MacArthur and Tongues

[nebula]

Neb, I do not speak in tongues, nor do I expect to. I rarely mention tongues as a gift. I know I have never posted anything negative about tongues on these boards, and fairly certain I have not done so elsewhere. I am still looking at scripture on tongues. I think perhaps instead of viewing EricH as the first and only non tongue speaker who has not spoken with disrespect, perhaps you should recognize that there are many sound Christians who have not experienced tongues, and have chosen not to speak for or against it. They show respect by their silence. It seems EricH was merely the first non tongue talker who was vocal (instead of silent) and spoke with respect.

Thank-you for sharing this, Jade.

I never thought of it that way.

When you 're out on the playing field, the players can easily forget those on the sidelines.

Please accept my appology.

[apothanein kerdos]

Acts 2

1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord* in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Tongues was the first gift manifested on the disciples when the Spirit came upon them.

Acts 10

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Here again tongues accompanied the outpouring.

Acts 2

5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs--we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?" 13 Others mocking said, "They are full of new wine."

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: . . . .

Here we see the tongues were a sign to the unbelievers.

All of these refer to a language that was understood by people. They did not speak in the gift of tongues; they spoke in the tongues of men, their native languages. Read the context. Far, very far, from what people say it is in modern times.

1 Cor. 14:2 - For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Tongues is used to speak to God (prayer).

1 Cor. 14:4 - He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself,

Tongues is used for self-edification.

1 Cor. 14: 5 - I wish you all spoke with tongues,

The gift of tongues is valued.

Nice way to cut off scripture at the end, because it gives us a broader context that though he wishes it, he acknowledges that it isn't important, or at least as important as other gifts. In fact, all you're doing is chopping up scripture to try and prove that tongues is important. If we take the entire passage, however, we find this:

Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying. But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church. Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

So, in the first part we see what you edited out of the scripture in order to get the interptation you want. In fact, you go on doing this in the rest of your post. As nice as that might seem and though it probably helps booster your experience, the fact is, the broader context only suits to prove my point. My point was that tongues is the most insignificant gift there is, thus it cannot possibly be THE sign of Baptism of the Holy Spirit (salvation). Notice what Paul is saying, tongues is an absent minded act. This is okay in private, but at the point it is spoken in public, the mind must come into play. Paul woudl rather use his mind than tongues in order to edify the Church. If that is the case, then why would tongues be THE definitive sign for Baptism of the Holy Spirit? That was my point. Not to say tongues is not important, but merely to say that it is not important enough to hold any significance in the church.

[Arthur Durnan]

Bottom Line from the settled (Jude 1:, "delivered once for all time," Greek) Word of God: There is NO SUCH ITHING anywhere in Holy Write from Generations to Revolutions that even hint at "unknown" languages as opposed to earthly, national, understood dialects, the languages of hunankind. The CLASSIC "tongues" passage in Acts 2:8-11 SIGNS, SEALS & DELIVERS God's perfect intent re any "heavenly gibberish" or "divine mumbo-jumbo." Hallelujah for the clarity of the Word of Truth!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[tah]

Arthur...I understand that you do not see it and thats ok.....

we do however see it..

and absolutely Brother,

Hallelujah for the clarity of the Word of Truth!

[nebula]

All of these refer to a language that was understood by people. They did not speak in the gift of tongues; they spoke in the tongues of men, their native languages.

AAARGH!

Have I ever denied the gift of tongues being a non-Earthly language?!!!!!!!

[nebula]

And you keep denying the Scriptures that show the value of the gift.

And how many times have you prayed for the gift of prophecy?

I've prayed often for the gift of prophecy, yet rarely have I been given a prophetic word for someone.

[nebula]

Bottom Line from the settled (Jude 1:, "delivered once for all time," Greek) Word of God: There is NO SUCH ITHING anywhere in Holy Write from Generations to Revolutions that even hint at "unknown" languages as opposed to earthly, national, understood dialects, the languages of hunankind. The CLASSIC "tongues" passage in Acts 2:8-11 SIGNS, SEALS & DELIVERS God's perfect intent re any "heavenly gibberish" or "divine mumbo-jumbo." Hallelujah for the clarity of the Word of Truth!

Again - prove I speak in gibberish!!!

[apothanein kerdos]

Sorry - I'm not trying to detract from this thread.

I'm just sick and tired of the work of the Spirit being called "not God."

No one said it wasn't God. What I did say is that tongues has no bearing on if we are baptized in the Spirit or not, and that baptism in the Spirit is present at salvation. That has nothing to do with denying the work of the Lord.

If you are refering to growth, again, this does not always mean that the work of the Lord is present.

The problem is the term "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" means different things to different people. We are indwelled by the Holy Spirit at salvation. The "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is separate experience that is accompanied by the manifestation of speaking in tongues.

No, it's not, and there isn't any scripture to teach otherwise. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at salvation; it is the same as the indwelling. Tongues is not an important gift, it is the least of the gifts. It is insignificant in the broad spectrum, and that is scriptural. Why then, would Paul call it these things if it marked the oncomming of the Holy Spirit? Why would a gift that only benefits the person having it mark such an important event?

please reconcile your opinion to Acts 19:6

There is nothing to reconcile. Some of John the Baptist's Disciples (v4) mentioned they had been baptized in John's baptism, but none other. This meant they were disciples of John who had not recieved Christ. Likewise, it says that they were Baptized and THEN Paul laid hands upon them and they recieved the Spirit (salvation). These were men who were not saved to begin with. In Acts 8 we see people being baptized into the Holy Spirit (because some had accepted Christ but were not present at Pentecost) yet there is no mention of tongues or any signs that accompany them. Likewise, the next chapter over when we see Paul recieve the Holy Spirit the only sign is that scales fall from his eyes.

Likewise, you are relying on descriptive passages in order to form a theology that would exclude the entire Church from 200-about 1910. Tongues was not spoken, that we know of, for almost two thousand years. This means there was no "baptism of the Holy Spirit" for two thousand years, which means there was no salvation. This is the problem with reading into descriptive texts...you get the wrong idea. Acts is purely a historical book that shows the accounts of the early church. When tongues is prescribed, it is done so as the lower gift and other gifts are to be desired above it. Once again, since you avoided the question, since tongues is the lowest of all gifts, why is it the sign of baptism in the Holy Spirit?

[apothanein kerdos]

And you keep denying the Scriptures that show the value of the gift.

And how many times have you prayed for the gift of prophecy?

I've prayed often for the gift of prophecy, yet rarely have I been given a prophetic word for someone.

You ignored the entire context. Nebula, please, I am asking you kindly, stop responding in emotion. You are lashing out at people for absolutely no reason (for instance, saying we were mean in talking about tongues). We have done nothing except speak from scripture.

What I was showing was tongues is the least valuable of all gifts and therefore cannot qualify as THE sign of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, I pointed out the scriptures you chose to cut out that actually prove this point. They prove that tongues, for all intents and purposes, is worthless when compared to other gifts. That is scripture speaking. Now do you see the value in lifting scripture above experience? You are now arguing against scripture based upon your experience...you have taken it so far you didn't respond to what I wrote. Instead you simply said I ignored Scriptures...how? I responded directly, posted them in context, and gave an interpretation. How is that ignoring them? You are trying to place more value on a gift than needs to be because of your experience. In doing so you are having to eliminate certain scriptures. This is not a good thing Nebula...

[ayin jade]

Well, on the other thread, I offered for anyone interested to PM me so we can arrange a phone phone, and you can record me speaking in tongues, and then see if you can determine if I am speaking in a human language the glories of God or not.

Ive never heard anyone speak in tongues. I may just take you up on this after this week is over.