these nationalities knew that they where Galilaeans but heard them speak in their own tongue the works of God.
When Paul said wether he spoke with tongues of men(I am assuming different nationalities) or "angels" (messengers).......
What does all the angels/messengers come to speak? Good tidings(to edify)? warnings? revelations? prophecy? instructions?
1Cor.14:2-6 Pretty much exsplains it.

1Cor.14:2 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.

Quote by Don:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Been there, done that. My Dad was a Baptist and brother was a Pentecostal. So one was saying that tongues was for today and the other was saying it wasn't. So I had to find out, of course.

`````````````````````````````````````````````
Tell me, isn't the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit the same? If so then wouldn't the gift of tongues and speaking in tongues as evidence of being filled with the Holy Ghost be one in the same?

Wether I studied for a year to learn a forign language or wether the Holy Spirit fills my mouth with that language instantly, either or, they are still a gift arn't they? But the Word tells me I could still do neither without the Lords help. (ie the Comforter/Holy Spirit)
Jesus said in John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringith forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Music4Him

 

[Don]

Music4Him, the situation is not whether I speak in tongues or not, or even whether I believe it's for today or not.

You've just shown that you disagree with MEE about this subject.

So within the "tongues speaking" peoples, there's disagreement.

I firmly stand on this premise: Speaking in tongues is NOT necessary for salvation. IF it is for today, it is a result of salvation, and not necessary for anything. You must be saved before you speak in tongues (as evidenced by scripture), and whether anyone sees/hears you speak in tongues or not, your salvation is worked by Jesus Himself, and is between you and God.

HOWEVER, that's all fodder for another conversation. What I'm waiting for is this: A link was posted, and two points drawn out, that explained the difference between the gift of tongues and the speaking in tongues as a result of being baptized with the Holy Spirit.

As I've pointed out, the two points that were drawn out seem to identify the event in Acts 2 as the gift of tongues, although Acts 2 makes it exquisitely clear that it was the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Waiting for an explanation of why that article and those two points seem to contradict scripture.

 

[MEE]

OK Don, let me see if I can explain the two quotes below. First let me say that I didn't mean for you to think that the "quotes" were from me. I knew that you would read them upon reading the research. Sorry, I didn't mean for it to be taken that way.

Now, for the explanation. I'll try my best.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by 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.


***Yes, receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues, is for the newly *repented* believer to know that he/she has been filled with the Spirit of God.


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

***Yes! Keep in mind the the "gift of tongues" is not required for salvation. It is not the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

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.

***Yes, it was the evidence to the ones that had just received the Holy Ghost. That's how they knew that God had filled them with His Spirit.

***Romans 8:9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of God, he is none of his.

***The ones, e.i, the ones that heard them speak in tongues that were in Jerusalem, didn't hear them speak until approximatly three hours later.

***Acts 2:1) And when the Day of Pentecost was fully come.... (at six in the morning.)

**In Acts 2:6) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, ..

***What was noised abroad?...the ourpouring of the baptism of the Holy Ghost! Not the gift of tongues!

***Acts 2:15) (Peter said) For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the 'THIRD HOUR' of the day.

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.

**No, it was not the gift of tongues! It was the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, as was prophesied in Joel 2.

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

**Exactly!

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

***As you can see, there is no contradiction. I think that you are confusing the receiving the Holy Ghost with the gift of tongues, by not seperating the word 'believe' that is talked about in 1 Cor. 14:22.

Is that better?

MEE

 

[Don]

MEE, I knew the points came from the article and not from you. I read the article, from start to finish. And incidentally, I went back and reread it once or twice, and I'll show you something in the next post.

Now, I'm probably still being dense, so please forgive me in advance. It looks like you're contradicting yourself.

***Yes, receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues, is for the newly *repented* believer to know that he/she has been filled with the Spirit of God.

But I thought you just got through telling me not even two pages ago that the apostles were already saved, and weren't being saved again? So how does "newly repented believer" apply here?

***What was noised abroad?...the ourpouring of the baptism of the Holy Ghost! Not the gift of tongues!

This is the contradiction in the article that I'm talking about. The outpouring of the Holy Ghost here obviously was causing people to talk (i.e., they, being unbelievers, saw the sign and spread the news). Yet the "purpose" of speaking in tongues caused by the filling of the Holy Ghost is specifically stated in the article to be for the believer only. However, in the event in Acts 2, it wasn't for the believer only; it was mainly for the unbelievers who were present (don't forget that verses 6 and 8 state that those present heard them--present tense, as in right then and there--in their own tongue).

***As you can see, there is no contradiction. I think that you are confusing the receiving the Holy Ghost with the gift of tongues, by not seperating the word 'believe' that is talked about in 1 Cor. 14:22.

How could anyone confuse the word "believe" in 1 Corinthians 14:22? The verse talks about those who believe, and those who believe not.

So I'm still confused. Sorry.

 

[Don]

Okay, here's the thing I wanted to show you.

Remember when I made the post that said that when Peter talked about those afar off, I understood scripture to be talking about grandchildren and great-grandchildren? And you disagreed, and then I stated that I was probably incorrect, and apologized?

Well, I was re-reading the article you posted the link to (back on page 2), and found something I overlooked the first time around:

PETER

He had thought this the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy to be for the Jews only. To his utter astonishment it "fell" on the Gentiles also. Telling how he knew, he said, "For we heard them speak with tongues and magnify God" (Acts 10:46). He further adds, "The Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning" (day of Pentecost). The R. V. says, "God gave unto them the like gift as He did unto us." When he realized this. he said, "What was I that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:17).

So, it looks like I wasn't wrong, because I stated that Peter initially was talking only about Jews, and not the Gentiles, so when he said "those afar off", Peter wasn't talking about the Gentiles. It was only later that he realized the prophecy included the Gentiles.

Or at least, the article you posted a link to agrees with me.

 

[tamborine lady]

Acts 10-46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.


For all the people who keep saying that tounges are only for the Jews, what will you do with this scripture?

DON'T just blow it off! Read it and THINK about it!!!


Working for Him.

Tam,

 

[DHK]

11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

What do we do with this Scripture? Read it, and believe it, as it happened in its historical context. The apostles and brethren (Jews) heard that the Gentiles (non-Jews) had also received the Word of God. They had also spoken in tongues as Acts 10 tells us.
What was the purpose of speaking in tongues here? It was to demonstrate to these unbelieving Jews that the gospel was for the Gentiles also. In this case, the "unbelieving Jews" were unbelieving in the sense that they did not believe that any Gentile could be saved. They did not believe the gospel was for the Gentile, or that a Gentile could be saved. Tongues was a sign to the Jews that salvation had come to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. It made beleivers out of these Jews that the Gentiles mentioned here were indeed believers.
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:

Now, I'm probably still being dense, so please forgive me in advance. It looks like you're contradicting yourself.

***Yes, receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues, is for the newly *repented* believer to know that he/she has been filled with the Spirit of God.

But I thought you just got through telling me not even two pages ago that the apostles were already saved, and weren't being saved again? So how does "newly repented believer" apply here?

***Don, "newly repented believer" was a poor choice of words, on my part. I suppose I was thinking in terms of present tense, as what we are to do today. Sorry! Let me put it this way. The ones that were of John's time frame were "believers," but after the NT Church was born (Acts 2:1-4) they had to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and receive the Holy Ghost. These that were under John's preaching were told to "believe" on Him that would come after John, that is on the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostles and the group that were in the upper room were saved. They just so happened to be alive at the happening of the birth of the NT Church and had to obey what was required under the Grace dispensation.

***What was noised abroad?...the ourpouring of the baptism of the Holy Ghost! Not the gift of tongues!

This is the contradiction in the article that I'm talking about. The outpouring of the Holy Ghost here obviously was causing people to talk (i.e., they, being unbelievers, saw the sign and spread the news). Yet the "purpose" of speaking in tongues caused by the filling of the Holy Ghost is specifically stated in the article to be for the believer only. However, in the event in Acts 2, it wasn't for the believer only; it was mainly for the unbelievers who were present (don't forget that verses 6 and 8 state that those present heard them--present tense, as in right then and there--in their own tongue).

***Yes, the ourpouring of the Holy Ghost was for the ones that just received the Spirit. Also, it was for the ones in Jerusalem, how else would they have known what had happened? So, you may say that it worked for both, the recipient, and the Jews, which heard them speak in their tongue. It made believer out of both.

MEE

 

[Don]

***Don, "newly repented believer" was a poor choice of words, on my part. I suppose I was thinking in terms of present tense, as what we are to do today. Sorry! Let me put it this way. The ones that were of John's time frame were "believers," but after the NT Church was born (Acts 2:1-4) they had to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and receive the Holy Ghost. These that were under John's preaching were told to "believe" on Him that would come after John, that is on the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostles and the group that were in the upper room were saved. They just so happened to be alive at the happening of the birth of the NT Church and had to obey what was required under the Grace dispensation.

Well, MEE, I can't quite agree with that, because the apostles were baptizing (water baptism) with Jesus well before this (John 3:22 and 4:1-2).

Unless you're saying that the apostles, under Jesus' direction, were conducting the baptism of John, to which we probably need to start another discussion to explore that one fully.

***Yes, the ourpouring of the Holy Ghost was for the ones that just received the Spirit. Also, it was for the ones in Jerusalem, how else would they have known what had happened? So, you may say that it worked for both, the recipient, and the Jews, which heard them speak in their tongue. It made believer out of both.

So the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was both the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the basic function of the gift of tongues?

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />***Yes, the ourpouring of the Holy Ghost was for the ones that just received the Spirit. Also, it was for the ones in Jerusalem, how else would they have known what had happened? So, you may say that it worked for both, the recipient, and the Jews, which heard them speak in their tongue. It made believer out of both.

So the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was both the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the basic function of the gift of tongues? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]No, the "baptism of the Holy Ghost" does not need the "gift of interpretation," as does the "gift of tongues" when it is used properly.

Try to keep in mind that a person receiving the Spirit of God does not have to be understood. If the "gift of tongues" is put into operation, by God, it is usually followed by the "gift of interpretation."

If interested, there is a book by David Bernard, called Spiritual Gifts. You can order it online. Go to this web site to order. www.pentecostalpublishing.com or call 314-837-7300.

If you choose to search this out, after getting to the site, go to the right and click on 'Best Sellers.' Then to the right--down to the bottom, under AUTHORS. There you will see David Bernard's name..click on his name. Then you will see the book: LOS DONES Espirituales (Spiritual Gifts)

Click on the cover of the book-- then it will show the price and if you choose "Add to Cart."

Or, make a phone call!

Are you tired yet Don?

MEE

 

[Don]

MEE, please compare the following:

No, the "baptism of the Holy Ghost" does not need the "gift of interpretation," as does the "gift of tongues" when it is used properly.

Try to keep in mind that a person receiving the Spirit of God does not have to be understood. If the "gift of tongues" is put into operation, by God, it is usually followed by the "gift of interpretation."

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.

Do you understand that the article you posted a link to has contradictions to what you're saying?

"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"--and that's exactly what tongues as evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost did in Acts 2.

"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"--and that's exactly what happened in Acts 2.

Speaking in tongues was evidence to the (already saved for some time) believers--the apostles--that they had been filled with the Holy Ghost, while at the same time the tongues were being used to convey a message from God to the unbelievers present.

In other words, there is no distinction in Acts 2 between the gift of tongues and tongues as evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

Understand?

Now, I invite you to re-read the article you posted a link to. The first half was pretty decent; but the second half was not well-thought out, and is full of errors due to assumptions based on half-verses.

And yes, I'm tired. My base is going through a major inspection, while at the same time my team is trying to work a major course revision, building renovation (mostly through our own self-help efforts), and prepping for a "high-muckety-muck" grand opening of our new course and renovated building.

But perhaps that's not what you meant?....

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:
[QB] MEE, please compare the following:

No, the "baptism of the Holy Ghost" does not need the "gift of interpretation," as does the "gift of tongues" when it is used properly.

***OK, the baptism of the Holy Ghost, at Pentecost or any other time, is an earthly language, which needs no interpretation. Remember on the "Day of Pentecost" the people that came and heard what was said knew the earthly languages. The speaking in tongues was not known by the ones that had just received the Spirit....only known by the ones that heard what was being spoken.

**You don't seem to see that the "gift of tongues" requires the "gift of interpretation," which is supernatural, manifestated by God, in order for people to know what He is saying to His church.

Try to keep in mind that a person receiving the Spirit of God does not have to be understood. If the "gift of tongues" is put into operation, by God, it is usually followed by the "gift of interpretation."

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.

Do you understand that the article you posted a link to has contradictions to what you're saying?

***There is no contradiction, you just don't understand it ..yet.

"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"--and that's exactly what tongues as evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost did in Acts 2.

***No, in Acts 2, they didn't need the "gift of interpretation" because it is only used when the "gift of tongues" is used.

"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"--and that's exactly what happened in Acts 2.

***No, that is not what happened in Acts 2. What happened there was understood, without the "gift of interpreation" being used by God. The people knew the language. It was earthly! There was nothing supernatural about the people (Jews) being able to understand there own languages. It wasn't revealed to them (Jews) by God by using the "gift of interpretation."

Speaking in tongues was evidence to the (already saved for some time) believers--the apostles--that they had been filled with the Holy Ghost, while at the same time the tongues were being used to convey a message from God to the unbelievers present.

***You are using part of the quote, by the writer, " the tongues were being used to convey a message from God to the unbelievers present" and thinking that he is talking about what happened in Acts 2. He is talking about the "gift of tongues" that God uses sometimes to convey a message to the churches since the NT Church was brought into existence. I'm not referring to the day it was born either.

MEE

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Mee

" the tongues were being used to convey a message from God to the unbelievers present" and thinking that he is talking about what happened in Acts 2

Brings up an interesting point...

The tongues that everyone says occurred to convince the unbelieving Jews **started** in a closed room amongst believers waiting for it, for themselves, who were hiding (for the most part) from society.

The tongues of that day convinced no one but the believers who received it.

It was Peter's Sermon that was the final arbiter and convincing authority confirming what the Spirit was doing so that unregenerate skeptics *could* believe it was valid.

What we see is the overflow of a Pentecostal Service spilling over into the public spotlight and requiring an explanation.

If tongues were the convincing authority they wouldn't have needed explaining.

My Two cents Worth.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
Mee </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />" the tongues were being used to convey a message from God to the unbelievers present" and thinking that he is talking about what happened in Acts 2

Brings up an interesting point...

The tongues that everyone says occurred to convince the unbelieving Jews **started** in a closed room amongst believers waiting for it, for themselves, who were hiding (for the most part) from society.

The tongues of that day convinced no one but the believers who received it.

It was Peter's Sermon that was the final arbiter and convincing authority confirming what the Spirit was doing so that unregenerate skeptics *could* believe it was valid.

What we see is the overflow of a Pentecostal Service spilling over into the public spotlight and requiring an explanation.

If tongues were the convincing authority they wouldn't have needed explaining.

My Two cents Worth. </font>[/QUOTE]Tongues is a SIGN to the unbelieving Jew. No one here is disputing the fact that it is the gospel that saves. The very fact that they spoke in tongues at all drew attention to the event that these were Galilean Jews speaking forth a New Testament gospel message. The tongues were a supernatural gift, prophesied in the Book of Isaiah (which the Jews knew about), a sign that this message was from God to them. It verified to them that this message was from God. It was the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God spoken by Peter that convicted them of sin, and by which they were eventually saved. Tongues were a sign, and gave Peter the opportunity to preach to them that he otherwise never would have had. Look how his message started:

Acts 2:14-16 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

The tongues were a sign; they didn't save. The Holy Spirit through Peter's preaching did.

Acts 2:37-38 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.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Tongues were a sign to the Jews. These were the very Jews that had crucified the Lord Jesus Christ!
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:

The tongues that everyone says occurred to convince the unbelieving Jews **started** in a closed room amongst believers waiting for it, for themselves, who were hiding (for the most part) from society.

The tongues of that day convinced no one but the believers who received it.

My Two cents Worth. [/QB]

SMM, Excellent point!

After the ones, in the upper room received the "baptism of the Holy Ghost" then the fact that the Holy Ghost had been poured out was noised abroad...approximantly three hours later. (Acts 2:15)... seeing it is but the THIRD HOUR of the day. This is when the ones of different nationalities came together and heard them speak in tongues. Of course this had to be explaind by Peter, as to what had happened, because..Acts 2:12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

Acts 2:16-17
16) But this is that which was soken by the prophet Joel;
17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon ALL FLESH:

Having the "Spirit of God" is a must!

Romans 8:9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:

Having the "Spirit of God" is a must!

MEE you escape (or deliberately avoid) the point entirely. No one argues that one must have the Spirit of God.
Did the Spirit of God come through the speaking of tongues in Acts 2? If so, then only 120 were saved and not 3,000.
Why is there no reference to all 3,000 speaking in tongues? Does that mean they were not saved, or had not the Holy Spirit?

Tongues was simply a sign and nothing more.
The Bible specifically says:

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Tongues doesn't save; it is simply a sign.
It is the preaching of the gospel that saves.
DHK

 

[Don]

***You are using part of the quote, by the writer, " the tongues were being used to convey a message from God to the unbelievers present" and thinking that he is talking about what happened in Acts 2. He is talking about the "gift of tongues" that God uses sometimes to convey a message to the churches since the NT Church was brought into existence. I'm not referring to the day it was born either.

Let's look at those quotes again:

"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"

"The gift of tongues along with the gift of interpretation of tongues has been given unto some in the church to convey a message from God to the congregation as the need requires"

Now here's where it gets interesting, because we can assume one of two things:

1) The apostles were spouting gibberish that was understandable gibberish, and therefore definitely fit definition #1 (personal experience of the believer)--except that it couldn't be gibberish, because the people who heard it were able to understand that it was their own language, and there's no such thing as understandable gibberish, and it served a definite purpose as a sign to the unbelievers present;

2) The speaking in tongues conveyed a message as a need is required, and in this case, there was a need, so it fits definition #2--except that no interpreter was needed, and scripture makes it clear that this was the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Now, I'm going to make an argument from an assumption based on scripture, and offer a third alternative: If the people present heard the apostles speaking in their own tongues, what did they hear them speaking? Gibberish? Or did they hear them magnifying God? (Acts 10:46)

So it's not a stretch, in my mind anyway, to assume that the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 did convey a message: the glorifying of God.

Please feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but please be specific in pointing out why.

So the question is: Can God combine the baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues with the gift of tongues?

Loaded question, eh?

 

[MEE]

***Don, please refrain from calling the act of "speaking in tongues" gibberish. I find this insulting to God and very degrading!

Please feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but please be specific in pointing out why.


***I have explained Don, time after time that the "baptism of the Holy Ghost" DOES NOT require "the gift of interpretation."

So the question is: Can God combine the baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues with the gift of tongues?

***NO! Why would there be a need for Him to do so, like on the Day of Pentecost, when the the multitude came together and knew the languages that were being spoken? Keep in mind that this was about three hours later. The multitude was not in that upper room at the time of the initial outpouring.

***Receiving the Holy Ghost, evdienced by speaking in tongues, does not require a supernatural interpretation, as in using the "gift of tongues."

Loaded question, eh? [/QB][/QUOTE]

**NO, not to me. You still don't understand the difference between the two.

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
please refrain from calling the act of "speaking in tongues" gibberish. I find this insulting to God and very degrading!

Please feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but please be specific in pointing out why.

Can you give a reason why it should not be called gibberish?
If it is a real language that you speak, then what is it?
Do you understand what you are saying when you are speaking in tongues?

 

[Don]

MEE, if you don't understand what someone's saying, then it's defined as "gibberish". Thus, why Paul wrote "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me", and "will they not say that ye are mad?"

***I have explained Don, time after time that the "baptism of the Holy Ghost" DOES NOT require "the gift of interpretation."

So whenever you speak in tongues, evidencing the baptism of the Holy Spirit, someone around you understands the language being spoken?

So the question is: Can God combine the baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues with the gift of tongues?

***NO! Why would there be a need for Him to do so, like on the Day of Pentecost, when the the multitude came together and knew the languages that were being spoken? Keep in mind that this was about three hours later. The multitude was not in that upper room at the time of the initial outpouring.

What? God can't do whatever He wants to do?

You'll notice that my emphasis was not on interpretation of the message, but on conveyance of the message.

The definitions provided state that speaking in tongues as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost are not meant to convey a message; would you say that the speaking in tongues at Pentecost was merely to draw the attention of the unbelievers? Do you disagree with what I wrote about the apostles at Pentecost magnifying God in those languages they weren't supposed to be able to speak?