Speaking in tongues

[krisbrian]

What does speaking in tongues mean to you? Would you say you have ever experienced it?

Even though I am non-denominational I did grow up in Pentecostal Churches and I know what they consider the gift of tongues to be. Not once in my life have I ever felt the desire or need to "speak in tongues" the way that they do. I'm not saying they are wrong, but I'm not saying the are right either. I'm saying I am unsure.

[wwjd_kilden]

It is one out of several gifts of the spirit

some speak in tounges
some have interpretation
some have the gift of preaching
some have mercy
some have giving

ok I cannot remember them all, but you get the point. You do not have to speak in tounges to be a christian, it is one out of several possible gifts.

[krisbrian]

It is one out of several gifts of the spirit

some speak in tounges
some have interpretation
some have the gift of preaching
some have mercy
some have giving

ok I cannot remember them all, but you get the point. You do not have to speak in tounges to be a christian, it is one out of several possible gifts.

I realize that but what do you believe speaking in tongues consist of? How would you describe speaking in tongues?

[wwjd_kilden]

ah, sorry, multitsking is distracting

It means talking in a language you originally do not know.

From my understanding it will normally be a real, existing langauge. Like if I was to suddeny talk Kroatian.

[shroom2]

It can be a language of men or angels (1 Cor 13:1)

It is not a gift, it is one of the nine manifestations of the gift of holy spirit, which every Christian, by definition, has.

I speak in tongues a lot.

[wwjd_kilden]

how is a manifestation of the spirit not a gift? .

1 Chorintians 12,4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.


And yes, the langauge can be angelic too , but I personally believe the most common is actual languages, as the diciples did.

[shroom2]

how is a manifestation of the spirit not a gift? .

1 Chorintians 12,4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.

And yes, the langauge can be angelic too , but I personally believe the most common is actual languages, as the diciples did.

Yes, there are various gifts to the church.

1 Cor 12:
4) Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5) And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6) And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7) But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Every Christian has the gift of holy spirit. One of the manifestations of that gift is speaking in tongues.

1 Cor 14:5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied [ in the church ]: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

[prophecyman]

I realize that but what do you believe speaking in tongues consist of? How would you describe speaking in tongues?

The gift of tongues is different and apart from praying in the Spirit, Paul made this clear when he said that he will pray with the Spirit and will pray with his understanding also. The prayer language of the Spirit is designed to build up the faith of the believer, as the scripture says " building yourselves up on your most holy Faith praying in the Holy Ghost.

The gift of tongues is chiefly designed for edification and should be coupled with an interpretation. I am used in the gift of tongues, almost always the Church goes silent, not even a baby will cry, and a holy hush comes over the congregation, then a interpretation follows.

Tongues are not a sign to those that believe, but those that believe not. The gift of prophecy which is a direct word from God is for those that believe, it is not preaching as many suppose it to be, but is in fact very similiar to interpretation only without the tongues.

There are a number of people who will debate this, but it is only that they have not been exercised in the Spirit or the gifts of the Spirit. There are those that claim they know these things, but have never experieced the move of God in their Churches, much less been exposed to the supernatural gifts of God.

Paul said I thank my God that I speak in tongues more than you all, you would not be so foolish to think that Paul had to have an interpreter every time he spoke in tongues would you?

Thats why he said i will pray with the Spirit and with my understanding also. People often confuse these two operations of the Spirit as one and the same, they are not! One is for a sign and edification for the Church provided there is an interpreter, the other for self edification and the building up of faith in the Holy Ghost.

Regards, the Prophecyman

[peacefulbeliever]

What does speaking in tongues mean to you? Would you say you have ever experienced it?

Even though I am non-denominational I did grow up in Pentecostal Churches and I know what they consider the gift of tongues to be. Not once in my life have I ever felt the desire or need to "speak in tongues" the way that they do. I'm not saying they are wrong, but I'm not saying the are right either. I'm saying I am unsure.

And ye shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you. . . . . God gives us what he is. God is Holy and God is Spirit. On Pentecost he gave us the gift of holy spirit, power from on high. The gift of holy spirit is one gift with nine manifestations and is given to all men to profit that individual (1 Co. 12:7)

Speaking in tongues to me is perfect prayer and communication with God which edifies my spirit. (1 Co. 14:4a) When speaking in tongues is used in church with interpretation; it edifies the body of believers. And yes, I do speak in tongues.

[peacefulbeliever]

The gift of tongues is different and apart from praying in the Spirit, Paul made this clear when he said that he will pray with the Spirit and will pray with his understanding also. The prayer language of the Spirit is designed to build up the faith of the believer, as the scripture says " building yourselves up on your most holy Faith praying in the Holy Ghost.

The gift of tongues is chiefly designed for edification and should be coupled with an interpretation. I am used in the gift of tongues, almost always the Church goes silent, not even a baby will cry, and a holy hush comes over the congregation, then a interpretation follows.

Tongues are not a sign to those that believe, but those that believe not. The gift of prophecy which is a direct word from God is for those that believe, it is not preaching as many suppose it to be, but is in fact very similiar to interpretation only without the tongues.

There are a number of people who will debate this, but it is only that they have not been exercised in the Spirit or the gifts of the Spirit. There are those that claim they know these things, but have never experieced the move of God in their Churches, much less been exposed to the supernatural gifts of God.

Paul said I thank my God that I speak in tongues more than you all, you would not be so foolish to think that Paul had to have an interpreter every time he spoke in tongues would you?

Thats why he said i will pray with the Spirit and with my understanding also. People often confuse these two operations of the Spirit as one and the same, they are not! One is for a sign and edification for the Church provided there is an interpreter, the other for self edification and the building up of faith in the Holy Ghost.

Regards, the Prophecyman

In response to the bolded: Whether used in the church or personally the manifestation of tongues is one and the same; they just serve different purposes - one edifies the individual and then with interpretation in the church - edifies the body of believers.

[Bushido8000]

It is one out of several gifts of the spirit

some speak in tounges
some have interpretation
some have the gift of preaching
some have mercy
some have giving

ok I cannot remember them all, but you get the point. You do not have to speak in tounges to be a christian, it is one out of several possible gifts.

I am very curious as to where it talks about these gifts in the Bible????

[GreenNnice]

I am very curious as to where it talks about these gifts in the Bible????

Scripture states 9 gifts of the (Holy) Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:

Gift of working of miracles
Gift of healing
Gift of faith
Gift of understanding tongues
Gift of speaking in tongues
Gift of prophecy
Gift of discerning spirits
Gift of wisdom
Gift of knowledge

Now, these are not an exhaustive end-all list, so add in gifts that God could also give, like 'giving' of self and to others, like 'mercy,' where God's granted a Spirit of understanding to the many that've wronged you, gift of 'peace,' making others become less warring amongst themselves, or gift of being 'poor' and helping the poor in a way brilliantly with God's Spirit-led , gifted guidance.

Many, many gifts out there,.and, God says in scripture that although two can have same gifts, their is difference in the nuances of having that gift, His petsonal relationship, the 'one' He yearns to have with rach one of His own, with each of His sheep is unique. So, pray to God for what gifts are best for you or , if, you have the gift of 'asking,' like asking out a girl , then be like Mike, I mean, sorry, my green brains became sportive (you know that Michael Jordan phrase don't ya) , but ...be like Solomon as he asked God for wisdom and God surely granted this richest man of all bible time (Job was 2nd richest ) that gift. Solomon wrote Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, most say, as well as the brilliant love story, Song of Solomon, if you hadn't guessed :-)
Your gifts are out there, up.there, rather, just waiting to be used by Him to bless you, for His glory

.the Lord leads, God bless YOU

[Laodicea]

Acts 2:4-6
(4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(5) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
(6) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

[krisbrian]

Would this suggest that these gifts are no longer?

1Co 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

[enochson]

!. there are two kinds one is at the infilling and has nothing to do with the gift of tongues in 1 Cor. You never get it right till you understand there are two kinds.

[krisbrian]

1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Here is some commentary from Chuck Smith I was reading about this verse. Just scroll down to verse 10

Blue Letter Bible - Commentaries - Chuck Smith - Transcriptions for the C2000 Series

[peacefulbeliever]

Scripture states 9 gifts of the (Holy) Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:

Gift of working of miracles
Gift of healing
Gift of faith
Gift of understanding tongues
Gift of speaking in tongues
Gift of prophecy
Gift of discerning spirits
Gift of wisdom
Gift of knowledge

Actually the only one of the above that is listed as a gift is the "gifts of healing" because each healing is a gift. The rest are manifestations of the spirit.

1 Cor. 12:7-10 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit, To another faith by the same Spirit, to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues.

[peacefulbeliever]

1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Here is some commentary I was reading from Chuck Smith about this verse. Just scroll down to verse 10
Blue Letter Bible - Commentaries - Chuck Smith - Transcriptions for the C2000 Series

v8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

"But when that which is perfect is come" . . . . . Has Christ returned? Has knowledge vanished away? When He returns we will have no need of any of these things because we will then know all. v12b. . .now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

That is my understanding.

[unclefester]

What does speaking in tongues mean to you? Would you say you have ever experienced it?

Even though I am non-denominational I did grow up in Pentecostal Churches and I know what they consider the gift of tongues to be. Not once in my life have I ever felt the desire or need to "speak in tongues" the way that they do. I'm not saying they are wrong, but I'm not saying the are right either. I'm saying I am unsure.

Taken from this link : Apologetics Press - Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation--EXTENDED VERSION
The entire read is well worthwhile


by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Tongue-Speaking

First, in 1 Corinthians 14, the term “unknown” (in regard to tongues) was italicized in the KJV because it does not appear in the original Greek text (14:2,4,13-14,19,27). By inserting this word into their translation, the translators were attempting to aid the English reader. They undoubtedly were hoping to convey the idea that the languages to which Paul referred were unknown to the speaker, i.e., the speaker had no prior training by which to learn or know the language. He spoke the language strictly by God’s miraculous empowerment. “Unknown” certainly was not intended to convey the idea that the tongues were unknown to all humans and, as such, were non-earthly, non-human languages.

Second, the events reported at the very beginning of the Christian religion (Acts 2) set the precedent for understanding that tongue-speaking entailed no more than the ability to speak a foreign human language (which the speaker had not studied) to people from a variety of geographical locales (e.g., Parthians, Medes, Arabians—Acts 2:9-11). The unbiased Bible student must conclude that what is described in detail in Acts 2 is the same phenomenon alluded to in 1 Corinthians 14. All tongue-speaking in the Bible consisted of known human languages (ideally known to the very audience being addressed) that were unknown (i.e., unstudied, unlearned) by the one who was speaking the language.

Third, there is simply no such thing as an “ecstatic utterance” in the New Testament. The tongue-speaking of 1 Corinthians 14 entailed human language—not incoherent gibberish. A simple reading of the chapter demonstrates that known human languages are under consideration. For example, Paul paralleled tongue-speaking with the use of the trumpet in warfare. If the bugler sounded meaningless noise, the military would be thrown into confusion. It was imperative for the bugler to blow the proper notes and tones, i.e., meaningful musical “language,” so that the army would understand what was being communicated (whether to charge, engage, or retreat). Sound without sense fails to achieve the very purpose of tongue-speaking. Paul then stated:

So likewise ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without signification. If then I know not the meaning of the language, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me (1 Corinthians 14:9-11, emp. added).

Obviously, Paul was referring to human languages—those that exist “in the world.” He envisioned a scenario where two individuals, who spoke different languages, are attempting to communicate with each other. If one speaks in Spanish and the other in German, as they attempt to speak to one another, each would be a “foreigner” to the other. Neither would understand what the other was attempting to say. Hence the need for tongue-speaking, i.e., the ability to speak human language unknown to the speaker but known to the recipient.

Later in the chapter, Paul quoted Isaiah 28:11-12 where God threatened the Israelites with the fact that their failure to listen to Him (by means of the words spoken by His prophets) meant that He soon would be communicating to them through the language of their Assyrian conquerors—conquerors whom God would send against them. This powerful illustration presupposes the fact that in both Isaiah and 1 Corinthians, human languages are under consideration. After quoting Isaiah, Paul drew the conclusion that tongue-speaking was intended by God to be directed to unbelievers. Why? Because it would prove to the unbeliever that the tongue-speaker, who did not possess the natural ability to speak that language, was being empowered by God to speak in the language spoken by the unbeliever. The unbeliever would recognize the divine origin of the tongue-speaker’s ability, and thereby be willing to consider the words being spoken as the instructions of God. Again, an examination of 1 Corinthians 14 yields the result that no contextual justification exists for drawing the conclusion that the Bible refers to, let alone endorses, the notion of “ecstatic” speech.

Tongues of Angels?

But what about Paul’s passing reference to the “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1? Would not this reference prove that tongue-speaking could involve languages beyond those spoken by humans? In the first place, consider the role, purpose, and activity of angels described in the Bible. The word “angel” (Greek—angelos; Hebrew—malak) simply means “messenger”—one who “speaks and acts in the place of the one who has sent him” (Bietenhard, 1975, 1:101; Botterweck, et al., 1997, 8:308; Grundmann, 1964, 1:74ff; Gesenius, 1847, p. 475; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 7). It does not mean merely “to send,” but rather “to send a messenger/message” (Ringgren, 1997, 8:310). It is true that angels in both the Old and New Testaments carried out a wide range of activities beyond message-bearing, including: worshipping God (Revelation 5:11-12); comforting, aiding, and protecting (Daniel 6:22; Matthew 4:11; Luke 22:43; Acts 5:19; Hebrews 1:14); and executing judgment and inflicting punishment and death (e.g., Matthew 13:49; Acts 12:23). But it still remains true to say that the meaning of the term “angel” is a messenger—one who communicates a spoken message. Therefore, their principal role in God’s scheme of things was to function as messengers to humans (Grundmann, 1964, 1:74). Consequently, angels always are represented in Scripture as communicating in human language.

In the second place, what logical reason exists for humans to speak in an alleged “angelic” language that is different from human language? What would be the spiritual benefit? The Bible certainly makes no provision for humans to communicate with angels in such a language, nor would there be any need for an angel to communicate to a human in a non-earthly language. The whole point of 1 Corinthians 12-13 was to stress the need to function in the church in ways that were meaningful and understandable. Since God, by His very nature, never would do anything that is superfluous, unnecessary, or frivolous, it follows that He would not bestow upon a human being the ability to speak in a non-human language. The ability would serve no purpose! The Bible simply offers no rationale nor justification for identifying the “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1 with some heavenly, otherworldly, non-earthly languages.

In the third place, if, in fact, the “tongues of angels” refers to known human languages, what was Paul’s point? Since angels were God’s appointed spokesmen, they naturally would perform their assignment in such a way that God would be represented as He would want to be. God’s own angelic emissaries would have complied with their responsibility in such a way and manner that they would have God’s approval. In other words, angels would naturally articulate God’s message as well as it could be expressed (i.e., perfectly). When God inspired mere humans to communicate His will, He integrated their own educational background, stylistic idiosyncrasies, and vocabulary into their oral and literary productions. No such need would have existed for angels. Their communications would have been unfiltered through human agency. Their announcements would have been the epitome and pinnacle of eloquence and oratorical skill.

Perhaps, then, Paul was not drawing a contrast between human and nonhuman languages at all. Before referring to the “tongues of angels,” he referred to “the tongues of men.” Why would Paul say, “Though I speak with the tongues of men”? After all, isn’t that precisely what all adult humans do? We humans speak at least one human language! Paul must have been referring, then, not to the ability to speak a human language, but to the ability to speak all human languages. No tongue-speaker in the first-century church had the ability to speak all human languages. In fact, the textual evidence indicates that most tongue-speakers probably had the ability to speak only one human language—which he, himself, did not understand—thus necessitating the need for an inspired interpreter (1 Corinthians 12:30; 14:26-28). Paul could apparently speak more languages than any of the others (1 Corinthians 14:18). If the “tongues of men” referred to the number of human languages (rather than referring to the ability to speak a human language), then the “tongues of angels” would refer—not to the ability to speak an angelic language—but to the ability to speak human languages the way angels do.

Here, then, would have been Paul’s point: even if a tongue-speaker could speak every human language known to man, and even if that tongue-speaker could speak those human languages with the efficiency, skill, and perfection that God’s angelic messengers have spoken them in history, without love, the ability would be wasted. With this understanding of the text, Paul was not contrasting human with nonhuman language. He was encompassing both the quantity (if I could speak all human languages) and the quality (if I could speak them perfectly) of speaking human language.

One final point on the matter of the “tongues of angels” merits mention. Even if the expression actually refers to angelic tongues that are nonhuman, it still is likely that tongue-speakers were incapable of speaking such languages. Why? Paul was speaking hypothetically and hyperbolically. No human being (with the exception of perhaps Jesus) has ever been able to speak in all human languages. For Paul to suggest such was to pose a hypothetical situation. It was to exaggerate the facts. So Paul’s meaning was: “even if I were capable of speaking all human languages—which I’m not.” Likewise, no human being has ever been able to speak the tongues of angels. So Paul’s meaning was: “even if I were capable of speaking the languages of angels—which I’m not.” This conclusion is supported further by the verse that follows the reference to the “tongues of angels.” There, Paul used two additional hypothetical events when he said, “if I…know all mysteries and all knowledge” and “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains” (1 Corinthians 13:2). But no one on the planet (with the exception of deity) has understood all mysteries and all knowledge, nor has had faith that could literally remove mountains. Again, Paul was merely saying, “even if I could do such things—which I can’t.”

Fourth, Paul stated very clearly that tongue-speaking was a sign to unbelievers—not believers (14:22). Tongue-speaking was to be done in their presence, to convince them of the truth being spoken, i.e., to confirm the Word. The tongue-speaking being practiced today is done in the presence of those who already believe that tongue-speaking is occurring and, when an unbeliever, who is skeptical of the genuineness of the activity, makes an appearance in such an assembly, the claim often is made that tongue-speaking cannot occur because of the presence of unbelief. Once again, the New Testament teaches the very opposite of those who claim the ability to speak in tongues today.

Fifth, the recipient of a miraculous gift in the New Testament could control himself (14:32). He was not overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit so that he began to babble or flail about. Tongue-speaking today is frequently practiced in a setting where the individuals who claim to be exercising the gift are speaking uncontrollably at the very time that others are either doing the same thing or engaging in some other action. This overlapping activity is in direct violation of three of Paul’s commands: (1) that each individual take their turn one at a time; (2) that no more than three tongue-speakers speak per service; and (3) that tongue-speakers remain silent if no interpreter is present (14:27-28).

The claim by many today to be able to speak in tongues is simply out of harmony with New Testament teaching. Anyone can babble, make up sounds, and claim he or she is speaking in tongues. But such conduct is no sign today. It is precisely the same phenomenon that pagan religions have practiced through the centuries. In the New Testament, however, no one questioned the authenticity of tongue-speaking. Why? The speaker was speaking a known human language that could be understood by those present who knew that language and knew that that particular speaker did not know that language beforehand. As McGarvey observed about Acts 2: “Not only did the apostles speak in foreign languages that were understood by the hearers, some understanding one and some another, but the fact that this was done by Galileans, who knew only their mother tongue, was the one significant fact that gave to Peter’s speech which followed all of its power over the multitude” (1910, p. 318). If and when self-proclaimed tongue-speakers today demonstrate that genuine New Testament gift, their message could be accepted as being from God. But no one today has demonstrated that genuine New Testament gift.

[tribesman]

...Every Christian has the gift of holy spirit. One of the manifestations of that gift is speaking in tongues.

1 Cor 14:5) I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied [ in the church ]: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Does this mean that you do not believe that speaking in tongues (or speaking languages) is the sole sign of Spirit baptism?