Commanded to Speak in Tongues?

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by houston

Speaking v. Praying is not gloss v. Xeno!!!!

I understand that; it is just another layer, and all being discussed in a few passages. I never actually had a problem with tongues; it was making it, a gift, into a requirement, that I don't agree with. I have sen tongues as a gift--but it wasn't in an Apo/Pent church...

[J4Truth]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Spoke in tongues and magnified God Acts 10
Spoke in tongues and prophesied Acts 19
They were all filled with the Holy Ghost (no tongues mentioned) Acts 4

No my question was when was someone filled with the Holy Ghost and then the Bible explicitly states that the people around them knew they were filled by the Holy Ghost how? We all know of the instance with Cornelius, but where is someone getting the Holy Ghost and the Bible states they or someone knew they got the Holy Ghost because... (insert evidence)?

Its like someone can say I knew they just been baptized for I saw them come dripping wet out of the Baptismal pool. Someone can also say someones was just baptized in Jesus name and never mention water, but that don't mean there was no water nor does it means that being wet immediately after being baptized in water is not some sort of evidence.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by J4Truth

No my question was when was someone filled with the Holy Ghost and then the Bible explicitly states that the people around them knew they were filled by the Holy Ghost how? We all know of the instance with Cornelius, but where is someone getting the Holy Ghost and the Bible states they or someone knew they got the Holy Ghost because... (insert evidence)?

Its like someone can say I knew they just been baptized for I saw them come dripping wet out of the Baptismal pool. Someone can also say someones was just baptized in Jesus name and never mention water, but that don't mean there was no water nor does it means that being wet immediately after being baptized in water is not some sort of evidence.

Acts 8:5-25 tells how Philip took the Gospel to Samaria in the winter AD 31/32 period. Verse 5 says he "preached Christ unto them." Verses 6-8 tell about miracles happening and great joy in the city. Verses 9-11 introduce us to a local sorcerer named Simon who had great spiritual influence there for evil. Verse 12 tells us that Philip preached "the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" and the people believed him and were baptized. (In verses 35-38 we are told that Philip would not baptize a person unless the person was a believer and confessed his faith). Verse 13 tells us that Simon the sorcerer also believed and was baptized.

Verse 14 tells about the reaction back at Jerusalem when the apostles at the "mother church" heard that Samaria "had received the Word of God." They did not just rejoice that the message was spreading and decide to call this a daughter work or branch church or get them organized and affiliated. Instead they sent Peter and John (some biggies in the organization, part of the original 12 apostles) down there to pray for the people there and minister the Holy Ghost Baptism to them. This would be a distance of about 20 miles or a two day trip. Notice that Peter (considered the Pope by some and considered "the first Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ" by some) was sent.

Verses 15-17 tell us that they ministered the Holy Ghost Baptism (HGB) by the laying on of hands (same way Ananias ministered the experience to Saul in Acts 9:17-19 in January AD 32 and Paul ministered the experience to the Ephesian believers in Acts 19:1-7 in October AD 53) to those believers in Samaria. Something happened when they received the HGB. Something happened that impressed Simon to want to buy the gift of ministering the Holy Ghost to others. What did he see? He had seen healings, miracles, demons cast out and great joy according to verses 6-8 of that chapter. Now he saw something else happening when people "received" the Holy Ghost or when the Holy Ghost "fell" on them. He was so impressed by the "manifestation" that took place when people received the HGB that he offered money to Peter for the gift of ministering the HGB in verses 18-19. That is where we get the word "simony" used today to describe the buying and selling of church offices or positions.

Notice Peter's response in verses 20-22. He said so Simon "To hell with you and your money" (literal Greek "May your money be with you unto destruction") because you thought the gift of God might be purchased with money. He warned him to repent but also said "you have neither part nor lot in this MATTER," which could also be translated, "thou has neither part nor lot in this UTTERANCE" if we translate that word the same way it is translated in 1 Corinthians 1:5.

So, based on this story in Acts chapter 8 some of us have reached these conclusions:
1. The folks in Samaria were saved and baptized in water --they had received the Word-- but were not yet baptized in the Spirit.
2. The HGB is a definite experience available for believers and the leadership at the mother church thought it so important that they sent two Apostles there to minister (or pray them through to) the experience.
3. The HGB is accompanied by some kind of evidence or manifestation.
4. This manifestation seemed greater to Simon than healings, miracles, exorcisms and "great joy" that he had seen up to this time.
5. That manifestation may have been an "utterance."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by J4Truth

No my question was when was someone filled with the Holy Ghost and then the Bible explicitly states that the people around them knew they were filled by the Holy Ghost how? We all know of the instance with Cornelius, but where is someone getting the Holy Ghost and the Bible states they or someone knew they got the Holy Ghost because... (insert evidence)?

Its like someone can say I knew they just been baptized for I saw them come dripping wet out of the Baptismal pool. Someone can also say someones was just baptized in Jesus name and never mention water, but that don't mean there was no water nor does it means that being wet immediately after being baptized in water is not some sort of evidence.

You know what I have always thought was really weird, following since FCF? People contending that you can't prove they spoke in tongues when just about everyone (at least 95%) making that type of argument had or do speak in tongues. That is just really, really weird, IMO.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

What did Paul mean when he said "Not all speak with tongues" and he wished that all WOULD speak in tongues?

Want to expound on your thoughts?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

What did Paul mean when he said "Not all speak with tongues" and he wished that all WOULD speak in tongues?

In my opinion:
This passage is in a book written to the Church/Assembly in Corinth and is trying to establish "order" in services. Paul lists some of the gifts and then talks about the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and interpretation. He is not speaking about the Holy Ghost Baptism here but of order in services. Therefore he limits tongues and interpretation to two or three per service. He promotes what some call a "prayer language" where a person prays in tongues privately to His Father. Speaking or praying publicly is to be in a known and understood language. So in my opinion when he wished every one spoke in tongues he was talking about praying and building ourselves up privately in tongues. When he said do all speak with tongues? he was speaking of the gift of tongues and so the answer would be no. Not everybody has the gift of tongues just like not everybody has the gift of teaching or working of miracles, or being an apostle or any of the other gifts.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Sam

In my opinion:
This passage is in a book written to the Church/Assembly in Corinth and is trying to establish "order" in services. Paul lists some of the gifts and then talks about the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and interpretation. He is not speaking about the Holy Ghost Baptism here but of order in services. Therefore he limits tongues and interpretation to two or three per service. He promotes what some call a "prayer language" where a person prays in tongues privately to His Father. Speaking or praying publicly is to be in a known and understood language. So in my opinion when he wished every one spoke in tongues he was talking about praying and building ourselves up privately in tongues. When he said do all speak with tongues? he was speaking of the gift of tongues and so the answer would be no. Not everybody has the gift of tongues just like not everybody has the gift of teaching or working of miracles, or being an apostle or any of the other gifts.

Good