The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

[Justin]

I’ve been studying on the Gift of Tongue as Paul mentions in 1 Cor 12. In verses 29-30, Paul asks questions in which he expects the answer to be “no”:

29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret ?

If all are not expected to speak in tongues, how do we validate the “Tongues Initial evidence” doctrine? In chapter 14, Paul continues about tongues… he references speaking to God (in tongues) for private prayer, and speaking to others in tongues (as long as there is an interpreter). In my opinion, Paul does not differentiate between speaking to God in tongues and speaking to others in tongues.

When I read about tongues in Acts 2 and subsequent chapters where people speak in tongues when they receive the Holy Ghost, it seems to reflect the Gift of Tongues… which Paul says not everyone will speak in Tongues…

[Pliny]

Obviously there is a contradiction...


A contradiction in the understanding not the bible.
Read the passage of John 3 and pay attention to what Jesus says concerning the wind. There is a sound that comes with the wind - so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.

On the day of Pentecost that sound was revealed as tongues. Thus, there are two types/purposes of tongues.
1) They build up the individual.
2) When the "gift of tongues" is used they are intended to build up the church.


How did the Jews know the gentiles received the Holy Ghost (Acts 10)?
Because they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

In Acts 8 we are not told specifically what happened but it is apparent that something miraculous took place. Simon would never have offered money unless it was truly a remarkable event. Though it does not say specifically it certainly is more than plausible that he heard them speak with tongues.


The "gift of tongues" is to be by one or two only. Contradicts Acts except when understood that they are two separate things.

Paul also said forbid not to speak with tongues.
He also said that he is glad that he speaks in tongues more than ALL of them, indicating that all of them speak with tongues.

As I mentioned earlier tongues builds up the individual's faith. Therefore, every individual should speak in tongues and yield themselves to the Holy Ghost.

The gift of tongues is intended for the purpose of edifying the body so should be done by relatively few because it is the interpretation that matters in that instance.

[Scott Hutchinson]

The gift of tongues is for congregational use,the usage of the gift of tongues differs from initial evidence tongues.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

The gift of tongues is for congregational use,the usage of the gift of tongues differs from initial evidence tongues.

I under stand that this is crucial to prove the initial evidence doctrine, but where in scripture can this be proven?

One could say that when the folks in Acts 2, 8 and 10 received the Holy Ghost, they simply began exercising the Gift of Tongues (1 Cor 12-14). What's also critical to note is that they also "prophesied" which is another Gift of the Spirit.

Are you going to say there is a difference between Acts 2 "prophecy" and the gift of the Spirit (prophecy)? You'd have to, if you differentiate between the tongues.

[Aquila]

I'd say that it is definitely "initial evidence" in that it served as the initial evidence in Acts. However, something can be present without evidence of it's reality. It's the first thing we might look for... but not the only thing. In ancient times "Christians" who were seeking God experienced spiritual "ecstasy" wherein they received visions, were visited by angels, and worked healings and miracles. Some spoke unintelligibly. However, record doesn't show that all did. Therefore, I argue that it is the "initial evidence" we should look for... but not the only evidence. We must be discerning.

[Scott Hutchinson]

In Acts 2:4 all who received The Holy Ghost baptism spake with tongues,there also is several meanings of the word prophesying. Prophesying can also mean speaking under inspiration or it can be fore telling if you will.In a church service all would not give messages in tongues,that is Paul what meant in 1.Cor.12.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

In Acts 2:4 all who received The Holy Ghost baptism spake with tongues,there also is several meanings of the word prophesying. Prophesying can also mean speaking under inspiration or it can be fore telling if you will.In a church service all would not give messages in tongues,that is Paul what meant in 1.Cor.12.

You are correct. I just taught on this subject the other day. I don't think anyone would disagree that the prophecy mentioned in Acts 2:4 is the same as the gift mentioned in 1 Cor 12.

[renee819]

Justin, I go into this more thoroughly in the Debate Room under Salvation Issues. “The difference in Other Tongues and Unknown Tongues.

The main difference is---Other Tongues is a foreign language. And anyone close by the speaker that understands that language, can interpret it.
The purpose? As evidence when a person receives the Holy Ghost. And we are never told of any other evidence of the Holy Ghost, in the Bible.

Unknown Tongues---no man understands, unless God gives the interpretation. I believe that Unknown Tongues is God's language.

The purpose,...

It is our prayer language, in private prayer at home. (It is easier to pray in Unknown tongues than it is to pray in English, or whatever a persons native language is.)

It edify's the speaker. Builds up their spirit.

We are praying directly to God, and we are speaking mysteries. (It has been my experience, when I spend a lot of time in unknown tongues (Privately) I can write better. Think better. Keep my mind more on spiritual things easier.)

When it is spoken at church, it should be one at a time and wait for the interpretation, and then, it becomes Prophecy.

Whereas with Other Tongues (people receiving the Holy Ghost) can be by the hundreds if God so chose. Like the 120 at Pentecost.

[Abiding Now]

When I PERSONALLY received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues I never doubted tongues after that.

Whether it was another person receiving the Spirit, praying in the Spirit or it was the gift of tongues and interpretation.

It always just blesses me way down deep.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by renee819

It is our prayer language, in private prayer at home. (It is easier to pray in Unknown tongues than it is to pray in English, or whatever a persons native language is.)

When taking in the whole counsel, I don't see any conclusive or emphatic evidence that Paul is instructing people to only speak in tongues at home and only in private - outside of tongues and interpretation.

I also don't see the Disciples embracing the terminology - "prayer language".

The instructions do give the idea that the person is speaking to God and not the church body, edifying themselves alone in a quiet and personal manner:

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." 1 Corinthians 14:2

"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." I Corinthians 14:4

Again, nothing here indicates the person is not with the church body.

I also find that Paul is showing that the speakers involved in tongues and interpretation (I Cor. 14:28) were very well able to control themselves, indicating that they could or should be able to identify between edification of the church body and personal edification.

Anyone who has been around Pentecost, for any length of time, knows the difference as well.