Speaking in tongues.

[cslewislover]

Ah Confusion!

Ha ha. Well, it's very unacceptable to rewrite something and claim it's a quote. I'm still looking into this.

Your question above, if someone decides to speak in tongues and just says something, is that tongues? No, that wouldn't be from God. And I have spoken with someone who did this, out of pressure. I'm sure this person is not the only one who has ever been pressured into "speaking tongues."

Also, I edited my previous post since you had posted, just to let you know.

[Zašto?]

Also, I edited my previous post since you had posted, just to let you know.

Ok,thanks, I'll be sure to take a look at it.

[cslewislover]

These passages are from the head pastor of the Calvary Chapels, Chuck Smith, who speaks in tongues; they are from his book Living Water: The Power of the Holy Spirit in Your Life (Harvest House Pub.s 1996).

"Paul lists speaking in tongues as one of the gifts of the Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 12:28 he says 'And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.' Notice that tongues is last on the list. This appears to reflect an order of priorities: First apostles, last speaking on tongues. While tongues is a desirable and valued gift, we shouldn't exalt it out of measure . . ." (pp 173-174).

"After Paul lists the various gifts, he asks a series of rhetorical questions. Does everyone have the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? And the answer, of course, is no; not all have the gifts of healing, and not all speak with tongues. But all the gifts he lists are legitimate" (p 174).

"Tongues is speaking in a language that the speaker himself does not understand. It could be a known language (as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:1, 'Though I speak with the tongues of men') or it could be the dialect of heaven ('Though I speak with the tongues of . . . angels')" (p 174).

"So, if you speak in tongues, enjoy. But do not despise those who misunderstand the gift, or think of yourself as spiritually superior to them. You're not. If you do not speak in tongues, do not despise or forbid those who do, nor attribute this gift of God to Satan . . . Let's all walk in love. If a person speaks in tongues, fine, as long as he does it within the scriptural context. If a person doesn't speak in tongues, fine. He can still have a very close, intimate, marvelous, spiritual relationship with God" (p 183).

[cslewislover]

The text below is quoted passages from 1 Corinthians 14:5 Should All Speak in Tongues?, in Hard Sayings of the Bible, by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., et al (InterVarsity Press 1996), pp 610-613). I italicized it instead of doing quotes since there were so many internal quotes; I thought it would be easier to read this way (and help to indicate that it is not my own writing). I thought this was faster than writing a whole long post up myself.


A brief definition of Paul's terms will help. The two activities that are being contrasted are “speaking in tongues” and “prophesying.” The phenomenon of “tongues,” which Paul identifies as a gift of the Spirit (in 1 Cor 12-14), must be clearly distinguished from the phenomenon which accompanied the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost (in Acts 2:1-12).

In Acts, the Spirit enabled Jesus' disciples to “speak in other tongues” (glossai, Acts 2:4, 11) in such a way that the audience, made up of peoples from various language groups throughout the Greco-Roman world, “heard them speak in their own languages [dialekton, “dialect/language”] the good news of Jesus” (see Acts 2:6, 8 ). Here it is clear that a miraculous speaking and hearing is indicated in which intelligible meaning is articulated and perceived. Peter's interpretation of this phenomenon also shows that it is to be taken as intelligible proclamation of the wonders of God. He cites the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32, where the outpouring of the Spirit leads to prophetic proclamation (Acts 2:17-18).

In Corinth, on the other hand, the phenomenon of tongues with which Paul is concerned is identified as “unintelligible utterance”: no one understands it (1 Cor 14:2); it needs to be interpreted if it is to benefit the church (1 Cor 14:5); it is contrasted with “intelligible words” (1 Cor 14:9, 19) and “all sorts of languages . . . none of them without meaning” (1 Cor 14:10); it does not involve the mind (1 Cor 14:14); others won't know what is being said (1 Cor 14:16).

In 1 Corinthians 14:29-33 the activity of Christian prophets is defined as addressing the content of divine revelation to the church for its instruction and encouragement. This purpose of prophetic speech is central in Paul's contrast of prophesying with speaking in tongues: strengthening, encouraging, comforting (1 Cor 14:3).

Thus Paul understood “tongues” as inspired, ecstatic utterance that in itself is unintelligible. Its native, proper place is the arena of prayer (1 Cor 14:2, 16). He understands “prophesying” as inspired utterance of revelation (probably including both the gospel, that is God's act in Christ, and further revelation of God's purposes based on that event), which is addressed to the church in intelligible speech for its continuing growth.

The larger context is provided by the preceding chapters, where Paul addresses problems in the church's corporate life, specifically in the setting of worship. A primary and central principle for Christian action is the principle of edification. All Christian life and action is to be governed by the questions: Does it benefit others? Does it lead to their salvation and/or growth in faith? Is it for their good? (1 Cor 8:1, 9, 13; 9:12, 19-22; 10:23-24, 31-33; 11:21, 33). This principle continues as a guiding trajectory in Paul's discussion of the place and function of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

The focus of that discussion in 1 Corinthians 14 is on the relative merits of “tongues” and “prophesying.” But Paul uses “prophesying” in order to deal with what seems to be the core of the issue in Corinth: a glorification of the gift of speaking in tongues in such a way that the other gifts, as well as those who possessed them, were minimized. Those who spoke in tongues apparently saw this gift as a sign of their superior spirituality. . . . Paul's question to them here, as earlier in connection with other problems, is: How does this gift contribute to the salvation or strengthening of others, rather than just the edification of the self (1 Cor 14:4)?

The foundations for tackling the issue are carefully laid in 1 Corinthians 12-13. In summary, Paul's thought develops as follows. There are diverse gifts available for believers, but they all have their origin in God's Spirit (1 Cor 12:4-6). The implication is that no one has any ground for pride! The manifestation of this one Spirit in the diverse gifts is for the good of all (1 Cor 12:7). Thus, the possession of a particular gift is not for one's own benefit. It is the Spirit who determines how the gifts are distributed (1 Cor 12:11). Therefore, the possessor of one gift has no basis for feeling especially favored or in any sense elevated over one who does not have the same gift.

This series of thoughts is now buttressed by the picture of the church as the body of Christ . . . (1 Cor 12:12-27). . . . Paul now goes on to show that with regard to the guiding principles of Christian life and action—namely, that others may be saved and built up—some callings and gifts take priority . . .

Though he begins the list of callings and gifts by enumerating (“first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers,” 1 Cor 12:28), he does not continue that enumeration through the remaining list of gifts. The threefold ministry of the word—namely foundational apostolic witness to the gospel, prophetic proclamation of the gospel to the church and instruction in the meaning and practical implications of the gospel—is clearly primary, while the other activities designated by the gifts (1 Cor 12:28) are dependent on, and secondary to, the “word” ministries. The fact that the gift of tongues is named last does not necessarily mean that it is “least” in a hierarchical order (since the five gifts are not numbered). It is more probable that Paul names it last because for the Corinthian enthusiasts it had top billing. It is, however, eminently clear that “tongues” belongs to a group of gifts which stand on a level below that of the ministries of the word. That is confirmed by Paul's summary sentence in 1 Corinthians 12:31, “But eagerly desire the greater gifts.” It may be assumed from what follows in 1 Corinthians 14 that prophetic proclamation (preaching) and teaching are those “greater gifts.”

. . . . “Tongues” is the language of the heart, addressed to God (1 Cor 14:2). “Prophecy” is God's word addressed to people for their encouragement and comfort (1 Cor 14:3). “Tongues” are primarily a private matter; they edify the self. “Prophecy” is a public matter; it edifies the church (1 Cor 14:4).

Paul affirms the importance of both the personal and the public dimension of the contrasting gifts when he expresses his wish that they all had the gift of tongues, and then immediately qualifies that wish with his even greater wish: “but I would rather have you prophesy” (1 Cor 14:5).

This analysis leads to these concluding, summary observations: None of the spiritual gifts is an absolute; only the way of love is. Therefore, neither the possession nor the exercise of any of them is a mark of spiritual superiority. Believers are to be open to the Spirit's gifts and when they receive them to exercise them gracefully and humbly. Any earnest seeking for particular gifts ought to be guided by the desire to be involved in strengthening the church so that the whole people of God may truly be the divinely ordered alternative to the brokenness of human society.

[ageofknowledge]

Edited

[TallMan]

. . . These new converts had no idea what they were saying and the indians they were speaking too had to translate back to them what they were saying. Indians ended up getting saved as a result of this.

He says they were "saved", but does he give any details how he judges this?
Can he see into their hearts?

I ask because the bible teaches that although many people may believe Jesus is their Lord & saviour, they are not saved until they actually receive His Spirit (Titus 3:5-6, Romans 8:9). Acts details how the apostles and other Christians knew that believers had not yet received the Spirit (Acts 8:12-16, 19:5) and they knew precisely when people did receive (Acts 2:4, 33, 8:18, 10:44-46, 19:6).

[ageofknowledge]

. . . These new converts had no idea what they were saying and the indians they were speaking too had to translate back to them what they were saying. Indians ended up getting saved as a result of this.

He says they were "saved", but does he give any details how he judges this?
Can he see into their hearts?

I ask because the bible teaches that although many people may believe Jesus is their Lord & saviour, they are not saved until they actually receive His Spirit (Titus 3:5-6, Romans 8:9). Acts details how the apostles and other Christians knew that believers had not yet received the Spirit (Acts 8:12-16, 19:5) and they knew precisely when people did receive (Acts 2:4, 33, 8:18, 10:44-46, 19:6).

I have spoken with him in person on more than one occassion and seen him preach. Though he is a Pentecostal, he hands out standard evangelical tracts and his message is evangelical when he preaches. When he leads someone to Christ, he always leads them through the sinner's prayer and then begins discipling them afterwards and explains their need to get into fellowship at a local Christian church.

I would say that he believes that when a person sincerely acknowledges their sin against God, asks Him to forgive them, accepts and confesses Jesus Christ as the atonement for their sin and Lord of their life beginning to pursue Christ, a life of purity, and Biblically sound teaching while seeking water baptism that they experience a spiritual rebirth.

Would you disagree with him? Do you have another definition or set of requirements that must be met for a person to be saved?

[jlay]

When he leads someone to Christ, he always leads them through the sinner's prayer and then begins discipling them afterwards and explains their need to get into fellowship at a local Christian church.

I would say that he believes that when a person sincerely acknowledges their sin against God, asks Him to forgive them, accepts and confesses Jesus Christ as the atonement for their sin and Lord of their life beginning to pursue Christ, a life of purity, and Biblically sound teaching while seeking water baptism that they experience a spiritual rebirth.

Would you disagree with him? Do you have another definition or set of requirements that must be met for a person to be saved?

Jesus said you must be born again or born from above. Not, pray this prayer, or go through this set of religious ceremonies.
When did the sinner's prayer originate? Is that 1st century evangelism?
Imagine this. A man cheats on his wife and is caught in adultery. His friend leads him to his wife and says OK repeat after me, and be sincere, "I'm sorry." The cheater says, "I'm sorry."
Friend: "I know I hurt you."
Cheater: "I know I hurt you."
etc. etc.

What would the wife think? She'd think, "what in the world. Does he really think I'll take this as remorse, regret or contrition. Much less a sincere desire to be forgiven."

Leading people through this "process" is man centered gospel. I understand why many fall into these traditions. And many are saved in spite of them. Because you can not thwart God. We can lead a person to the cross and no further. If the spirit of God is not drawing them, then method does not matter. That is why the cross is a stumbling block to the Jew and foolishness to the Gentile. It doesn't mean we should not engage people, witness, etc. To contrary, we should, but we should never attempt to replace the work of the spirit with a prescription for salvation. People think because they've been to an alter, said a prayer, gone through a catechism that they have their fire insurance. Personally, I can know and see where God was drawing me. I can see the markers in my life. At those points I had the option to respond to God. There is something going on in the life of a sinner long before they come to a saving faith. God is drawing them, wooing them if you will. Wesley described this as previenient grace. The grace that goes before. So what can we do? It is our response to the calling of God. Response is faith. A reaction to the light that God has placed within each of us. Say yes to what light you have.

Perhaps that is why we see such carnality within the church. people have been through the ABCs of Christianity but haven't responded to the light of the world. Repentance is a response. Faith is a response. Saying yes is a response.

I ask because the bible teaches that although many people may believe Jesus is their Lord & saviour, they are not saved until they actually receive His Spirit (Titus 3:5-6, Romans 8:9). Acts details how the apostles and other Christians knew that believers had not yet received the Spirit (Acts 8:12-16, 19:5) and they knew precisely when people did receive (Acts 2:4, 33, 8:18, 10:44-46, 19:6).

I would be very careful of taking things out of context to build a doctrine. Because when we take this to mean tongues, we neglect the other signs that accomanied the early apostolic church. People being raised from the dead, healings, etc. There were a lot of things going on in the 1st century church that aren't happening today. (not saying people aren't being healed or raised) Have you seen anyone drop dead on the spot because they lied? For example, Annaias and Sapphira. Jesus warned that the wheat and tares would be together.

[TallMan]

I ask because the bible teaches that although many people may believe Jesus is their Lord & saviour, they are not saved until they actually receive His Spirit (Titus 3:5-6, Romans 8:9). Acts details how the apostles and other Christians knew that believers had not yet received the Spirit (Acts 8:12-16, 19:5) and they knew precisely when people did receive (Acts 2:4, 33, 8:18, 10:44-46, 19:6).

I would be very careful of taking things out of context to build a doctrine. Because when we take this to mean tongues, we neglect the other signs that accomanied the early apostolic church. People being raised from the dead, healings, etc.

A stupid person might do that, but most people would see that different signs follow at different times.

Like travelling from one city to another, there are certain signs leaving & approaching the old, and a particular sign entering the new.

So with the kingdom of God - Jesus healed and cast out devils saying it has come near to them, but no-one spoke in tongues until the Spirit was in people.
That's how it was (and is) known precisely when people received the Spirit (became "born again").

[warhoop]

That's how it was (and is) known precisely when people received the Spirit (became "born again").

I may may be missing something... I cannot find a single instance, of anybody receiving a "miraculous gift," tongues, prophecy, healing, etc. after the day of Pentecost that did not require at least the presence of an apostle for the gift to be imparted.

[TallMan]

I may may be missing something... I cannot find a single instance, of anybody receiving a "miraculous gift," tongues, prophecy, healing, etc. after the day of Pentecost that did not require at least the presence of an apostle for the gift to be imparted.

You are forgetting that Jesus' commission to all Christians is to preach his signs-following gospel and He confirms His word with signs following.
The whole point of the NEW Testament is that a human intermediary is no longer needed for people to have a relationship with God.

Also Paul told Timothy "do the work of an evangelist", the idea that believers in the gospel would not get the signs-following unless and until an apostle happened to swing by is a curious doctrine indeed!
There is not one instance where the presence of a human apostle is said to be required.

Hebrews says that Jesus is the apostle and High Priest of the faith.

Philip was alone in Samaria in Acts 8, the apostles came down to help, there is never any teaching that their physical presence is required for signs to follow.

[warhoop]

Also Paul told Timothy "do the work of an evangelist", the idea that believers in the gospel would not get the signs-following unless and until an apostle happened to swing by is a curious doctrine indeed!
There is not one instance where the presence of a human apostle is said to be required.

I apologize, my intial comment I think was a little too subtle and I need to clarify it. You are correct, the bible does not indeed state that an apostle need be present to receive the gifts. But every instance of believers receiving the gifts only happens in the presence of an apostle and concerning Stephen in Acts 8, it could be extrapolated, now that's a word you don't get to use everyday, that he was not able to pass on the gifts.

[TallMan]

A brief definition of Paul's terms will help. The two activities that are being contrasted are “speaking in tongues” and “prophesying.” The phenomenon of “tongues,” which Paul identifies as a gift of the Spirit (in 1 Cor 12-14), must be clearly distinguished from the phenomenon which accompanied the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost (in Acts 2:1-12).

In Acts, the Spirit enabled Jesus' disciples to “speak in other tongues” (glossai, Acts 2:4, 11) in such a way that the audience, made up of peoples from various language groups throughout the Greco-Roman world, “heard them speak in their own languages [dialekton, “dialect/language”] the good news of Jesus” (see Acts 2:6, 8 ). Here it is clear that a miraculous speaking and hearing is indicated in which intelligible meaning is articulated and perceived. Peter's interpretation of this phenomenon also shows that it is to be taken as intelligible proclamation of the wonders of God. He cites the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32, where the outpouring of the Spirit leads to prophetic proclamation (Acts 2:17-18). . . .

This whole article is dishonest.
\It ignores the fact that the same phenomenon of tongues occurs throughout Acts . . .

Peter says:
Acts 11:15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
- Who had he been speaking to?
The previous 14 verses make it abundantly clear he is referring to what happened when he went to the house of Cornelius in the previous chapter.

So, how did he know the Spirit was given to them?

Acts 10:44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Why did these gentiles interrupt Peter while he was preaching to them?

* * * * *

There is a third passage in Acts that describes the receiving of the Spirit . . in Acts 19 where Paul meets 12 men . .

v6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Who were these people speaking to in tongues?

* * * * * * *

It also uses Joel's prophecy sloppily.
The outpouring of the Spirit makes all recipients prophetic, this is not saying that tongues = prophesy.

[cslewislover]

This whole article is dishonest.
\It ignores the fact that the same phenomenon of tongues occurs throughout Acts . . .

I really don't think so. I didn't list the author because that book was written by four, and I didn't think it mattered at the time to look up which author did that section. But the author is Manfred T. Brauch, professor of biblical theology and president of the Eastern Baptist (or Palmer) Theological Seminary. I would have no reason to doubt his integrity, and it doesn't serve your position well to impugn another Christian that way.

And I actually don't see your point. The article describes the tongues at Pentecost . . . so? They were in the languages of men. The tongues Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians were not.

I'd like to quote Chuck Smith again, this time from Calvary Chapel Distinctives (2004). There is a whole chapter on the Holy Spirit in this book, but this chapter on "Striking the Balance" is more pertinent here (this is from on online pdf, but in my book at home, it is pp 119-121).

An important characteristic of Calvary Chapel Fellowships is our desire not to divide God's
people over non-essential issues. This is not to say that we do not have strong convictions.
When the Bible speaks clearly, we must as well. But on other issues we try to recognize the
Scriptural validity of both sides of a debate and avoid excluding or favoring those in one camp
over the other.

An example of this kind of inclusiveness is found in our approach to the debatable issue
concerning the ministry of the Holy Spirit. We don't take a typical Pentecostal view, nor do we
take a typical Baptist view. The minute you set your position one way or the other, you've lost
half of your congregation. Why would you want to lose half your congregation? Our desire is to
be able to minister to as broad a group of people as possible. The minute we start taking hardline
positions on any of the non-foundational controversial issues, we alienate part of the people. In the essential doctrines of the faith, we must take a firm stand. But in the nonessential areas, we accept that people may have differing views, and we accept these in the spirit of grace. It's important to recognize that we can agree to disagree and still maintain a spirit of unity and love.

We do believe in the validity of the gifts of the Spirit, and that these gifts can be expressed
today. But we don't believe in excesses that so often accompany a freedom in the use of the
gifts of the Spirit. So we avoid the controversy.

If people want to speak in tongues, we encourage them to do so in a private devotional setting
to assist in communicating their love, their praises, and their prayers to God. We look to I
Corinthians 14 as our biblical example. We don't insist that a person speak in tongues as the
primary evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We believe that there are other evidences
that are more credible than speaking in tongues. As Paul said, "Though I speak with the
tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a
tinkling cymbal." (I Corinthians 13:1). We don't emphasize tongues as the primary manifestation
of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but we look for love as the fruit of the Spirit. I believe that we
can stand on a solid Scriptural basis doing that and, at the same time, encourage people to
receive the gifts of tongues.

As Paul explained, you may use it for your personal prayer life and for your devotional life,
singing unto the Lord. "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my
understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the
understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else
when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say
Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" (I Corinthians
14:14-16). If you're in a public assembly with no interpreter present, and someone is speaking in
tongues, how is a person sitting in the seat of the unlearned going to understand? You might
well be praising God, but the other people aren't edified. We need to do all things decently and
in order. In this area, we don't fit in the Pentecostal category, nor do we fit in the cessionist
category that would deny any valid experience of the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit today.

Source: http://phoenixpreacher.com/wp-content/u ... tives1.pdf

[TallMan]

I would have no reason to doubt his integrity, and it doesn't serve your position well to impugn another Christian that way.

How do you judge people to be "Christian"?

And I actually don't see your point. The article describes the tongues at Pentecost . . . so? They were in the languages of men. The tongues Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians were not.

really? Where does scripture say that?
His and your whole argument is based on fallacy.

At Pentecost there were bi-lingual people from many countries.
The fact that they recognised real language shows that tongues is real language, that's all.
It dosn't show that there is another type of tongues when there are only non-bilingual people present.

Please answer the questions in my previous post instead of another copy-and-paste job for me to read through that doesn't . . this is not discussion.