SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Speaking in Tongues

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next Page )

Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


Part 3.

In a previous post JesusisGod2 wrote: I believe the tongues are a gift for the body of Christ today but not all are going to speak in them and those that dont in no way means that they were not baptised in the Holy Spirit! This is unscriptural.

Reply: Speaking of baptism some have been using 1Corinthians chapter 12. Verse 13 is one that many use to make just this point noted above. Note, however, what is being said in the first part of this verse:

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body..."

This is not speaking of the baptism that Jesus gives us-into the Holy Spirit-instead, this is the Spirit bapitzing us into Jesus. Verse 13 of 1st Corinthians is talking about conversion and is distinct from the baptism in the Spirit.

Now some hold to this as the Spirit batism but hold that there is a subsequent infilling.

To say that teaching the initial physical evidence is unscriptural is to ignore every incedent of its occurance in the book of Acts my brother.

JesusisGod2 wrote: I myself am pentecostal and do not speak in tongues and have prayed for them as well as all of the gifts, and as of yet have not spoken in them. But I know for certain I have been baptised into the body of Christ and will be with my tongue speaking brothers when Christ come to call us home.

Reply: Amen Brother, I can't wait untill we are all up there before the throne worshipping together.

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey

Jeremy Hulsey

 2003/9/11 2:35Profile

Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


Part 4.

I'm going to try to reply in this next post without giving a commentary on 1Corinthians Ch.14, but it's gonna be hard not to. ;-)

Herdman wrote:


First, the disciples who were asked, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?", in Acts 19, were evidently Apollos' converts (Acts 18:24-28) because they only knew John's baptism (18:25; 19:3). They didn't get "saved" until Paul preached to them "that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." At the point that they received Jesus, they would have been baptised by the Holy Ghost into the body of Christ (see below). Then they were baptised in water. When the Holy Ghost "came on them" in verse 6 to speak with tongues and prophesy, he had to already be "in" them or they would not have been saved.

So, there is a difference between being "baptised" by the Holy Spirit and being "filled" with the Spirit.

The baptsm by the Holy Ghost into the body of Christ is a spiritual baptism that takes place when a person receives Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit baptises that person into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (Rom. 6:3-6), spiritually circumcises his flesh away from his soul, "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," (Col. 2:11-12), and puts him into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 5:30-32), all of which takes place at salvation, and without water.

Reply: You have got a good grasp here on the distinction between being baptized by the Spirit(into the body of Christ; conversion) and being baptized into the Spirit (The infilling of the Holy Spirit as Jesus sends forth the promise of the Father).

Herdman wrote: Second, the tongues in 1 Cor. 14 are unknown to the hearers, not to the speaker.(huh?) The hearers need an interpreter so that they will know what the "barbarian" is saying (14:11). If the speaker has the "gift" of tongues, then he won't need an interpreter at all (Acts 2)(huh?) because every man would hear "them speak in his own language," (Acts 2:6). That's why Paul said that these tongues can be learned(???) (14:16, 23) because they are languages. :-D (ok, I had a little fun with that quote)

Reply: Ok, let's break down chapter 14. Verses 1-6 Paul addresses the problem. What was Really going on in Corinth was the mistaken pagan belief that if one babbled then their god was with them. In the pagan temples the worshipers would work themselves up into a frenzy, and when they started babbling this would be a sign that their god had blessed them. This was the sign to unbelievers that Paul is talking about in verse 22. This is set up by verse 21 where by Paul is quoting Isaiah 28:11, which is a judgement on Israel for not listening to the Lord. Paul is applying this to the pagans in their temple worship. The Corinthian Church fell into this error.

In verses 7-11 Paul is giving examples of things that are not understood by people. He uses instruments playing out of tune and two foreigners trying to communicate. These are examples of failure of communication used to explain why tongues should be followed with an interpretation. He is not explaining the mystery of tongues with the example of the barbarian.

"Second, the tongues in 1 Cor. 14 are unknown to the hearers, not to the speaker"

This is not a correct interpretation of what Paul is saying. Verse 14: For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays(speaks mysteries), but my mind is unfruitful(he doesn't understand what he is himself saying).

"If the speaker has the "gift" of tongues, then he won't need an interpreter at all"(?)

Verse 27: If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and on must interpret

Paul shows here that there is a difference between tongues and interpretations. Interpretation is equated later in the chapter with prophecying. I am studying German right now, but if I can interpret what a German is saying into English, that doesn't make me a prophet.

Acts Ch.2 is one of many examples given in the New Testament of the operation of tongues; not all of which were immediately understood by the people, thus the need for the gift of interpreting tongues.

How do you get out of verses 16 and 23 that these langueges can be learned?

"Evidently, what was going on in this seaport is that foreigners were coming in to the congregation with something to say (14:26) but few, if any, could understand them."

The context of verse 26 is clearly not talking about foreigners but of the congregation of Corinth.

The context of the text must be the determining factor of what scripture is saying. The scriptures cannot mean what they never meant. Paul is laying out for the Corinthians an explanation of the proper use of tongues in the congregation. The context is clearly speaking of tongues as a mystery.

Verse 2: For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God(so if I know how to speak German, I am actually speaking to God if I'm in a room of Frenchmen?); for no one understands(this includes the speaker), but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

I hope I have shed a little light on this subject and not just muddied the waters.

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey

Jeremy Hulsey

 2003/9/11 11:29Profile

Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


Hisrock wrote: One has to examine the definition of a fiery cloven tongue to really understand speaking in tongues. As a ship divides the waters of the ocean as it travels (cloven), so an individual totally immersed in the Word of God divides the world's doctrines from His truth, all by the fire of God's Word.

Reply: There are several things taking place at once here in Acts chapter 2. This is the birth of the church. The cloven tongues translation could be translated as a fire appearing among them that divided up into tongues resting over each one of them.

The fire is important; but not in the issue of the baptism in the Spirit. There is something wonderful taking place here. When the first sacrifice took place in the Tabernacle, God came down and consumed the sacrifice, the same took place at the opening of Solomon's temple, now it's taking place at the birth of the Church. God is pleased with what's taking place and is in effect putting his signature on it.

Hisrock wrote: A friend of mine, who was a missionary for years, speaks five languages. He told me that it was a gift of God, given of the Holy Spirit and is to be used to glorify God. I believe that is the closest anyone will get to speaking in tongue's in the literal sense.

Reply: This is actually the definition the Mormon's give to the gift of tongues; not a supernatural soveriegn act of God, but a talent or ability given to natural men. The gifts can be better understood in the whole of the Church. While individuals will operate in these ministries, they are not gifts to individuals, but to the Church as a whole in which the Holy Spirit divides up and dispenses as He sees the need. While we may be used in these gifts, they are not ours, but always belong to the Holy Spirit for the edification of the Lord's Church.

I do hold to the initial evidence but I am in total agreement that it is not the definitive evidence. One cannot fall back on the excuse, "Well I spoke in tongues so I've been baptized," if they are living an immoral life. I would say that person had a false experience. It must be followed by a life that bears the fruit of the Spirit.

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey

Jeremy Hulsey

 2003/9/14 13:46Profile

Joined: 2003/9/7
Posts: 17


Seek the giver of the gifts. Christ is greater than His gifts. Get focused on Him. If you are putting your emphasis on the gifts then your actually putting the gifts before the giver and that makes an idol of the gifts-hence idolatry.

Seek Him and He will fill you in His time.

Also, When you get the gift of the Spirit, you will be the first one to know it and will not question whether you have it or not. The problem in allot of churches is they land hands on you and you say "Hubba dubba bubba" and they say "you just got filled". Nonsense! If someone has to tell you have the Holy Ghost, then you don't have Him. When He comes, you will know it!

 2003/9/14 17:21Profile

Joined: 2003/12/30
Posts: 3
Washington State, USA


Taka wrote: It is also important to note that Pentecostalism has not only accepted an understanding of the book of Acts that is "novel" but it has also made this doctrine the most important distinguishing feature of its identity. An essential area of contemporary Pentecostal theology, then, was simply absent from the church until modern times.

Hulsey Replied: Many things were lost as the Catholic Church slowly fell into apostacy. The Early Church was by and large filled with all of the Charismata right up untill the end of the 3rd century (200's). Many restoration movements would arise through the years that would either be put down or fall into error, many times both happened. But as the Church began to split off of the Catholic Church, at which point should we have stopped seeking the restoration of all the Church's former glory? Many things were lost to Catholicism that have been regained by protestantism. What's to say that this isn't one of them?

It can not be one of them because nobody ever taught this before Charles Parham in 1901. You can not recapture what was never lost and we should not teach, what was never taught.

Joe Miller

 2003/12/30 17:26Profile

Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37912
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11


It can not be one of them because nobody ever taught this before Charles Parham in 1901. You can not recapture what was never lost and we should not teach, what was never taught.

What do you exactly mean? The baptism of the Holy Spirit? It has been taught especially before the asuza street revival, people like R.A. Torrey and Andrew Murray taught these doctrines in a much more proper and fuller sense. But the experience of the restoration of the Holy spirit in its fulness in people really came out in the revival at azuza street.

SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2003/12/31 0:18Profile

Joined: 2003/12/8
Posts: 65
Manitoba, Canada


Something had to show this was the identical gift with that given in Acts 2:4 before the Jerusalem Christians could be satisfied. Peter did not say, "I hope they receied the outpouring, the Gentiles took it by faith, so I think they have it, I believe they have it." He knew they were filled, not by thier testimony, but by the Holy Spirit's testimony through them. The Spirit gave the evidence, and He gave only one. "The spoke with tongues and magnified God" (exactly as in Acts 2:4,11).
Obviously, speaking in tongues was the convincing evidence here. And in a day when so many think, hope, believe, and then wonder whether they have the baptism in the Spirit, perhaps a convincing evidence is still needed.

Tongues was the sign of baptism in the Spirit in all recorded instances except for mabye 2 or 3. Now a person could easily read into those two or three instances that speaking in tongues was implied.
My take on this subject is that the tongues were indeed the intial evidence which was required for Peter to know that the Gentiles had indeed received the same baptism as the Jews and therefore had the same excess to the covenant. Thereby he gave leave to baptise them into the new coventant. However, I would say that it was the initial evidence only in those few recorded cases in Acts. My reasoning is (and I am open to correction) that devil started coming in as an angel of light and creating counterfeit tongues, diciples, teachers, ect... Keep in mind that what makes an error attractive is the amount of truth in it. The more truth the more attractive. NObody would believe something that is 100% false. I do not believe that tongues is still the convincing evidence. Bearing in mind that convincing evidence is needed only to convince others of the baptism, scripture seems to clearly imply that those who receive the baptism KNOW that they kave received the Spirit. The only sign of Baptism Of The Spirit that I would call genuine each and every time is a changed life, a christlike demeanor, a love for the things of Christ, a hatred for the things that Christ hates, in short Christ dwelling IN YOU.

A Work In Progress

 2004/1/2 13:44Profile

Joined: 2003/10/15
Posts: 1632


This is a very interesting topic for me. Our last church was non- denominational but charasmatic. This is where I first learned to "hear' from the Lord and that I had the heart of a "prophet" yet I don't know I would call it that. I always think that all christians should have a hunger for righteousness and very good discernment about things that are "anti"- Christ.

I was prayed over many times to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit- which I knew I already had- but couldn't speak in tongues. When one "expert" approached me in a long line of others- he stopped when he got close and said "wow, you have the Holy Spirit all over you!" I was like, then how is that I can't speak in tongues? He prayed for me. I was the only one totally overcome to the floor with the Holy Spirit- yet no tongues!

I went home dissappointed because I knew I had other gifts (discernment, etc...) Right away the Lord gave me Romans 12, then I continued with 13and 14. I felt He was trying to tell me something there. I knew from these passages that I should be grateful for the gifts I have and not worry about whether I spoke in tongues. I had some gifts that were edifying to others (wisdom, discernment, teaching)So why was I so upset about not speaking in tongues? Because of the church and their doctrine. Many at the church told me that it WAS the evidance and that maybe I wasn't ready yet, or relaxed enough, or whatever.

Now I am glad that I have the gifts I have and do not speak in tongues- this is one of the things which seperated me from the charasmatic church (along with some discerning things in the church).

I am quite weird when I look at it. My belief in prophecy, dreams, and the miraculous keeps me out of the consrvative churches. But then my belief against "everyone has to speak in tongues", and other charasmatic movement things (false prophets)- keeps me out of the charasmatic churches.

I really don't fit in anywhere. Which is why I am still at home for now.


 2004/1/5 18:32Profile

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Theological Algebra

Some time ago I was playing about with something I called Theological Algebra. It may serve as I kind of 'international translator' so that when someone uses a phrase like 'baptism in the Spirit' you will have an idea of what they mean by it.

1.The Key
a. -> signifies "leading to..."
b. / signifies "otherwise knows as.."
c. = signifies "is the same as.."

2. the Reformed (Calvinist) position
a. regeneration > conversion > sealing of Spirit/assurance
i. Calvinists regard conversion as the evidence of regeneration
ii. but do allow for an assurance/witness of the Spirit to come later
iii. this would have been Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones' essential position

3. the Brethren position
a. conversion/regeneration = baptism in Spirit
i. Brethren used to say that conversion = regeneration
ii. they also distinguished between Standing and State
1) i.e. what we are In Christ and what we are In Experience
2) "reckoning" on the fact of what we are in Christ brings us into a conscious experience.
iii. Standing and State become identical.
1) This is Watchman Nee's position.
iv. there are now some Charismatic Brethren

4. the Wesleyan Holiness position
a. conversion/regeneration > pure heart/sanctification/baptism in Spirit
i. Wesley taught concerning justification and regeneration that in order of time "neither of these is before the other... but that in order of thinking... justification precedes the New Birth." Sermon on The New Birth
ii. Wesley didn't use the phrase "baptism in Spirit", but John Fletcher of Madeley did
iii. Wesleyans used the phrase Perfect Love, or Christian Perfection to describe the experience of sanctification
b. Later Wesleyan Holiness (Church of the Nazarene etc.,) people called this The Second Blessing or Sanctification

5. the Keswick position
a. conversion/regeneration > sanctification (as a process)
i. Wesleyan Holiness teaches that the root of sin is removed in a moment of time
1) this is the position of Thomas Cook, Samuel Chadwick, Paget Wilkes
ii. Keswick Holiness teaches that the power of sin (or the old nature) remains but may be overpowered daily by the Spirit's life
1) this is the position of J.C.Ryle, Andrew Murray, Donald Barnhouse, The Billy Graham Organization

6. the Pentecostal Holiness position
a. conversion/regeneration > pure heart/sanctification > power for service/baptism in Spirit

i. the first "Pentecostals" were Wesleyan Holiness with a subsequent "empowering" experience of the Spirit

7. the Pentecostal/Charismatic position
a. conversion/regeneration > power for service/baptism in Spirit
i. Charismatics are Pentecostals in non Pentecostal denominations
1) some Pentecostals insist on tongues as the initial evidence of baptism in Spirit
2) NB the idea of a crisis in which the Spirit deals with the root of sin has no real place in Charismatic teaching.
b. some Anglo Catholic and Roman Catholic Charismatics believe in baptismal regeneration of infants

8. RB position as at 6 Jan 2004 !!
a. conversion > (regeneration + union + full repentance + pure heart/sanctification + power for service + assurance) = baptism in Spirit
i. i.e. full immersion into all the flowing, living life of God!
ii. Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
iii. 2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

In my personal pilgrimage through this Theological Algebra I have been Keswick, followed by Pentecostal/Charismatic, followed by Pentecostal-Holiness, and have held my current understanding for about 30 years, however 'watch this space....' ;-)

Ron Bailey

 2004/1/6 5:12Profile

Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA


I have to be honest here.

1. I hate algebra.
2. This is likely because I was stoned (not the biblical kind) through all of High School.
3.My biggest concern in regards to regeneration is that of brain cells!
4.This is very helpful, I think, (see #3)
5.Surely I jest, though the statements are true.
6.Lastly MB's postion as of Jan. 6,2004:
a)On my face before God


Mike Balog

 2004/1/6 11:38Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy