Speaking in tongues?

Yep, and filled is not indwelling but an empowering toward service or ministry. John was not filled with the Spirit continually before birth. That is taking the text beyond what is meant by filling. John was filled with the Holy Spirit regarding his ministry and that was partly identifying the messiah which was what happened in his mothers womb. IOW - what the angel was refering to was that John life was going to identified as a man of God whom God was using to reveal his truths.
Seriously guys, do a study on 'filling' and you see a clear distinction between that and indwelling. Filling refers simply to an empowering. Granted we do not see anywhere that the Holy Spirit did not leave John the Baptist but also does not mean that John was constantly filled. To be pertetually filled means that John from birth lived without walking in the flesh/sin. To waslk in the Spirit, and thus be filled with the Spirit, is to walk in righteousness and according to Paul that is a constant and daily choice. Your version implies that John was not only saved apart from faith but that he lived without sin from birth.

 

Tom, I'll get to this tonight. It isn't really that hard a subject to 'deal' with as you might think ... that is, at least in what I see the context saying. But then again.. who am I?

 

Questions:

1. Where in Scripture [New Testament] do the words indwelt or indwelling occur?

2. Where in Scripture does it say that one filled with the Holy Spirit cannot or does not sin.

 

You have got to be joking, right???????

Maybe you mean literal words? Oh, in that case it is in the same place we find words like "Trinity", "theocracy", and other such words.

If you honestly don't know then here are some scriptures to help you out.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is something that 'only' NT believers have and is never said of the OT saints of God. That indwelling of the Holy Spirit (which is at conversion) according to scripture says it is obtained 'by/through faith'. (Gal 3:14)

Thus the receiving of the Holy Spirit is not prior to the excersizing of ones faith but He is given when one excersizes his faith.

I guess a better question is can a person be filled or under the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit and sin?

Scirpture says that if we walk after the Spirit we shall not fulfill the desires of the flesh / sin. And one can only walk after the Spirit if one is allowing Him to lead him/her. Thus Pauls comparision of and between the filling of wine or the Holy Spirit.

 

Ok, understood. (give me a second cause I'm thinking )

1. In scripture, are believers ever commanded to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
2. In scripture, are believers ever commanded to be 'filled' with the Spirit?

Answers:
1. No, because indwelling refers to habitation and as His temple He dwells in us.
2. Yes, because the 'filling' is an empowering to both live godly and for the work of the ministry.

His indwelling produces the Fruit of the Spirit.
His Filling(s) determine their growth rate.

How so? You just described his adult minstry, but where were all the conversions as he should have had as child, pre-teen, teenager. We only see John the Baptist coming into his minstry as a man.

The passage you refering to is speaking more to the point that he is a man whom God has chosen him to do God's work (message of repentance and identifying the Christ) and the 'filling' in his mothers womb was to emphasize both of those points.

The fact that the scriptures state he will be filled with the Holy Ghost speaks not so much to the length of time he will be filled but that God will be empowering him to do what God has chosen him to do. The fact that the angel says he will be filled even from his mothers womb simply illstrates the uniqueness and power of his ministry to be. IOW - it isn't about him being always filled but that he will be filled by God in his minstry ordained by God.

Look at the preceding passages to note not only 'what' his minstry will be but also 'when' it will be. So the context itself is not about how long he was to be filled but that he will have the filling of the Holy Spirit in his God appointed ministry so that there can be no doubt God is with him.

I will use John MacArthur here because he says what I would say but he is better at brevity than I am.

 

bump...bump...bump...:laugh:

 

Okay, I see what your saying. All believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but fillings come and go. Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "be not drunk with wine....but be filled with the Holy Spirit..." That suggests that the Ephesian believers, though indwelt, were not always filled (or he wouldn't have gotten on to them about it).

So now, I have to figure out what it was when Jesus breathed on his disciples and said "receive ye the Holy Spirit." (John 14)

And what was it on the Day of Pentecost? The coming of the indwelling? The empowering? The filling?

Today, at salvation, are we baptized and indwelt, or is it one and the same?

That reminds me of what I heard a preacher say one time: "When we're saved, we get all of the Holy Spirit we're ever going to get. But the Holy Spirit doesn't have all of us he's ever going to get." I think he was referring to baptizing/indwelling in the first instance, and filling in the second.

 

I think that this was because they were not indwelt yet by the Holy Spirit and at that point needed the Holy Spirit, the way God gave the Spirit to prophets in the OT.

 

Yes, that was what I was trying to say

It is a somewhat difficult passage to understand. My thinking along with others of my particular view is that the passage does not state the Holy Spirit came upon them and that later Jesus told them to wait for the coming of the Comforter who will be with them. That in my mind is the only real problem here.

I believe all.

I believe they are one and the same.
When the Holy Spirit baptises us then scriptures tell us He has placed us into Christ and being placed into Christ is the very act of salvation. For if one is in Christ then he is one with Christ. And if he is one with Christ then he has no sin but is justified, sanctified, righteous, and indwelt by His Spirit. Thus CHrist in us and us in Christ just as He and Spirit are one so are we in Him and Him in us.

It this he was refering to the filling and not baptism. To be baptised mere to completely immersed or saturated with something, and if that something is the Holy Spirit then it is refering to being placed into Christ (ICor 12)

 

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the immersion into the body of Christ of the new Christian. IOW, it happens at the point you get saved.

If you could be baptized by the Holy Spirit more than once, it would mean you could be taken into the Body of Christ, and taken out of the Body of Christ, then placed into the Body of Christ, then taken out of the Body of Christ - in and out and in and out and in and out.

That may be fine Arminian theology, but it isn't in the Bible!

 

I have heard "tongues" spoken in Pentecostal churches but never considered them authentic.

Historically, tongues and the sign gifts began to wane at the end of the first century. One historian (think it might be Origen) said that "a remnant of the Spirit remained" on some of the holy men of God who knew the apostles but since has ceased. However, isolated incidents occurred between then and now (one in France during the time of heavy persecution.)

I, too, have never been comfortable with the "closed canon of scripture" explanation for tongues ceasing. I do believe that Satan has counterfeited this gift with a surge of false manifestations especially beginning around 1830, the time of what I deem to be the beginning of the Great Apostasy. Various cults popped up around that time - one being Mormonism - and Brigham Young and his followers began to exhibit this "gift."

Bottom line? I can't say the gift has ceased altogether, but in the local church, I have never seen authentic tongues spoken. God can do anything and miracles still happen. I believe there are isolated incidents where God has given this gift, but what we have seen to date is the false which has led to all types of problems (on a maturity level) in the churches. Just another aspect of the great deception. It is possible that the true gift of tongues will reapper during the Great Tribulation and I suspect we will know when, and if, the real thing does come along because that "check in our spirit" won't be there. It will happen in a completely different way than the imitation.

 

Something I never understood about the early church speaking in tongues. If there was supposed to be an interpreter in the church, how would the person know if there would be an interpreter before they actually spoke it? Anyone have any ideas?

 

Apparently God would not prompt someone to speak or pray in a tongue unless there 'was' an interpreter present in the congregation of believers.

Now God might tell/show them something but that does not necessarily mean God is prompting them to speak it at that time. The spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet. IOW - God does not take control of the person but that the knowledge obtained via the gift(s) are to be given when person chooses (or maybe better - lead of the Spirit to speak at the right time)

Secondly since Paul is addressing the CHurch body, it is presumed that the person who had the gift of tongues was a member/part of that church body, just as an interpreter would be also. So it would to the body who had what gifts regarding this and thus when it was appropreit to speak.

 

This is sorta where I am, too.

I do understand that the Pentecost tongues, were known languages, whether the miracle was in speaking a language never learned, or in the hearing in their own language. I certainly would not rule out a modern-day application where it was necessary.

If I read correctly, in some churches, people were speaking a language that nobody understood, except maybe one person who interpreted. My question about that is, why? Why did the Holy Spirit move someone to speak to a congregation in something other than the common language of that congregation--Aramaic, Greek, Italian, whatever?

I'm sure there's an answer. Paul acknowledges that it took place, but seems to me he brought it up mainly to criticize it.

It's always been my understanding that the miracles recorded in the Gospels and in Acts were to authenticate the gospel. But that's not the kind of tongues practiced today. So, what is the purpose of the modern tongues movement?

 

I believe that it has to do with a great deception that Satan has fostered on the modern church. The purpose of any gift given to the early church was to build up the church. Today, I have yet to see how it accomplishes this. In fact, sorry to say, I have seen where a congregation that becomes involved in this tends to go to extremes - I have read interviews with those who began with tongues and ended up bein "slain in the spirit" and barking like dogs!

Personally, I am not willing to discount the fact that tongues may still be a gift that God gives at His pleasure, but it is not as common as what we've seen so far in general.

 

'With the completion of the canon of Scripture, there is NO extra-biblical revelation, and the moment that you believe that extra-biblical revelation even exists, you become a cult!' todd white

you see this is exactly why I posted that thread "what do we mean when we say we're biblical?"

Todd is basically saying that if we believe or practice anything outside of the Bible we become cultists. How is that we have that veiw when it comes to things like tongues but not all the other things we practice as local Baptist churches that have no foundation in scripture. We have reduced the body of doctrine to a few cardinals and some personal issues. ALL our church practices should grow out of biblical teaching and all new bible teaching is doctrine because that is what the word means. S o why condemn others so blatantly onpet issues but conveniently ignore the areas where our pragmatic practices depart from biblical instruction...that is hypocrisy!

 

1 Cor 13 addresses the completeion of the scriptures and the ending of tongues, so that stance is not unbiblical.

And it gets worse that just practicing jibberish in your private prayer life. Some people will tell you that you arent saved unless you speak in tongues. I have seen preachers lay hands on folks and "command" the evil spirits of "the flu" to leave that person, and then start talking in jibberish, and almost fall down because they claim to have felt the "power of God" pass from their body to the sick persons body.

Yes, this type of behavior is unbiblical because it perverts and twists the message of the Bible.

AJ

 

I confess - I read this entire thread - which may lead some to question my sanity

was Tarzan speaking in tongues?

I have the gift of Gab
I once watched a Balinese shadow-puppet display where the puppeteers spoke in a rapid fire Indonesian dialect - to amuse friends I mimicked this rapid speech and found I could keep it up for minutes without missing a beat - but it was pure gibberish

I was once guested in a Pentecostal church and what I heard was pure gibberish - and was told I didn't have the spirit if I didn't speak in tongues - I left because if pressed to speak in tongues I would have done a rendition of Ray Stevens in "Guitarzan" and been thrown out (yohhhhh-ee-yohweeyoh)

when it comes to "glossolalia" as opposed to tongues;

strike one - glossolalia was used by pagan priests
strike two - recordings of these "tongues" have been played for known "interpreters" and no two interpreted the same message

no strike three - strike one was enough
I don't believe any pagan practice has ever been any part of Christianity

when I hear it I leave and don't go back

God bless

 

My response here will be primarily to ajg1959 but I would like to contextualise it by quoting from what ajg said and then making an open challenge to all board members...

1 Cor 13 addresses the completeion of the scriptures and the ending of tongues, so that stance is not unbiblical. - AJG1959

Guys, just because something seemingly supportive of a particular viewpoint or doctrinal bias is found in a scritpural verse, does it automatically make that viewpoint or bias "biblical". Again that ios the exact point of the thread I started with the title "What do we really mean when we say we're biblical?" I would encaourage you to participate in that discussion.
We need to clearly define and distinguish what we mean when start throwing the term "biblical" around because clearly, we are not all speaking the same language.

ARE THINGS BIBLICAL BECAUSE THEY ARE FOUND IN THE BIBLE? or ARE THINGS BIBLICAL BECAUSE THEY ARE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION?

Which brings me to the case and comments in point.

This is what 1 Corinthians says on the subject of the cessation of tongues...

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known

1. It is important to note that tongues is not singled out but grouped with other things that we are also told will cease...knowledge and prophesy.

2. Like the list of gifts in 1 Corinthians there is no indication whether the list is exhaustive or exemplery. So either belief is an opinion at best and a guess at worst.

3. The truth of the matter is that all things will cease as we know it, including preaching and the written scriptures.

4. If we are honest we will admit that scripture does not indicate when prophesy, knowledge and tongues will cease, or in what chronological order or to what extent they will cease.

 

English is also my private prayer language.