Some truth about speaking in tongues, the Holy Ghost, spiritual gifts and 1 Corinthians 14
- Thread starter KelbyofGod
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
That you call me a liar is strong tobacco, but if you feel well to do it go ahead.
But why it is so difficult for you to prepare scripture ore even examples out of the churchhistory which proofes that it was taught and practised that speaking in tongues is the sign/proof that someone is filled/baptised with the HolySpirit. The Azusa event is called, if i am pentecost, as 2nd pentecost ore latter rain.
Why Agnes Ozman is called the first person who got the baptism with the Holy Spirit with sign speaking in tongues?
Why not Martin Luther, Calvin, Moody, Irving, Finney ore somebody else?
Where are the writings of this persons in which the claim to be baptised with the Holy Spirit and got the gift of speaking in tongues as sign for it?
Where are the writings of this persons in which they taught this?
I would be glad if you could prepare this proofs. Only to mention that those people mention speaking in tongues is no proof that they taught that speaking in tongues is the sign/proof that someone is filled/baptised with the Holy Spirit.
For shure we have this teaching and practice since 1901. Isnt it not interesting that the Pope Leo xiii called out the new century 1. Jan.1901 as the century of the Holy Spirit ( hymnus: veni creator spiritus), encouraged from an RCC nun? The same date when Agnes ozman received the baptism with the Holy Spirit and as evidence the gift of speaking in tongues.
But why it is so difficult for you to prepare scripture ore even examples out of the churchhistory which proofes that it was taught and practised that speaking in tongues is the sign/proof that someone is filled/baptised with the HolySpirit. The Azusa event is called, if i am pentecost, as 2nd pentecost ore latter rain.
Why Agnes Ozman is called the first person who got the baptism with the Holy Spirit with sign speaking in tongues?
Why not Martin Luther, Calvin, Moody, Irving, Finney ore somebody else?
Where are the writings of this persons in which the claim to be baptised with the Holy Spirit and got the gift of speaking in tongues as sign for it?
Where are the writings of this persons in which they taught this?
I would be glad if you could prepare this proofs. Only to mention that those people mention speaking in tongues is no proof that they taught that speaking in tongues is the sign/proof that someone is filled/baptised with the Holy Spirit.
For shure we have this teaching and practice since 1901. Isnt it not interesting that the Pope Leo xiii called out the new century 1. Jan.1901 as the century of the Holy Spirit ( hymnus: veni creator spiritus), encouraged from an RCC nun? The same date when Agnes ozman received the baptism with the Holy Spirit and as evidence the gift of speaking in tongues.
lol you say church history is not authoritative so you were given Biblical verses to show were the doctrine of initial evidence is seen in Acts. You want more proof. LOL. what more proof do you need? it's there in Acts LOL you Acts like thr Holy Spirit has to perform according to your understanding in direct refute of scripture.
In answer:
1a) It's not difficult to show. I'll say it slowly... Acts IS ... prepared ... examples ... out of church history ... which teach ... that in practice ... speaking in tongues is the sign/proof that someone is filled/baptised with the HolySpirit. (examples to follow in 1b).
When someone rejects what the bible says/shows/records, and instead leans on what man says/shows/records, etc, ... its not a problem of preparing....it's a problem of unbelief.
1b) Acts 2:4, Acts 10:45-47, Acts 19:6. And Acts 8:12-17 clearly teaches that even when someone has "Received the word of God, Believed, and was Baptized in the name of Jesus" that they STILL need to receive the Holy Ghost! And that receiving the Holy Ghost is an event observable by others (Acts 8:18) (because speaking in tongues is a SIGN.... an observable marker) <---That's God-prepared, Bible examples, of church history.
2) Why should we care what the Azuza event is called? It seems like you call it one thing. Someone else calls it something else. You're both men. You both could be lying, mistaken, wrong, etc. We could just throw Azuza street out and rely on the bible examples. Same with the other recordings of men from 300 A.D.-present.
3) If you really want to know why, then ask the person who said it... or God (who searches the hearts).
4) You can call them whatever you like.
5) I don't know what particular person you are referring to. (possibly because I don't know who wrote the book of Acts)
6) This seems like a redundant question to me.
7) It may be interesting, but so are butterflies. I don't think either are proven to be relevant to the topic... even if there were butterflies on Azusa street.
With Love for you in Jesus,
Kelby
1a) It's not difficult to show. I'll say it slowly... Acts IS ... prepared ... examples ... out of church history ... which teach ... that in practice ... speaking in tongues is the sign/proof that someone is filled/baptised with the HolySpirit. (examples to follow in 1b).
When someone rejects what the bible says/shows/records, and instead leans on what man says/shows/records, etc, ... its not a problem of preparing....it's a problem of unbelief.
1b) Acts 2:4, Acts 10:45-47, Acts 19:6. And Acts 8:12-17 clearly teaches that even when someone has "Received the word of God, Believed, and was Baptized in the name of Jesus" that they STILL need to receive the Holy Ghost! And that receiving the Holy Ghost is an event observable by others (Acts 8:18) (because speaking in tongues is a SIGN.... an observable marker) <---That's God-prepared, Bible examples, of church history.
2) Why should we care what the Azuza event is called? It seems like you call it one thing. Someone else calls it something else. You're both men. You both could be lying, mistaken, wrong, etc. We could just throw Azuza street out and rely on the bible examples. Same with the other recordings of men from 300 A.D.-present.
3) If you really want to know why, then ask the person who said it... or God (who searches the hearts).
4) You can call them whatever you like.
5) I don't know what particular person you are referring to. (possibly because I don't know who wrote the book of Acts)
6) This seems like a redundant question to me.
7) It may be interesting, but so are butterflies. I don't think either are proven to be relevant to the topic... even if there were butterflies on Azusa street.
With Love for you in Jesus,
Kelby
Luke the physician, disciple and Apostle wrote the book of Acts.
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles
whom he had chosen:
Acts 1:
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou might know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Luke 1:
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles
whom he had chosen:
Acts 1:
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou might know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Luke 1:
Your answer shows me, that you cant give me an proof that this was taught in the NT. Only that it is as an fact was mentioned in acts is no proof that this was taught.
Show me 1 biblical scripture where this was taught to other believers.
And you cant find it in churchhistory, because it was not taught. Since 1900
So you telling me something as truth what was not taught in the bible.
Show me 1 biblical scripture where this was taught to other believers.
And you cant find it in churchhistory, because it was not taught. Since 1900
So you telling me something as truth what was not taught in the bible.
-
1
- Show all
S
Pentecostals do not teach that you must be baptized in the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues to be a "real believer". There may be a minority group out there, an ignorant extremist, who might say such a thing. but they do not express the views of most Pentecostals. The examples in Acts are of believers who are already born again receiving this gift. The largest Pentecostal group Assemblies of God (70 million worldwide) have published doctrinal papers on this subject and they are worth reading. They make it clear that they believe a person is born again by faith in Jesus Christ and that the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in the believer at that time and that person is saved or a "real believer". This is not the same as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to receive power to be a witness. When people make the accusation that Pentecostals teach that you have to speak in tongues to be saved I often wonder if they actually heard someone make such a stupid statement or if they are just making that accusation up on the fly in an attempt to get people to agree with their views. As if they are hoping people will believe that Pentecostals teach that, when they know they do not. Like the Judaizers accusing Paul of teaching something extreme that they knew he did not teach but spreading the lies anyway just to turn people away from hearing anything he preached.
Now you may have heard that speaking in tongues is the biblical evidence that one was baptized in the Holy Ghost. I challenge you to search the scriptures in Acts and come up with better scriptural evidence. The following passage from Acts tells us that speaking in tongues was how Peter knew they had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
I know it can be divisive to make dogmatic statements that are not found in the scriptures such as "..with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues" however if we take a step back and reexamine the question "What is the biblical pattern that occurred in the book of Acts when believers were Baptized in the Holy Ghost?" And I think we can safely say "most of the time they spoke in tongues." Remember this is not the born again experience but a separate secondary work of grace. At least it appears to be so when we examine the scriptures.
Now you may have heard that speaking in tongues is the biblical evidence that one was baptized in the Holy Ghost. I challenge you to search the scriptures in Acts and come up with better scriptural evidence. The following passage from Acts tells us that speaking in tongues was how Peter knew they had received the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
I know it can be divisive to make dogmatic statements that are not found in the scriptures such as "..with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues" however if we take a step back and reexamine the question "What is the biblical pattern that occurred in the book of Acts when believers were Baptized in the Holy Ghost?" And I think we can safely say "most of the time they spoke in tongues." Remember this is not the born again experience but a separate secondary work of grace. At least it appears to be so when we examine the scriptures.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Thank you for explanation. If i am not wrong the oneness pentecostals are around 24 000 000, thats nearly a third of germany citizien. And I met pentecostals which say, i am not a real christian if i have not this second expierience/ grace / baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues.
But i know the the pentecostal and chsrismazic movements splittet and have different teachings.
Where is it taught in the bible that someone, if he got the Holy Spirit again must recieve him and as proof for this he get the gift of speaking in tongues?
But i know the the pentecostal and chsrismazic movements splittet and have different teachings.
Where is it taught in the bible that someone, if he got the Holy Spirit again must recieve him and as proof for this he get the gift of speaking in tongues?
You are misinterpreting that passage. Here is what is recorded:
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. [Apostolic Commission given]
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: [Holy Spirit given to the apostles]
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. [Apostolic authority given]
On the Day of Pentecost, the apostles were empowered, filled, and gifted by the Holy Spirit. But they had already been indwelt by the Spirit since the day of resurrection.
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:...
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. [Apostolic Commission given]
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: [Holy Spirit given to the apostles]
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. [Apostolic authority given]
On the Day of Pentecost, the apostles were empowered, filled, and gifted by the Holy Spirit. But they had already been indwelt by the Spirit since the day of resurrection.
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:...
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
if you met those who were Pentecostal and said you are not a real Christian because of the reasons you were told why can 't judge individual who said that instead of all? many of US including me have told you they are wrong and I am Pentecostal. Should judge you based on those who said Pentecostals have a demon? come on.
-
1
- Show all
To Wolfwint and All,
It won't be enough to say "No one proved it to me" when standing before God. If you've chosen some criteria (such as whether you can find it preached 300-1900 A.D.) to base your beliefs upon, then it is up to you, not others, to seek out the full truth of that matter, in any salvational matter. (And whether or not you NEED speaking in tongues is indeed a salvational matter.)
It is up to you to work out your own salvation, not me or anyone else to work it out for you.
If you have decided that the only way you will believe & receive speaking in tongues is if you can find it being taught as necessary during that time frame, then it is up to you to search it out. (Your choice of criteria = Your responsibility to research).
Have you REALLY searched with all your heart to find out if it is there? ... Searched as if "strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life and FEW there be that FIND it"?
I determined long ago that I wasn't going to trust man's recording of history because man is untrustable. As a result, I haven't collected historical accounts.
Someone was kind enough to point out to me that speaking in tongues was how they knew people had received the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts (the book of the bible that documents these outpourings)...and that we need the same Holy Ghost as was poured out on them (because the promise is unto ALL that the Lord shall call)..and that we should receive this promise if we repent and get baptized in Jesus' name for remission(washing away) of sins. <--this happens to be what is biblically recorded as Peter preaching on salvation.
I believed so I asked to get baptized in water in accordance with Acts 2:38. That part was physically easy. In short, I asked to get dunked, and the pastor dunked me. The next part is what I was concerned about.
Then they told me to ask God for the Holy Ghost (with tongues), which I did whilst really wondering how this part was going to happen because I had no intentions of making it up whether to please man or to make "God" look good. It involved some struggling/resistance on my part but God got it to me and now I speak in tongues.
You can say that is anecdotal, and you'd be correct. I cannot prove to anyone that God will give them the Holy Ghost. But I can tell them that yes, indeed, the promise is unto ALL that the Lord calls. And He is calling ALL.
I am one of stammering lips and another tongue who speaks to this (who visit the forum) people saying "THIS (the stammering lips and another tongue that the Holy Ghost gives) IS the REST wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest, and THIS (the stammering lips and another tongue that the Holy Ghost gives) IS the REFRESHING".
THIS (speaking in tongues) is the REST because it (the Spirit itself) "makes intercession for us" because "we know not what we should pray for as we ought"... so it carries the load of praying correctly (or "well") FOR us. ...and...
THIS (speaking in tongues) is the REFRESHING because it "helpeth our infirmities" as is also written in 1 Cor. 14:4a "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself".
The only part that remains is to be seen is if you will be one that fulfills the last portion of those verses in Isaiah 28... "yet they would not hear".
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
It won't be enough to say "No one proved it to me" when standing before God. If you've chosen some criteria (such as whether you can find it preached 300-1900 A.D.) to base your beliefs upon, then it is up to you, not others, to seek out the full truth of that matter, in any salvational matter. (And whether or not you NEED speaking in tongues is indeed a salvational matter.)
It is up to you to work out your own salvation, not me or anyone else to work it out for you.
If you have decided that the only way you will believe & receive speaking in tongues is if you can find it being taught as necessary during that time frame, then it is up to you to search it out. (Your choice of criteria = Your responsibility to research).
Have you REALLY searched with all your heart to find out if it is there? ... Searched as if "strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life and FEW there be that FIND it"?
I determined long ago that I wasn't going to trust man's recording of history because man is untrustable. As a result, I haven't collected historical accounts.
Someone was kind enough to point out to me that speaking in tongues was how they knew people had received the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts (the book of the bible that documents these outpourings)...and that we need the same Holy Ghost as was poured out on them (because the promise is unto ALL that the Lord shall call)..and that we should receive this promise if we repent and get baptized in Jesus' name for remission(washing away) of sins. <--this happens to be what is biblically recorded as Peter preaching on salvation.
I believed so I asked to get baptized in water in accordance with Acts 2:38. That part was physically easy. In short, I asked to get dunked, and the pastor dunked me. The next part is what I was concerned about.
Then they told me to ask God for the Holy Ghost (with tongues), which I did whilst really wondering how this part was going to happen because I had no intentions of making it up whether to please man or to make "God" look good. It involved some struggling/resistance on my part but God got it to me and now I speak in tongues.
You can say that is anecdotal, and you'd be correct. I cannot prove to anyone that God will give them the Holy Ghost. But I can tell them that yes, indeed, the promise is unto ALL that the Lord calls. And He is calling ALL.
I am one of stammering lips and another tongue who speaks to this (who visit the forum) people saying "THIS (the stammering lips and another tongue that the Holy Ghost gives) IS the REST wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest, and THIS (the stammering lips and another tongue that the Holy Ghost gives) IS the REFRESHING".
THIS (speaking in tongues) is the REST because it (the Spirit itself) "makes intercession for us" because "we know not what we should pray for as we ought"... so it carries the load of praying correctly (or "well") FOR us. ...and...
THIS (speaking in tongues) is the REFRESHING because it "helpeth our infirmities" as is also written in 1 Cor. 14:4a "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself".
The only part that remains is to be seen is if you will be one that fulfills the last portion of those verses in Isaiah 28... "yet they would not hear".
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
-
2
-
1
- Show all
The passage in context is not about saved and unsaved. It is about Israel and those who were actively looking for their promised Messiah and those who were not. The context is not about the church. What is bogus is the application of a dubious teaching of modern day tongues on everything you read in the scriptures. You have only a private interpretation and unsound doctrine. You are ready to receive the promised one of the tribulation.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Well, when I became a christian in 1987 i met in the beginning also believers from penteostal church who told me about this baptising and speaking in tongues. And I have asked my father in heaven if this teaching is right, i want have this speaking in tongues, too.
Well, i did not got it and i find no wrong in it to get it not.
Since I became a christian, I also could identify if some teaching is wrong. I met in the beginning many people from cults and strange believings
which want to convince me from their believe. I always " felt" that their is something wrong. In this time i did not know much about christianity.
The same " feeling" i got concern this teaching about the baptising with the Holy Spirit and the evidence is the speaking in tongues.
When I now recognize that this teaching was not taught in the bible and was not realized in the churchhistory till 1901, then i have no reason to trust that this teaching is from God.
Doing healings, miracles and speakimg in tongues is no realy a proof that something is from God. Jesus himself said this.
And when i then realize that millions of "spiritfilled"believers have no problem to accept the f.e.RCC doctrine, ore that woman become eldest, ore preach a health and wealth gospel. I cant believe that the same Spirit is behind, as the Spirit who is said from that he comes for to teach the truth.
This teaching splittet christianity in spiritfilled(speaking in tongues) and not spiritfilled(do not speak in tongues)
And they proclaime a teaching that someone who can speak in tongues cam be more intimate with God then somebody who speaks not in tongues.
But it is interesting that in the moral and ethik behaviour is no different between a believer who speaks in tongues and and a believer who does not.
Thank you for all your explaining, but this teaching i cant find from our heavenly father.
Well, i did not got it and i find no wrong in it to get it not.
Since I became a christian, I also could identify if some teaching is wrong. I met in the beginning many people from cults and strange believings
which want to convince me from their believe. I always " felt" that their is something wrong. In this time i did not know much about christianity.
The same " feeling" i got concern this teaching about the baptising with the Holy Spirit and the evidence is the speaking in tongues.
When I now recognize that this teaching was not taught in the bible and was not realized in the churchhistory till 1901, then i have no reason to trust that this teaching is from God.
Doing healings, miracles and speakimg in tongues is no realy a proof that something is from God. Jesus himself said this.
And when i then realize that millions of "spiritfilled"believers have no problem to accept the f.e.RCC doctrine, ore that woman become eldest, ore preach a health and wealth gospel. I cant believe that the same Spirit is behind, as the Spirit who is said from that he comes for to teach the truth.
This teaching splittet christianity in spiritfilled(speaking in tongues) and not spiritfilled(do not speak in tongues)
And they proclaime a teaching that someone who can speak in tongues cam be more intimate with God then somebody who speaks not in tongues.
But it is interesting that in the moral and ethik behaviour is no different between a believer who speaks in tongues and and a believer who does not.
Thank you for all your explaining, but this teaching i cant find from our heavenly father.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
completely opinionated and based on personal experience. Did not see one Biblical context or verse to support the claim. I see I asked God for something He did not do it. 12 times you use "I", yet not one verse. You suggest one divides, accepts RCC doctrine? Acts chapter 2, 1cor chapter 12 to 14 Jesus words HIMSELF in Matt and in Mark are they RCC doctrine? You are just a bias person.
This quote feels a lot more like something that a person can answer in a friendly way rather than with a scriptural line in the sand....and I appreciate it. I hope it's OK that I paraphrase it back to you to see if I understand it in a way where we will be starting at a place of agreement. Here's what I heard:
1. You discovered and believed in Jesus in 1987.
2. When you met some pentecostals and they told you about speaking in tongues as a part of baptism in the Holy Ghost, you were open to receive it as long as it was from God.
3. However, you did not receive it at that time.
4. You also did not see it as a scriptural necessity.
5. Since becoming a christian you have met many cults and feel confident that you can tell when something is wrong.
6. You get the same feeling that something is wrong about the doctrine that speaking in tongues is a necessity.
7. That, plus the fact that you don't see it in historical documents or spelled out in the bible, leads you to conclude that it is not necessary.
8. Miracles do not guarantee Godliness
9. Speaking in tongues is a divisive doctrine, if preached as a necessity. Especially when they claim a deeper level of intimacy w/God.
10. In real life, tongues-speakers don't seem to live any better than any other proclaiming christian. Sometimes even worse.
Is that a fair summary of what you said? (I only numbered them so it would be easy for you to say "Number 'X' is wrong". Thanks.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
1. You discovered and believed in Jesus in 1987.
2. When you met some pentecostals and they told you about speaking in tongues as a part of baptism in the Holy Ghost, you were open to receive it as long as it was from God.
3. However, you did not receive it at that time.
4. You also did not see it as a scriptural necessity.
5. Since becoming a christian you have met many cults and feel confident that you can tell when something is wrong.
6. You get the same feeling that something is wrong about the doctrine that speaking in tongues is a necessity.
7. That, plus the fact that you don't see it in historical documents or spelled out in the bible, leads you to conclude that it is not necessary.
8. Miracles do not guarantee Godliness
9. Speaking in tongues is a divisive doctrine, if preached as a necessity. Especially when they claim a deeper level of intimacy w/God.
10. In real life, tongues-speakers don't seem to live any better than any other proclaiming christian. Sometimes even worse.
Is that a fair summary of what you said? (I only numbered them so it would be easy for you to say "Number 'X' is wrong". Thanks.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby