Tongues are the initial sign of the new birth

[TweetyBird]

You've actually used what's called an "argument from silence" In other words the fact tongues are not mentioned everytime the Bible talks about salvation neither proves or disproves it's occurrence. Luke chose representative accounts in Acts to show a pattern of normality with Tongues.

Uh, no. Salvation is the pre-eminent focus of the NT. If tongues was the evidence to prove it, then it would have been mentioned many times to make sure people "got it". After all, the repetitive message throughout the NT was the requirement for salvation - belief in Jesus Christ. Yet in all of those texts, none of them mentions anything about proof needed by speaking in tongues.

Let's look at what Peter said to the jailer, just for an example. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". [Acts 16] Not one word about tongues. The sign happened back in Acts 10/11 when Cornelius received tongues as a sign of proof that salvation was given to the Gentiles. Tongues was never used for that purpose again. Just like at Pentecost, it was a sign to the Jews and did not need to be repeated. According to 1 Cor 12 - tongues was given to the body of Christ as the Spirit wills - not for all, for some and interpreted for the encouragement of body of Christ.

 

[SimpleMan77]

3 times. Not four. That is conjecture and desperation to get the text to say something it does not to prove your theology.



Exaggeration is not going to help your case. It would have only taken a word or two if it happened everytime. It is curious that for as important as you want tongues to be in the NT, the writers would have made sure by mentioning it dozens of times, not just 3. Grasping at straws does not a doctrine make. Tongues was just not that important to the Gospel message. It was a sign at first, but then, no more mention of it other than 1 Cor 12-14.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The 4 times that it specifically mentions, in detail, people receiving the Holy Ghost are:

1)the 120 on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)
2)the Samaritans (Acts 8)
3)the Gentiles (Acts 10)
4)disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19)

As I said, EVERY time there was VISIBLE evidence, and 3 times it specifically mentions tongues. The time it didn't specifically mention tongues, there was still VISIBLE evidence.

Tell me one other place in the book of Acts where it goes into any detail about people receiving the Holy Ghost and doesn't specifically mention speaking with tongues.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

That is not what he said, however. He said the Holy Spirit FELL UPON and POURED OUT ON. That is not the new birth.

Acts 10:45-48
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Peter later, in recounting this, said that God had given the Gentiles "the like gift" that He had given them.

Note that the Bible specifically says that the proof that Peter had of the Gentiles receiving the Holy Ghost was that "they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God".


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[TweetyBird]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The 4 times that it specifically mentions, in detail, people receiving the Holy Ghost are:

1)the 120 on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)
2)the Samaritans (Acts 8)
3)the Gentiles (Acts 10)
4)disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19)

No, Acts 8 does not say that anyone spoke in tongues. The Holy Spirit fell on the Samaritans. They were saved because they believed on Jesus and were baptized in water. They were already born again of Spirit. The Spirit falling on someone does not make them saved or prove that one is saved.

As I said, EVERY time there was VISIBLE evidence, and 3 times it specifically mentions tongues. The time it didn't specifically mention tongues, there was still VISIBLE evidence.

There were 1000s of salvations recorded in the NT with no tongues mentioned. Being baptized with the Holy Spirit was not the "new birth". The disciples had already received the Holy Spirit in John 20. They were already saved and born again.

Tell me one other place in the book of Acts where it goes into any detail about people receiving the Holy Ghost and doesn't specifically mention speaking with tongues.

Acts 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 ... just for starters.

 

[TweetyBird]

Acts 10:45-48
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Peter later, in recounting this, said that God had given the Gentiles "the like gift" that He had given them.

Note that the Bible specifically says that the proof that Peter had of the Gentiles receiving the Holy Ghost was that "they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God".

Tongues was the sign that the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles, that Gentiles were accepted into the household of faith. It was not proof of their salvation.

Acts 11
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

 

[Jdorman]

Uh, no. Salvation is the pre-eminent focus of the NT. If tongues was the evidence to prove it, then it would have been mentioned many times to make sure people "got it". After all, the repetitive message throughout the NT was the requirement for salvation - belief in Jesus Christ. Yet in all of those texts, none of them mentions anything about proof needed by speaking in tongues.

Let's look at what Peter said to the jailer, just for an example. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". [Acts 16] Not one word about tongues. The sign happened back in Acts 10/11 when Cornelius received tongues as a sign of proof that salvation was given to the Gentiles. Tongues was never used for that purpose again. Just like at Pentecost, it was a sign to the Jews and did not need to be repeated. According to 1 Cor 12 - tongues was given to the body of Christ as the Spirit wills - not for all, for some and interpreted for the encouragement of body of Christ.

Why would it have to be repeated every epistle if the believers of those churches already had experienced it
Also luke specifically says that he writes to confirm what's been taught.
Agree to disagree I suppose.

 

[beameup]

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

That's a non-answer to my question of "how" were the tongues used in Acts 2.
Your "position" also implies that the disciples/apostles were not "saved" until Acts 2.

 

[beameup]

I don't know why that's necessary. Scholars have known for years that Mark 16:9-20 was added later.

Scholars have known for years that Mark 16:9-20 was redacted later.
There, I fixed it.

 

[Crucible]

'Tongues' were a temporary gift of the Spirit to edify- people no longer edify anything with it, it's just gibberish by people who think they are receiving something.

I used to feel a bit bad for bringing it up, not wanting to rain on people's parade- but there's too much nonsense going on in Christian society to continue letting it all go without criticism.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Tongues was the sign that the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles, that Gentiles were accepted into the household of faith. It was not proof of their salvation.

Acts 11
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

It was proof that they had received the Holy Ghost. Having the Holy Ghost "poured out on them" means the same as being filled.

When the 120 received the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost, Peter referenced the prophecy of Joel 2:29:

And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids
in those days will I pour out my spirit.

There "pour out My Spirit" equaled being filled with the Holy Ghost. Same for the Gentiles.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

No, Acts 8 does not say that anyone spoke in tongues. The Holy Spirit fell on the Samaritans. They were saved because they believed on Jesus and were baptized in water. They were already born again of Spirit. The Spirit falling on someone does not make them saved or prove that one is saved.



There were 1000s of salvations recorded in the NT with no tongues mentioned. Being baptized with the Holy Spirit was not the "new birth". The disciples had already received the Holy Spirit in John 20. They were already saved and born again.



Acts 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 ... just for starters.

I never claimed the Bible said that the Samaritans spoke with tongues - I said the Bible doesn't say for sure, but it does say that they received the Holy Ghost when Peter and John came and laid hands on them.

That was after they had believed and received the Word with great joy, and had been baptized, but had still not been filled with the Spirit.

When the Apostles laid hands on them they received the Holy Ghost, and what I had said was that there was VISIBLE EVIDENCE. The Bible doesn't say that it was tongues, but it visible and impressive. The fact that every other time the Bible gives details about receiving the Holy Ghost, that visible evidence is speaking with tongues means it is a sure bet to say they spoke in tongues as the initial evidence.

And yes, the Bible mentions a lot of people being converted. But 4 times it mentions them receiving the Holy Ghost, and every single time it said there was visible proof. 3 out of 4 times it specifically says that evidence is tongues, and the fourth time it doesn't say for sure.

Acts 4, 5, 6 doesn't tell detailed accounts of people receiving the Holy Ghost. Acts 2, 8, 10 & 19 does.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Jdorman]

For further reading see: http://web.archive.org/web/20090316...puserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/New-Ch9.htm

 

[Jdorman]

The modern versiona like to modify words to make them a bit more palatable. If one uses "accompany" that gives the idea that one is a co-partner in getting the signs. That would be favorable for the signs and wonders movement due to one's faith and belief. To "follow", places the impetus on God who does the giving as He wills, not dependent upon man. So I prefer to use "follow".

The Greek word used is

G3877
παρακολουθέω
parakoloutheō
par-ak-ol-oo-theh'-o
From G3844 and G190; to follow near, that is, (figuratively) attend (as a result), trace out, conform to: - attain, follow, fully know, have understanding.

"G3877
παρακολουθέω
parakolouthéō; contracted parakolouthṓ, fut. parakoluthḗsō, from pará (G3844), near, and akolouthéō (G190), to follow. To accompany side by side, follow closely, attend to carefully. In the NT:"

The Complete Word Study Dictionary
© 1992 By AMG International, Inc.
Chattanooga, TN 37422, U.S.A.
Revised edition, 1993

 

[Jdorman]

That's a non-answer to my question of "how" were the tongues used in Acts 2.
Your "position" also implies that the disciples/apostles were not "saved" until Acts 2.

It was used as a sign that confirmed and furthered the NT method of salvation. I am ok with thinking the apostles hadn't experienced the full NT experience of salvation until Acts 2

 

[Lilstu]

One individual’s ecstatic speech was tape recorded and played back separately to many individuals who believed that they had the gift of interpreting tongues. Their interpretations were quite inconsistent.
How could speaking in tongues be a real literal glossa, or language, if the interpretations of that very same language are contradictory?
Jeff Wehr, “Speaking in Tongues,” Our Firm Foundation, Vol. 11, #11, 1996-NOV-11,

 

[Jdorman]

One individual’s ecstatic speech was tape recorded and played back separately to many individuals who believed that they had the gift of interpreting tongues. Their interpretations were quite inconsistent.
How could speaking in tongues be a real literal glossa, or language, if the interpretations of that very same language are contradictory?
Jeff Wehr, “Speaking in Tongues,” Our Firm Foundation, Vol. 11, #11, 1996-NOV-11,

I don't think the wrongful practice of a gift (if they were even really practicing the gift at all) is cause enough to say it's not a biblical doctrine for today

 

[TweetyBird]

Why would it have to be repeated every epistle if the believers of those churches already had experienced it
Also luke specifically says that he writes to confirm what's been taught.
Agree to disagree I suppose.

The believers of what "all churches" experienced it?

Luke was referring to what Jesus taught the apostles, the commandments He gave them. Tongues was a sign, not a doctrine :doh:

 

[Jdorman]

The believers of what "all churches" experienced it?

Luke was referring to what Jesus taught the apostles, the commandments He gave them. Tongues was a sign, not a doctrine :doh:

Jesus taught tongues as a sign to the apostles in Mark 16:17

 

[TweetyBird]

Scholars have known for years that Mark 16:9-20 was redacted later.
There, I fixed it.

nah ... that is totally untrue.

The actual manuscript evidence is that about 99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts support the traditional ending. Westcott and Hort promoted the ending as questionable in the late 1800s along with their other Biblical perversions.

My question is, why do people want to rip this passage out of the Bible?

 

[TweetyBird]

'Tongues' were a temporary gift of the Spirit to edify- people no longer edify anything with it, it's just gibberish by people who think they are receiving something.

I used to feel a bit bad for bringing it up, not wanting to rain on people's parade- but there's too much nonsense going on in Christian society to continue letting it all go without criticism.

I totally agree with you.