Holy Ghost

[JesusisGod2]

Jesus said in Luke 12:51 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." Until Jesus returns and sets up his Kingdom, we will always have division. The only way you could end division and bring about absolute unity is if one side agreed to take the position of the other. In other words, the strife over tongues could be ended if those who accept them suddenly rejected them, or people that reject them suddenly accept them. It is a two way street. Will we all come to unity on this matter? It is highly doubtful.

Perhaps this is the reason that Paul said the following:

1 Cor 2:2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

[David from New Bern]

As Christians we are looking for unity in truth, and never unity at the cost of truth. I know I'm bordering on being pushy. But on this huge forum, certainly someone can give a truthful testimony of an isolated event where "the gift of Speaking in Tongues" was employed and an unbeliever came to Christ as a result. This would meet the Biblical criteria of a modern use of the gift. Again, I believe it is still possible, but I don't see it happening. So help me see it. I know that most of what is being employed as a use of the gift are tied to the gift of prophecy. During a prayer service or emotional response from an audience someone begins to speak in tongues and a few minutes latter an interpretation is given. It is usually prophetic in nature or affirming of a church or a message. Where is the Biblical precedence for this?

Edited April 12, 2006 by David from New Bern

[David from New Bern]

As Christians we are looking for unity in truth, and never unity at the cost of truth. I know I'm bordering on being pushy. But on this huge forum, certainly someone can give a truthful testimony of an isolated event where "the gift of Speaking in Tongues" was employed and an unbeliever came to Christ as a result. This would meet the Biblical criteria of a modern use of the gift. Again, I believe it is still possible, but I don't see it happening. So help me see it. I know that most of what is being employed as a use of the gift are tied to the gift of prophecy. During a prayer service or emotional response from an audience someone begins to speak in tongues and a few minutes latter an interpretation is given. It is usually prophetic in nature or affirming of a church or a message. Where is the Biblical precedence for this?

In the first place, what you are looking for is anecdotal evidence for why tongues are necessary today. You want someone to show an incident where a person believed God is real because they saw someone speak in tongues? That's rediculous. People visit churches every day, and I have no way of knowing what influenced them to give their life to Christ. Was it the song service? Was it the message? Was it a spiritual gift they saw manifested? Was it perhaps a wide array of things, including the leading of the Holy Ghost? There is a song the Steeles do called, "I Got Up And Went." The song talks about how that a person sat in their seat with no reaction to the songs or the sermon. It wasn't until the Spirit drew them that they actually went to the alter. "When the Spirit said come, I got up and went." That song was written by a Baptist minister by the way who is now singing gospel music. Point is, this is a straw argument.

Now concerning where there is Biblical precedent for a message being spoken forth and tongues followed by an interpretation, here it is. 1 Corinthians 14:23-28

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all.

25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

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.

28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

What the Bible is saying here is that it makes no sense to have a congregation speaking in tongues if there is no interpretation given. It is out of order and will make a visitor think they are crazy. Even after the disciples came out of the upper room, at first some thought them to be drunk on wine. At the same time, if after the message is spoken forth in an orderly manner an interpretation is given, it gives glory to God, edifies the body, and brings about faith to the doubters.

Also notice that in verse 28 it says if there is no interpreter present, keep silent in the church with regard to tongues, however we are told to speak quietly to ourselves and to God. This is refering to prayer tongues. They don't edify anyone else, but do edify the one praying. The Holy Spirit prays to God directly for our needs. Since we cannot understand what is being said, we don't get in the way. We might desire something else, or may not want what the Spirit is praying for, yet he knows what is best for us. Bottom line, there is Biblical precedent for tongues and interpretation of tongues in church.

You are maneuvering around my post but not addressing directly my statements. I would not expect you to have definable evidence of an unbeliever coming to Christ in every instance of its modern practice. But certainly if a church or movement is frequently seeing this phenomenon there has to be some testimonies to that affect. My prior post said that people are connecting the gift of tongues to the gift of prophecy (foretelling), where is the Biblical precedence for this. The passage you quote is Paul's reprimand of a misguided church abusing the gift. The church of Corinth was a troubled church with immoral isssues in its leadership. It was also an international city with many cultures and languages present in its fellowship. And you will also recall from your read of the letter a church very divided, and the erroneous practice of tongues was adding to the dissension. At this point in the conversation, I'm can honestly say help me understand. Most I talk to will concede at this point and say, "but I know what I experienced was real."

[David from New Bern]

As Christians we are looking for unity in truth, and never unity at the cost of truth. I know I'm bordering on being pushy. But on this huge forum, certainly someone can give a truthful testimony of an isolated event where "the gift of Speaking in Tongues" was employed and an unbeliever came to Christ as a result. This would meet the Biblical criteria of a modern use of the gift. Again, I believe it is still possible, but I don't see it happening. So help me see it. I know that most of what is being employed as a use of the gift are tied to the gift of prophecy. During a prayer service or emotional response from an audience someone begins to speak in tongues and a few minutes latter an interpretation is given. It is usually prophetic in nature or affirming of a church or a message. Where is the Biblical precedence for this?

In the first place, what you are looking for is anecdotal evidence for why tongues are necessary today. You want someone to show an incident where a person believed God is real because they saw someone speak in tongues? That's rediculous. People visit churches every day, and I have no way of knowing what influenced them to give their life to Christ. Was it the song service? Was it the message? Was it a spiritual gift they saw manifested? Was it perhaps a wide array of things, including the leading of the Holy Ghost? There is a song the Steeles do called, "I Got Up And Went." The song talks about how that a person sat in their seat with no reaction to the songs or the sermon. It wasn't until the Spirit drew them that they actually went to the alter. "When the Spirit said come, I got up and went." That song was written by a Baptist minister by the way who is now singing gospel music. Point is, this is a straw argument.

Now concerning where there is Biblical precedent for a message being spoken forth and tongues followed by an interpretation, here it is. 1 Corinthians 14:23-28

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all.

25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

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.

28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

What the Bible is saying here is that it makes no sense to have a congregation speaking in tongues if there is no interpretation given. It is out of order and will make a visitor think they are crazy. Even after the disciples came out of the upper room, at first some thought them to be drunk on wine. At the same time, if after the message is spoken forth in an orderly manner an interpretation is given, it gives glory to God, edifies the body, and brings about faith to the doubters.

Also notice that in verse 28 it says if there is no interpreter present, keep silent in the church with regard to tongues, however we are told to speak quietly to ourselves and to God. This is refering to prayer tongues. They don't edify anyone else, but do edify the one praying. The Holy Spirit prays to God directly for our needs. Since we cannot understand what is being said, we don't get in the way. We might desire something else, or may not want what the Spirit is praying for, yet he knows what is best for us. Bottom line, there is Biblical precedent for tongues and interpretation of tongues in church.

You are maneuvering around my post but not addressing directly my statements. I would not expect you to have definable evidence of an unbeliever coming to Christ in every instance of its modern practice. But certainly if a church or movement is frequently seeing this phenomenon there has to be some testimonies to that affect. My prior post said that people are connecting the gift of tongues to the gift of prophecy (foretelling), where is the Biblical precedence for this. The passage you quote is Paul's reprimand of a misguided church abusing the gift. The church of Corinth was a troubled church with immoral isssues in its leadership. It was also an international city with many cultures and languages present in its fellowship. And you will also recall from your read of the letter a church very divided, and the erroneous practice of tongues was adding to the dissension. At this point in the conversation, I'm can honestly say help me understand. Most I talk to will concede at this point and say, "but I know what I experienced was real."

Actually brother, I would never give as an answer, "but I know what I experienced was real." When it comes to matters of doctrine, it must be scripturally based, not emotionally. It is my experience that those who don't believe often do so because they have not experienced speaking in tongues, or because they have become hostile toward Pentecostals because someone didn't get healed or some bad experience they had. In other cases, such as yours, they made the mistake of going to a Baptist Bible college instead of a Pentecostal one when they felt called into the ministry. As a result, they were persuaded that what they learned as a child was wrong, like Charles Stanley for instance.

My answer to you is simply that you are misinterpreting this scripture. Yes, the church was out of order. Yes, Paul had to set them straight. That much we agree on, but this passage is clearly speaking of the gift of tongues and interpretation. It has nothing to do with the idea that people in the church spoke many languages. What this comes down to, as with all other areas of doctrine, is how one interprets the scriptures. If one believes in the gifts, they will have an interpretation that backs up that viewpoint. If one doesn't believe in the gifts, their interpretation will reflect their unbelief. It's as simple as that. I stand by my explaination of those scriptures.

Actually Brother, the Bible interprets itself. It is a commentary within itself. With the help of the Holy Spirit (the teacher) the correct singular interpretation comes. Now, I don't profess to always possess that correct interpretation. But the Bible can be trusted to show within its content what it originally meant and what that application might be for today. It draws the conclusions for you by only your being a faithful student. My point is you have to do a lot of stretching and isogetics to conclude that this is God's continual redemptive plan for the church. Butero, I appreciate your engaging me in this conversation, but you leave too many unanswered questions that need answers. Right or wrong however you are my brother in Christ and I respect your sincerity and your love of the Lord. I look forward to spending eternity in Heaven with you, and I promise not to say "I told you so!" LOL It would be interesting to find how many of your spiritual heroes were trained in Baptist seminaries. LOL

Edited April 12, 2006 by David from New Bern

[David from New Bern]

Hello David From New Bern,

I think this is just one place where we will have to agree to disagree. I have no doubt you are a sincere Christian as well, and know heaven will be represented by Christians that are divided throughout every imaginable Christian denomination. I did have one question for you, if you don't mind answering it. What is your story? How did you wind up going from being raised in the Church of God, to attending a Baptist Bible College? I was just wondering why you chose to go that way as opposed to remaining in the Church of God? This is not intended to be confrontational. It just intrigued me that you would make that choice, and wondered why?

My parents were raised Baptist and became a part of the Church of God in their early adult life in whatever town we were living in. I attended from birth to about age 12. I made my profession of faith as a child in during those years. These particular churches were very emotional churches. My father was a soul winner and he always had someone over that he was discipling. One Sunday afternoon such a session was occuring in my family dining room, when the pastor of the church with a deacon came over. They told my dad they were asking him to appear before the church council or a group of deacons for discipline. My dad asked what had he done to offend someone. They said you have been accused of starting a new church without the council's approval. Well, my dad took his exit rather than endure that. So he took us to a Southern Baptist Church where I atended from 12-18. In my early adulthood I attended a charismatic Methodist church pastored by an ORU graduate. I was working in Christian broadcasting and dealt with pastors and laymen from all denominational influences and parachurch organizations.

Now, what I am about to say is totally subjective and is not meant to stereo-type everyone of this persuassion, but you asked me why. So remember, I'm reporting to you what I perceived to be a problem at the time. Those that I knew who participated in what they called "gift ministries" were so shallow. They were not students of the Word, oh they knew a few Scriptures pulled out of context to support their secondhand theology but they didn't know the Word. And I couldn't help but notice the louder or more demonstarative they were did not necessarily translate to spiritual maturity and discipline. In fact, it seemed almost to be a hindrance to their development somehow. The statement, "I'm a born again, sanctified, and Holy Ghost filled Christian" rang so hollow from the ones I was hearing it. And I had a large pool aquaintances to make that assessment. The Charismatic Methodist Church I was attending was giving birth to storefronts left and right, but it was not intentional planting if you know what I mean? I decided to go back to where I had found stability and developed a close personal mentor relationship with a Baptist pastor. I began teaching Sunday School and started seeing people get saved among the members of my class. That drove me to study harder as I do to this day. As far as being Baptist, I sometimes have to remind myself that I am. I think of myself first and foremost as a disciple of Jesus Christ. I am a student of the Word, where I frequently find false beliefs that I have been holding onto out of ignorance or tradition but not exposition.

Butero...thanks for asking...I understand you have a broadcast background as well.

Edited April 12, 2006 by David from New Bern

[John3;16]

If miraculous healings through individuals are relevent for today then why aren't there any visible signs of it? I have heard of people showing signs of miraculous healings, such as someone having films that show cancer one day and then when they are scanned again, and all traces are gone, but I do not know of any cases where these healings are linked to a specific individual. Another point to consider is why aren't the hospitals being emptied? I believe God heals people today, but I believe he uses prayer, the reason I believe that He no longer uses healing as a sign to authenticate individuals is that the authentication is now credited to the Lord through prayers being answered.

Just passing through!

[JesusisGod2]

Hi Butero,

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond to that question. It does explain a lot to me. I was raised Methodist, but left because of their connection to the World Council of Churches, their plans to take all songs about the blood of Jesus out of the hymnal, and their plans to use a gender neutral Bible. These were things I could not go along with. I spent a great deal of time visiting different churches and wound up in a Pentecostal Holiness Church.

Wow I had no idea the Methodist are going so far as to take out all songs that point to the blood of Christ, they need our prayers.

I am curious, did you speak in tongues before you joined the Pentecostal movement or after?

I attend an Apostolic Pentecostal Church and I see the same thing as David From New Bern in that very few have a very good understanding of scripture save Acts 2 upon which it seems they base thier whole doctrine.

You see I spoke in tongues one time as I mentioned above, but when I have talked with members in my church they keep saying I need to be baptized in the Holy Ghost and my evidence will be speaking in tongues.

Now I have told them that I did once and I mentioned that Paul says not all speak in tongues. Now here is my problem, they say that Paul is speaking of the gift of tongues in 1 Cor of which I have no problem with this statement except what is the difference if after I was baptized in the Holy Ghost and spoke once but never again, but they insist that they "pray through" until they speak in tongues. To me this is the gift of tongues.

To them once you have been baptised in the Holy Spirit you speak in tongues, but when I show them 1 Cor where Paul points out that not all speak in tongues, as I have said before they say this is speaking of the gift of tongues, so what is the difference? To me it is speaking of the same thing.

So what I see is that the ones who are saying this, really have a misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues and in fact contridict what they are telling me to be true, they make no sence. ( I hope I am saying this right as it is hard to express into words what my thoughts are saying)

Thier understanding of tongues are confusing to me and does not agree with what my understanding of the gift is.