Evidence and nature of speaking in tongues

Evidence and nature of speaking in tongues
Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

Evidence and nature of speaking in tongues.

The instances in the book of Acts are referred to here, as well as the promise of John the Baptist that Jesus will baptize in the Holy Spirit.

Gause prefers baptism with the Holy Spirit, instead of in the Holy Spirit. This can be supported by the use of the genitive.

The baptizer is Christ, he pours out his Spirit on his children with power, and we are baptized with the Holy Spirit.

John the Baptist foretold it, and Acts is seen as fulfillment of John.

The anti-Pentecostals say that all is in one baptism, but that does not hold water.

Christ makes explicit mention of Spirit baptism (Ac.2), and Peter in the house of Cornelius (Ac.5) cites the Holy Spirit as fulfillment.

The other citations in Acts are explanations of what happens at the Spirit Baptism.

Jesus said that “you will be endured with power, and be witnesses …”

God gives the same gift in Jerusalem, in Samaria, in Cornelius house, in Ephesus, God gives across all borders and in the way he foretold.

 

Act2 we are told as in Luke.24 that what happens at Pentecost

Act.1.24 they prayed for the suggestion for Judas

2.1 they were in one place, and they expected the fulfillment of the OT, of John the Baptist and the words of Jesus.

There is a renewal of Sinai, and fulfillment of the law

In the OT there were common shekina, in Ac.2 the shenia is on all persons.

They kept on keeping in tongues, because the Holy Spirit gave them power to speak.

There is a continuity of this experience as seen at the day of Pentecost. They expected that the Holy Spirit will continue in the same way, as at the initial outpouring in Ac.2

Ac.4: Peter had been arrested, and the people prayed. The place was shaken, they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and witnessed for Christ.

Ac.4 is a subsequent outpouring ot a group, which was baptized in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Act.8 the Holy Spirit is poured out on the Samaritans. Simon the sorcerer wanted to buy the gift, he was trying to franchise. He did not want other then the authority in the Holy Spirit.

Every commentary before 1906 says that this was the ability of speaking in tongues.

Nearly every commentary since 1906 argue that the silence of tongue is a sign that speaking in tongues did not happen all times.

Ac.9. Saul had been converted, and met with Ananius, who had a vision. Ananius prayed for the sight. Paul spoke later in tongues (1.Cor.14).

Paul uses the Isaiah passage (Is.28) when arguing for the Spirit baptism (Ac.14). Jews and Gentiles alike are filled with the Holy Spirit and witness to Israel.

Ac.10. Peter is at the house of Cornelius. Non-Pentecostals argue that salvation and the Holy Spirit are one in the house of Cornelius. But “saving” does refers to being saved. Cornelius was already saved. Peter was very legalistic, but was not to call unclean, what God cleaned.

The gentiles who invited him had the same cleanness then Peter. Something which the Jewish leader would not have done. While Peter preached the Holy Spirit fall. The speaking in tongues was the evidence, that this happening was unique. God poured out the same gift on Jews and Gentiles.

Ac.19. Apollos only knew of the baptism of John, but preached of Jesus. He did not know of Pentecost. He was baptized in the Holy Ghost. There were disciples of John, who were also disciples of Christ, they only had not heard of Pentecost.

They made the transition of one baptism in water – John’s baptism was an OT baptism – to the new baptism.

 

What is the common thing that argue for the evidence of tongues.

  • The Holy Spirit comes on believers. The world can not receive the Holy Spirit, but your know him, because he is in your. That means that the Holy Spirit is given only to people, who are already in Christ. Justification is promised to the ungodly, adoption is promised to those who are not yet children of God, but sanctification and Spirit baptism are promises to believers. Spirit baptism and Salvation can not be collapsed, but are distinct experiences. Jn.17 is a preparatory prayer of Jesus for Ac.2. There is unity in Christ, with each other, and unity with he father and savor, which are prerequisites for the Spirit baptism.
  • The Holy Spirit baptism comes on those who are hungry. Christ baptizes those, who have a prepared heart.
  • The Holy Spirit baptism comes on those who are in divine worship, preferably communal worship.
  • The Holy Spirit baptism manifest the outpouring by the evidence of speaking tongues.
  • The Holy Spirit baptism is poured out on a contrast society.
  • The Holy Spirit baptism is not to a different kind of speaking, but to a different kind of being.
  • The Holy Spirit baptism is a gift of faith, and claimed by faith.

 

What is the significance of speaking in tongues.

  • Tongue speech is the language of the kingdom of God. The language of the kingdom is participation in the kingdom.
  • Conquest and submission of the tongue represents the submission of the believer. The act of cleansing in Is.6 is on the lips of Isaiah. The conquest of the tongue represents the conquest of the heart. Because the heart is filled with the Spirit, the mouth speaks out of the heart.
  • The yielding to the Spirit is a yielding of the “foolishness” of the Spirit. This is foolishness to of the world
  • Is a acknowledgement of our inability to pray, and yield to the Spirit who intercedes for us. We are being introduces to continues worship of God. We groan in the Holy Spirit.

Paul cites in 1.Cor.14 that eyes have not heard and ears not seen (Isaiah promise)

9 Comments

  • RichardAnna Boyce
    Reply November 20, 2019

    RichardAnna Boyce

    What Was Spoken by Joel
    2:4-13. Languages originated in the dispersion of the nations at the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9). The Jewish race, exhibiting the same pride and self-will as the nations, was similarly dispersed when Jerusalem, like Babel, was destroyed. Hence they participated through dispersion in the Gentile confusion of tongues.

    The question, “whatever could this mean?” (Acts 2:12) finds its answer in the sign character of the gift of tongues (1 Cor 14:20-22). Tongues were expressly given as a sign to the Jewish people of God’s power and willingness to overcome the effects of their dispersion. The Jews from the many nations represented here might have been re-gathered according to Old Testament promise had they believed in Jesus as the Messiah. These Jews were ideal representatives of the dispersion, being devout men (v 5) and from every nation under heaven (v 5). It was an ideal occasion for the presentation of this offer, yet—although 3000 were converted—increasingly the nation rejected God’s offer of grace and re-gathering. Hence, to this day, Israel’s Babel-like dispersion (actually initiated by Babylon) continues and the Jews of the world are still to be found speaking the many tongues of the nations. But, though Israel refused to be gathered, God is gathering others nonetheless (John 11:52).

    Modern claims to the gift of tongues lack evidence that the gift is being used for its stated purpose as a sign to Israel (1 Cor 14:20-22).

    Though the baptism of the Spirit evidently occurs here, it is not specifically mentioned. None of the phenomena are synonymous with it. (Nor need these be repeated when a soul is so baptized. If it is wrong to insist that one being baptized with the Holy Spirit hear a noise of wind, or see a tongue of fire, it is also wrong to insist that he must speak in tongues.) The baptism of the Spirit, here as well as in our experience, is invisible—unseen, unfelt by human sense, totally supernatural. It is important to see that it was so from the first.

    Had the special, supernatural events here recorded not taken place, the disciples might never have realized that it was then that the promise of the baptism was fulfilled. They might have been baptized without knowing it. We do not need these signs now, for we believe we have been baptized by the Spirit on the basis of the Word of God. These were but the tokens and evidences of the Spirit’s presence. The central message to us of this passage lies, not in the unique and special sign-gift of tongues, but in the power of the Spirit to transform timid men and women into bold witnesses of the Savior.

    The special manifestation of the Spirit’s presence here was not the unseen baptism, but Spirit-filled men speaking in languages otherwise unknown to them. This filling seems both here and elsewhere in Luke/Acts to be mainly a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit by which the filled person becomes His mouthpiece (cf. esp., Luke 1:41, 67; Acts 4:8, 31; 9:17 with 9:20; 13:9).

    The filling of the Spirit is distinct from the baptism, yet related. An empty glass submerged (baptized) in water will be filled by it. So here, although they are waiting for the baptism specifically (cf. Acts 1:5), yet when it comes they are filled (2:4). They were empty of self, open to God, waiting on Him in prayer, united in heart (2:1), and thus ready to be filled. Filling is an experience especially to be expected of those who are submerged in the Spirit. Though supernatural and sovereignly bestowed, it nevertheless comes upon prepared vessels.

    Note how Peter has scarcely begun to speak when he begins to pour forth the Scripture. The quoted passage, verses 17-21, is the longest quotation of Old Testament in Acts. Note also verses 25-28 and 30, 31, 34, and 39 for quotations or allusions to the Word. The Apostle is full of the Spirit and hence full of the Word. The experience recorded here finds illustration in John 2:1-11. For 3 1/2 years, and then intensively for 40 days (1:3), our Lord had filled the stone water pots of their hearts with the water of His Word, supplied through His servants the prophets. Now on the day of Pentecost the mysterious miracle occurs and the water of the Word is transformed into the wine of the Spirit. The joys of salvation are partaken of by 3000 on that day. “These men are full of new wine.” Wrong, yet right. They were full of the new wine of the Spirit freshly poured out from heaven (cf. Luke 5:37-39).

  • Allan Boyd
    Reply November 20, 2019

    Allan Boyd

    As a Catholic I believe that a believer can speak in tongues.

    • Isara Mo
      Reply November 21, 2019

      Isara Mo

      Allan Boyd
      Do you speak in tongues brother?
      To believe is one thing, but to see the manifestation of the belief is another..
      The Master had said ” these signs shall accompany(follow) those who believe…..” and goes on to mention ” speaking in tongues as one of the signs.
      Isnt it possible that you are not a believer?
      Evidence of pregnancy is a protruded belly..
      Evidence of baptism much as many try to circumvent it because of religious doctrine is tongues..
      It is very obvious in the scriptures …

    • Allan Boyd
      Reply November 21, 2019

      Allan Boyd

      Isara Mo yes I speak in tongues.

    • Isara Mo
      Reply November 21, 2019

      Isara Mo

      Allan Boyd
      Blessed are you.
      I have discovered that most people who argue against tongues are the ones who dont speak in tongues and this include some ” super scholars” who are praised for the expertise in handling the WORD …
      How can one handle the Word of Life expertly if they dont have the Spirit?( Am just musing)

    • Troy Day
      Reply November 23, 2019

      Troy Day

      Isara Mo youve got to speak in tongues

  • Troy Day
    Reply November 21, 2019

    Troy Day

    Allan Boyd as a Catholic what are you doing here?

    • RichardAnna Boyce
      Reply November 21, 2019

      RichardAnna Boyce

      are not charismatic Catholics, similar to Pentecostals; and welcomed here so that iron sharpens iron?

  • Troy Day
    Reply November 22, 2019

    Troy Day

    most people who argue against tongues are the ones who dont speak in tongues

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.