October 3, 2010 FB
Here are my answers to Timothy’s points which he brought up in a comment on my previous note "7 Reasons why speaking in tongues is wrong". As I was going through them I was trying to see if they are true and reasonable points within their own contexts, just in case I was wrong. In my answers I try not to attack anyone who believes that tongues are for today. All I sought to do was address the points. And honestly, this matter of speaking in tongues doesn’t mean that much to me, so I don’t care about proving myself right or proving someone else wrong. I just care about finding out the truth of God's word.
"The apostle Peter said in acts 2:39 speaking of receiving the Holy ghost (like they did) that it was for them and their children and as many as the Lord will call...and i know that i'm called."
You are correct that the gift of receiving the Holy Spirit is for all Christians. A Christian cannot be a Christian without the Holy Spirit (see Rom. 8:9). Please note, the New Testament only uses the Greek word for "ghost" (phantasma, φάντασμα) two times (Matt. 14:26; Mk. 6:49), but in reference to the third person of the trinity, God the Holy Spirit, the NT uses only the word for "spirit" (pneuma, πνεῦμα), never the word for ghost. So the correct translation is Holy Spirit, not Holy Ghost. And yes, I realize that this is just semantics, but precision is always ideal.
"Also Jesus said in John 14 that it was important that he leave so that the promise of the Father(The Holy Ghost) could come, He told the Disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait to be filled with power from on high(the Holy Ghost)."
This is also correct that the promise of the Father in John 14-16 is the indwelling of the person of God the Holy Spirit. But nowhere does Jesus say that this would be evident by speaking in tongues, but he does say that the Holy Spirit would do many other things. Also, nowhere in the Bible is it stated that the gift of God to every believer is speaking in tongues. It only says that every Christian receives the Holy Spirit.
"And if you read through Acts, the apostles expected that after you beleived the gospel that you would be water baptized and then be filled with the Holy Ghost."
This is also true that the apostles expected believers to be water baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit, but not necessarily in that order. It would be too much to ask of the biblical text to make it say that a believer could only be filled with the Holy Spirit after they are baptized. In fact, when the Samaritans/Judeans receive the Holy Spirit for the first time in Acts 10, the Holy Spirit "fell upon" the believers before they were water baptized. I'm not sure if it was meant that a believer cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit until after they are baptized, but I answered as if that was the meaning. If I understood it wrong then I'm sorry and please disregard what i said for this point.
"...and being filled with the Holy Ghost is evident by Speaking in tounges!! "
This is a statement that needs to be thoroughly questioned. Does the Bible anywhere explicitly say that being "filled" with the Holy Spirit is the cause of speaking in tongues, and that tongues is the only result/evidence? I will agree that Acts does describe believers who were filled with the Holy Spirit speaking in foreign languages to foreigners when the Holy Spirit unexpectedly "fell upon" them. But it is very difficult to make the Bible say that beingfilled with the Holy Spirit always results in speaking in tongues without exception. I think we need to observe the circumstances of each time Acts describes speaking in tongues, before we attempt to make it apply to our circumstances today.
It is evident from observation that there were only three times in Acts when the Holy Spirit “fell upon” believers resulting in them speaking in tongues (Acts chapters 2, 10, & 19). Each time God was opening up a new door to the unsaved, in the exact order that Jesus said it would happen (Acts 1:8). First the Jews (Acts 2, in Jerusalem), then the Samaritans (Acts 10, Caesarea in Samaria/Judea), and finally the Gentiles (Acts 19, in Ephesus- the ends of the earth). All we can gather from observation in Acts is that the Holy Spirit made the believers glorify God by speaking in foreign languages that were always understood by others. It was not something the believers tried to do, in fact it is usually described as something unexpected. A quick note about Acts 2:4- It does not say that the believers spoke in tongues as a direct result of being filled with the Holy Spirit, rather it merely describes that they were filled when it took place- not that the filling was the cause of the tongues.
"This is how the Apostles knew if someone had received the Holy Ghost.."
Is seeing someone speak in tongues the only way that an apostle could know if a person was filled with the Holy Spirit? Or is the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 and Ephesians 5 also evidence? According to Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 John, the best evidence for someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit is a pure and holy life free of presumptuous sin and full of the fruit of the Spirit (ie love, joy, peace, patience, etc.).
"...like in Acts 10 with Cornelius, when Peter was yet talking with him and his household it says the Holy Ghost fell upon them. And how did thry know? Because they spoke in tounges verses44-47..and in 47 Petre said they received it as they did(which was evident by Speaking in tounges)"
I agree completely with the wording of this point, but not the meaning behind it. The believers received the Holy Spirit, and then the Holy Spirit “fell upon them” and made them speak in tongues. It seems best to say that they did not speak in tongues because they were filled with the Holy Spirit (because the text does not say they were "filled"), although they probably were filled with the Holy Spirit when it happened. But this does not necessarily mean that the cause of their speaking in tongues was the filling of the Holy Spirit. There were times in the Old Testament when the Holy Spirit would come upon people and they would do the miraculous. Does that mean that when we are filled with the Holy Spirit today we should be tearing lions apart with our bare hands (Judges 14:6), or design parts of the tabernacle (Ex. 31:30-35)? No, obviously those were extraordinary circumstances, just like the three times in Acts.
"...and in chapter 11:17-18 Peter tells the others what happened and that the received it the same way. I beleive that if anyone says that it's not for today or that it's wrong to speak in tounges then they are withstanding God (Acts 11:17) "
Acts 11:17 does not say that it is wrong for us to say that speaking in tongues is wrong. It only describes Peter saying that it was wrong for him to forbid them to become part of the Church at that time. There was an argument about whether or not Peter should have gone to the Judeans/Samaritans (11:1-3). It’s a stretch to make it a command for us not to say it’s wrong, and to further say that we are withstanding God if we do say it’s wrong.
"And Jesus said in Luke 12:10 that it won't be forgiven you if you speak against the Holy Ghost!! Saying that it's not for today or that it's a sin is a sin in itself!! It's like slapping God in the face because it's a gift (2 Timothy 1:6, Luke 11:13). the Gift of God talked about here is the Holy Spirit...And if you look, John testified more that Jesus was coming so we might be filled with the Holy Ghost, than he did that he was coming to redeem us!! thats how important this is!"
A quick note: In original manuscripts of the Bible tongues is never once specifically called a "gift," only a "manifestation."
Please check the contexts of the passages you reference. In Luke 12:11 Jesus talks about blaspheming the person of the Holy Spirit, not about speaking against the gifts of the Spirit. In the similar Matthew passage, Jesus says that blaspheming the Holy Spirit happens when someone sees Jesus perform miracles and they attribute the miracles to the Devil (Matt. 12:22-37). Since we do not see Jesus present here on earth performing miracles we cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit these days.
In the 2 Timothy passage Paul does not mention speaking in tongues. Also, if Timothy had the gift of tongues, and Paul was writing to “stir up the gift,” then why doesn’t Paul write about tongues in either 1 or 2 Timothy? It seems reasonable to say that the gift which Paul was writing to stir up was not speaking in tongues, but it was the gift of being a pastor (because he was writing to Timothy about being a pastor).
As for John, he never mentions the manifestation of speaking in tongues in any of his writings. Are we to presume that John always means speaking in tongues when he is talking about being filled with the Holy Spirit, even though he never once mentions speaking in tongues?
"...and in Gal.3:13-14 Paul puts the promise of receiving the Holy Ghost (which is only evident by speaking in tounges) with Savation itself!! I didn't say this Paul did. And I could go on and on and on about this and show you time after time that it is very important for us as Christians to not neglect this Gift..."
I agree that Paul puts the promise of receiving the Holy Spirit with salvation, but Paul does not mention tongues in Galatians at all. We have to read that into the biblical text. We have to presume that he means tongues, without any warrant from the text to do so. But doing so is not allowing the text to speak for itself.
Here are a few questions: If I have never spoken in tongues does that mean that I am not saved? Did the thief on the cross speak in tongues? Did Moses? Did David? Did Jesus? Did the 3000 Jews who were saved on Pentecost in Acts 2? Or the 5000 in Acts 4? If we believe that they all did then from where do we get that information?
To support a view by arguing from biblical silence is not a good idea. If the Bible doesn’t say something explicitly, it’s never safe to presume something that is probably not there.
"...just show me one timr in the scriptures that it's not for today...you can't! This is a lie that Satan has spead,"
I have already shown, in a previous note, that it is direct disobedience to Jesus, and that it does not edify the Church (see points #5 & #7 of my note "7 Reasons why...") so i will direct you to that note.
Since every time it is ever described in Acts it is always something that the Holy Spirit does to the believers, not something that they were trying to do, and since it is always described as foreign languages, we cannot say for certain that it is what we are supposed to do nowadays.
As for saying that it is a lie from Satan to say that speaking in tongues is wrong, I could also wonder if it’s possible for it to be a lie from Satan that speaking in tongues is a gift for us today. One of the views has to be right.
"...and 1 Cor.12-14 does nothing but encourage you to Speak in tounges...you just are getting it wrong.."
This is where I will have to completely disagree. It is actually the exact opposite of what you have just said. Those chapters are written to discourage believers from speaking in tongues, and the main thrust is to encourage two things: Love and unity. The whole reason why Paul was writing this section was because those who were trying to speak in tongues to edify only themselves were disrupting the unity of the Corinthian church. That’s why Paul says to pursue proclaiming God’s written word (prophecy, 1 Cor. 14:1), and that proclaiming God’s written word is greater than the true manifestation of foreign languages (14:5). Throughout the section Paul makes a definite distinction between false tongues (“a tongue” gibberish) and the true manifestation (“tongues” foreign languages). The true manifestation was speaking foreign languages and, gathering the data from 1 Corinthians 12-14, its normal operation was done by one person, who had the manifestation, either witnessing to an unsaved foreign person or edifying the church with an interpreter who would interpret the speaker (14:5). It was not given to all believers but to some (12:28-30), and the three times when it occurs in Acts it only happened when the Holy Spirit forcibly “fell upon” a new group of believers who were being added to the Church.
"Because the prophet Joel said (Joel 2:28-32) That in the last days God would pour out his Spirit upon ALL flesh..and Peter testifies of this in Acts 2:16-18 and in verse 33 Peter said that it was what they were seeing and HEARING that Joel had prophisied about. So this is what GOD said so thats all i need!!"
First of all, the prophesy of Joel does not mention tongues at all. It only mentions God pouring out His Spirit on all flesh and all people prophesying (proclaiming God's word).
Second, here's a question: If Joel’s prophecy were fulfilled at that time then did ALL people, both saved and unsaved, receive the Holy Spirit? Did the entire world get saved? Obviously no. Since all people, saved and unsaved, did not receive the Holy Spirit at that time then this prophecy was not fulfilled the way it was written. And since all prophecy must be fulfilled as written, Peter must therefore be saying that what was happening on the day of Pentecost was only similar to what Joel said would happen, not that it was the same thing. And it is not straining the text to interpret it that way.
Peter, in the original Greek of Acts 2:33, says that the gift of God is the Holy Spirit, not tongues. In the grammatical structure of the sentence, the referent of “the promise” is the Holy Spirit, not what was going on at the time. So when Peter says that God “poured out this which you now see and hear,” he is not referring to the promise of the Holy Spirit. They are two different parts of the sentence. The promise of the Holy Spirit and what the Jews in Jerusalem were experiencing at the time cannot be equated with each other in the original Greek.
"I thnk that you need to seek God to open up your minds to this unspeakable gift.."
Once again, please check your contexts. The unspeakable gift is not tongues because Paul is not talking about tongues in that section (2 Cor. 9:10-15). Furthermore, how could tongues be spoken if they’re supposedly an unspeakable gift?
"...because you are lacking if you don't have it!"
(See Col. 2:8-10) In addressing this final point I am going to assume that you are right that babbling like the pagans in ecstatic prayer language is a true freedom (not a necessity) that we may exercise in Christ. I will now show how unloving it is to say that we are lacking if we don’t have the manifestation of tongues, even though you probably didn’t mean it to be that way.
In Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 Paul absolutely condemns looking down on other believers because of their own convictions and/or freedoms. He says that if we do look down on other believers because of their different convictions about gray areas then we are not walking in love (Rom. 14:15). Paul says that when we accuse believers of lacking something from God we “condemn” and “regard with contempt” our brothers in Christ, thereby destroying the unity of the Church that Jesus prayed for (John 17:20-23). In principle, Paul would say that God has accepted both the believers who do speak in tongues and the believers who don’t (Rom. 14:3), and each one is solely accountable to God, not to anyone else (14:4, 12).
Paul would make it even stronger and say that by flaunting our own personal freedom we can actually cause another weaker brother to violate their conviction and stumble into sin (1 Cor. 8:9). And, not only is it sin for the weak person whose conviction is violated, but Paul makes it crystal clear that in this situation it is also sin for the strong person to use their freedom (8:12a). Paul then makes it even more direct and says that using our freedom in a situation like this is sin against, not only the weak believer, but also against the Lord Jesus Himself (8:12b). So even if it were true that babbling in gibberish is a spiritual freedom we have in Christ, then looking down on someone because they either do or don't practice it, is sinful.
I feel I have sufficiently answered these points with reasonable objectivity, trying not to force the Bible to say what I want it to, taking scriptural context and historical setting and audience into account. In essence, there is no substantial or explicit reason to believe that speaking in tongues is for every believer today. The only way we can come to that conclusion is to take something that the Bible merely describes (not commands), make it jump through a hoop to mean that tongues is the only evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit, then make that jump through another hoop to mean that this now applies to every believer, and then make that jump through another hoop that says every time the NT talks about a “promise” or “gift” or being "filled with the Spirit" it must mean tongues (even though 99.9% of those passages have nothing to do with tongues at all), and then make that jump through another hoop, and so on. By mostly reading into the text without warrant, this just asks way too much of the biblical text to make it say that our modern form of tongues is okay.
No comments:
Post a Comment