Tongues

[marksman]

I found an interesting sentence in my reading of John Calvin's commentary on John's Gospel. Note that he wrote this in the 17th Century. He was commenting on when Jesus breathed on the disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." He says that the Holy Spirit comes from Jesus and only Jesus. He said that a bishop breathing the Holy Spirit on priests during their ordination is pure nonsense. He said that the smelly breath of a bishop is not evidence that a person is called to ministry. It is the observation of the gifts of the Spirit manifest in his ministry.

I know that Calvin was a bit off beam with some of his thoughts about election and predestination, but he wrote a lot of good things too. He acknowledged that it is the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit that qualifies a pastor for ministry. If these gifts are absent, how can a person prove that he is actually called to Christian ministry?

Something to ponder on.

Yes, it is something to ponder on. If one is a leader, one has a resonsibility to build up others so that they can discover and fulfill their ministry. Their job is NOT to promote their ministry. But one has to ask how many ministers do that. I have seen churches start up and it is clear that it is there to give the person starting it up a ministry. They are not interested in anyone elses ministry. The people tha attend are there to support the leaders ministry which is contrary to scripture. I have noted a few startups around here no longer exist. I wonder why?

And it annoys me when Christians are so good at throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No ministry is perfect in every way so the fact that John Calvin didn't do and support everything we want him to does not make him any the less important and valid. What he did he did in response to what was going on in the 17th century, not the 20th century, so he has to be interpreted in that light.

A 20th century example is how people criticised Derek Prince because of his involvement in the discipleship movement (which he later disowned because those involved interpreted things differently to how he envisaged it). What they don't see or refuse to see is the vast amount of teaching that he has done which has proved invaluable to the body of Christ and the fact that his books are being distributed to places like China because they are desperate for teaching and more important they are desperate for HIS teaching.

 

[marksman]

What! Peter preached to the crowd in tongues???? Oh, come on! You must be scraping the bottom of the barrel for answers if you are trying that on. The group speaking in tongues were not preaching to anyone. They were speaking of the mighty acts of God. Peter preached to them in straight Aramaic which was the common language of those people. Hebrew was the language for educated people. It was quite obvious that the crowd did not see Peter as educated. They described the group as "uneducated Galileans. How you manage to read into it that Peter preached to the crowd in tongues is way beyond me! Good grief! Talk about making the Bible say what you want it to say!!!

I have given a quite a bit of thought to this event and I have asked myself how all those listening who came from here, there and everywhere could understand what Peter said, obviously in one language which they would not have understood. My thoughts on the matter is that Peter preached in his own language and the Holy Spirit spoke it to the listeners in their own language. In other words, he did the interpreting, not the disciples.

 

[Waiting on him]

2 Peter 3:16 KJV
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Brakelite]

I have given a quite a bit of thought to this event and I have asked myself how all those listening who came from here, there and everywhere could understand what Peter said, obviously in one language which they would not have understood. My thoughts on the matter is that Peter preached in his own language and the Holy Spirit spoke it to the listeners in their own language. In other words, he did the interpreting, not the disciples.

I have heard testimonies of similar events in modern times. One evangelist spoke in Papua New Guinea a few years ago... Peached entirely in English, but everyone heard him in their own dialect. Something like 50,000 people attended that day. And 1000s of baptisms as a result.

 

[JunChosen]

What! Peter preached to the crowd in tongues????

NEVER SAID PETER SPOKE IN TONGUES!

Read post again. You have misunderstood what I've said.

To God Be The Glory

 

[JunChosen]

I have heard testimonies of similar events in modern times. One evangelist spoke in Papua New Guinea a few years ago... Peached entirely in English, but everyone heard him in their own dialect. Something like 50,000 people attended that day. And 1000s of baptisms as a result.

It is NOT POSSIBLE to speak in tongues today!

Speaking in UNKNOWN tongues today is a sign for unbelievers.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Brakelite]

It is NOT POSSIBLE to speak in tongues today!

Speaking in UNKNOWN tongues today is a sign for unbelievers.

To God Be The Glory

If you say so.

 

[JunChosen]

Except Paul wrote that there are diversities of tongues, meaning more than just one type.

There is an unknown tongue that no one ever understands, and also an unknown tongue spoken in church that is interpreted, because it’s a message from God to the congregation.

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Below, I believe is the correct understanding of 1Corintians 14:2:

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue (heavenly language) speaketh NOT unto man, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries (Gospel).

Since the Bible was not yet completed, God was still giving additional revelation (verse 6) to man through unknown tongues to the church in Corinth, however it needed to be interpreted that the church may be edified and if no interpreter to keep silent.

I hope this helps.

To God Be The Gloru

 

[JunChosen]

If you say so.

Not I but scripture says so!

To God Be The Glory

 

[JunChosen]

@Backlit,

Addendum:

Please read 1Corinthians 14:22

 

[Paul Christensen]

Except Paul wrote that there are diversities of tongues, meaning more than just one type.

There is an unknown tongue that no one ever understands, and also an unknown tongue spoken in church that is interpreted, because it’s a message from God to the congregation.

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Quite right. But Luke never said that Peter preached to the crowd in tongues. He recorded that Peter explained to the crowd in plain common language about what was happening and that the disciples weren't drunk because it was too early in the day.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I have given a quite a bit of thought to this event and I have asked myself how all those listening who came from here, there and everywhere could understand what Peter said, obviously in one language which they would not have understood. My thoughts on the matter is that Peter preached in his own language and the Holy Spirit spoke it to the listeners in their own language. In other words, he did the interpreting, not the disciples.

We need to be careful to read stuff into Luke's report that he did not say.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I would not take what this paul christensen feller has to say as one with very much "expertise" on the subject. Or, on anything concerning what being "born from above" is like.
(quote)
"But I don't pray in tongues during church services. I don't belong to a Pentecostal church where they do speak in tongues. I belong to a little Methodist/Presbyterian church with six elderly ladies and one gentleman. Tongues is totally unknown to them.

I do all my praying in tongues privately when I am alone with the Lord; and because He understands what I am saying, He doesn't need an interpreter. Neither do I, because I am not praying to myself but to the Lord.

So your comments are pretty well irrelevant to my use of tongues in prayer."

So, I wouldn't waste a whole lot of time nor effort in arguments, as it seems he doesn't know what we're talking about. Perhaps, it's just a little too much for him to bare? I dunno!
Yet, it's seems alright by him, if everyone else does. As he certainly does not speak out against Babbling/s in Church with no one interpreting.

When you have to put down another member for having views that you don't agree with, it makes your position unconvincing.

I have heard all the opposing comments about tongues over the last 50 odd years, and have given due consideration to them, and have carefully examined the Scriptures to see whether there is any virtue in the comments. What I have discovered is that the opposing comments either twist Scriptures around to support the opposition, or comments are based on taking one random verse and ignoring others, or even reading into passages information that is not even there.

So, no matter what points you make that tries to show that modern tongues is not genuine, I have heard all these old chestnuts before and none of them hold water when Scripture is carefully examined.

 

[tabletalk]

I used to go to an Assembly of God church here where I moved to, because there wasn't a Foursquare Gospel in my town. I was from California where I attended The Church On The Way since the 70's. I miss how the Spirit moved there every time the doors were open. Here at the AOG I missed the Spirit. I also noticed some false doctrine regarding sin being preached, so I had to leave.

I believe we must be baptized with the Spirit in order to be born again. And I believe those who believe in Jesus will receive all the authorities of Mark 16:16-18. But I believe the evidence of having been baptized in the Spirit is sinlessness. 1 John 3:9, not the operation of any gift. We have those of Mark 16 whether we know it or not. So us operating them is NOT the evidence. Being free from sin is the evidence.

You said: "But I believe the evidence of having been baptized in the Spirit is sinlessness."

I'm pretty sure you are sinning by believing that statement. It is completely contrary to the Scriptures.

 

[CoreIssue]

Sadly, I have often asked Pentecostals how their version of tongues is from God. Most just say it can't be from anywhere else, which says they've never read the history of whom started Pentecostalism.

All gifts are given when needed, not as a sideshow.

And as the Bible says, tongues are the least of the gifts But most Pentecostals put them on a pedestal.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Sadly, I have often asked Pentecostals how their version of tongues is from God. Most just say it can't be from anywhere else, which says they've never read the history of whom started Pentecostalism.

All gifts are given when needed, not as a sideshow.

And as the Bible says, tongues are the least of the gifts But most Pentecostals put them on a pedestal.

I've been associated with Pentecostalism for over 50 years, and I have seen no evidence of what you are suggesting. All I have seen is the use of tongues as just one way of worshiping and praying to God.

And how could it be a sideshow in a meeting where all are of the same mind, worshiping together with no outsiders? In all the Pentecostal evangelistic meetings I have attended, tongues have been put right in the background in favour of the preaching of the Gospel.

Watching a few Youtube videos and visiting one or two Pentecostal meetings does not give enough knowledge and experience of what really happens in the "hard core" of the movement. That's called "darkening counsel without knowledge".

 

[jaybird]

Sadly, I have often asked Pentecostals how their version of tongues is from God. Most just say it can't be from anywhere else, which says they've never read the history of whom started Pentecostalism.

All gifts are given when needed, not as a sideshow.

And as the Bible says, tongues are the least of the gifts But most Pentecostals put them on a pedestal.

they are also the only gift anyone can fake.

 

[Paul Christensen]

they are also the only gift anyone can fake.

Really? Prophecy, Word of Knowledge, Word of Wisdom, Discerning of Spirits, Interpretation of tongues, healing, faith, and miracles all can be faked in some way. When the AntiChrist turns up, he will falsify all these gifts as part of his false signs and wonders. These counterfeits will and are so close to the genuine, that, as the Scripture says, even the elect could be deceived.

Even Christian profession can be faked so well, that you wouldn't know if the person sitting beside you in church is a genuine believer or a hypocrite, because both walk the talk in exactly the same way, but one is genuine at heart, and the other's motives and intentions are false. Because God is the only Person who looks where we can't see - into people's hearts, He is the only One who knows who are his who have come through the narrow gate, and the hypocrite who has come over the wall.

Therefore, if a church member, whether Pentecostal or Evangelical, is a hypocrite, then everything about that person is fake - whether he speaks in tongues or not.

 

[marksman]

We need to be careful to read stuff into Luke's report that he did not say.

I operate on the basis that the Holy Spiirt will lead us into ALL truth mainly because there are a lot of things not said in scripture that one needs to get guidance on.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I operate on the basis that the Holy Spiirt will lead us into ALL truth mainly because there are a lot of things not said in scripture that one needs to get guidance on.

I didn't know that the Holy Spirit is still adding to Scripture these days. And who is the privileged recipient of this new revelation?