Tongues are the initial sign of the new birth

[Jdorman]

1. Tongues are directly called a sign of the believer. (Mark 16:16-17)

2. Act 3:19 says, "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,"

This is the same pattern as Acts 2:38. First Repent, then convert(baptism) then the presence of the Lord (receive the Spirit). Acts 3:19 connects receiving the presence of the Lord with "the times of refreshing".

Isa 28:11-12 defines speaking in tongues as the "times of refreshing". Therefore when we receive the Spirit, we speak in tongues. Which is exactly what we see happen by example in Acts.

3. By example believers spoke in tongues when they initially received the Spirit (Acts 2:1-4,Acts 10:44-46, Acts 19:6)

4. The apostles used tongues as proof the gentiles received God. (Acts 11:15 )

Therefore Tongues are a sign of the believer that he experiences when he first receives the Spirit and is the initial evidence of being filled.

 

[beameup]

Were the twelve disciples/apostles "saved" during the 1st Chapter of Acts?

 

[Jdorman]

Were the twelve disciples/apostles "saved" during the 1st Chapter of Acts?

Well, the Spirit fell in the 2nd chapter. I think the 2nd chapter marks the beginning of the new covenant.

 

[beameup]

Well, the Spirit fell in the 2nd chapter. I think the 2nd chapter marks the beginning of the new covenant.

So, what was the usefulness/application/result of the Spirit in the 2nd chapter of Acts?

 

[Jdorman]

So, what was the usefulness/application/result of the Spirit in the 2nd chapter of Acts?

Two reasons. Acts one gives the reason of empowerment for witness. Acts 2 ties it with salvation (acts 2:38) which makes sense considering it is our promise of heaven (eph 1:13)

 

[TweetyBird]

Two reasons. Acts one gives the reason of empowerment for witness. Acts 2 ties it with salvation (acts 2:38) which makes sense considering it is our promise of heaven (eph 1:13)

Can you find a verse that states tongues is proof of the new birth?

 

[beameup]

Two reasons. Acts one gives the reason of empowerment for witness. Acts 2 ties it with salvation (acts 2:38) which makes sense considering it is our promise of heaven (eph 1:13)

I'm not clear. The example of the very first use of tongues (Acts 2), is best described, or characterized how?

 

[Jdorman]

I'm not clear. The example of the very first use of tongues (Acts 2), is best described, or characterized how?

The sign confirming the birth of the NT church and the power to witness.

 

[Jdorman]

Can you find a verse that states tongues is proof of the new birth?

I refer you to my original post.

Mark states that the sign of tongues is one sign that will accompany those who believe and are baptized.

Then Acts shows exactly how that sign is supposed to play out.

 

[beameup]

The sign confirming the birth of the NT church and the power to witness.

I don't recall the statement in Acts 2 where it states that it was the sign of the "new birth".
So how was this gift "used"?

 

[Jdorman]

I don't recall the statement in Acts 2 where it states that it was the sign of the "new birth".
So how was this gift "used"?

John 3:5 defines the new birth as water and Spirit. Acts 2:38 is the same pattern. Tongues are the sign of acts 2.
Therefore tongues are the sign of the new birth.

Marks great commission account lists Tongues as a sign of the baptized believer. Acts shows us how that sign plays out.

 

[Jdorman]

If you believe this you have posted, then I assure you, that you will and have been deceived, by someone speaking in tongues, thinking it was God, but in all actuality, it was the evil spirit or evil spirits within them or upon them.

Interesting. What verse would you use to show that Tongues are given by evil spirits?

 

[Jdorman]

Why would you need one?

Because Acts 2 states that it's as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance. That's like the exact opposite of what you are saying.

 

[Jdorman]

Then don't believe me.

Lol

 

[Jdorman]

It is not like I didn't know you would not believe before I told you and it is not like I did not know that you would ask me for a verse from the bible concerning it.

So the question is... why did I tell you in the first place?

My guess is and I could be wrong but maybe you went to a church or knew somebody that really was practicing/promoting an evil or wrong experience and they claimed it was tongues.

I'm not trying to defend any church just what I have seen in Scripture. Which is why you were right to know I would ask for a verse

 

[SimpleMan77]

It is not like I didn't know you would not believe before I told you and it is not like I did not know that you would ask me for a verse from the bible concerning it.

So the question is... why did I tell you in the first place?

Whatever you believe about the tongues issue, you have to admit a couple of things that are indisputable.

1. Tongues accompanied the initial outpouring of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2

2. In Acts 8, the Samaritans received the Holy Ghost as a separate event from believing, receiving the Word, and being baptized. There was VISIBLE evidence when they did.

3. Tongues also accompanied the Gentiles receiving the Holy Ghost, to the point that it is THE reason Peter said he knew that the Gentiles had received "the like gift" that the he had.

4. When Paul encountered the disciple of John the Baptist, he made a point to ask them if they had received the Holy Ghost SINCE they had believed. They hadn't up to that point, but when they did the Bible says specifically that the spoke with tongues.

Those are the facts. Now a bit of commentary.

If all the categories that Jesus said should be reached and witnessed to in Acts 1:8 received the Holy Ghost, and the Bible talks about the evidence of that, why not at least consider it might be for you today?

If it happened in the Book of Acts, why would it have ended? Why would it be demonic now if it was divinely inspired then?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[themuzicman]

Nothing in Acts 4 suggests that the 5000 there spoke in tongues. Indeed, nothing in Acts 2 suggests that the 3000 there spoke in tongues.

Further, Paul asks several rhetorical questions at the end of 1 Corinthians 12, all of which are answered "no."

1 Cor 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

So, Paul clearly indicates that not all Christians speak in tongues.

Your case "by example" fails in Acts 2 and Acts 4, and Paul contradicts your claim.

 

[themuzicman]

I wonder if Paul knew that not all Christians were children of God?

Do you believe all Christians are children of God?

Eph 1: In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

Adopted, yes.

 

[themuzicman]

I thought you had to be born of water and Spirit? Can you be adopted by water and Spirit? Say if you were born of water and Spirit wouldn't that make them your Father and mother?

Sorry for all the questions I am trying to learn.

"Born of Spirit" in John 3 refers to an election that goes beyond Israel's election by natural birth. We need to let the text tell us what this new election is, rather than assuming it.

And John 3 tells us that this new election is "whoever believes." Thus, being "born of the Spirit" just means that we have faith in Christ for a future bodily resurrection. It has nothing to do with tongues.

(Indeed, tongues is only properly used in a public context in Scripture. It is never a private thing.)

(Oh, and Eph 1 shows that we Christians are all children of God.)

 

[themuzicman]

So you do not believe that Jesus was actually born of the Spirit
but just believed in God for His resurrection?

Jesus is both God and the Son of God (not adopted), so he's a bit different from the rest of us fallen human beings, who are sons by adoption through Christ's sacrifice.

Your question is a bit like asking if Joseph Smith was a Mormon because he didn't actually follow himself.