In Acts 2, we read of how the apostles received the gift of tongues so that people heard the gospel in their own languages. Is the gift of tongues, then, specifically evangelistic or does it have a purpose in a congregation where there are only believers? I was under the impression that only Charismatics currently practice this gift. What do they consider the purpose to be and are there others who actually practice the gift that consider the purpose to be different? How are these purposes defended using either Old or New Testaments?

A previous question was answered listing perhaps only one denomination, and it wasn't AOG, that held speaking in tongues as sign of spiritual maturity. Does the Assemblies of God group speak in tongues?

> **1 Corinthians 14:39 (NIV)** > > Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not > forbid speaking in tongues. In the early church, the gift of tongues was a common gift which almost everyone received, as we see in the church in Corinth as an example. Paul had to give advice on how to utilize their spiritual gifts in an orderly manner in the church. However, I can't find any specific method/instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues. If I want to receive the gift of tongues, what must I do? Is there any **instructions** given by the early **church fathers** on how to receive the gift of tongues? Since the New Testament doesn't give any specific instructions on how to receive the gift of tongues, there must be some writings from the church fathers on this issue.

Is there any method/instruction given by prominent preachers recently on how to receive the gift of tongues? Some specific way of prayer, some specific steps to follow, what kind of attitude is required and so forth?

We see in 1 Corinthians 14:22 that tongues are a sign for unbelievers and prophesy is a sign for believers, yet in the latter verses it appears to indicate the opposite, that tongues are sign for believers and prophesy a sign for unbelievers. What did Paul mean when he said this? I included verse 21 because it seems to indicate that the speaking in foreign tongues like what we see happen at Pentecost is descriptive of how tongues are a sign to unbelievers, naturally a foreigner speaking your tongue will serve as a sign from God. I've heard the interpretation that tongues means two different things in this passage but I don't see that as justifiable since it talking about tongues in such a close proximity without any distinction. > ## 1 Corinthians 14:21-25 ## >21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

One of the arguments made by those who believe that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased (cessationists) is that the "tongues" spoken of in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14 are "real" human languages. For example, C. Norman Sellers, in *Biblical Tongues*, writes: > The New Testament references to tongues require that we understand them as referring to real languages [...] There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are the same as those in Acts chapter 2 and refer to real languages. Charismatics will generally reject this analysis; J. Rodman Williams, for example, argues that "it would have been pointless to speak foreign languages" at Caesarea ([Acts 10:45–46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10%3A45-46&version=ESV)) and Ephesus ([Acts 19:6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+19%3A6&version=ESV)) in *Renewal Theology* (II, p214). In light of this disagreement, I wonder – **did any church fathers clearly and specifically indicate that the "speaking in tongues" of either Acts or 1 Corinthians was *not* a "real" human language?** Here are some clarifying parameters: - I'm interested in church fathers as typically defined – those who followed the apostles up to John of Damascus. I'm fine with including Tertullian and Origen in this group. - From my reading I don't think any pre-Augustine authors clearly make this connection, so I'm asking about church fathers more broadly. But writings of the early fathers would be particularly interesting. - By "clearly and specifically," I mean that the writer *goes beyond* the biblical text and indicates that the "tongues" were not human languages. - Charismatics might argue that the biblical text itself is clear on this point, and that therefore if a church father merely quotes the biblical text, it indicates that he believes that "tongues" were not exclusively human language. I want more than that.

This is not a question whether tongues exist, yesterday or today, but I'm looking for extra-biblical writings on the existence thereof. Is there any documentation outside of the Bible, either from Christian or secular sources, specifically during the first or even second century, discussing speaking in tongues?

This question regards those who support and participate in the modern 'speaking in tongues' and asks what their answer would be regarding the emphasis of scripture. Note that it is not a matter of 'cessation' (or not). It is a matter of *emphasis.* ----------------------------------------------- There is but one mention of tongues in the four gospel accounts, namely in Mark 16:17. Although I do not, many do dispute the acceptance of the last sixteen verses of Mark into the canon of scripture so I will pass over that single text as I assume so few would bring it up in answer to my question, that it would be regarded as moot. **Acts** There are two mentions in Acts which specifically refer to the apostles speaking in known foreign languages such that persons from other nations, attending the event, were able to understand those foreign languages. Then there are two mentions more, both of specific and special occasions, one being the matter of gentiles receiving the gospel, 10:46, and then the matter of twelve receiving the gospel who had not (yet) heard of the Holy Spirit, 19:6. In neither case is it stated what, exactly, the 'tongues' were. These four occasions are the only documented record we have of people actually speaking in tongues and they are all special and specific occurrences upon which the tongues were a sign - a signification. **1 Corinthians** Paul mentions tongues twenty one times in first Corinthians (never in second Corinthians) and his quest is to regulate the matter, as it appears to have got out of hand and to have become disorderly, so he corrects the situation and applies rules. Only if an interpreter is present can anyone speak in an unknown tongue. Paul does not comment on the *origin or the kind of the tongue* in question. He simply regulates all future utterances - of any kind - in the assembly, in such a way that all hearers, on every occasion, must be informed, intelligently - in their own mother tongue - of what is uttered at the gathering, so that all may be edified in an understandable way. **Elsewhere** There is no other mention that I can find of such occurrences in the Greek scriptures. Paul does not mention the subject again to the Corinthians in his second epistle and he never mentions it in any other epistle to any other group or church. (From a purely forensic point of view, this would be circumstancial evidence that only the Corinthians were practising the procedure.) Paul fails to mention the subject in his epistles, shortly before his death, when he instructs the younger ministers, Timothy and Titus, regarding ministerial conduct, teaching of doctrine, and matters of church government. John fails to mention tongues in any of his four books. These books are clearly written at a later stage, clearly complete the canon of scripture and clearly contain all that is relevant to the remainder of the Church Age, prior to the Lord's return. Peter never makes mention of tongues. James never refers to them. Jude, likewise. Nor does the writer to the Hebrews, whoever that author may be. Matthew makes no historical record in his gospel account. Luke, likewise, in his gospel account. ----------------------------------------- If tongues were as central (1) a feature of church activity as some suggest, if tongues are an indication of the presence of the Holy Spirit on every occasion, if tongues are essential to the life of the church, if tongues are also essential to the edification and sound spiritual health of every single believer in the body of Christ . . . . . . . . then why do we see just four mentions in Acts on special occasions when a sign was necessary to mark a particular event, and why do we see just a chapter, or so, and that only when Paul regulates a matter that had got out of hand ? Why is there silence *from every other book and from every other author* ? Leaving aside the matter of 'cessation' that one might therefore expect that tongues - being a sign, given at a specific juncture in the inauguration of the New Testament - had ceased altogether, is it not questionable that there is a matter of emphasis to be considered ? To be even more plain, is there not a *justifiable question of imbalance* with regard to the modern emphasis on the speaking of tongues ? What is the response of those who participate in the speaking in tongues ? --------------------------- Please note that I wish to read responses from persons who actively do speak in tongues, as to their thinking regarding the subject ; or to read references to those persons. I am not looking to read theoretical assumptions from persons who do not actively practice the technique. --------------------------- Please further note that my research was from Young's Analytical Concordance and covered every occurrence of the word tongue/tongues. It could be that this subject is alluded to in different words which I have not listed. Also, I have deliberately not referred to the Old Testament and particularly not to prophetic passages, which require specific interpretations, e.g. Isaiah 28:11. I am interested in keeping the inquiry (and the response) within the compass of that outlined above. -------------------------- (1) This word added as an edit after the comment (below).

Prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, angels spoke to Zechariah, to Joseph and to Mary. After his birth, angels spoke to shepherds, then to Joseph and Mary together, and then to Joseph again (four times). Yet again, an angel spoke to Peter who released Peter from the prison. John the Apostle also received multiple communications from angels in the visions which form the Apocalypse. Yet in none of these cases did any interpretation have to occur. Indeed, in almost all of these occasions, interpretation (by a human interpreter) was impossible, due to circumstances (dreaming, solitude, imprisonment, personal vision). The particular occasion of note is the herald by angels to shepherds in the fields. An angel communicated a message and then the entire host of heaven gave utterance and eleven Greek words are reported : >δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια [Luke 2:14 TR], which can be translated into eleven English words 'Glory in highest God-ward, and on earth peace, among humanity goodwill' (which requires but the hearer to add an 'Amen' to make twelve). Yet, though many shepherds were present, none was required to interpret to the others. On *all these occasions* there was no interpretation recorded. The angelic communication was in language *which the hearers were able to understand.* --------------------------------------------- So it would appear that when angels have a message to utter, they speak in a language which the hearers can appreciate and understand without intervention or assistance. Why, then, do some persons nowadays communicate in languages (apparently and reportedly) which do not exist anywhere on earth and thus the communication has to be 'interpreted' by another human person, by (one understands) a form of 'revelation' ? What do those who support and participate in this activity have to say in answer to this question ?

I found this claim in a Protestant Christian web-site (which prompts this question): "In just about every part of the world, glossolalia can be observed. Pagan religions all over the world are obsessed with tongues. These include the Shamans in the Sudan, the Shango cult of the West Coast of Africa, the Zor cult of Ethiopia, the Voodoo cult in Haiti, and the Aborigines of South America and Australia. Murmuring or speaking gibberish that is construed to be deep mystical insight by holy men is an ancient practice." Glossolalia is the term for what is more usually called 'speaking in tongues' as practiced in some charismatic / pentecostal denominations. The quote came from https://www.gotquestions.org/glossolalia.html but there was nothing more about the non-Christian practice, because the page was out to present a biblical view. It was just that claim that I wanted to ask about, preferably getting answers from Christians sympathetic to what they view as modern-day Holy Spirit speaking in tongues. Would they readily admit to that non-Christian (and, therefore, non-Holy Spirit) phenomenon? Or would they deny such a thing went on in non-Christian religions? (Which is NOT to invite arguments for their practice being authentic while non-Christian practices were a sham.) I'm not asking for theological explanations about glossolalia but **whether it goes on in non-Christian circles and, therefore, whether that presents a challenge to Christians sympathetic to its practice in their ranks, or not.**

>Though I speak with the tongues of men *and of angels*, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1st Corinthians 13:1 KJV) Is there a Greek or Hebrew root wording to signify that the "tongues of angels" are the tongues heard spoken by Pentecostals, Oneness Apostolics, and other types of similar Christians?

In Modalism, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are mere "modes" of how the one God interacts with creation. Like an actor on a stage, God could appear sometimes as the Father, other times as the Son, and other times as the Spirit. For the Modalist, Christ is not only God, he is the Father himself. The orthodox Trinity doctrine, as taught by the mainstream church, including most Protestant churches, similar to Modalism, regards the Son and the Holy Spirit to be “God” but describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the three distinct Persons. To maintain the one-ness of God, so that the doctrine does not teach tri-theism (three Gods), the Father, Son, and Spirit are said to share one undivided divine essence (also called being or substance). So, both Modalism and the Trinity doctrine proclaim one God and one substance. But while Modalism describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three modes, the orthodox Trinity doctrine describes them as three Persons. For the orthodox Trinity doctrine to be different from Modalism, personhood must be real. For three reasons, in my view, personhood in the orthodox teaching is NOT real: Full Divine Essence ------------ Firstly, the orthodox Trinity doctrine teaches that God does not have parts. Consequently, the three Persons are not three parts of God, but *each of them is the full divine essence*. In other words, each of the three Persons is God in His entirety. This principle may be illustrated by the following formula: > God = the Father = the Son = the Holy Spirit. The Athanasian Creed expresses this principle as follows: > "The Father is God; > the Son is God; > and the Holy Ghost is God. > And yet they are NOT THREE GODS; > BUT ONE GOD" Thomas Aquinas, who is “recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as its foremost Western philosopher and theologian” (Britannica ) confirmed this: > “It cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each > other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not > be one essence of the three persons.” So, if the three Persons are identical, then they are mere modes of God. One Mind and Will --------- Secondly, generally, a person is a self, a thinker, with his own will and mind. But in the orthodox Trinity doctrine the Father, the Son, and the Spirit share one single mind and will. Today, there are many who think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as each having His own mind, but then you have three Gods (tri-theism). The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the standard Trinity doctrine, share one single mind and will, strengthens the view that they are mere modes of God. Relations make no difference. ----------------------------------- People are differentiated both by their persons and by their relations: - Each person is different. - Persons also differ in their relationships with other people, for example in marriage, family, etc. In the orthodox Trinity doctrine, as already stated, the three Persons are identical because they share one single divine substance. Consequently, the only difference between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is in their relationships, namely: - The Father begets the Son and - The Spirit proceeds from the Son (in Western catholic thinking) or from the Father (in Eastern Orthodox thinking). The following shows that Aquinas argued that the only difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is those relationships: > “So then the only question left is what makes the persons distinct > from one another? What makes the distinction real? The answer is that > they are distinct only in their relation to one another.” [Summa 1028] > > “The divine persons are distinguished from each other **only by the > relations**.” [Summa 1036] Aquinas’ justification for the view that the Spirit must proceed from the Son illustrates the notion that the only difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit is their relations, for, he says, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, then the Spirit is the same as the Son because both have a relationship only with the Father. For the Son to be distinguished from the Holy Spirit, there must be a relationship between them as well. [Summa 1036] Quoting Aquinas: > “It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were > not from Him, He (the Holy Ghost) could in no wise be personally > distinguished from Him (the Son).” However, in the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the relationships have no practical implication. As Aquinas argued, “in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself.” Therefore, the “relations in Him are **essential, not accidental**.” To explain: - With people, a person becomes a parent when a child is born. That is what Aquinas means by “accidental." - But in God, these relations are not caused by events. They are “essential,” meaning that **these relations do not bring about change**. So, each of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit always was and always will be the entire substance of God. Consequently, always and under all conditions, the Father, Son, and Spirit shared one and the same substance, mind, and will. **The relations make no difference**. Conclusion ---------- Some people, in their explanation of the Trinity, emphasize the three-ness of God, often bordering on tri-theism. In contrast, the Christian mainstream understanding of the Trinity, namely the theory that the three Persons are not three parts of God, but that **each of them at all times is the full divine essence, sharing one single mind and will**, implies that the difference in relation (their origins) has no practical consequences. The emphasis is fully on the one-ness of God. Consequently, I fail to see the difference between the three Persons and, therefore, the difference between the mainstream Trinity doctrine and Modalism, in spite of the usual disclaimer that the Trinity doctrine is not Modalism.

I'm not sure how to elaborate further, but I love the Bible and don’t ignore anything in it. However, I was wondering if there are other Christians who don't believe everything that is written in it. Based on personal experience, I don't believe in apocalyptic scripture, for example. I may take scripture differently than others. However, I still identify as a Christian and take a few core verses seriously, such as Proverbs 3:5-6 and John 3:16. Am I still able to identify as being saved? I believe Jesus existed, and died on the cross, and I believe the resurrection is a core claim to his identity. I don't believe Jesus is returning.

Let me know if this is off-topic, as it veers into a different field. I have myself been thinking about an equivocation between the Trinity and a triadic model of semiotics, and I believe I have seen mentions of it here and there. When I read certain sources on the Trinity, this seems to strengthen this kind of interpretation. Semiotics is the study of meaning. To be a Christian claiming the Trinity is somehow the epitome of, the sign of, or actually the manifestation of, the triadic semiotic structure of reality, would be an interesting form of idealism. But what is there to this? Well, the Son is sometimes called "the Word". Well, the Word would correspond to the signifier, I would say (the symbol or thing that signifies something else). The Father, being prior to all, would be the referent (that which the signifier signifies). The Holy Spirit would be the interpretant; the object allowing for the linking between one experience and another; the signifier linked to the referent, by way of the interpretant existing within the mind of the person experiencing the meaning. God is thus the entire sign; the co-existence between signifier, interpretant and referent; God is thus meaning itself. Well, that's one mapping between the three components of meaning and the three persons of the Trinity. Perhaps there are other mappings. But what credence is there to this interpretation among Christian scholars, mystics, theologians and scriptures?

Does it mean to love others? Does it mean to pray? Does it mean reading the Bible? What are more ways I can love Him?

Most Christians do not doubt the authenticity and inspiration of the New Testament. Most Christians agree that the New Testament should be treated as inerrant and authoritative. Most Christians know as a historical fact that the ancient united Church carefully determined which New Testament books were canonical. And most Christian also know that this same Church also confessed God as Holy Trinity, among many other canonized teachings and doctrines. But, if one does not want to interpret the Bible through the hermeneutic of Nicaea-Constantinople... or through the hermeneutic of the other canonized doctrines and teachings... how can you accept the New Testament at all? After all, neither the Old nor New Testaments fell from the sky. --- P.S. I am **not** referring to any councils after 1054 AD (Great Schism). So let's all understand that this is not about "the Western/Catholic/Roman church" nor "the Eastern/Orthodox/Byzantine Church" which then started to exist independently of each other.

In chapter 8 of Luke, a demon-possessed man is healed by Jesus who tells him to "declare how much God has done for you". According to Luke, the man then goes on to tell others "how much Jesus had done for him". > "Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you." And > he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city how much Jesus had > done for him. (Luke 8:39, ESV) In chapter 9 Luke recounts another possession event in which Jesus casts out a demon from a boy and the crowd that witnesses it "all were astonished at the majesty of God" and "all marveling at everything he [Jesus] was doing". > 42 While he was coming, the demon threw him to the ground and > convulsed him. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the > boy, and gave him back to his father. 43 And all were astonished at > the majesty of God. But while they > were all marveling at everything he was doing, Jesus said to his > disciples, (Luke 9:42-43, ESV) How does one who denied the deity of Jesus interpret these verses?

Within Protestantism there is no universal definition of theology or how to understand the Bible: Anglicans have one definition, Lutherans another, Calvinists another, (insert name here), etc. So **upon what basis** can Protestants insist that some teaching contradicts the Bible objectively, and not only according to their own personal understanding of the Bible (which most would admit could be wrong)? And if all you have is your personal interpretation, upon what basis does anyone call anything a heresy, and those who hold it "heretics"? One has to be surer than 'I interpret it this way' in order to start condemning contrary interpretations with any note of seriousness. ----------------------- I've heard a lot responses things like 'His sheep hear His voice,' which in the first place is able to be claimed by two contradictory sides of a matter and not be falsifiable (it essentially is saying 'well, God knows who's right, and I think it's me!'), and secondly, circularly assumes that 'His sheep hear His voice' is to be interpreted specifically in a way which means that it pertains to the interpretation of the Bible. Similar are claims of having the 'personal guidance of the Holy Spirit,' which is similar or identical to the argument above. But again, this, while helpful to someone personally, doesn't provide a basis for say, calling others heretics based on that interpretation. Something that the New Testament says is possible. Worst of all, I've even heard things like 'I don't even interpret the Bible,' ('I skip the stage where I have to account for my interpretation objectively altogether') which is impressive ... in a bad way. None of these are impressive to me, and they do not withstand the most basic scrutiny. Can any Protestant provide a sola scriptura epistemology which *doesn't* rely on such dubious, unfalsifiable arguments?

I'm writing an essay about Christian Zionism, and I'm a bit unclear on the end-times beliefs of pre-millennialism and post-millennialism. I understand the basic timelines of both, but where does Jewish emigration to Israel fit in? At what point (and in which belief system) are Jews either supposed to convert to Christianity or be ruled by a tyrant?

Can we say that faith is a mixture of intuition and emotion? We have the intuition, the vague cognitive perception that something exists beyond the natural reality that can be described by modern science, and we feel a particular emotion when we think about it. The two complement and reinforce each other, to form 'faith' **NB:** It inquiries the point of view of protestants/protestantism on the question