Featured Were the tongues the same?

That's not what I said. I said scripture says tongues are a sign for the unbeliever, which is what 1 Cor 14:22 says. Why are you twisting my words?

The people in Cornelius' house. Read carefully; they hadn't believed on Jesus yet. It was after Peter preached Jesus to them that they received the Holy Spirit.

 

ok, I see that...I am answering so many threads about the same subject. THis thread is " are tongues the same" My answer is still yes, same manifestation, different languages for the same purpose..magnifying God! Speaking to God! Every example shows the people speaking to God! PRaising God Mangnifying God. Do unbelievers witness this? Yes! That is a sign that it is real! But if it is not interpreted then it will be a sign then of judgement and they will think we are mad! That is why Paul corrects the church so that everything is done right...not forbidden! Now until you can show me where tongues were not speaking to God...like vs 2 in Cor. 14 says! then we will just have to disagree!

My point is that you said it was always for a sign to the unbeliever, when the saved Gentiles started speaking in tongues...where were the unbelievers? THe whole house was saved believers.

One more note...We still have unbelievers today! So why would tongues cease if they were to be ONLY a sign to unbelievers?

 

Strictly MY Opinion!

With all that has been said above about tongues and whether or not they are operative in the world in our day I'd like to express an idea which I will CLEARLY declare is my opinion and definitely subject to correction (OR substantiation) if ANYBODY more learned than I can show me from scripture where I'm right...or wrong.

I have always been of the opinion (and I believe Biblically so)that tongues,healers, etc. as presented in 1 Cor.12 -14 are NOT operative in our day since the need for sign gifts passed away with the completion of the finished Word of God. That said...God is still God and though I don't believe He will or would ever act in a manner contrary to His Word, does anyone here agree that it MIGHT be possible...under very narrow circumstances.... that He MIGHT still find it necessary or beneficial to impart to someone of His choosing, the (biblical)gift of tongues (miraculously given gift of a human language(s) to someone who previously DID NOT speak said language(s)) IF there was an instance where there was no access to copies of the printed Word of God....and FOR the purpose of communicating the Gospel to a group of lost people? Would THAT be possible? Do the scriptures PROHIBIT this? Just curious if anybody thinks this might be possible in our day.

Bro.Greg

 

Not everyone speaks by the Spirit of God. That was the problem. There were Corinthians that were speaking by "another spirit" unwittingly calling Jesus accursed. They were doing that without knowing it, until someone recognized the language they were speaking in. You could be doing the same thing, since you have no understanding of what you are saying. In 1Cor.14 they were real languages, but the Corinthians did not understand the languages that they were speaking, and sometimes, out of their own carnality, they were praising Satan rather than Christ without realizing it. Can you give definitive proof that you are not doing the same thing?
BTW, I can get an unsaved Catholic or perhaps even a Muslim to read the words "Christ is Lord." That doesn't mean that they are saying it by the power of the Holy Spirit or that they are saved, does it? It is a simple mental exercise.

This was a rebuke. He said if you speak in tongues and no one knows what you are saying they don't even know when to say Amen! How foolish is that!! I am a missionary. Before I learned the language I felt awkward in such situations also. They would speak and pray in a language I didn't know. In fact it was hard to discern when they would say "Amen" at times. I know what Paul is talking about. There is no understanding. It is foolish to talk in a language when no one can understand you.

DO NOT FALSELY ACCUSE!
I do know the Holy Spirit well. No doubt far better than you do. He has led me to the truth, not the mysticism you know. You search the Scriptures not your experience, and you will find out how wrong you are. Why do the Charismatics have to learn languages if the gift of tongues is still operative today? Why can't you answer that question? They must learn foreign languages because the gift of tongues has ceased. Those are the plain facts. What passes today as tongues are fraudulent; they are of Satan.

If tongues has ceased they are not of God; there is only one other source left isn't there? Satan is a great imitator.

The purpose of it was to edify the church. Edification came through teaching. It was to teach. They taught through tongues because the Word of God was not yet completed. Tongues always had to be interpreted, always. It was that way so that all could be taught and edified.

To those who believe we have proved; to those who believe not, they don't accept it. Their hearts are hardened to the truth of God's Word.
You just admitted you put experience above the Word of God.
Faith comes first you say. Faith in what? Faith in Christ and his word, or faith in tongues? It is the former not the latter. You base your faith on experience not God-given revelation that God has given through the inspired Word of God. That is sad.

However, to satisfy you, I will give you experience, but I doubt if it will change your mind.
On the mission field, I was invited to preach at a church. At the time I did not know it was a Charismatic church until it was too late to turn back. So I preached on 1Cor.12-14. By the time I finished, a congregation of about 100 was split down the middle. Out of it a new Baptist church was formed, all of whom renounced tongues, and most of them got saved that night. The others wanted to hold on to their sinful practices. The "pastor" I talked to at length. When I asked him to give his testimony, I found out that he based his testimony entirely on speaking in tongues. He wasn't even a saved individual. Neither were most of the people in that "Charismatic church." There is experience for you!!

You are wrong. Your doctrine (which always needs to come first) does not back up your experience. Your faith is blind, not based on the Bible. You are like the Muslim who has blind faith. He believes that if he straps a bomb on himself, blows himself up as a "martyr," that then he will guarantee himself a place in paradise. That is blind faith. What does he base that on? What guarantee does he have? The word of a man? That is a flimsy guarantee. My faith is not blind. It is backed up by the historical death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ lives today. His tomb is empty. My faith is based on facts. Your faith is blind. You don't even know what you are saying. Faith in what?
My faith is in Christ; yours is not.

No. We base our beliefs on the Word of God; you base your beliefs on your experience. Thus you have gone astray from God's word into heresy.

That is an inferred false accusation.
The Holy Spirit does not give the gift of tongues today. It comes from another source--you decide the source but it is not God.
I know I have the Holy Spirit. He dwells in me; He fills me. I have the freedom to do as He wills me to do. I have been in nations that you will never be in, and great works have been accomplished because of it, because of the work of the Holy Spirit. But it never involved tongues.

Good. Give us some examples. What languages have you spoken in?

Maybe Satan isn't opposing you. You haven't convinced me yet.

You haven't been where I have been, because you don't know where I have been.
Let me ask you:
Have you obeyed the Great Commission like John of Japan.
Have you forsaken all that you have, left all, denied yourself, and followed Jesus.
What has been your part in "going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every creature." Have you done that?

 

The question is, what is it that you think we're disagreeing about? You seem to think that we're supposed to magnify God in a foreign tongue; I say tongues were given to the people in Acts in order to show God's miracles to the unbelievers, not as a requirement of some kind.

I disagree; when were they saved? Before Peter preached Jesus to them, or after?

And let us not forget the purpose of having the Gentiles in this passage speak in tongues: to show the Jews that God accepted more than just the Jews.

When was the last time you spoke in a tongue, and someone said, "How is it that you know my native language?"

Now, I have to warn you: does scripture say that tongues are for a sign to unbelievers, not to believers? (Answer: Yes.) To say any different is to deny what scripture says, and to add to it. That's not my personal opinion; either scripture says it, or we make a case to support something despite what scripture says.

Convince me that scripture does not say that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, not believers; but you're going to have center your entire argument around 1 Cor 14:22.

 

Where in the whole Bible does it say the Corinthians were speaking by ANOTHER SPIRIT?? It doesn't! THey were speaking well, giving thanks WELL...the assembly just was not being edified. He did not tell them to quit speaking in tongues. He told them to keep silent IN THE CHURCH, and SPEAK TO GOD. That was the purpose of tongues...speaking to God. Just in the church to have an interpretation.

Exactly! that is why they are saying IN THE SPIRIT. Becasue it is the Spirit that gives the utterance. In other words, you are speaking the perfect will of God in "praying/speaking in tongues."

I am not disagreeing with Paul! But he also said you give thanks well! So praying in the spirit is good JUST IN THE ASSEMBLEY make sure you have interpretation.

 

But in showing that through tongues...the ones speaking in tongues were speaking to God! THe unbelievers that heard this with interpretations this was the sign. Where we diagree is that you do not admit they were magnifying God, praising God in tongues! That was TOO God, not to man.

When the spirit fell upon them during the preaching, but they did not speak in tongues until after they were saved, right? So who were the unbelievers present?

Yes, but what we are discussing on this thread are are they all the same (tongues) and the Gentiles were praising God (speaking to God) just like the Jews did on the day of Pentecost.

I have never been called to speak in the assembly, not all are called to do that!

Yes! But what we disagree with is what that sign is.

I have never said that tongues were not a sign to the unbelievers! Unbelievers hear them speaking in tongues with interpretation and they know it is from God! IF like Paul said that tongues are done WITHOUT interpretation they will think it is a sign of judgement.

 

You are right! I know very little about most charismatic churches! I just looked up some history of the baptist.

 

point taken!

 

I explained the Scripture in detail to you, and now you say "where in the whole Bible does it say the Corinthians were speaking by another spirit." That is rather insulting! If I explain this to you again it will be at least the third time. Will you pay attention now? Or just pass it off again and disregard it as usual?

1 Corinthians 12:3 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.
--Not to take up space I am only quoting the 3rd verse. Read verses 1 and 2 to get the context. Now there are two spirits here. One is the Holy Spirit, and one is a demonic spirit. No man speaking by the Holy Spirit will call Jesus accursed. If the man is speaking in tongues (context), then what kind of spirit will call Christ accursed? A demonic spirit of course? Is that not plain to see? Many tongue-speakers speak through demons without realizing it. I can give you examples but I don't want to take up the space to do it. I want to rely on the Word of God, not experience like you do. They spoke by the power of demons, and called Christ accursed. Is that not plain for you to see? Why else would they be calling Christ accursed?? They had a pagan background (vs.2), which in the past they spoke in pagan past. They reverted back to it.

This goes with 12:3. Note carefully "No one can say that Jesus Christ is Lord but by the Holy Spirit." Why did Paul say that if an unsaved Catholic can do it, or even a Muslim can do it? Because they were speaking in tongues. That is why I made the statement. It was in the context of 12:3. Read carefully.

Tongues were a gift just for the assembly. They were not to be used outside of the assembly. That was the instruction given to the church at Corinth. It was a gift given for the church. Check 1Cor.12:28ff. That passage makes it very plain. If it is given to the church it had to have interpretation. Even you go against this because you don't have interpretation, and therefore your tongues are unbiblical.

In the Bible tongues are foreign languages. Look at another translation.

1 Corinthians 14:13 Therefore let him who speaks in another language pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
--I only quoted those verses for examples. All throughout this translation [WEB], and most others, the words "another language" is used. It avoids confusion. Remember the KJV is 400 years old. It uses the word "tongue" as in the phrase "mother tongue" or native language. It always refers to language, known language. Thus the language you speak in must be recognizable. Who recognizes the language you speak in? What is it? What do you say when you speak?

When Paul used the gift of languages he used it in other churches, in other lands where: 1) the NT was not complete, 2) Jews were present, 3) another language was needful to speak in. There was a definite purpose for tongues. If you can't fulfill these purposes then tongues is not for you. So, yes it was used in preaching and teaching the Word of God. Why do you think it needed an interpreter? That should be a no-brainer.

The Bible does say tongues will cease.
1 Corinthians 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.
--Tongues shall cease. Paul wrote that in 55 A.D. The question to ask is when tongues would cease. The answer is given in the next few verses.

1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
--We know in part. The NT was not complete. By 50 A.D. only Matthew and James had been written, and the epistles that they had received. They also had OT revelation. Thus they "knew in part." Therefore prophesy was necessary. It was a necessary gift. Tongues acted as prophesy or teaching when interpreted. It was a vehicle for NT revelation when used properly. That is why it is not needed today. The canon of Scripture is closed. Everything we need to know is within the pages of the inspired Word of God. But they didn't have that. Thus tongues would cease.

When? At the close of the first century when the canon of Scripture was complete.
1 Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
The word "perfect" is teleios. It is a Greek word meaning "complete" as it also means complete in English. The Word of God would be completed at the end of the first century when John would right the last book, the Book of Revelation ca. 98 A.D. There was nothing else written after that.
Furthermore, "that which is in part" refers to the revelatory gifts mentioned in verse 8: "prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge (not all knowledge--but knowledge used specifically used for the revelation of God's word). When God's revelation to mankind was completed these gifts would cease.
Again, the noun "teleios" or complete, is a neuter adjective, and therefore cannot refer to Jesus Christ or any other masculine noun. It defines the Word of God, a neuter word. In fact the entire context is about revelation from 13:8 all the way to the end of chapter 14.
Tongues shall cease, and they did.

 

I give you Scripture; you simply ignore them.
Paul said "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all."
Why? He had need of them as he went from church to church on his missionary journeys. It was a gift given to the church. If it does not edify the body through teaching or prophesy (also a form of teaching), then how does it edify the body? How were they edified?

It seems that you don't understand faith. You are like the Charismatics, like the Third Wave in particular who put faith in their faith. The object of my faith is Christ. Faith always has an object. The object of the Muslim's faith is Allah. What is the object of your faith? The object of your faith is your experience in tongues.
Faith is not believing. Faith is not experiencing.

Here is an example of faith:
Romans 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--Faith is being fully persuaded that what God has promised God will do.
That is faith--being persuaded in the promises of God, that what God has said in His Word, God will fulfill.

From what I have experienced, and read, yes.

This is false. I give you Scripture after Scripture and you just ignore it all. In fact I just explained 1Cor.15:3,4, and you didn't even recognize it (the gospel), from which my experience is based on. But your doctrine is based on your experience isn't it. You believe what you believe because you speak in tongues. It shapes your doctrine. You allow your experience to dictate the doctrine you believe. Your foundation is experience not the Bible.

Modern day speaking in tongues is a heresy, unknown to Christianity until it started up in 1905. John of Japan has been trying to educate you in this history, but you have been reluctant to accept it. From then end of the first century to the beginning of the 20th century no such phenomena has been recorded except among cults and pagan religions.

I only need the Word of God. Like the RCC who tries to convince me of infant baptism I simply need the Word of God to show me it is wrong. Like some who say you need to become a drug addict to reach a drug addict, I only need the Word of God to show me it is wrong. I simply need the Word of God to show me it is wrong. I tell the person who says that I need to become a drug addict to reach the same, that I don't have to stick my head in a garbage pail to know that it is dirty. I don't have to speak in tongues to know that it is a polluted doctrine and heretical.

Right! And Paul used the internet too??

I did; you ignored them.
Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
--Are you not a Christian; a disciple or follower of Christ?

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
--Do you understand the meaning of this verse? Does it have any application in your personal life?

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
--This was written to all Christians. What part do you play in its fulfillment?

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
--You don't have any interest in following Jesus? Do you know the implications of this verse--what it means to take up your cross daily?

What does it really mean to be a Christian?

 

DKH......We just do not see eye to eye on those scriptures. And like you...I have explained my position over and over. So we can stop!

We both feel we have scripture for our belief...so I am not repeating myself anymore with you on this thread. If you want to know my stand go back and read prior post!:BangHead:

 

In Acts 2, who provided the interpretations? In Acts 10, who provided the interpretations?

I did not disagree with you about what they were doing; scripture is quite clear that they were speaking of the wonderful works of God. Where you and I disagree is why they were heard to be speaking in different languages.

That is correct; and I admit that Acts 10 doesn't specify unbelievers being present. However, Acts 10 specifies that the Jewish believers were astonished by the Gentiles speaking in tongues. So that leads to my question: Why were they speaking in tongues? In this case, to show the Jews that God favored the Gentiles as well.

Correct. Acts 2 is very specific about which languages were heard; are you saying that the same languages were heard in Acts 10?

So you've never spoken in tongues?

1 Cor 14:22 very clearly says tongues are a sign for unbelievers; thus, scripture says the sign is tongues. So how can you disagree on what that sign is?

First, if it's done without interpretation, it's not a "sign of judgment"; Paul says (verse 23) that if it's done without interpretation, unbelievers will think you are insane.

Second, examine what you said about unbelievers hearing them speak in tongues with interpretation. What do you mean by "with interpretation"? Do you mean that an unbeliever will hear someone speak in an unknown language, and someone else will interpret it, and the unbeliever will know it is from God? (that's not the way it worked in Acts 2) Or do you mean that someone will speak in an unknown language, and the unbeliever will understand it in his/her own language? (which is what happened in Acts 2)

 

No, we don't see eye to eye. You have accepted another religion as far as I am concerned and have repudiated the historical stand of Baptists. Look through the statements of faith of various Baptist Churches. Some are more detailed than others. Many of them will repudiate the Charismatic movement outwardly. For example, here is one that is from my own file:

[FONT=&quot]The fact is that you haven't been able to answer the Scripture that I have put forth. You haven't been able to give satisfactory answers to questions put forth to you.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Since you are a Charismatic you probably should be posting in the non-Baptist portion of this board.
[/FONT]

 

Nope. There are Baptist charismatics. In fact, there is an entire denomination of them -- except they don't hold to the Pentecostal view of baptism of the HS and tongues.

 

no one! They spoke in languages that were understood by the ones listening!

They heard it as a witness that they had received what God had promised in Acts 1:8.

Yes, as a witness that they had received the same as Acts 2...The tongues were the same, used for the same purpose. Praising, magnifying God (praying to God) for a witness to the unbelievers or Jews that what was promised in Acts 1:8 was real and available to all. Jew and Gentile..

No, am saying it was for the same purpose, as I said above.

Never in a church service

THe sign was given as evidence that Acts 1:8 was here and available..was real! All that Christ had promised has come to pass for the believer and was availabe to all...those of that day, to their children, to those that were far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. (vs39).

I will post this again..

It turns out that "uninterpreted tongues" have been used in Israel's history as a sign to the unbelieving Israelites that God's judgment had come upon them. Paul was quoting a prophecy from Isaiah 28:11-12:

"Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest"; and, "This is the place of repose"-- but they would not listen." (Isaiah 28:11-12)

This prophecy was fulfilled when the Assyrian army swooped down upon Israel speaking a foreign language (an uninterpreted tongue), carrying Israel off into captivity. Paul used an example from Israel's history to show that uninterpreted tongues are sometimes used as a "sign" for unbelievers that judgment has come upon them.

Then Paul pointed out that if an unbeliever enters a church where Christians seem to have lost their minds, the unbeliever would see this as a sign of impending judgment. This is why Paul said that prophecy is much more beneficial during a church service.

I see it happening both ways!
Sometimes they hear in their own language and sometime it needs to be interpreted. Why would God list interpretation of tongues as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit if it was not needed.