The Gift of Tongues

[Norrin Radd]

Originally Posted by jade84116

Not all speak in tongues. Any other view makes 1 Corinthians 12:30 impossible to understand. 1 Corinthians 12:30, KJV, states: "Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" That would ***ume that all don't speak in tongues!

On the other hand, the ***umption that *some* form of inspired utterance -- usually "tongues," but sometimes prophecy -- is not normative for all makes it impossible to understand Acts 2, 10:46, 19:6; 1 Cor. 14:5, 23, 26.


I'm not "Oneness," but this topic, as addressed in this post, moves into the larger Pentecostal/Charismatic realm.

[Trinitas]

Norrin: On the other hand, the ***umption that *some* form of inspired utterance -- usually "tongues," but sometimes prophecy -- is not normative for all makes it impossible to understand Acts 2, 10:46, 19:6; 1 Cor. 14:5, 23, 26.

How so? Some speak in tongues, and some don't. How does that conflict with any of the verses you mention above?

[Norrin Radd]

Originally Posted by Trinitas

Norrin: On the other hand, the ***umption that *some* form of inspired utterance -- usually "tongues," but sometimes prophecy -- is not normative for all makes it impossible to understand Acts 2, 10:46, 19:6; 1 Cor. 14:5, 23, 26.

How so? Some speak in tongues, and some don't. How does that conflict with any of the verses you mention above?

Acts 2 -- At Pentecost, all upon whom the Spirit fell spoke in "tongues." In explaining/defending this to the gathered crowd, Peter invoked Joel's words about the outpoured Spirit of the Last Days. Peter and Joel (and Luke who recorded the words) listed several "signs," twice specifically mentioning "prophecy" (or the verb "prophesy"). It's apparent they (Peter and Luke, at least) intended "tongues" to fall under the general heading of "inspired prophetic utterance." After an evangelistic sermon, Peter returned to the topic of the coming of the Spirit, and said that "the promise" -- i.e. the promise spoke of by Joel, where "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved," and will receive the Spirit and so "prophesy" -- was intended not only for those present there, but also their descendants, and ALL, whether near or far.

Acts 10 -- ALL those who heard the message received the Spirit, and ALL those who received the Spirit spoke in tongues.

Acts 19 -- All those upon whom Paul laid hands received the Holy Spirit, and all who received the Spirit spoke in tongues and/or prophesied.

Those are the three strongest pieces of evidence. They are also the most disturbing, because like it or not, they make a strong case for the idea that believers should be "expected" to either speak in tongues or prophesy when the Spirit comes upon them. From Luke's perspective, it seems clear that the Apostles did not regard a person as a genuine believer unless they had received the Spirit, and (again, from Luke's perspective) tongues or prophecy demonstrated that coming of the Spirit.

1 Cor. 14:5 -- In divinely-inspired Scripture, Paul expresses his wish that "all" would speak in tongues and prophesy; whether that represents ONLY the wish of Paul, or the desire of both Paul and God, depends to some extent on how one views the nature of "inspiration" of Scripture.

1 Cor. 23 and 26 -- In looking at these again, I see I probably should not have included 26 the way I did. V. 23 suggests at least the theoretical possibility that "all" might speak in tongues. Indeed, something close to that was probably part of what had been going on, and which Paul wished to correct. The problem was not "speaking in tongues" per se, but doing so in the ***embly, in a way that was disorderly and confusing to unlearned visitors.

[jean]

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

On the other hand, the ***umption that *some* form of inspired utterance -- usually "tongues," but sometimes prophecy -- is not normative for all makes it impossible to understand Acts 2, 10:46, 19:6; 1 Cor. 14:5, 23, 26.


I'm not "Oneness," but this topic, as addressed in this post, moves into the larger Pentecostal/Charismatic realm.

Hello norrin,
Tongues are one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Jesus Only folks have chosen this gift as a salvation issue. They teach that a person must speak in tongues to be saved. There is no scriptural support for this teaching.
Folks do speak in tongues, but they are already saved, God doesn't give his gifts to unbelievers.
The Bible also teaches tongues are the least of the gifts of the Spirit.`
Paul said in 1Cor.14:1 Phophecy was the greater gift. It's strange oneness haven't opted this gift for salvation, although the Bible teaches we are saved by grace though faith. Eph.2:8-9

God bless,
jean

[Norrin Radd]

Originally Posted by jean

Hello norrin,
Tongues are one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Jesus Only folks have chosen this gift as a salvation issue. They teach that a person must speak in tongues to be saved.

Query: Do they teach that salvation is a result of tongues-speaking, or that tongues-speaking is necessary evidence that one IS saved?

There is no scriptural support for this teaching.

While it's not exactly a position that I hold, there is Scriptural support for the idea that tongues and/or prophecy cons***ute normative evidence of the presence of the Spirit.

Folks do speak in tongues, but they are already saved, God doesn't give his gifts to unbelievers.
The Bible also teaches tongues are the least of the gifts of the Spirit.

No it doesn't.

[John Carr]

We teach that one gets tongues as a sign and that the Baptism with the Holy Spirit has one get the evidence and sign of tongues in their life as a outward showing of what has gone on inwardly.

The sign that is seen over and over is tongue speaking, it is shown by example in Acts 2 and 10 and 19 and is clear by context in Acts 8 as well.
Paul spoke in tongues and it was a promise for all from the Father.

JC