Tongues- A sign or THE sign Of Spirit Infilling

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Do you believe the Bible in the context of your world view, or believe the Bible as it is written? i noticed you brought up Pentecostal Herald from 1945. Why would or should we care about some groups feelings on tongues? Are we Catholics and is that a decision from the Vatican? Or are we Chabadniks, and that is the thought of the Rebbe? Hoovie, you been posting since FCF? Right? Anyway, you know that not everyone who call themselves Pentecostals or Apostolics give a flying donut for whatever the "Merger Brethren" Harry Morse, or Azusa Street thought about Biblical Pentecostalism? Weren't you a Mennonite? Menno Simons, Conrad Grebel, and Huldrych Zwingli, do you accept everything they believe? Probably didn't even as a modern Mennonite. Yet, the same is true for all religions. All religions constantly reexamine, change. Some for the better, some for the worst, and some cease to exist.
Yet, the Bible isn't like trying to decipher linear A. It is pretty easy to understand, once you take it out of the hands of people pleasers, glad handing politicians, and ecclesiastical business men. The Spirit goes where it needs to as it decides, and you hear its voice in everyone who is born of that Spirit. Easy, stuff, a loose translation, but it still stays true to the original.
Uncle Thibodaux, and Cousin Bitty Joe didn't speak in tongues? They were sweeter than Old Meemaw's ice tea, the one that the spoon stood straight up in? Uncle and Cousin prayed, fasted, shed tears in the altar, snot bubbles in the prayer room, but didn't speak in tongues. We don't have to build a theology based on what never happened to loved ones. We don't have to wrest the scripture in an effort to get people in places they will never end up.

We just need to accept what Jesus said, and what Paul taught, and Paul spoke in tongues all the time. Anyway, Pentecostal organizations change with the culture around them. So, why should anyone care what they agree upon or disagree on?

Aside from a few personal swipes I think you said it quite well. I am not sectarian and understand the body of Christ as a dynamic organism - far exceeding any denominations we are familiar with.

I do reserve the right to agree or disagree with anyone, as I see fit.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

1 Cor. 14:18-19



Why did Paul thank God he spoke in tongues more than they all? Was he walking in pride? Trying to put others down?

On the contrary it would seem he is trying to ENCOURAGE THEM to speak in tongues more than they were.

If he spoke in tongues more than they all and it was NOT IN THE CHURCH where was it?

Obviously in his private prayer time.

It seems either he was boasting or using himself as an example that the believer should take advantage of the benefit of praying in tongues. And if they all could NOT pray in tongues it would SEEM indeed he was boasting.

Very good thoughts you bring up here...

I’m not sure that I agree this either shows Paul as 1. boasting, or 2. Encouraging all all to speak in tongues...

He certainly did encourage prophecy in lieu of speaking in tongues, yet, makes it clear that not all prophesy...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Aside from a few personal swipes I think you said it quite well. I am not sectarian and understand the body of Christ as a dynamic organism - far exceeding any denominations we are familiar with.

I do reserve the right to agree or disagree with anyone, as I see fit.

I don’t get the swipe comment. Nothing personal outside of my mentioning your Mennonite origins. Yet I do believe this is the rub. It is all perception. A personal ecclesiastical nicer than Jesus robed in saffron. Where everyone goes to heaven because they are nice. Flawed mankind appt to continue to sin, but as long as they are nice, heaven can be their home. No tongues as evidence is the start. No tongues are sought. No longer even an issue. We (Pentecostals) just devole into good Baptists. Agree to disagree? Why? Jesus didn’t take that path. Paul didn’t take the path of agree to disagree. Paul was a Pharisee. Did he agree to disagree with his old school of thought? Never. The initial evidence has been dropped by Pentecostal Orgs like the assembly of gods. Infilling of the Holy Ghost is how you came into Pentecost, correct?

[consapente89]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

We just need to accept what Jesus said, and what Paul taught, and Paul spoke in tongues all the time.

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I do reserve the right to agree or disagree with anyone, as I see fit.

Apparently...

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I don’t get the swipe comment. Nothing personal outside of my mentioning your Mennonite origins. Yet I do believe this is the rub. It is all perception. A personal ecclesiastical nicer than Jesus robed in saffron. Where everyone goes to heaven because they are nice. Flawed mankind appt to continue to sin, but as long as they are nice, heaven can be their home. No tongues as evidence is the start. No tongues are sought. No longer even an issue. We (Pentecostals) just devole into good Baptists. Agree to disagree? Why? Jesus didn’t take that path. Paul didn’t take the path of agree to disagree. Paul was a Pharisee. Did he agree to disagree with his old school of thought? Never. The initial evidence has been dropped by Pentecostal Orgs like the assembly of gods. Infilling of the Holy Ghost is how you came into Pentecost, correct?

In short we can agree that religious denominations and movements can be examined and referenced, (I prefer to do that respectfully if at all possible) but our ultimate obligation is to adhere to scripture - Sola Scriptura here.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by consapente89

Apparently...

Since my comment (about right of disagreement) was made in reference to denominations, is there any particular reason you would quote it out of context?

[coksiw]

Interesting discussion going on here.

Regarding this point:

Originally Posted by Hoovie

(I realize this is not addressed to me...)

Good point. When Paul asked “Do all Speak with tongues” the Biblical inference is “No”. Yet the classical Pentecostal response is “Yes”.

Of course they would say “Yes” to the 1.0 Version (Evidence)
And “Yes” to the 2.0 Version (Speaking in tongues in prayer)
But “No” to the 3.0 Version (Gift of Tongues)

Yet Paul was not addressing only particular tongues, but the nature of tongues in general, and the perception that unbelievers may have if spoken in public assembly.

Let's see there:

Notice that the goal of Paul is about edification:

[1Co 14 NKJV] 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies [is] greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Then, here, the spiritual gifts was again the topic, which goes in line with the church edification topic:

12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual [gifts], [let it be] for the edification of the church [that] you seek to excel.

See how he keeps talking about when directing words to the church:

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. ... 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. ...

So the whole topic is that, if you speak to the church in tongues, do it in a way that you got interpretation. Few verses later it says:

26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, [let there be] two or at the most three, [each] in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.


So the context is public speaking to the assembly (probably less than 60 people).

Pretty much trying to set order and let public demonstration to the church for edification.

I know many are trying to set some facts about speaking in tongues based on the first verses in that chapter of Cor, but you have to see them in the rhetorical context in which this whole passages was written to begin with and its goal. He starts by saying that tongues is for internal edification, but then he speaks about it like it if it is also for external edification. Paul can you make your mind? No, I think he is bringing the point that there are two purposes, internal edification and external. And the whole point of the passage is: if you are going to speak to the whole congregation in tongues, make sure it comes with interpretation, otherwise that came only for yourself. Notice that speaking in tongue would be the only gift that is also for self-edification.

I do agree that he doesn't make a technical distinction between the the tongues for internal edification and for the church edification: he doesn't use different words, he only says that tongues is for self-edification and for church edification if it comes with interpretation. I do think that trying to use a passage, especially the ones written by Paul, that was meant to address a different issue, to prove the point of baptism of the Spirit evidences is going to be a big challenge. If you are really seeking the truth, better to find it in the passages that are addressing the issue of the baptism of the Holy Spirit specifically. On top of that, Paul rhetoric is challenging at time, especially for 21th century, and things can be taken out of context and turn into misunderstanding quickly. Even Peter warned us about Paul writtings in 2Per 3:15-16 .

When the Spirit came in Acts 2:1 to the 120 people in the Upper room, they all spoke in tongues. It doesn't say that some did and some didn't, or that some spoke in tongues, and others prophesied in their native language, and others interpreted the tongues, and others none of the them because they got the word of wisdom. What happened in the Upper Room was definitely not a manifestation of the diversity of spiritual gifts Paul was talking about in 1Cor 12.

[coksiw]

To keep going with my previous post:

Jesus' told them:

You shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence (Acts 1:5)

... so what's is to be baptized in the Holy Spirit according to Jesus?

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongue as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4)

Then the people said in verse 12 says: [Act 2:12 KJV] 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

... and what Peter said?

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Peter says that what they are seeing was the "pour out of the Spirit", and Joel says that as result there will be supernatural things afterwards. It is afterwards/the result of, because I have never heard in the Scripture of anyone getting the Holy Spirit and dreaming dreams as they get it. And also notice the ":" in the KJV, or ";" in other translations. The second part is the result of the first. The second part is a brief mention of empowerment or spiritual gifts that comes with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We don't see some of the 120 having dreams or visions as they get the Spirit, instead they all spoke in tongues. Peter was referring to the first part. The second part doesn't even mention speaking in tongues.
See also verse 33:

Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.


That's the evidence that the Apostles also used for Cornelius, because that was their understanding of what Jesus defines as baptism of the Holy Spirit. If something else had happened, then they wouldn't have been so sure that Cornelius got it. See the reasoning the Apostles used.

The Bible is not a mathematical book with bunch of theoretical proves. Expecting the book of Acts to say "speaking in tongues" with every single baptism that happened may be asking too much. See yourself and people around you. Do you/they speak like that as well? Every single time you/they say you got the baptism of the Holy spirit you/they say "speaking in other tongues"? You would say it only when it is useful information to make a point.
The book of Acts got enough repetition of the evidence to make the point.
You may be reading Acts as if they had the same issues you are trying to prove: speaking in tongues is not the only evidence of baptism of the Spirit. Acts makes the point by repetition and the reasoning of the apostles, and moves on probably because this was not the problem at their time.
Also, the epistles were written to already born again believers, keep that in mind. The book of Acts is the best reference of how the new birth actually happens.

[Hoovie]

CokSiw,

Thank you for your contribution here. That’s good stuff. It just is.

Not because I necessarily agree with the summation, (I don’t) but because you are using reason and following the logic rather than just relying on sectarian partisanship.

I will read it again and ask a few questions later on... thank you!

[Esaias]

If tongues are "a" sign, then what, Biblically, are some of the OTHER signs of initially receiving the Holy Ghost?