Speaking in Tongues: Its Origins [Ancient and Modern], Purpose, and Power

[KarynLouise]

I am not saying that Peter equates the gift of tongues with the gift of prophesy that Paul wrote about in 1 Cor chapters 12 - 14. I am saying that Peter said that what the crowd "heard and saw" which was them speaking in tongues and magnifying God, was the fulfilment of Joel's prophecy that their sons and daughters would "prophesy."

Now why would Peter call speaking in tongues prophecy? Because God pouring out His Spirit on people and then them speaking in tongues, speaking forth utterances inspired by the Holy Spirit through them is in the category of "the prophetic" gifts. Any speaking gifts inspired by the Holy Spirit belongs to the "prophetic" gifts and so to the Jewish mind seeing them, both men and women speaking in tongues was the fulfilment of "they shall prophesy"

I'm probably not understanding. Sometimes i can't put two and two together. I don't see that tongues would always be prophecy, though. It could be any message, just sharing the gospel and encouraging others.

 

[Amanuensis]

I'm probably not understanding. Sometimes i can't put two and two together. I don't see that tongues would always be prophecy, though. It could be any message, just sharing the gospel and encouraging others.

I have heard some try to say that sermons are the gift of prophesy that Paul was talking about but I don't believe that he meant that nor did the Corinthians think so.

He actually gives an example in the text of operating in the gift of prophesy and an unbeliever has the secrets of his heart exposed and falls down before you and declares that God is in you.

Which is some kind of supernatural speaking of facts about them that you could not have known unless God told you. So yes, you could do that while sharing the Gospel with someone, and then the Lord tells you to say something very specific to them that causes this reaction in them. You would know that it is the gift of prophesy and so would they. It would be a momentous event like described in 1 Cor 14.

I believe the gift of prophesy can be manifest during a sermon. And I have heard some sermons by some men of God like David Wilkerson that made me think the whole sermon was from an anointed prophet but I don't think that what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 14 is the same as sermons, or sharing the Gospel.

All of the gifts of the Spirit are of a supernatural nature. Which is why they are not so common today and during church history were not common in the visible churches that left written records.

These gifts require the individuals to have the faith to receive them and operate in them. Many will not ask for them and many don't want them because they are afraid it will make them weird in the eyes of others.

It requires a complete abandoning of the world, it's praise, and personal reputation, to operate in the gifts of the Spirit. You will have to care more about following the Holy Spirit than caring about what people think about you. There will be mockers, and skeptics and that can't bother you.

Those that operate in the true gifts of the Spirit are going to be considered as "radical" to many others and this is why those who value their reputation among men are not good candidates for these gifts. And so it has been that way throughout church history.

 

[KarynLouise]

I have heard some try to say that sermons are the gift of prophesy that Paul was talking about but I don't believe that he meant that nor did the Corinthians think so.

He actually gives an example in the text of operating in the gift of prophesy and an unbeliever has the secrets of his heart exposed and falls down before you and declares that God is in you.

Which is some kind of supernatural speaking of facts about them that you could not have known unless God told you. So yes, you could do that while sharing the Gospel with someone, and then the Lord tells you to say something very specific to them that causes this reaction in them. You would know that it is the gift of prophesy and so would they. It would be a momentous event like described in 1 Cor 14.

I believe the gift of prophesy can be manifest during a sermon. And I have heard some sermons by some men of God like David Wilkerson that made me think the whole sermon was from an anointed prophet but I don't think that what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 14 is the same as sermons, or sharing the Gospel.

All of the gifts of the Spirit are of a supernatural nature. Which is why they are not so common today and during church history were not common in the visible churches that left written records.

These gifts require the individuals to have the faith to receive them and operate in them. Many will not ask for them and many don't want them because they are afraid it will make them weird in the eyes of others.

It requires a complete abandoning of the world, it's praise, and personal reputation, to operate in the gifts of the Spirit. You will have to care more about following the Holy Spirit than caring about what people think about you. There will be mockers, and skeptics and that can't bother you.

Those that operate in the true gifts of the Spirit are going to be considered as "radical" to many others and this is why those who value their reputation among men are not good candidates for these gifts. And so it has been that way throughout church history.

I understand what you're saying. I don't understand why people should be afraid of their gifts. We know our audiences. God knows. He gives us the inspiration to speak at the right time, in the right way, to the right person. It's not like we're just going to walk around everywhere rambling in tongues, unless of course that's what God sees is needed.
Personally, I don't speak in tongues, but I don't think other people are necessarily making this stuff up. I pray that God will give me the gifts I need at the right time to help advance His kingdom. I pray that God would open my heart and mind to all He would for my life. It does make me sad that some of my brothers and sisters in Christ would think I'm not fully Christian because I don't speak in tongues. I don't think it's for everyone. I know I have a gift for teaching, encouraging, and supporting, so I do those things.

 

[presidente]

Paul said that he would that they all spoke in tongues but not in the church. In the church two or three at the most, so in that sense not all would speak in tongues. But in that case one could speak to himself and to God. So all can speak in tongues in the sense that they can receive that same gift as the 120, the 12, and the household of cornelius where all did speak in tongues,

'They' spoke in tongues. But when activities are attributed to a group, often representatives of the group performed that activity. In Acts one, when they, the apostles, asked Jesus if He would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel, did each individual uttered the words? When they saints were praying for Peter during his imprisonment, when 'they' opened the door would you say that each individual in the prayer meeting had to help unlach or push the door open, or else the scriptures are not true?

When the thieves who were crucified with Jesus derided him, would you insist that the one criminal who said, 'Lord remember me when thou comest into they kingdom' also derided Christ? Matthew says that they asked why the ointment wasn't sold. John tells us that Judas uttered the words. Did Judas, a member of the group, ask the question, or did all the disciples ask it at the same time or in succession.

Peter saw that they had been filled with the Holy Spirit because they spoke in tongues and magnified God. Members of the group may have spoken in tongues and magnified God. All or some may have either spoken in tongues, magnified God, or both. Peter does not say that if someone does not speak in tongues, that he has not received the Spirit or been filled with the Spirit.

But we see elsewhere that Paul said to be filled with the Spirit and speak to yourselves in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. When Peter quoted Joel, Joel did not say anything about speaking in tongues:

Acts 2
16 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:

You are reading something into Peter's statement that he did not say.

[quote
All can speak in tongues which is why he said that he would that they all did,[/quote]

Paul wrote, "I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied:"

If that means everyone can speak in tongues, that means everyone can prophesy, also. Moses wished that all God's people were prophets. Does that mean that everyone is a prophet or can be?

Paul wishes that they would all speak in tongues. That is not the same is saying that they all do, can, or will. In chapter 12, he listed tongues among manifestations given as the Spirit wills, and asks, 'Not all speak with tongues, do they?'

The verses used in chapter 14 that justify what has become known as a 'prayer language' treat it as the same sort of manifestation as uninterpreted tongues in the assembly. Therefore, saying Paul's question only refers to tongues in the assembly does not fit the argument about speaking in tongues in I Corinthians.

but not all will speak in tongues in the assembly which is what he spent significant amount of time explaining. It is not hard to understand.

It is not hard to understand that Paul teaches that not all believers who operate in manifestations of the Spirit speak in tongues. That is rather explicit without having to stretch what the text says. 'I would that ye all spake with tongues' does not have to be modified to mean 'all can speak with tongues.'

We can't take a phrase of his, isolate it and teach something he did not intend.

Amen.

Also we must reconcile it with the rest of scriptures.

Yes, indeed, and we must also look at the rest of scripture when trying to create a doctrine that if someone has not spoken in tongues that he is not filled with the Spirit. This contradicts Paul's teachings on spiritual gifts and does not fit with his pneumatology.

All 120 spoke in tongues in the upper room. Also when other groups received they all spoke in tongues.

You 'know' the latter sentence is true by reading it into the text. If you believe the initial evidence doctrine must be true, then you are likely to read that idea into Acts 10-11 for example, when the wording fits a scenario where not every individual was filled with the Spirit just as well.

The problem with this is it is also what I call 'example hermeneutics.'

Compare these two sets of arguments.

Argument for God Always Speaking at Sinai
1. Moses went to Mt. Sinai/Mt. Horeb and heard God speak.
2. The people of Israel went to Mt. Sinai/Mt. Horeb and heard God speak.
3. Elijah went to Mt. Sinai/Mt. Horeb and heard God speak.
4. Therefore if anyone goes to to Mt. Sinai/Mt. Horeb they will hear God speak.

Argument for Tongues Always Accompanying Spirit-Baptism
1. The 120 were baptized with the Spirit and spoke in tongues.
2. The men in Cornelius' household were baptized with the Spirit and spoke in tongues.
3. The followers of John's baptism in Acts 18 were baptized with the Spirit and spoke in tongues.
4. Therefore, if you are baptized with the Spirit you will speak in tongues.

Would you conclude that anyone who goes to Mt. Sinai hears God speak? Does the fact that it happen

The Sinai argument, as illogical as it is, actually is strong since Paul does not outright contradict it in his epistles like he does with the initial evidence doctrine.

We could also make similar arguments about going to Egypt. The children of Israel went to Egypt, and God called them out. Jesus went to Egypt, and God called Him out. If you go to Egypt, will God call you out?

Acts 19 6And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7There were about twelve men in all.

The way 'they' with a verbs in the Bible, Acts included, is if a representative of the group say something, it can be worded that 'they' said it. And if two or three prophesied and spoke in tongues, that fits the context. If six prophesied and six spoke in tongues, that fits. Peter also quoted Joel about prophesying when he described what was going on in Acts 2. The Old Testament prophecy was about an outpouring of the Spirit accompanied by prophesying, dreams, and visions.

This makes it clear to most people who read it that Luke is saying that all 12 of these men spoke in tongues and prophesied.

It does not say that. But even if all three passages were worded differently and said, "They all spoke with tongues' in every passage, unless you would be willing to say that anyone who goes to Sinai will hear God's voice, then why would you make the same sort of point about being filled with the Spirit and speaking with tongues? Paul clarifies the issue for us when he indicates that not all speak with tongues.

 

[presidente]

@Amanuensis

Peter called what the 120 were doing in speaking in tongues and magnifying God a fulfilment of Joel's prophesy that both men and women would prophesy.

If, in Peter's terminology, tongues is a subset of the gift of prophecy and the Old Testament prophecy he quotes cites prophesying as a result of the outpouring of the Spirit in the last days, then why wouldn't you accept both tongues-prophesying and non-tongues-prophesying as evidence of the outpouring of the Spirit. Both show up in Acts 19.

Paul makes a distinction between tongues and prophesying in a list of spiritual gifts and in instructions relating to their practical use in the church.

Therefore, when Paul says do all speak in tongues, in the context of what he was teaching "speaking in tongues in the church with and interpreter, and then only two or three at a time" then No, not all do that.

In I Corinthians 14, speaking in tongues without an interpreter is also called speaking in tongues. The one who speaks in tongues edifies himself, unless he interprets. The 'speaking in tongues' for self-edification and the speaking in tongues that is interpreted is the same thing in this passage. These verses about tongues are the doctrinal basis for tongues being used in private prayer. There is no reason to think that 'Do all speak with tongues?' does not apply to praying in tongues since it is the same 'type of utterance that is interpreted according to chapter 14.

But it is not fair to Paul to take his statement outside of the context of his teaching on how to use the gifts in decency and in order in the assembly and say that Paul said not all of the 120 in the upper room spoke in tongues,

I did not make that point, mainly because of the way 'all' is used in Acts 2, unlike the other two instances in Acts. But again, if all spoke in tongues in Acts 2... and even if it were the case in Acts 10 and 19 without Luke being explicit about it... then that happening to groups of people does not mean that we can put the Holy Spirit in a box. We cannot require that any time someone is baptized with the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit must enable them to speak with tongues. This is not consistent with Paul's teachings.

In real life, the Holy Spirit does not follow these rules. If you look throughout writings of church history there is no indication that a lot of people who prophesied, had visions, healed the sick, etc. spoke in tongues. Many of the evangelicals who saw great healings before the Azusa Street Revival did not speak in tongues while these healings were going on. Some of the early Pentecostals, whether they accepted the 'initial evidence doctrine' or not, were operating in healing before they spoke in tongues, like FF Bosworth, who left the A/G over the initial evidence doctrinal statement, or Smith Wigglesworth, who operated in healing first and later accepted the initial evidence idea.

 

[Wansvic]

@Amanuensis

...In real life, the Holy Spirit does not follow these rules. If you look throughout writings of church history there is no indication that a lot of people who prophesied, had visions, healed the sick, etc. spoke in tongues. Many of the evangelicals who saw great healings before the Azusa Street Revival did not speak in tongues while these healings were going on. Some of the early Pentecostals, whether they accepted the 'initial evidence doctrine' or not, were operating in healing before they spoke in tongues, like FF Bosworth, who left the A/G over the initial evidence doctrinal statement, or Smith Wigglesworth, who operated in healing first and later accepted the initial evidence idea.

Church history is not where people should turn to confirm a belief. The bible tells us how to do that. Truth is confirmed by 2-3 scripture references stating the same thing concerning any subject. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Cor 13:1)

Peter made it clear what was going on when people first received the Holy Ghost. "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:4) He explained again that speaking in tongues was the direct result of people receiving the Holy Ghost in Acts 2:33, "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.

In addition, each of the recorded rebirth experiences establish that everyone who received the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues. (Acts 2:1-4, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6)

As to the Spiritual gift of speaking in tongues, according to Paul, not all operate in that particular gift.

 

[presidente]

Church history is not where people should turn to confirm a belief. The bible tells us how to do that. Truth is confirmed by 2-3 scripture references stating the same thing concerning any subject. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Cor 13:1)

Peter made it clear what was going on when people first received the Holy Ghost. "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:4) He explained again that speaking in tongues was the direct result of people receiving the Holy Ghost in Acts 2:33, "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.

In addition, each of the recorded rebirth experiences establish that everyone who received the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues. (Acts 2:1-4, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6)

As to the Spiritual gift of speaking in tongues, according to Paul, not all operate in that particular gift.

Look at my posts. if one or more people in a group say something, then the Bible treats it as 'they' said it. For example, Judas complained about the ointment not being sold and the proceeds being given to the poor in one Gospel, and in another gospel the disciples said it. In one gospel, the thieves crucified with Jesus derided him, but in another Gospel we see that there was one who asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom.

What we know from Acts 10 is that they spoke in tongues and magnified God. If some of them spoke in tongues and some of them magnified God 'with the understanding' the wording of that passage is just as true as it would be if the all spoke in tongues and all of them magnified God. There is a similar thing going on with tongues and prophecy in Acts 19.

Another problem with your 2 or 3 witnesses approach here is assuming that if God did X under Y circumstances in various cases in the Bible that he is obligated to do so again. God spoke audibly at Sinai to Moses, and He spoke audibly to Israel. That's two witnesses. We could use Elijah hearing God as a third. So if you or anyone else goes to Mt. Sinai, is it 100% guaranteed in the Bible that you will hear the audible voice of God?

The children of Israel went to Egypt and God used supernatural means two direct them out. Jesus went to Egypt and God used supernatural means to direct Him out (Joseph hearing an angel in a dream.) Is it 100% guaranteed in the Bible that if you go to Egypt that God will use supernatural means to direct you to leave? Does that happen to everyone? Is that guaranteed to happen to every believer? Is there no Christian in human history who has gone to Egypt and died there without getting direct by God to leave?

Paul didn't write, "Not everyone who goes to Sinai hears God speak audible, do they?" He did not write, "Not everyone who goes to Egypt gets supernaturally directed to leave, does he?" But he did write "Do all speak with tongues?" which some might render "Not all speak with tongues, do they?"

The issue here is not with the Bible, but with the bizarre hermeneutic which seeks to put the Holy Spirit in a box and insist that if something happened a certain way in certain cases that He has to do it the exact same way every time, and also with reading things into passages that are not explicitly taught.

 

[CS1]

The thread is simple. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit. And this gift as all gifts of the Holy Spirit is to be desired as instructed by the Lord Jesus and addressed by PAUL IN 1COR CHAPTER 12.

Nothing in the word of God tells us the gifts of the Holy Spirit have stopped at the completion of the canon of the bible. Nothing done in foolishness by some Pentecostals & Charismatics make the gifts of the Holy Spirit to no effect.

Those who say they have not seen anything to validate these gifts are real or even happening today are with those person(s) and not reflective of all who are Christians that are empowered by the Holy Spirit.
They need to get out more I guess. They have no biblical refutation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that have ceased. None. They talk about personal experiences with Pentacostel denominations or past affiliation with them or how many years they were A/G COG, COGIC, Four Square, etc.

I would like to see in the BIBLE where says they are not for today? Just one verse? They only use 1cor 13:8-10.

Yet the verses say no such thing BUT they know better. When called on it they bring up human reasoning or interject Secular humanistic linguists to speak on the Supernatural working of the Holy Spirit, BUT not the word of God.

Using Funny Youtube videos of people being foolish, yep many of them too. But no authoritative word of God saying they have stopped or not for today.

"No, no, no, I have studied the pentacostel movement", (from the bias they have) "and Occult practices and pagan ones too from India."

Just nothing Biblical. Looking outside the word of to disprove what those who saw in the word of God dared to believe in faith the gifts are for all today and never stopped. Please have at it.
Pentacostel churches have been given great and powerful success and praiseworthy works for the Lord Jesus Christ, that will be ignored by haters, who do nothing for the kingdom of God, sitting in dead churches speaking to the frozen chosen. And name-calling. calling us devils because of a few abusers who we have all called out many times.
We by the grace of God and faith in HIS word have done exploits for the Lord as HE enables us to do so.

Here are a few that have come to be in Pentecostal churches To God Be the glory.

• World mission
• Teen Challenge with a 70% rehabilitation success rate NO governmental program has ever come close Christ-Centered. Out of that program came Second Chance, and Celebrate Recovery all Christ-centered.
• Convoy of Hope
• We are still seeing growth today unlike those who attack us.
• Bible schools & seminaries we train the nations in the word of God.
• Powerful women ministries and evangelism

All that came out of a few, many here attack at Azua Street where Pentacostel were more inclusive with our Black brothers and sister than those of our dear Baptist and others. Our churches are very diverse and reach people for God even during World wars, and the Great Depression. During a pandemic ALL GLORY TO GOD! Some here talk about 1908 here is a picture of Pentecostals 10 years later during the time separation and segregation in this nation Pentacostels was standing alone and as today they were attacked then By other So-called Christians "don't go there you will get what they got." What did they get?

inclusion, breaking racial barriers, and most important encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit empowerment and His gifts.

AG church in Cleveland, Ohio? This is part of a large photo of the Pentecostal Young People's Rally, Upper Shaker Lakes, July 4, 1918. The rally was sponsored by the Pentecostal Church of Cleveland, Ohio, pastored by Assemblies of God pioneer D. W. Kerr.

 

[Amanuensis]

If that means everyone can speak in tongues, that means everyone can prophesy, also. Moses wished that all God's people were prophets. Does that mean that everyone is a prophet or can be?

Yes. Moses was actually prophesying something if you have ears to hear it. On the day of Pentecost Moses's wish came true that God would pour out His Spirit on all His people and that they should all prophesy, both men and women.

 

[Amanuensis]

Yes. Moses was actually prophesying something if you have ears to hear it. On the day of Pentecost Moses's wish came true that God would pour out His Spirit on all His people and that they should all prophesy, both men and women.[/QUOTE

@Amanuensis



If, in Peter's terminology, tongues is a subset of the gift of prophecy and the Old Testament prophecy he quotes cites prophesying as a result of the outpouring of the Spirit in the last days, then why wouldn't you accept both tongues-prophesying and non-tongues-prophesying as evidence of the outpouring of the Spirit. Both show up in Acts 19.

Paul makes a distinction between tongues and prophesying in a list of spiritual gifts and in instructions relating to their practical use in the church.



In I Corinthians 14, speaking in tongues without an interpreter is also called speaking in tongues. The one who speaks in tongues edifies himself, unless he interprets. The 'speaking in tongues' for self-edification and the speaking in tongues that is interpreted is the same thing in this passage. These verses about tongues are the doctrinal basis for tongues being used in private prayer. There is no reason to think that 'Do all speak with tongues?' does not apply to praying in tongues since it is the same 'type of utterance that is interpreted according to chapter 14.



I did not make that point, mainly because of the way 'all' is used in Acts 2, unlike the other two instances in Acts. But again, if all spoke in tongues in Acts 2... and even if it were the case in Acts 10 and 19 without Luke being explicit about it... then that happening to groups of people does not mean that we can put the Holy Spirit in a box. We cannot require that any time someone is baptized with the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit must enable them to speak with tongues. This is not consistent with Paul's teachings.

In real life, the Holy Spirit does not follow these rules. If you look throughout writings of church history there is no indication that a lot of people who prophesied, had visions, healed the sick, etc. spoke in tongues. Many of the evangelicals who saw great healings before the Azusa Street Revival did not speak in tongues while these healings were going on. Some of the early Pentecostals, whether they accepted the 'initial evidence doctrine' or not, were operating in healing before they spoke in tongues, like FF Bosworth, who left the A/G over the initial evidence doctrinal statement, or Smith Wigglesworth, who operated in healing first and later accepted the initial evidence idea.

I appreciate your rebuttal to my statements. I won't address them all since it would just be a repetition of what I have already said.

I think that my previous statements can be supported hermeneutically and that your Mt Sinai argument is does not apply and does not weaken them.

If we analyze only the scripture to answer a theological question this is going to yield a certain answer that might not correspond with what you have seen in your life history or in the history of the church.

"What does the scripture show was the most common outward sign when people received the gift of the Holy Spirit?" And the most common sign was speaking in tongues.

One might say, I don't think that the scripture was intending to point that out. That the scriptures were not intending to answer the question "what was the most common sign" and so all this talk about the answer to that question is so subjective that it should be abandoned altogether.

However, one may say that asking that question and looking for the answer in scripture has served a very good purpose in helping untold billions ask for and experience this gift and knowing that they had not gotten off track from scripture on seeking something outside of scripture.

Lots of personal testimonies of experiences out there that don't line up with scripture. So knowing that speaking in tongues puts one in good company with all those others in the bible who experienced this infilling gives confidence that they can have faith for that which is scriptural.

I believe that Roger Stronstad, William and Robert Menzies, and Gordon Fee do a much better job of presenting their case in a scholarly approach. So much better, that when you read them you feel like some of the other authors you might have read have left so much material out of their presentations that you doubt their honesty. You read Stronstad and Menzies and you wonder why the other authors (like John MacArthur) left all those scriptures out when they were supposed to be writing a scholarly work. Was it because if they had included them it would have destroyed their theories? You'll know what I mean when you read these authors. It's an awakening for many people.

 

[presidente]

Yes. Moses was actually prophesying something if you have ears to hear it. On the day of Pentecost Moses's wish came true that God would pour out His Spirit on all His people and that they should all prophesy, both men and women.

So are you saying when Paul asked if all are apostles and all are prophets, that the answer to the latter question is 'yes'?

 

[presidente]

I think that my previous statements can be supported hermeneutically and that your Mt Sinai argument is does not apply and does not weaken them.

Do you think that if someone goes to Mt. Sinai, he will hear God's audible voice. If not, how is that 'two witnesses of scripture' argument different from initial evidence?

"What does the scripture show was the most common outward sign when people received the gift of the Holy Spirit?" And the most common sign was speaking in tongues.

I agree with that to some extent, if we consider it a 'sign.' But that may be a bit problematic since Paul says tongues are not a sign to them that believe. I would agree that tongues is the most common manifestations in these passage.

But jumping from that to insisting that the Spirit must enable any believer who is filled with the Spirit to speak in tongues is not justified. You are also assuming that have a right to see a supernatural sign that someone else is filled with the Spirit.

Lots of personal testimonies of experiences out there that don't line up with scripture. So knowing that speaking in tongues puts one in good company with all those others in the bible who experienced this infilling gives confidence that they can have faith for that which is scriptural.

Insisting one's personal experience has to happen to everyone else can lead one to doctrine that does not line up with scripture.

I believe that Roger Stronstad, William and Robert Menzies, and Gordon Fee do a much better job of presenting their case in a scholarly approach.

I recall reading a quote from Gordan Fee recently arguing against the idea that it was normative for all Christians to speak with tongues. I think he's from an A/G background, but I am pretty sure he is not a hard core 'initial evidence' guy.

So much better, that when you read them you feel like some of the other authors you might have read have left so much material out of their presentations that you doubt their honesty. You read Stronstad and Menzies and you wonder why the other authors (like John MacArthur) left all those scriptures out when they were supposed to be writing a scholarly work. Was it because if they had included them it would have destroyed their theories? You'll know what I mean when you read these authors. It's an awakening for many people.

I'm not a big commentary guy. If I read a commentary, it's something old and historical, usually. I wouldn't expect John MacArthur to have much of value to contribute. He's preached some pretty messed up, off the wall ideas, like the idea that 'tongue' in the singular in I Corinthians is 'pagan tongues' while the plural is the real thing. But verse 27-28 uses the singular and instructs that it be interpreted. It's pretty nonsensical and easily debunked with a concordance.

 

[Amanuensis]

@Amanuensis

If, in Peter's terminology, tongues is a subset of the gift of prophecy and the Old Testament prophecy he quotes cites prophesying as a result of the outpouring of the Spirit in the last days, then why wouldn't you accept both tongues-prophesying and non-tongues-prophesying as evidence of the outpouring of the Spirit. Both show up in Acts 19.

Good point. And my answer would be that if Peter is referring to their speaking in tongues as the fulfilment of that prophesy of Joel that they would prophesy, then that would support the idea that Peter saw speaking in tongues as the sign. It strengthens the tongues argument.

The strength of the AG argument that tongue will be the initial sign is based on the interpretation that it was present at each event where groups were filled with the Holy Spirit.

If tongues was not involved in each account then that would of course weaken that position that tongues must be evident.

And I would agree that we should not attempt to define what God can and cannot do in regards to gifts he bestows. But that same argument would support the idea that anyone can speak in tongues if they ask in faith believing based on their faith that the promise is to them according to Acts 2:39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

 

[Amanuensis]

So are you saying when Paul asked if all are apostles and all are prophets, that the answer to the latter question is 'yes'?

That is a different context and use of the word. Paul said he wanted them all to seek the gift of prophesy. All can receive this gift. Not all will manifest that gift in the assembly at the same time, but take turns. Not all will operate in the office of the New Testament Prophet, not All will be Pastors. That is a different context.

24So Moses went out and told the people what the Lord had said. He brought together seventy of their elders and had them stand around the tent. 25Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied—but did not do so again.

26However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. 27A young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.”

28Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses’ aide since youth, spoke up and said, “Moses, my lord, stop them!”

29But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!”

Now it seems clear to me and most commentators you read on this, that Moses, having God's heart was speaking for God when he said I wish that all God's people were prophets and that Lord would put HIs Spirit on them?" And that this was indeed a kind of prophesy of what would happen because of what Jesus accomplished in his death, burial, resurrection, ascension and the out pouring of the Holy Spirit. The way has now been opened and all God's people can operate in prophetic gifts which include all the gifts of the Spirit.

When Jesus told them John was the greatest prophet but that the least in the kingdom was greater he was talking about what a great change will take place when the Holy Spirit has been given. We now have been given the baton of the prophets. We are all prophets in a sense though we do not all have that office or position.

 

[presidente]

Good point. And my answer would be that if Peter is referring to their speaking in tongues as the fulfilment of that prophesy of Joel that they would prophesy, then that would support the idea that Peter saw speaking in tongues as the sign. It strengthens the tongues argument.

If Peter sees tongues as one expression of a broader category of prophesying, then he expects prophesying to result from the outpouring of the Spirit. Both tongues and prophesying show up in Acts 19.

Shouldn't you then accept either tongues or prophesying in a known language as 'initial evidence'? Shouldn't you include interpretation in the category of prophetic speech and 'initial evidence' also, if that were the case. Joel also mentions visions and dreams, which we might include in a broader category.

But again, prophesying among the people of God, predicted in Joel is not the same as making engaging in a particular prophetic utterance to be required as a sign to fellow believers that one is filled with the Spirit. Paul does not do that.

He does write, collectively, to the saints in one epistle to be filled with the Spirit, 'speaking to yourselves in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.'

The strength of the AG argument that tongue will be the initial sign is based on the interpretation that it was present at each event where groups were filled with the Holy Spirit.

And the weaknesses are-- that does not justify insisting on a sign that an __individual__ is filled with the Spirit, and also the fact that it is not clear that all spoke in tongues. Other activities that occurred at these outpourings were magnifying God and prophesying. Those should not be discounted either.

And I would agree that we should not attempt to define what God can and cannot do in regards to gifts he bestows. But that same argument would support the idea that anyone can speak in tongues if they ask in faith believing based on their faith that the promise is to them according to Acts 2:39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

All things are possible to Him that believes. You can pray for any gift, not just tongues. if you pray according to God's will, you can know that you have received them.

But notice in the passage, the gift there is the gift of the Spirit that is promised, not the gift of speaking in tongues.

 

[presidente]

@Amanuensis

I think many of us have heard thoughts along these lines, but notice Moses did wish they all were __prophets__. If you make a distinction between prophets and prophesying in I Corinthians, why isn't it important in Moses' words?

The A/G practically treats the 'prophets' of I Corinthians 14:29 as those who utter prophecies in the assembly.

 

[Amanuensis]

I recall reading a quote from Gordan Fee recently arguing against the idea that it was normative for all Christians to speak with tongues. I think he's from an A/G background, but I am pretty sure he is not a hard core 'initial evidence' guy.

I look forward to reading his presentations on it. I know that there are several things that he takes the AG to task about concerning the even using the terminology "baptism of the Holy Spirit" and when I read his hermeneutical reasoning about that I agreed with him though I have not read everything he said about it yet.

The initial evidence statement is not meant to be contended for like the apostles creed or scripture.

There are probably many AG credential holders that don't believe that one must speak in tongues to have had this experience they call the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I think they are still trying to decide what they really think about this even though they know what the AG expects them to say about it.

Through the years many AG ministers have resigned their credentials over this one discussion we are having about it.

My opinion is that it does seem to be God's intention that anyone can receive these gifts, all of them, any of them as the Lord wills to give them to minister in the power of the Holy Spirit and they all operate by faith. Not everyone in a church will receive them and they are still saved. Not everyone will speak in tongues that is saved. You don't have to operate in any Spiritual gift to be saved. Most won't today. Even in an AG church. Many can attend an AG church for years and wonder why all the discussion about it. They have never seen a single instance of any of these gifts.

 

[Amanuensis]

@Amanuensis

I think many of us have heard thoughts along these lines, but notice Moses did wish they all were __prophets__. If you make a distinction between prophets and prophesying in I Corinthians, why isn't it important in Moses' words?

The A/G practically treats the 'prophets' of I Corinthians 14:29 as those who utter prophecies in the assembly.

Sure and "I would that all God's people were prophets" is still the cry of God's Spirit today. Many will never abandoned themselves to that call and it is sad.

I think Moses words are that simple. God want's to pour out his Spirit on all, and make them all experience gifts of prophecy in all its manifestations and form. Prophesying in an ecstatic utterance because of the outpouring of the Spirit, prophesying of things to come, prophesying as in exposing the secrets of a mans heart and causing them to believe that God is in you of a truth, prophesying on a street corner speaking like a "prophet" from God with a message for heaven or in a church service warning of a famine, and even speaking in tongues with an interpretation which is as good as prophecy according to Paul.

"The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets," (Paul clearly qualifies the statement that prophesy is GREATER that tongues by adding UNLESS someone interprets, thus making it equal to prophesy because all are then edified by understanding.

 

[KarynLouise]

The thread is simple. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit. And this gift as all gifts of the Holy Spirit is to be desired as instructed by the Lord Jesus and addressed by PAUL IN 1COR CHAPTER 12.

Nothing in the word of God tells us the gifts of the Holy Spirit have stopped at the completion of the canon of the bible. Nothing done in foolishness by some Pentecostals & Charismatics make the gifts of the Holy Spirit to no effect.

Those who say they have not seen anything to validate these gifts are real or even happening today are with those person(s) and not reflective of all who are Christians that are empowered by the Holy Spirit.
They need to get out more I guess. They have no biblical refutation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that have ceased. None. They talk about personal experiences with Pentacostel denominations or past affiliation with them or how many years they were A/G COG, COGIC, Four Square, etc.

I would like to see in the BIBLE where says they are not for today? Just one verse? They only use 1cor 13:8-10.

Yet the verses say no such thing BUT they know better. When called on it they bring up human reasoning or interject Secular humanistic linguists to speak on the Supernatural working of the Holy Spirit, BUT not the word of God.

Using Funny Youtube videos of people being foolish, yep many of them too. But no authoritative word of God saying they have stopped or not for today.

"No, no, no, I have studied the pentacostel movement", (from the bias they have) "and Occult practices and pagan ones too from India."

Just nothing Biblical. Looking outside the word of to disprove what those who saw in the word of God dared to believe in faith the gifts are for all today and never stopped. Please have at it.
Pentacostel churches have been given great and powerful success and praiseworthy works for the Lord Jesus Christ, that will be ignored by haters, who do nothing for the kingdom of God, sitting in dead churches speaking to the frozen chosen. And name-calling. calling us devils because of a few abusers who we have all called out many times.
We by the grace of God and faith in HIS word have done exploits for the Lord as HE enables us to do so.

Here are a few that have come to be in Pentecostal churches To God Be the glory.

• World mission
• Teen Challenge with a 70% rehabilitation success rate NO governmental program has ever come close Christ-Centered. Out of that program came Second Chance, and Celebrate Recovery all Christ-centered.
• Convoy of Hope
• We are still seeing growth today unlike those who attack us.
• Bible schools & seminaries we train the nations in the word of God.
• Powerful women ministries and evangelism

All that came out of a few, many here attack at Azua Street where Pentacostel were more inclusive with our Black brothers and sister than those of our dear Baptist and others. Our churches are very diverse and reach people for God even during World wars, and the Great Depression. During a pandemic ALL GLORY TO GOD! Some here talk about 1908 here is a picture of Pentecostals 10 years later during the time separation and segregation in this nation Pentacostels was standing alone and as today they were attacked then By other So-called Christians "don't go there you will get what they got." What did they get?

inclusion, breaking racial barriers, and most important encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit empowerment and His gifts.

AG church in Cleveland, Ohio? This is part of a large photo of the Pentecostal Young People's Rally, Upper Shaker Lakes, July 4, 1918. The rally was sponsored by the Pentecostal Church of Cleveland, Ohio, pastored by Assemblies of God pioneer D. W. Kerr.

That definitely sounds like a history to be proud of. It's great to see God working through any movement. Just don't say your denomination is the only true church, and I'm happy.

 

[CS1]

That definitely sounds like a history to be proud of. It's great to see God working through any movement. Just don't say your denomination is the only true church, and I'm happy.

I did not it was the only one, I said HE is doing it where others are attacking.