Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Speaking in Toungues


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

KOB - in 1 Cor. 13, Paul says that tongues will cease. He doesn't say when, but he does say they will cease. I'm sure you read the outline I posted, but here's part of it:

Tongues are only spoken three times in the Bible. In Acts 2:4 the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost and begin to speak in other tongues. WHY? To fulfill the above scripture there must be unbelieving Jews present. Were there?

Acts 2:5
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Those Jews were there for the feast days (Pentecost is a Jewish feast), and they were unbelieving because they had never even heard of Jesus. Peter was getting ready to preach and the disciples were getting ready to witness. The tongues they spoke (the actual languages of the visitors) was a "sign" that their message was true!

Acts 2:7a,8a
And they were all amazed and marvelled...how hear we every man in our own tongue...?

Every tongue that was spoken that day was a known language. The tongues fulfilled two purposes. They were a sign, that the Jews required, to believe the message was true, and the means with which to tell them that truth.

The second case of speaking in tongues occurred in Acts 10. Peter went to an assembly of Gentiles who were ready to be saved and needed to hear the gospel. Gentiles had been scorned before this. Peter himself needed a special revelation from God so he would answer Cornelius' summons. (Acts 10:9-20) So Peter and "certain brethren" (v23) went to Cornelius, and he told them the good news.



Acts 10:43b
...Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.



Acts 10:44
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Cornelius and his household were saved while listening to Peter. They received the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:9,10a
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness...

Now Peter was the only one who had received the revelation that Gentiles were no longer unclean, but other saved Jewish brethren were with him. They needed a "sign" that these Gentiles had really gotten saved, or they wouldn't believe it!

Acts 10:45,46a
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished ...because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Tongues was the proof those skeptical Jews needed to believe that the Gentiles had really gotten saved. When Peter had problems explaining to the brethren back in Judea (Acts11:1-18) he pointed to that "sign" saying that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost in the same manner (with the tongues) as they themselves had. (v15)

The third instance of speaking in tongues occurred 22 years later at Ephesus. In Acts 18:24-28 Apollos had been preaching the baptism of John. Aquila and Priscilla took him aside and "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." He got saved and went his way preaching about Jesus.

Meanwhile Paul met some of Apollos' original disciples at Ephesus and asked:

Acts 19:2
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

The answer they gave tells any honest Bible student that these disciples of Apollos' couldn't possibly have been saved at that point.

Romans 8:9b
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The men tell Paul they were baptized "Unto John's baptism."

Acts 19:4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus.

These disciples of Apollos were Jews who had followed the light they had been given thus far. Before Paul arrived they had never heard of Jesus or his sacrifice, but they had believed Apollos preaching and received John's baptism. Just as Apollos was taught about Jesus and "believed through grace," so did Paul teach Apollos' disciples. He told them they must "believe...on Christ Jesus."

Paul laid hands on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Does this final example conform to the Bible rules? Yes. These men were Jews who were hearing the gospel for the first time. Remember, "Jews require a sign." Not only that, but Paul was there to speak in a synagogue to unbelievers (v8,9). He had a "ready made" sign to show those unbelievers, by the tongues that were spoken by those newly saved men. This was like what happened with Peter in Acts 2.

These three cases are the only times tongues are spoken in the Bible. Their abuse is discussed at Corinth but this gift is mentioned no where else. This seems incredible if tongues are so important.

The gift of tongues was a Jewish sign gift that was in effect while God was dealing with the Hebrew nation. It is listed twice in I Corinthians 12:8-11 & 28-30. In Paul's later lists in Ephesians 4:8-12 & Romans 12:4-8 tongues are not mentioned at all. Neither are they a "fruit of the Spirit" in Galatians 5:22,23. Paul tried to explain to the church at Corinth about the immediate future (at that time) of the gift of tongues.


As she points out, tongues is not part of the fruit given by the Holy Spirit which is manifest in the believer. If tongues were to be practiced today, why then wouldn't God have had Paul list it?

The evidence of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life is in their lifestyle. Tongues were a passing thing (kinda like that rushing mighty wind and the flames just before Pentecost...no-one has that evidence of the Holy Spirit filling anymore, either...but there are churches that claim it's necessary!), given as a sign to the ever-skeptical Jews. 1 Cor. was a letter written to a carnal church. I don't think Paul was establishing tongues as a practice for Christianity so much as he was showing the Corinthians that they were not necessary.

I remember my mom's best friend's husband telling us about a trip he made for his church down into Mexico. As they were dealing with the people, he couldn't make them understand him...when all of a sudden, he was speaking to them IN SPANISH!!!! He was still in awe of that all those many years later when he was telling me. He didn't know a drop of Spanish, and couldn't speak it once he was done addressing them. To him, that was proof that tongues are still a viable thing today. And if I left the story there, many would say, oh, well it must be. Problem is: he was a Mormon, spreading their heresy. The devil has a counterfeit for everything, and I believe the emphasis on tongues today is exactly that.

Again, as I've said before, I don't believe God can be limited. If He felt His work would advance more in a particular situation if tongues were employed, then He would use it, even today. However, we have His completed Word. We have the Holy Spirit. There is no more need for tongues as a sign of Holy Spirit indwelling.

Edited to add: I forgot to add this site: http://www.the-highway.com/tongues_Dollar.html I think you'll find it interesting, KOB (and anyone else who wants to read it). Edited by HappyChristian
add a link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Of those that believe in the tongue thing, "In a meeting of different language, (Spanish, Russian, Korean, etc.) have you ever heard someone stand up and speak in English?" I have of yet received a yes answer. Would it not be an unknown tongue in that setting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The whole point of tongues is to be a sign, the three times they're used in the book of Acts it's convince a Jew to believe something. The gift of tongues fall under the classification of Apostolic gifts and wonders. Apostolic signs and wonders were used in the early church to convince the Jews of their Messiah. Throughout the book of Acts, as the gospel became more and more towards the Gentiles and less and less towards the Jews the signs and wonders fell off. This explains why Paul couldn't heal Trophimus or himself and always had to have Dr. Luke with him later on in Acts, whereas early in Acts all sorts of crazy things are going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

While scriptural tongues were actual languages, it does not follow that someone speaking in a real language that they have not learned, is scriptural tongues.

Rev. Wm Goode writing in 1834, (Modern claims to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, republished in 2000 under the title of Charismatic Confusion) tells us of the Camisards in France, from abt. 1694-1705, where children spoke in good French when they only knew the local dialect. He also speaks of an infant who could not yet walk or speak, prophecying in good French in the voice of a young child. He was quoting from two books, A Cry from the Dessart (sic) and Warnings, both by Elias Marion, which were published in France and in England about 1705. Their prophecies were, of couse false, and they related to the imminent fall of babylon, the RCC. (I found a copy of these books in Dr Williams Library, in London.)

When, as a result of one of their prophecies, they took up arms against the king, they were miserably defeated and many came over to England, wher they carried on as before. Charles Wesley, in his journal, mentions spending a night in a room with one of the French Prophets as they were known, and said "He gobbled like a turkey cock, all night" and added that Satan had never been so close to him.

Tongues, etc is not a new phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Its amazing to read the standard cessationist/Baptist dismissal of tongues and what the New Testament teaches for their tradition. Tongues are not a sign "just for the Jews". That is not Biblical. Tongues is for THE CHURCH according to Paul, and as long as the New Testament Church exists, tongues and all the other gifts of the Spirit exist and manifest, except where those who don't believe or resist. I have read the responses in this thread and they are the same old unBiblical cliches I have heard for 20 years. These things have been refuted over and over, and yet it appears many are totally unaware of it. How said. Many years ago Carl Brumbach wrote a book called WHAT MEANETH THIS. Its available on Amazon. He addresses all these things and shows what THE BIBLE actually teaches rather than men's tradition, excuses and unbelief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1 Corinthians 1:22 "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:"

1 Corinthians 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.


Copied from SwordSearcher 5:

Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary
II. Tongues were rather a sign to unbelievers than to believers, 1Co 14:22. They were a spiritual gift, intended for the conviction and conversion of infidels, that they might be brought into the Christian church; but converts were to be built up in Christianity by profitable instructions in their own language. The gift of tongues was necessary to spread Christianity, and gather churches; it was proper and intended to convince unbelievers of that doctrine which Christians had already embraced; but prophesying, and interpreting scripture in their own language, were most for the edification of such as did already believe: so that speaking with tongues in Christians assemblies was altogether out of time and place; neither one nor the other was proper for it. Note, That gifts may be rightly used, it is proper to know the ends which they are intended to serve. To go about the conversion of infidels, as the apostles did, had been a vain undertaking without the gift of tongues, and the discovery of this gift; but, in an assembly of Christians already converted to the Christian faith, to make use and ostentation of this gift would be perfectly impertinent, because it would be of no advantage to the assembly; not for conviction of truth, because they had already embraced it; not for their edification, because they did not understand, and could not get benefit without understanding, what they heard.


My commentstwocents.gif:
It always amazes me that we today still have those that require a sign, Matthew 12:38 "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee." There is so much out there doing what ever it can to destroy the doctrine of faith.

On the other hand, there have be those that have always desired to base their salvation on what they could and can do. If you look closely at any church that teaches you that you must do "anything" for or to maintain salvation it is a control thing.

We have a "church" that will show up at your home with the lesson plan to teach you how to speak in tongues.

Edited by Bro Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

KOB - in 1 Cor. 13, Paul says that tongues will cease. He doesn't say when, but he does say they will cease. I'm sure you read the outline I posted, but here's part of it:



As she points out, tongues is not part of the fruit given by the Holy Spirit which is manifest in the believer. If tongues were to be practiced today, why then wouldn't God have had Paul list it?

The evidence of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life is in their lifestyle. Tongues were a passing thing (kinda like that rushing mighty wind and the flames just before Pentecost...no-one has that evidence of the Holy Spirit filling anymore, either...but there are churches that claim it's necessary!), given as a sign to the ever-skeptical Jews. 1 Cor. was a letter written to a carnal church. I don't think Paul was establishing tongues as a practice for Christianity so much as he was showing the Corinthians that they were not necessary.

I remember my mom's best friend's husband telling us about a trip he made for his church down into Mexico. As they were dealing with the people, he couldn't make them understand him...when all of a sudden, he was speaking to them IN SPANISH!!!! He was still in awe of that all those many years later when he was telling me. He didn't know a drop of Spanish, and couldn't speak it once he was done addressing them. To him, that was proof that tongues are still a viable thing today. And if I left the story there, many would say, oh, well it must be. Problem is: he was a Mormon, spreading their heresy. The devil has a counterfeit for everything, and I believe the emphasis on tongues today is exactly that.

Again, as I've said before, I don't believe God can be limited. If He felt His work would advance more in a particular situation if tongues were employed, then He would use it, even today. However, we have His completed Word. We have the Holy Spirit. There is no more need for tongues as a sign of Holy Spirit indwelling.

Edited to add: I forgot to add this site: http://www.the-highway.com/tongues_Dollar.html I think you'll find it interesting, KOB (and anyone else who wants to read it).


Excellent post which greatly explains the truth. :thumb:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You have to see tongues in their historical contest within the scripture. At that time the presentation of the gospel (at that time always being expounded from the OT) giving in a different tongue surely would have been viewed as a miracle of God among the Diaspora and all the Jewish proselytes (especially in the light of Isaiah 28:11 which was a "promise" given to the Diaspora). Outside of that context the whole thing would have been meaningless, unnecessary and viewed as nuttiness(as Paul said). Speaking in different languages or in babbling noises a the Charismatics do? For what? What kind of miracle is that? But to a Jew or Jewish proselyte from Spain who hears the gospel being expounded from the law and the prophets that would be a miracle. Once the Jews rejected it completely (except for the remnant) it was no longer needed, and since the Gentiles sought wisdom, totally counterproductive.

Tongues were given as a sign to the Jews since that's what they required. The fact that not many Jews believe in the Tanach anymore, let alone miracles and sign gifts, shows that tongues aren't needed anymore. Add to that that the gospel has been preached in just about every language on earth and most Jews know English tongues (various languages according to Acts 2) is no longer needed.

Edited by Wilchbla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...