tongue speakers please answer

2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

There were 120 gathered in the upper room praying (1:15). When the day of Pentecost came these 120 individuals spoke in other tongues or languages. That is what verse four says. The Holy Spirit gave them utterance (the power of speech) to speak in other languages.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Now the multitude comes together when they hear this amazing thing (vs.6). They were "confounded," that is, perplexed and amazed that this miracle was taking place. What was the miracle?

Verse 7: Behold are not all these which speak Galileans? Yes, these were local people from the Jerusalem people. Pentecost was a Jewish feast where Jews, and proselytes to the Jewish faith came from all over to attend. Thus you have about 15 different nations and languages represented here (not 30-40). But they knew that these ones that were speaking were local people from Jerusalem, or the Galilean region. Greek was a universal language. They were not speaking that. Every one understood Greek. They were not speaking Hebrew or Aramaic, the language of the Jews. Look what they say in verse 8:

"How hear we every man in our tongue, wherein we were born?"
They heard their own language being spoken from someone in the 120 that didn't normally speak it. That was the miracle. Remember that there were 120 speaking to a maximum of 15 different languages. The miracle was speaking in tongues. There were 120 people, not that they all could speak all the languages, but rather some would speak one, and some would speak another, and thus each man heard his own language.
This event was predicted in the Old Testament in Isaiah 28:11, in the New Testament in Mark 16:17, and is referred to again in 1Cor.14:21.
DHK

 

"Also, At Paul's baptism he was filled with theh Holy Ghost, there is no reference to the initial evidence for him being tongues."
---You are right. One does not need tongues to be filled with the Holy Spirit. You just gave a good example of that in Paul's salvation.

"Also, if you wish to limit the gift of tongues to be for a "intent and purpose" of speaking to those who do not speak your language, or it being solely an unlearned language, then why was it that when others were baptized they also spoke in tongues when there was no one present who would have required a separate language that needed an interpretation. Could this be the actual reference of the "tongues of angels" Paul spoke of in I Corinthians 13?"
---Can you demonstrate that there was no one present who would have required a separate language that needed an interpretation. The Jews lived in a multi-lingual society. The average Jew of that time would know four languages: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin. Interspersed among these were local dialects as well. In fact one of the words from which "tongues" comes from in Acts 2 is "dialectos," where we get our word dialect.
The first mention of tongues is in Acts 2. We have discussed that. There are only two others. The second is in Acts 10, where Peter goes to Caesarea, and meets Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian band. No doubt his mother tongue was a different language than that of Peter's. Whatever the case, he spoke in another tongue, another language other than the one that he knew. This was a miracle and a sign to the Jews that this message of Peter was from God (Isa.28:11; 1Cor.14:21,22).

The third mention of tongues takes place in yet a different part of the world--Ephesus. Ephesus was a large commercial center where many people from different lands would pass through.

The reference to "tongues of angels" in 1Cor.13, is a reference to the way angels speak. How do angels speak? How did Gabriel speak to Mary or Joseph. How did different angels speak in the Old Testament, like the one who appeared to Manoah's wife? They spoke in a language just like you and I, except that the language they chose to spoke in, they could speak perfectly. There were no mistakes in grammar. There would be perfect articulation and pronunciation. They would be able to speak any of man's languages, and be able to speak them perfectly. That is the tongue of an angel. Paul never says that he spoke in the tongues of angels. Just like he never says he gave his body to be burned, or all his goods to feed the poor. He never said that he did those things. Do you think that he gave his body to be burned?? Then why would you think he spoke with the tongues of angels. All the statements are statements of conjecture. "IF," or "Though," Even if I could do these things, and have not love it profits me nothing. That was his message. IF, IF, IF, Those are important words when reading that passage. The equivalent of the KJV "Though."

"Can you in cessationist doctrine justify away the question, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?" This indicates a second event occured."
---Don't take Scripture out of context and make it a pretext.

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.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
--- "Since they believed" what? Since they believed on John's baptism, a baptism to repentance. They had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost. So to answer your question, no this does not indicate that a second event took place at all. They were "filled" with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues. It doesn't even mention a baptism there, except in the previous verses when they were baptized with water.
For many people tongues is a salvation issue. It may not be for you, but for many it is.
DHK

 

If MEE's arrogant and evasive replies to DHK's perfectly legitimate questions about the use of tongues in her church doesn't tell any undecided person that 'private prayer language' tongue speaking is not of God, I don't know what would.
MEE, you remind me very much of elitist liberals, who look down on conservatives like me who oppose things like abortion and homosexuality. Such people shake their heads and marvel at how us silly conservatives who believe in Jesus and trust in His Word just don't get it. You seem to be taking the same attitude toward those of us who disagree with you on tongues, regarding us as poor unenlightened idiots.
Something else for you to think about, MEE. There's a fundamental difference between those on my side of the tongues issue and those on yours. People like DHK and I have no personal stake in the matter of tongues. We simply seek what the Bible teaches about it. People like you, on the other hand, have a huge vested interest in one side of the argument: if I and DHK are right, you stand to lose something that makes you feel really good and special. This is a huge built-in bias that colors every thought you have about the subject of tongues. It means that completely objective analysis of God's Word cannot take place in your mind about this particular subject, because your emotions instinctively prevent anything that opposes tongues from being seriously considered.
I have no hope that you will accept any of this now, but perhaps by this seed being planted in your mind you may someday reach a point where you are truly able to consider both sides of the tongues question objectively.
And no, that doesn't mean I think of you as a poor unenlightened idiot. You are an intelligent and sincere person who is almost certainly a genuine believer, but who has been deceived about this one issue. I don't look down on you and others like you, the way you do to me and those like me. I care about you, and want you to eventually outgrow your dependence on emotional experiences to validate your faith. True Christian joy comes from serving others, not yourself.

 

---Walguy, I haven't been deceived about the subject of "speaking in tongues." I don't look down on ones like you. I try to reach out and shed some light so that you can see what you are missing when it comes to God.

As far as me eventually ourgrowing my dependence of my "emotional experience" as you call it, ther is NO WAY that I will blaspheme against the Spirit of God. Why would I want to do such a thing, when He has been so good to me?

True Christian joy comes from serving "God" and what I allow Him to do through me, by faith, toward others. I don't take what belongs to Him. I give Him all of the praise and glory.

MEE

 

DHK you are correct. There are a few mainstream denominations that believe if you have never spoken in tongues then you must not be saved.

I wonder how they deal with the fact that scripture doesn't say that at Paul's filling he spoke in tingues? Surely as the apostle and father of the modern church those recording the events would certainly have included it if it happened.

 

And yet, you won't allow that joy in others...you won't allow God to do things through others...you won't allow others to give Him all the praise and glory...because they haven't spoken in tongues....

 

And yet, you won't allow that joy in others...you won't allow God to do things through others...you won't allow others to give Him all the praise and glory...because they haven't spoken in tongues....</font>[/QUOTE]Don, what is the use in explaining it to you? You don't want to believe me anyway.

MEE

 

I don't always know what is 'correct' and what is not, but I am strongly convinced that being that elistist is very unBiblical...

If we had nothing to boast about when we were saved and if our 'good works' are God working through us then - don't we still have nothing to boast about?

So we can't possibly be 'better' than other Christians, no matter what gifts we might have...

Right?

 

question for Don

Well Don there may not be another scripture for praying in toungs of angels but what about spiritual languages?

1 Corinthians 14:15
What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

How do you sing with the spirit or pray with the spirit.

Im sure you find some way to deny the truth again and I cant wait to hear how because I very much enjoy this conversation its quite funny. I am totally secure in how I belive because I have seen its power to save lives. I sill want to know what this IFB meat is that you talk about. All ifbers I have ever run into cant get passed the roman roades

 

Revolt, I pray with the spirit and I pray with the mind also; I sing with the spirit and I sing with the mind also.

See, there's this grammatical thing called a conjunction; one of the conjunctions is the word "and." This particular conjunction combines/groups two or more things together, into one whole.

Thus, we see "pray with the spirit and pray with the mind," not "pray with the spirit or pray with the mind."

There's the additional word "also"; as we both well know, that word means "as well as," or "too." It further modifies the conjunction "and" by emphasizing it. For instance, you wouldn't say "I pray with the spirit also" unless you were saying that you prayed with something else as well.

That's a denial of what you're trying to say, Revolot, not a denial of scripture. See, I have this thing about looking at every jot and tittle, not just the ones that support the ideas I like...in fact, most of the time, when I look at every jot and tittle, I find scriptural ideas that I personally, in my flesh, don't necessarily like one little bit...but they're there, and they're God's Word, so I have to change my personal frame of mind, not the Bible.

I have researched and studied this tongues business for well over four years. I've looked at every single verse in the bible that mentions tonuge, tongues, language, languages, angel, and angels; and the incontrovertible conclusion is that there is no language of the angels. You've admitted that you can't find any other reference to it in the Bible; the question you must now ask yourself is why not?

You want a good IFB church, Revolt? Avoid any church, Baptist or otherwise, that professes a Jack Hyles-style of "say this prayer and you're good to go" instant soul-winning. Avoid any church, Baptist or otherwise, that preaches you have to dress a certain way or wear your hair a certain way, or that you must tithe, or that you must do anything.

They're few, they're far between...but they're out there.

For example, the church that I attended while I was in Colorado never preached that the members had to dress a certain way...but they did, of their own free will, of a personal conviction, and willingness and desire to please God.

I offer the same thing to you that I did to MEE: Are you really going to sit there and restrict anyone from professing the gospel of Christ simply because they haven't spoken in tongues?

MEE refuses to explain because she can't, not because we won't listen. She refuses to explain because in the beginning of all this, when she first came on this board, she was given a ton of scripture that contradicted what she believes, and she would prefer to believe what she believes instead of what the Bible tells her. She's admitted this more than once. She says we refuse to believe her; it's because she wants us to focus on the experience rather than scripture.

Revolt, look at DHK's last post. If your church espouses obedience to God, then take a long, hard look at 1 Corinthians 14 again, especially emphasizing every verse in that chapter that talks about the proper use of the gift of tongues, and ask yourself: Is your church following these scripture guidelines?

If not, then you better ask your pastor which is more important: Acting like the church at Corinth, or being obedient to God.

'Nuff said.

 

I alreaddy foud a local church like that.

I know I would never deny anyone from professing the gospel of christ because they havent spoke in toungues? Would you deny anyone the right to profess the gospel because they do?

 

7. In the light of 1Cor.14:27, how many speak in your church, and do they speak at the same time.
Are there only two, or three at the very most, as Paul commands, or are there more, as Paul forbids.

Most have the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, but
things are carried out in a very orderly fashion.

---DHK, is this the question that you don't understand? I feel that my first response was sufficient, but if you need more then see if you can understand this one.

When the "gift of tongues" is used, a message goes forth, from God, then usually one gives the interpretation, which is the "gift of interpretation" put into operation. It is not to go on and on and disrupt the service. That is what Paul was referring to when giving his instruction as to how to use these two gifts.

Now, you have your answer, which you won't believe anyway, because you don't believe in the things of the Spirit of God.

Happy?
MEE

 

HUH?? Is this the question "I" don't understand? MEE, it was I that posted that question. I understand what I posted, and I understand that you cannot give a direct yes or no answer to a simple question. I rephrased the question to make it more simple for you to answer. Are there more than three people that speak in tongues at your church? YES or NO?
DHK

 

If what they're professing is that you must speak in tongues to 'prove' your salvation, because if you don't speak in tongues you're not saved--then yes, I would deny them the right, because they're not professing the same gospel as the one we call "The Bible," which professes that "whosoever believeth on Him shall be saved" and "whosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who believes not is damned already" (emphasized because of the lack of "he who isn't baptized").

MEE, this is exactly what you have never been able to answer. WHERE does it say that your salvation is evidenced by speaking in tongues? You state that Acts 2:38 is the plan of salvation (I would humbly submit that it's actually John 3:16 and 3:36); WHERE in the scripture does it say that the promise of the Holy Ghost is speaking in tongues?

MEE, you focus on tongues alone; you are wrong for doing so. Mark 16 says these signs (plural!) will follow them. I don't see you arguing for picking up snakes. I don't see you arguing that the promise of the Holy Spirit is drinking poison and surviving. I don't see you arguing that healing people is the only way we know for a fact that you've been indwelt by the Holy Spirit. In each of the accounts of being baptized, especially the one at Samaria, many miracles (plural again!) happened.

Yet you only stress the one gift, above all the others--when all the scripture says desire other gifts more.

And something NONE of you Oneness Pentecostal types have ever answered, and continue to shy away from, is why the Holy Ghost didn't come upon those that Phillip baptized; why they had to wait until the apostles came to lay hands on them.

I would really, really like to see an answer to that one some day....

 

If what they're professing is that you must speak in tongues to 'prove' your salvation, because if you don't speak in tongues you're not saved--then yes, I would deny them the right, because they're not professing the same gospel as the one we call "The Bible," which professes that "whosoever believeth on Him shall be saved" and "whosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who believes not is damned already" (emphasized because of the lack of "he who isn't baptized").


And something NONE of you Oneness Pentecostal types have ever answered, and continue to shy away from, is why the Holy Ghost didn't come upon those that Phillip baptized; why they had to wait until the apostles came to lay hands on them.
</font>[/QUOTE]I would never say that someone has to speak in tounges to be saved. Now I have to ask you do you belive that people who speak in tounges are saved?

I am also not a oneness person. I belive in the trinity.

 

As I told Oneness once upon a time, I don't question salvation. You profess to know Christ? Then I take it on face value, for only God knows the heart!

 

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

What languages are your tongues interpreted into? And from what language were they interpreted?
DHK