Are tongues a sign of the Holy Spirit?

[Vic]

Some suggest that tongues are a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Is the concept scriptural?

Are tongues a known language somewhere in the earth, or are they unknown to anyone--and if so---what good are they?

Some suggest they are the heavenly language.

Are tongues something to be desired? Are they of God? Do the Scriptures support the position?

:anyone:

[Peaches]

(02-03-2009 01:21 PM)Vic Wrote:  Some suggest that tongues are a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Is the concept scriptural?

Are tongues a known language somewhere in the earth, or are they unknown to anyone--and if so---what good are they?

Some suggest they are the heavenly language.

Are tongues something to be desired? Are they of God? Do the Scriptures support the position?

:anyone:

I think tongues are a heavenly language cause when someone prays in tongues it's supposed to be the Holy Spirit praying. Do you think it's wrong?

[Vic]

Peaches, can you tell me where in the Scriptures it says that people on this earth will speak a heavenly language?

What do you think the purpose for this 'heavenly language' is, if it is in fact "heavenly"? How would we know if it is heavenly and of the Holy Spirit if we can't understand what is said?

[Peaches]

(02-03-2009 07:37 PM)Vic Wrote:  Peaches, can you tell me where in the Scriptures it says that people on this earth will speak a heavenly language?

What do you think the purpose for this 'heavenly language' is, if it is in fact "heavenly"? How would we know if it is heavenly and of the Holy Spirit if we can't understand what is said?

It's kinda hard to explain. I thought that in 1 Cor 13 it said something about the tongues of angels, so everyone I know just believes that tongues is that. If it is, then if we can't understand it, then we know it has to be an angel's language, right? :cloud9:

[strefanash]

(02-03-2009 07:37 PM)Vic Wrote:  Peaches, can you tell me where in the Scriptures it says that people on this earth will speak a heavenly language?

What do you think the purpose for this 'heavenly language' is, if it is in fact "heavenly"? How would we know if it is heavenly and of the Holy Spirit if we can't understand what is said?

If a person were speaking a foreign earthly language that he did not know no interpretation would be needed, for the foreigner to whom this miraculous communication was aimed would know what it was and be stunned by having a non russian speaker speaking to him praising God in perfect Russian (for instance).

But ST Paul said regarding order in church let a person give a tongue one or at the most two or three at a time, and then the interpretation, one at a time I Cor 14:37.

So clearly if an interpretation is to be given the tongue is of an angelic kind, for a foreign language would not need one.

Hence tongues of angels.

Now there has been much nonsense in the pentecostal movement over this one. But I am not about to reject tongue speaking in principle just because of abuse by these people. (my church was pentecostal baptist, that miugh tsound strange but this is New Zeael;and in the 80's. American eccelesiological definitions simply do not apply here

Also. having something of an ability for languages ands a musicians ear, I think i can guess by the syntax and sound made that it is a language and not just carnal jibberish.

shamala shamala babababa shamala bababa, ive heard this one time and time again. pure jibberish by someone making up something at a subconscious level.

the purpose of a heavenly language? St Paul said when he prayed in tongues he edified himself (I Cor 14:4), and that when one prophecied one edified the church.

self edification is recommended here, and clearly he was not praying alone in known human languages that he did not speak.

He also thanked God that he prayed in tongues more than they did. So the cessationist doctrine is not applicable here

[sheep wrecked]

(02-04-2009 12:43 AM)strefanash Wrote:  But ST Paul said regarding order in church let a person give a tongue one or at the most two or three at a time, and then the interpretation, one at a time I Cor 14:37.

So clearly if an interpretation is to be given the tongue is of an angelic kind, for a foreign language would not need one.

Hence tongues of angels.

The problem is that no where in the NT does it say that tongues is an angelic language. The Greek clearly shows that it is a known language on this planet. The disciples did not speak angelic tongues - they spoke the native language of those who came to Jerusalem on Pentecost.

In 1 Cor 13 - Paul is simply using an allegory IF I spoke in the tongues of angels. The language that the angels spoke were understood by the hearer, so if there is an "angelic language" we do not have it, don't need it, and would be unable to speak it. We are in corruptable bodies, not heavenly ones

Quote:Now there has been much nonsense in the pentecostal movement over this one. But I am not about to reject tongue speaking in principle just because of abuse by these people. (my church was pentecostal baptist, that miugh tsound strange but this is New Zeael;and in the 80's. American eccelesiological definitions simply do not apply here

Also. having something of an ability for languages ands a musicians ear, I think i can guess by the syntax and sound made that it is a language and not just carnal jibberish.

shamala shamala babababa shamala bababa, ive heard this one time and time again. pure jibberish by someone making up something at a subconscious level.

I have done a lot of reading on this topic for the last few years. Having been a former tongue talker, it was vital for me to discover the truth. My conclusion after going through mounds of studies, the tongues of today is not Biblical.

1) True tongues ceased around the first century. There is no evidence of them until around 1800. The tongues that are mentioned from the first century until then, historically, are connected with heretical movements - the base of which is another Gospel. The tongues that appeared in the 1800s were manifested through another false system - again, based in another gospel. It is through that system that tongues today come from. It was passed from generation from generation by the laying on of hands and through spiritual connection with seducing spirits.

2) The purpose of tongues in the NT was a sign to unbelievers to confirm the Gospel. The NT being completed is now the authority for confirmation of the Gospel, not tongues. They are no longer needed.

3) Tongues was under the authority of the Apostles, as were the other gifts. As there are no longer the Apostles of Christ, there is no one to judge the spirit that the gifts and tongues are done under. Without that judgment, one plays russian roulette with what is of the Holy Spirit and what is demonic. God is not the author of confusion - He is not going to send tongues to his body when they are infused with the tongues of demons.

4) The tongues of today are jibberish. They have been recorded and tested. Interestingly, the jibberish cannot be found to be a known language, and language specialists have proven the jibbish does not have the patterns needed to be a "real" language. Also, what has been discovered is that the tongues of today are the exact same jibberish that is spoken in satanic cults and other religions. Some of the jibberish is actually the names of demonic gods.

5) God does not play favoritism. So far, the only ones speaking in tongues are under the umbrella of charismata/pentecostal and not under other denominations - other than those who promote or implement this type of spirituality.

Quote:the purpose of a heavenly language? St Paul said when he prayed in tongues he edified himself (I Cor 14:4), and that when one prophecied one edified the church.

self edification is recommended here, and clearly he was not praying alone in known human languages that he did not speak.

He also thanked God that he prayed in tongues more than they did. So the cessationist doctrine is not applicable here

Paul did not speak in a heavenly language. Every time tongues is used in the NT it refers to a known "earthly" language. I believe that charis teaches these absurd doctrines - like Paul prayed in tongues. The text does not say that. No where in the NT is anyone instructed to pray in tongues. The three times that tongues are given, it was in praise and worship and the hearers understood perfectly what was being said.

Paul spoke at least 7 languages and probably more, he was simply stating that he would not pray in a language that was unknown to the listeners because they would not know what he was praying.

Praying in the Spirit does not mean in tongues. That is a charis twist on the text.

The edifying of oneself is a bit humorous - Paul is correcting and admonishing in 1 Cor 14, it's not good news for the Corinthians. The self-edification is a critical statement, not plumping up egos. We do not edify ourselves. God lifts us up. How can tongues edify oneself? Only if one is reveling in their own perceived favored position of speaking in tongues. Paul was speaking against that. He clearly stated that speaking in tongues when no one could understand was inexcusable. Somehow, charis has missed that little detail

[Vic]

I am pulling a few quotes from an article I have and then adding to them.

Acts 1:5-8 Jesus explained what would happen when the Holy Ghost would be given. The disciples did speak in tongues---“as the Spirit gave them utterance” They did not SEEK the gift and they did not babble [ahead of time] in order to speak in tongues, but it was a gift that glorified God and was used to witness to men of other nations who spoke other languages. They spoke languages that were understood by more than one witness of the event, and always it glorified God--and it was the witness who observed that by what was said which they interpreted.

Acts 5:42 states the Holy Ghost is given “ to them that obey Him”. Many claim that this 'tongues' is the evidence of the Holy Spirit, but there is no scripture that tongues is the proof.

Stephen was the first martyr and filled with the Holy Ghost—but nowhere does it say he spoke in tongues. (Acts 6:3; 7:55)
Acts 8 tells of Philip who preached at Samaria and many ‘received the Holy Ghost v 17—but we are not told that anyone spoke in tongues.
Chapter 10 of Acts gives us the account of Saul being filled with the Holy Ghost. Speaking in tongues IS NOT mentioned. One cannot Biblically prove that speaking in tongues--as described today- is the same as being filled with the Holy Ghost.

Many other instances are given throughout Scripture but you don’t find mention of tongues and the Holy Ghost together other than what is found in Acts 2:4, 10:45 and 19:6. Acts 10:38 tells us that Jesus had the Holy Ghost but we are never told that He spoke in tongues. Barnabas, Saul, and many Gentiles (Acts 15:7-9, Romans 15:16) all received the Holy Ghost and none of these instances mention tongues. Paul wrote 13 or 14 books of the Bible, but only 1 Corinthians deals with this subject. John wrote 5 books, Peter wrote 2, James, Jude, Luke, Matthew, Mark all wrote, yet none of these men thought of or thought it essential that this “proof” be expounded on. Could it be that these “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21, or that they just didn’t preach the “full gospel”? Or , did these men write what God told them to and the Pentecostals and Charismatics and other proponents added something that was never meant to be added?

Incidentally, The Way International taught there followers tongues in a class as part of the stuff they had to learn--and many fully believed it was a special language. But it came from their own imaginations or worse.

All gifts of the Holy Spirit are given for edification of the Body of Christ. All of them --except tongues. It was given to share the truth of Jesus Christ to unbelievers--including those who spoke other languages.

1 Corinthians 14:9-12 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. 10. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. 11. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. 12. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

The idea of self edification is contrary to who we are to be in Christ. If one is edified by gibberish---Paul says to not understand what you say or pray is unfruitful---meaning it does not bear fruit and therefore is NOT edifying to anyone--including ones self--which the following verses also show--is not what we are to be about

unfruitful---G175
ἄκαρπος
akarpos
Thayer Definition:
1) metaphorically without fruit, barren, not yielding what it ought to yield
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1 (as a negative particle) and G2590

Paul says he will pray and sing with understanding--instead of not knowing what is being said.

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1Co 14:15 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.
1Co 14:16 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?

understanding G3563
νοῦς
nous
Thayer Definition:
1) the mind, comprising alike the faculties of perceiving and understanding and those of feeling, judging, determining
1a) the intellectual faculty, the understanding
1b) reason in the narrower sense, as the capacity for spiritual truth, the higher powers of the soul, the faculty of perceiving divine things, of recognising goodness and of hating evil
1c) the power of considering and judging soberly, calmly and impartially
2) a particular mode of thinking and judging, i.e thoughts, feelings, purposes, desires
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: probably from the base of G1097

1Co 14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

1Co 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
1Co 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
1Co 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

It clearly shows that tongues were for witnessing, not for self edification. How can someone come to Jesus Christ if the person speaking nonsense doesn't even know what they are saying and cannot intepret as the Scriptures require?

1Co 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.

We see these scriptures violated and ignored time and again.

1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

If someone is speaking chinese and no one understands it is fruitless and that is the point of the passage. What we do is supposed to be for the sake of others--not our own selfish edification and self focus.

Rom 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Rom 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. Rom 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

1Co 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

[Rose of Shushan]

I have never spoken in tongues despite being a believer for over 30 years.
I never sought it and never experienced it either.In my teens I went to a few catholic charimsatic prayer meetings where it was encouraged and on the one rare occasion I did hear it ,it sounded contrived.
Personally I dont believe the tongues as experienced in charismatic circles are related to what happened in Acts.

[Peaches]

that's like a whole pile of stuff! I just been told for like a long time that you gotta pray in tongues or you ain't saved I mean, hey - everyone in church does it and I know lots of people who do. It's just weird that it's all wrong

I mean like my pastor does it - I don't think he will like be real excited to hear it ain't right. How come he don't see the Bible verses like that? It all sounds like some huge conspiracy. Man, I gotta really think about all this - I don't get this jive...I mean some of makes sense...

[sheep wrecked]

(02-05-2009 07:04 PM)Peaches Wrote:   that's like a whole pile of stuff! I just been told for like a long time that you gotta pray in tongues or you ain't saved I mean, hey - everyone in church does it and I know lots of people who do. It's just weird that it's all wrong

I mean like my pastor does it - I don't think he will like be real excited to hear it ain't right. How come he don't see the Bible verses like that? It all sounds like some huge conspiracy. Man, I gotta really think about all this - I don't get this jive...I mean some of makes sense...

Peaches, I appreciate your desire to get at the truth. Jesus told us that lots of people would be deceived because they did not love the truth. If one studies the Word of God, without a church bias ----- and pray for wisdom - God will show that person the truth.

At one time, I too was a tongue talker. I believed most of what I think that you do. I was taught those concepts and believed it was truth. My pastor spoke in tongues too. But just because lots of people believe something they have been taught, does not make it truth.

When I came out of all those teachings, I discovered that salvation is not a lot of things that we do thinking we can get closer to God, but rather that we have trust and faith in God without all the fluff. For me, all of that "fluff" took my eyes off Jesus ---- even though I was taught that the "fluff" was how one did that. All that teaching was wrong, because it's not in the Bible.

I like to think that you are really searching for the truth. You read the articles on tithing, so I trust that you will read some articles on where tongues came from that are practiced today, as well as other doctrines that you probably believe. Pray for God to give you wisdom and understanding and then you will see the truth, just like I did. It is so blessed to know that we don't have do all these things in order to be loved by God or to be special in His eyes. We are loved and special, just because Jesus gave His life for us to become a child of God. That is so cool, don't you think?

Start with this article and follow the links at the bottom of it - there are a lot of articles, but worth your while to read through them - I think you will be quite surprised where the teachings come from that you believe.


http://www.seekgod.ca/manifestations.htm