Why the Emphasis on Tongues?

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:

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?
[/QB]

No, it was not to draw attention to the ones that were in Jerusalem when it was received by the ones in the upper room. It was the evidence that they had been filled with the Spirit of God. The ones that were in Jerusalem didn't hear them when they received the Spirit, in the upper room. That didn't happen until about three hours later.

MEE

 

[Don]

No, it was not to draw attention to the ones that were in Jerusalem when it was received by the ones in the upper room. It was the evidence that they had been filled with the Spirit of God. The ones that were in Jerusalem didn't hear them when they received the Spirit, in the upper room. That didn't happen until about three hours later.

Are you saying that the ones in Jerusalem did NOT hear them speaking in tongues?

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, it was not to draw attention to the ones that were in Jerusalem when it was received by the ones in the upper room. It was the evidence that they had been filled with the Spirit of God. The ones that were in Jerusalem didn't hear them when they received the Spirit, in the upper room. That didn't happen until about three hours later.

Are you saying that the ones in Jerusalem did NOT hear them speaking in tongues? </font>[/QUOTE]Don???? You either need glasses, change your contacts, or you have been working too hard.

Read the post again!

MEE

 

[Don]

Read it twice before I posted. Remember, you need to talk to me like I'm a four year old.

I'm going to assume that you're in agreement that they heard the apostles speaking in tongues, but that they were able to understand the tongues.

So once again, I go to the definitions provided by the article you posted a link to: "speaking in tongues as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost are not meant to convey a message."

Did the ones who heard the apostles speak in tongues NOT hear a message?

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Don:
Read it twice before I posted. Remember, you need to talk to me like I'm a four year old.

I'm going to assume that you're in agreement that they heard the apostles speaking in tongues, but that they were able to understand the tongues.

So once again, I go to the definitions provided by the article you posted a link to: "speaking in tongues as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost are not meant to convey a message."

Did the ones who heard the apostles speak in tongues NOT hear a message?

Not usually does anyone understand what is being spoken, when one receives the baptism of the Holy Ghost...like they did on the Day of Pentecost; although this does happen at times, but it's rare.

Yes, the ones that heard them speak on the Day of Pentecost did hear something that they understood.

Acts 2:8) And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Don, let's change directions! You answer me now, OK?

Did you ever, or do you now, believe that people do speak in tongues, as the Spirit of God gives the utterance, in this day and time?

MEE

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>[/QUOTE]In Acts 19 at Ephesus, Were these Unbelieving Jews?

Do you believe that Speaking in tongues is for today if used for unbelieving Jews today?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:
In Acts 19 at Ephesus, Were these Unbelieving Jews?

Do you believe that Speaking in tongues is for today if used for unbelieving Jews today?

Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:5-6 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

There were many Jews present. They had heard the message of Apollos, who preached concerning Christ, knowing only the baptism of John. Apollos was fervent in his preaching, but limited in his knowledge. He was taken aside by Aquilla and Priscilla and taught or discipled more thoroughly.
These disciples were no doubt a result of the preaching of Apollos. They had not heard of the Holy Ghost; only of the baptism of John, and what John had told of the Messiah to come. They were saved on the basis of the knowledge that they had. They spoke in tongues. That was a sign to the unbelieving Jews that the message that they had received was from God; it was authentic. It was not simply the Jews that were the chosen people of God. God was reaching out to all mankind with a new message--the message of the gospel, and tongues was a sign to verify that message to all the Jews that were present on that occasion.

"Do you believe that Speaking in tongues is for today if used for unbelieving Jews today?"
No, of course not. What unbelieving Jews? The unbelief of the Jews extended until 70 A.D. (by the grace of God), and then they were judged for their unbelief, when the Roman general Titus, came and destroyed the city of Jerusalem, and the Temple along with it. Tongues then ceased soon after that. It no longer serves a purpose. It was a sign to the unbelieving Jews of that century, a warning that they should believe, or judgement was imminent. They did not believe--even after crucifying their Messiah; even after the Messiah rose from the dead; even after the gospel was proclaimed and demonstrated to be true by wondrous miracles by the Apostles--still they rejected it. Thus they suffered the consequences. God dealt with them severely, the city of Jerusalem was destroyed; the Temple razed to the ground; and the nation of Israel scattered.
DHK

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atestring:
In Acts 19 at Ephesus, Were these Unbelieving Jews?

Do you believe that Speaking in tongues is for today if used for unbelieving Jews today?

Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Acts 19:5-6 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

There were many Jews present. They had heard the message of Apollos, who preached concerning Christ, knowing only the baptism of John. Apollos was fervent in his preaching, but limited in his knowledge. He was taken aside by Aquilla and Priscilla and taught or discipled more thoroughly.
These disciples were no doubt a result of the preaching of Apollos. They had not heard of the Holy Ghost; only of the baptism of John, and what John had told of the Messiah to come. They were saved on the basis of the knowledge that they had. They spoke in tongues. That was a sign to the unbelieving Jews that the message that they had received was from God; it was authentic. It was not simply the Jews that were the chosen people of God. God was reaching out to all mankind with a new message--the message of the gospel, and tongues was a sign to verify that message to all the Jews that were present on that occasion.

"Do you believe that Speaking in tongues is for today if used for unbelieving Jews today?"
No, of course not. What unbelieving Jews? The unbelief of the Jews extended until 70 A.D. (by the grace of God), and then they were judged for their unbelief, when the Roman general Titus, came and destroyed the city of Jerusalem, and the Temple along with it. Tongues then ceased soon after that. It no longer serves a purpose. It was a sign to the unbelieving Jews of that century, a warning that they should believe, or judgement was imminent. They did not believe--even after crucifying their Messiah; even after the Messiah rose from the dead; even after the gospel was proclaimed and demonstrated to be true by wondrous miracles by the Apostles--still they rejected it. Thus they suffered the consequences. God dealt with them severely, the city of Jerusalem was destroyed; the Temple razed to the ground; and the nation of Israel scattered.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]So are you claiming that Appolos was an unbelieving Jew?

Are you saying that Unbelieving Jews don't need Jesus Today but only needed JEsus until AD 70?
I would welcome some scripture saying that Speaking in Tongues was just for that century.
I just don't buy the cessationist heresy.

 

[micahaaron]

So anyone, would you still fellowship with a brother or sister in the Lord who spoke in tongues?

 

[Don]

Originally posted by MEE:
Not usually does anyone understand what is being spoken, when one receives the baptism of the Holy Ghost...like they did on the Day of Pentecost; although this does happen at times, but it's rare.

But that doesn't make sense. In both Acts 2 and Acts 10, it was quite clear that those present understood what was being said. If it were only clear in one part, then I'd say that "it's rare today" is acceptable; but since it's evident that it happened more than once, it shouldn't be rare if it's scriptural.

Don, let's change directions! You answer me now, OK?

Did you ever, or do you now, believe that people do speak in tongues, as the Spirit of God gives the utterance, in this day and time?

MEE

Based on the articles I've read from BOTH sides (pro-tongues and anti-tongues), and based on my searching of the Bible, and based on studying this topic extensively--I'll say what I've said before: Tongues, as they are primarily used today, are not being used scripturally. Therefore, I can't answer definitively whether people speak in tongues as the Spirit of God gives the utterance.

Reasons?

Tongues are NOT "required" in any way, shape, or form. Those that died after hearing Philip, but before the apostles came to lay hands on them, were just as saved as those that were filled with the Holy Spirit after the apostles came. By your own admission, the apostles were saved before the event in Acts 2.

Consider this: Those that say speaking in tongues as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit say "leave it alone, because it's between an individual and God"; yet those same people "require" to hear someone else speak in tongues so they can be personally satisfied that the other person is saved.

"Requiring" anyone to speak in tongues is so that men can affirm something that's between an individual and God. "The heart is desperately wicked; who can know it? I the Lord search the heart."

I hear and read stories of people who speak to individuals from another country, who normally can't speak that language; but the individual somehow miraculously understands them. I have yet to be able to confirm any of these stories through second or third parties, as most of these are second-hand stories to begin with.

Hope that wasn't too ambiguous for you. It's been a long week.

 

[MEE]

Thanks Don. It has been nice talking to you. See you around the BB.

MEE

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by atestring:

I just don't buy the cessationist heresy. [/QB]

I'll second that atestring! The baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues, is still in effect today; just as much as it was when it was first poured out, on the Day of Pentecost. Furthermore, it will be until the end of the Gentile dispensation.

MEE

 

[Don]

In both Acts 2 and Acts 10, it was quite clear that those present understood what was being said. If it were only clear in one part (of scripture), then I'd say that "it's rare today" is acceptable; but since it's evident that it happened more than once, it shouldn't be rare if it's scriptural.

 

[Don]

So why the wave-off, MEE?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:
So are you claiming that Appolos was an unbelieving Jew?

Where did you get that idea? I just finished posting Scripture showing how many of the Jews believed as a result of his preaching that Christ was the Messiah. Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or just not reading it?
Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jews in general.

Are you saying that Unbelieving Jews don't need Jesus Today but only needed JEsus until AD 70?
I would welcome some scripture saying that Speaking in Tongues was just for that century.
I just don't buy the cessationist heresy.

Let's look at Scripture:
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. (i.e., the nation of Israel)

Isaiah 28:14-15 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

Isaiah 28:16-17 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

Now look in the New Testament where this is fulfilled:
1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; (i.e., the nation of Israel) and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
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.

Paul, in 1Cor.14:21,22, quotes from Isaiah 28:11.
The passage is a passage directed to the Jewish nation, and it is a passage of judgement. If the Jews did not heed the "men of other tongues and other lips that would speak to them," then God would judge the city of Jerusalem, as he described specifically in Isaiah 28:14,15. The passage details the coming of the Messiah, their rejection, their "covenant with death." In spite of the sign of tongues that the nation of Israel were well aware of was a sign to them, they ignored it, went on in their own unbelief, and allowed the judgement of God to come upon the city of Jerusalem just as it is described in Isaiah 28, and fulfilled through history, God using the Roman general Titus to destroy the city in 70 A.D. Even Christ prophesied of its coming destruction.

Verse 22 of 1Cor.14 specifically says that tongues is a sign for the unbeliever--in context then, the unbelieving Jew. It is a sign to those unbelieving Jews who had the chance to repent before judgement came in 70 A.D. Many of them did repent (as the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost), but many did not. After 70 A.D. this gift (tongues) slowly died out. Historians do not find any record of tongues being spoken past the first century, except in the occasional heretical group that cropped up here and there. By the end of the first century it had ceased completely. Then, after a silence of 1800 years, in 1901 it all of sudden burst into existence in a new modern unscriptural anti-Biblical way. It is known as gibberish--not a supernatural gift of being able to speak in a foreign language (which the original gift was), but a string on nonsense syllables strung together and uttered without meaning making complete nonsense. It is not of God; and if it is not of God, then it has only one other source that it can possibly come from.
As I asked MEE before (who believes that in some way tongues are an evidence to one's salvation): If for 1800 years this new doctrine was totally unknown (totally unverifiable in history), then all the Christians, the great men and women throughout all ages from the first century to the beginning of the 20th are condemned to Hell, because they had not this doctrine. Can you people seriously believe this??
DHK

[ March 05, 2004, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[atestring]

DKH,
I challenge you to read a book by Eddie L.Hyatt entitled : "2000 years of Charismatic Christianity."
You will find that there have always been saints in the Church that spoke in tongues.
I would also challenge you to read a book by Dr. Ron Phillips called "Awakened by The Spirit."

The reason I ask you about Appolos is that you keep saying that Speaking in Tongues is only a sign for Unbelieving Jews. I admit that Appolos was a Jew but not an "unbelieving Jew". You cannot discount that speaking in tongues happened to Gentiles as well.

[ March 05, 2004, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: atestring ]

 

[Briguy]

Hi Atestring, You missed what DHK said. He said clearly that Tongues were a "sign" to unbelieving Jews in general. That long post of DHK's was excellent, please go back and read it carefully and you will see what Don, DHK, and myself have been saying all along. One addition to what DHK said. When Paul said tongues would cease he used a verb that meant "fade out on their own". Nothing makes them stop they just fade away. That also lines up perfectly with what DHK posted. Atestring please step aside from what you have experienced and been taught and really look at the evidence. I know it is not easy when good people have taught you and you probably have had some great emotional feelings with speaking in tongues, but never-the-less I ask you to step away and re-read what has been written in this thread. God bless you Atestring,
In Christ,
Brian

 

[music4Him]

Quote by DHK
------------------------------------------------
As I asked MEE before (who believes that in some way tongues are an evidence to one's salvation): If for 1800 years this new doctrine was totally unknown (totally unverifiable in history), then all the Christians, the great men and women throughout all ages from the first century to the beginning of the 20th are condemned to Hell, because they had not this doctrine. Can you people seriously believe this??
DHK
------------------------------------------------
Just a couple of questions here......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1.) MEE, according to DHK, is the scripture that you refer to 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;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2.) Keeping the above scripture in mind when Paul asked in 1Cor. 12:30~
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
Well????? Do we?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DHK do you belive that in 1 Cor. Chapter 12 that the 9 spiritual gifts that Paul speaks of is not for us?

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.

Just tring to understand what the problem is?
Music4Him

 

[micahaaron]

So anyone, would you still fellowship with a brother or sister in the Lord who spoke in tongues?

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi Atestring, You missed what DHK said. He said clearly that Tongues were a "sign" to unbelieving Jews in general. That long post of DHK's was excellent, please go back and read it carefully and you will see what Don, DHK, and myself have been saying all along. One addition to what DHK said. When Paul said tongues would cease he used a verb that meant "fade out on their own". Nothing makes them stop they just fade away. That also lines up perfectly with what DHK posted. Atestring please step aside from what you have experienced and been taught and really look at the evidence. I know it is not easy when good people have taught you and you probably have had some great emotional feelings with speaking in tongues, but never-the-less I ask you to step away and re-read what has been written in this thread. God bless you Atestring,
In Christ,
Brian

Briguy,
I know of which verse you speak of......
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.

Well what about knowledge.....isn't it still here?
In 1Cor. Chapter 13 Paul is talking about exercising the gifts in love. But still exercising them, because Paul continues to exslain prophcey and tongues and how to use the "gifts" in public worship in chapter 14. Why is that?

Music4Him