Yes 3000 came to Christ after the arrival of the Holy Spirit. We have no scripture giving us any indication that Pharisees were mocking anyone on the day of Pentecost. Maybe but maybe not. We do not know and should leave it at that. We do know that those who came to Christ that day were accepting that Christ was the Messiah. Those who came to Christ that day were still under the law of Moses. They were what Jesus called the Little Flock. They still celebrated the Jewish festivals. Not until after Pauls experience on the road to Damascus and Jesus's revelation to Paul and the Holy Spirits same message to the Apostles was salvation by faith alone preached to both Jew and Gentile. It took the 12 Apostles some time to accept that new revelation. Paul receiving that mystery from Jesus obeyed him and went to work preaching salvation by faith alone and not of works.
Tongues
- Thread starter Truman
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Triumph1300
Well-Known Member
.....what exactly elicited the accusation of drunkenness upon those who were freshly filled with the Spirit?
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
Hi, TEXBOW
I'm glad you believe in tongues for today. I don't have to start from scratch like for unbelievers or those in the Church who are uninformed, 1 Cor. 14:23. LOL
I'm not doing any of that. But your understanding of Acts 2 is flawed in your understanding of even the English language and have wound up contradicting the rules given in Scripture for tongues - both types, given in 1 Corinthians 14 which is about both types. Sorry, but look at it again and focus on what you misunderstood:
Acts 2:
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.”
It doesn't say that the 120 disciples were speaking those languages all at once, causing a cacophony of sound. The interpretation of the English sentence structure form is that each Jew heard like a choir in their own individual language. All at the same time - "each." Truly supernatural, and what convinced these devout Jews to trust what Peter then said.
Mark 16:16-18
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
Notice, interpretation of tongues is not mentioned so not necessary when the tongues are according to 1 Corinthians 14:2. These in Mark are TO God, and are for prayer/praise to Him, and no interpretation is absolutely necessary unless you pray for the interpretation.
Now for the offices of the Church, which are higher gifts and given for the profit of all.
1 Corinthians 12:7-11
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.
1 Corinthians 12:28-30
28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
I mentioned Pharisees because of you. They were Jews and you were arguing (oy vey) about me saying it was probably Gentile Romans that were doing the mocking, so if Jews according to you, who? Pharisees??? It was a joke, because it was getting nonsensical.
That Galileans were speaking their native language. Scripture is very clear on this. The multitude were from many different parts of the known world at that time. All these different languages being spoken. The person in the crowd was hearing his native language spoken but was also hearing other languages being spoke that he didn't understand. The Parthians knew their language but might not have known Greek or Cyrene. It would be like going to the United Nations meeting and all delegates speaking at once but you only understanding the English speaking delegate. That would be an experience.
I understand your interpretation of "hear" but I do not interpret it the same way. If you talk I hear you. I do not need a gift from the Holy Spirit to hear you speaking in my language. It says they understood their native language not others native languages. They were hearing those speaking their language. The reason the author mentioned all those different groups is clear, he wanted us to understand that all those people from those places were hearing their language. I think for me the largest roadblock in your theory is you have to believe that the people in the crowd were given a gift from the Holy Spirit to translate from an unknown tongue to their language without them even knowing they were doing so. If they knew they had been given that gift they would have been marveled at themselves and not those who were speaking. I think too much scripture gymnastics are necessary to translate the scriptures as you have. We have no issue with reading the scriptures in Acts using Textualism (adhering to the actual text when the plain sense makes common sense, we seek no other sense) except in Acts 2 when you wish to throw common sense out the door IMHO.
If I go to the United Nations and 10 different people from different countries are speaking and one of them is speaking English I will hear it. I also hear a lot of other languages that I do not understand. This does not require a gift.
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
Can't remember if it was you or not, but I did ask someone to explain to me how they reconcile 1 Corinthians 14:2 with their interpretation of Acts 2. Please do. I'm the only one who has so far.
I think our challenge is understanding that when the scriptures say "tongues" it can mean different things at different places in the scripture. Tongues can mean, language or prayer utterances. I think when Paul says in 1 Corinithans 13:1 that he speaks with the tongues of men (languages) and of Angels (prayer utterances to God) teaches us there is more than one definition of Tongues. Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 12:28 there are varieties of tongues, this surly means languages. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 14:19-20 that he would rather speak 5 words with understanding than ten thousand words in a tongue. That is a pretty strong statement. Why I think some Churches have done damage by elevating the gift of tongues so much so that it puts doubt in new believers minds if the Holy Spirit wishes not to give that gift 1 Corinthians 12:11. Many put in that situation give up and fall. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 14:22 that Tongues are for a sign to the unbeliever. Let that verse soak in. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 14:11 that he does not know the meaning of the language I shall be a foreigner to that person and that person who speaks will be a foreigner to him. This scripture is in the chapters dealing with the gifts of the Spirit.
Tongues in Acts 2 is all about languages. In other places in 1 Corinthians it's still about languages and in other places in 1 Corinthians its about a prayer utterance. Tongues means different things in different scriptures.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 76
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
Your first paragraph was correct. Cornelius and his household receiving the Holy Spirit was the evidence that salvation in Christ was to be for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
But to connect the gift of tongues to a clean heart is pure speculation. Paul's definitive teaching about tongue does not make that connection in any way. Saying it is the same as saying that a mechanic's set of tools makes him a qualified and expert mechanic. So, New Testament tongues were not evidence of salvation or a clean heart. It was a "tool" given by the Holy Spirit to enhance a person's prayer life with God.
Paul, I think I agree with much of what you say but this gives me pause. Those men (see below) spoke in tongues after Paul placed his hands upon them. Looks like evidence to me. I've not done a deep dive in these verses yet but it might be that there speaking in tongues is prayer language and "to prophesy" could be preach the truth rather than interpret the tongues. It's not possible to say one way or the other but the plain reading of the text is leading. I do think this supports the change from water baptism to Spiritual baptism.
So Paul said, “Into what then were you baptized?” “Into John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. (Now there were about twelve men in all.) (Acts 19:3-7 NET).
My point is there are three types of tongues, and I didn’t stutter when I said it.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 76
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
Peter preaching the Gospel to the house of Cornelius was a different event to Paul preaching to the 12 disciples at Ephesus. In the case of Cornelius, the Holy Spirit fell as Peter was preaching. There were no laying on of hands there. I think that Paul picked up that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of hands when Ananias came to Damascus and laid hands on Paul which resulted in him recovering his sight and being filled with the Holy Spirit. Peter and John went to the Samaritans after Philip had preached the Gospel to them and laid hands on people for the filling of the Holy Spirit. But I am not sure whether there has to be a hard and fast doctrine about having to receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. If that was the case then Cornelius and his household would not have received the Holy Spirit - but they did without the laying on of hands. Also, at the beginning of the Pentecostal movement at the turn of the 20th Century, many received the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues without anyone laying hands on them. So, because God is sovereign in the way He does things, I reckon that He can fill someone with the Holy Spirit any way He likes, and He doesn't have to conform to a doctrine where He can act only when a man decides through the laying on of hands.
I do not think it necessary to have the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. My point was more toward it looked like when they did receive the Holy Spirit they spoke in tongues. After doing so did Paul give them the thumbs up and say "now you're filled with the Holy Spirit as evident by your speaking in tongues?" Was it a sign? Proof? I think it could have been a proof sign but not a requirement for salvation. Jews were always looking for signs. Cornelius speaking in tongues was a sign for Peter is seems. The question for some is, must you speak in tongues to confirm that you are filled with the Holy Spirit? I say no.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 76
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
I think that the signs the Jews were looking for were quite different to the signs and wonders that accompany the Gospel. Jesus did many signs in the form of healing and deliverance among the people, but the religious leaders didn't believe that these were the signs they were expecting for the arrival of the Messiah. So the signs the Jews were expecting were not in the order of healing and deliverance, otherwise they would have accepted Jesus as their Messiah. The Jews were expecting much more spectacular signs in the heavens, with their Messiah coming as a conquering warrior to kick out the Romans and restore Jewish sovereignty.
When we quote "Jews look for signs" we have to put that reference into its context.
"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:22).
The context has nothing to do with gifts of the Spirit, healing or deliverance. It says that Jews demand signs. What this means is that for something to be true for them, they demand to see the preconceived signs that they have in their imagination that should accompany any work of God. The signs that accompanied Jesus, and the Apostles' preaching of the gospel were not the signs that the Jews were demanding, otherwise they would have happily accepted the Gospel. Instead, they rejected the greatest sign of the Gospel - the death of Christ on the Cross - as an offense to them. Also, someone dying on a Cross to save the world was total nonsense to the gentile Greeks, who sought after the wisdom of this world.
The gifts of the Spirit were never referred to as signs in the New Testament. They were ministry gifts given to build up and strengthen the church. What brought multitudes of the Gentiles to Christ were the signs and wonders accompanying the preaching of the Gospel. This was to show that the Gospel was, and is, not just in word only, but in the power of the Holy Spirit.
It was, in both cases, Cornelius and the 12 at Ephesus, that Peter and Paul knew they had received the Spirit, they spoke in tongues, and in the case of the Ephesus 12, they prophesied as well. This gives rise to the question that if a person says they have been filled with the Spirit but have nothing to show for it, then how can anyone know that they have actually received the Holy Spirit? They can't say, "we have the fruit of the Spirit", because that is a sign of true conversion to Christ and developing sanctification. It's part of "saving faith" and regeneration by the Holy Spirit. But the disciples already had that before the Day of Pentecost. What happened at Pentecost was the enduement of power, and how did they knew that they had been endued with power? They spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. The mighty wind and tongues of fire died away after the initial burst, and what did they have left? Speaking in tongues of course!
I can understand why some traditional Pentecostal groups maintain that tongues is the evidence of the filling of the Spirit, because there is strong substantive evidence in the Acts account that this was the case. When Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritans, how did they know that the Samaritans actually got filled with the Spirit? When they had hands laid on them, something happened right away that so impressed Simon the Sorcerer that he offered money for it. How did Luke know that when Ananias laid hands on Paul that the latter was actually filled with the Spirit? Something immediate must have happened, and we can only draw upon the three examples we have presented to us from the Book of Acts. In all these examples, those filled with the Spirit spoke in tongues. I don't think that Luke bothered to specify the speaking in tongues in other events, because the three examples were enough. Why labour something that people already knew? I think that someone must be pretty dumb if after being told three times, they didn't know that tongues accompanies the filling of the Spirit. If I pray for someone to receive the filling of the Holy Spirit and nothing happens, then I would assume that they have not yet received it. But if they start speaking a fluent, expressive language they have never learned, then that would be enough for me to know that they have been filled with the Spirit.
So, I just wonder if many who say they are filled with the Spirit are just pretending, because they have nothing out of the ordinary to show for it?
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
Oh right! You're the one that calls our natural tongue a supernatural gift from God and that makes three. Now along those lines, don't forget those who know and can speak many languages, but seeing as natural languages are not the real subject, you can forget I mentioned it. There are only two types of supernatural tongues - one for each person for their individual use, and the second is given when also given the office for it, and only a few in each church has that office and the office of interpreter.
Tongues are not required for salvation but they are a sign that follows those who believe, per Mark 16.
The personal prayer language unknown tongue is for all believers.
The specialized gift of speaking in tongues aloud in church with a message from God, is not for everyone.
Tongues spoken aloud in church were not known languages, but unknown languages that need interpreted by someone with the HS gift of interpretation.
If tongues in church were known languages, that would mean that when the Corinthian church forbade tongues, they forbade speaking in a known language - which would mean a VERY silent church service!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Can you explain why Peter didn't mean to say it then? I was quoting Peter.
Recall the story. Acts of the Apostles 10:9-16 In that context, Peter is reminded by the Lord that God alone decides who is clean and holy. A bit later, Peter is witness to the fact that the Holy Spirit, which was promised to the Jews, was poured out on a Gentile -- Cornelius. So then, Peter himself makes the connection between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and being declared "holy and clean."
Fast forward to Acts 15.
"Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith."
What evidence does Peter provide that Cornelius' heart was cleansed? God, knowing the heart, gave him the Holy Spirit.
Similar threads
