Born Again Speaking in Tongues

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
10,198
4,886
113
Yes "they" plural , it is new to everyone who first believes. What do you think it means ? I think it represents the gospel is the criteria for casting out lying spirits .

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

One tongue of Christ the gospel, per person
So everyone has a different gospel in your world.

It's plainly evident that you're wrong, and it's time that you stop playing games with the word of God and start accepting it for what it says instead of adding to it and inventing your own private interpretations.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
516
97
28
you are not a believer so your viewpoint is going to be without any regard for what Christians believe - and since you refuse to acknowledge your own beliefs, there is really nothing to discuss other than to note you do not even acknowledge the Bible as God's word. refusing to state what you do actually believe leaves you in the limbo of listen to me but I really do not have any reason for you to do so - even cessationists here acknowledge the Bible is God's word
On the contrary, my viewpoint does take into regard what Christians believe with respect to “tongues”, but not every Christian has the same view. As threads such as this evidence, opinions and beliefs vary quite a bit across the board…even among “believers”. I’m very aware of what Christians (in the broader sense of the term) believe, and I’m also aware of what born again/evangelical Christians believe.

“Tongues”, as you may know, are not unique to Christianity and as such, one does not necessarily need to be of a specific Christian denomination or belief (or even Christian for that matter) to understand/study the phenomenon, or to understand the term ‘tongues’ as used in Biblical context.

As I’ve stated in many posts, I do not identify with either term, “cessationist/continuationist” – these are terms that even in Christianity are not universally used and are best suited for specific Christian denominations. The way many people play up the terms is kind of a bit silly really.

The Bible is what many people believe the word of God to be. God said it, it was written down in the Bible – no questions asked, end of story.

Without detracting from the thread or starting a whole new spin off (not my intent), the question may be, is the Bible God’s word to the letter, or simply man’s interpretation/understanding of God’s word as related and conveyed (and inadvertently embellished, altered and changed) over countless generations?

That said, I am in no way suggesting that the Bible is not relevant today, nor am I suggesting that one cannot find God’s word (or at least His intent) in its contents.

As an aside, I certainly do acknowledge my own beliefs, I just do not share them ‘with the world’, so to speak, as they have zero bearing on the subject at hand; “tongues/glossolalia/non-cognitive non-language utterance.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
516
97
28
I think I asked you this before but why do you state not "non-cognitive?"
Perhaps a bit of a misnomer when you put it the way you do (i.e. 'every human action is cognitive'). It's not my own term, but as I understand it in this sense, it's 'non-cognitive' in that the speaker is not consciously thinking about what sounds s/he is going to produce. So unlike in speaking a real language where (even though it happens in a minutest fraction of a second) one is thinking about the sounds that are going to be produced in a particular utterance (i.e. the brain is in the process of generating 'language'), glossolalia doesn't require that; the sounds are completely random - no real thought (cognitive) process (insofar as producing language) is necessary> hence the term 'non-cognitive' (in the sense that you're not thinking about what you're going to say; there's no real thought process involved in what you're saying - it just happens).

Probably not the best way to explain it, but hope you kind of get the idea.
 

7seasrekeyed

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2017
7,518
3,106
113
On the contrary, my viewpoint does take into regard what Christians believe with respect to “tongues”, but not every Christian has the same view. As threads such as this evidence, opinions and beliefs vary quite a bit across the board…even among “believers”. I’m very aware of what Christians (in the broader sense of the term) believe, and I’m also aware of what born again/evangelical Christians believe.

“Tongues”, as you may know, are not unique to Christianity and as such, one does not necessarily need to be of a specific Christian denomination or belief (or even Christian for that matter) to understand/study the phenomenon, or to understand the term ‘tongues’ as used in Biblical context.

As I’ve stated in many posts, I do not identify with either term, “cessationist/continuationist” – these are terms that even in Christianity are not universally used and are best suited for specific Christian denominations. The way many people play up the terms is kind of a bit silly really.

The Bible is what many people believe the word of God to be. God said it, it was written down in the Bible – no questions asked, end of story.

Without detracting from the thread or starting a whole new spin off (not my intent), the question may be, is the Bible God’s word to the letter, or simply man’s interpretation/understanding of God’s word as related and conveyed (and inadvertently embellished, altered and changed) over countless generations?

That said, I am in no way suggesting that the Bible is not relevant today, nor am I suggesting that one cannot find God’s word (or at least His intent) in its contents.

As an aside, I certainly do acknowledge my own beliefs, I just do not share them ‘with the world’, so to speak, as they have zero bearing on the subject at hand; “tongues/glossolalia/non-cognitive non-language utterance.
so every Christian believes in the gifts?

see?

wrong already

the Bible is discerned spiritually...meaning by the Holy Spirit

you do not have the Holy Spirit and your friend is a preterist which means she does not believe either and in fact believes we are
'living in the kingdom' Jesus has come back...70 AD to be exact...it was a spiritual return according to that group, even though the Bible distinctly states it will not be so

it does not matter what you believe. you do not believe in salvation through Christ alone which translated means....your intellect is not going to help you here
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
10,789
915
113
So everyone has a different gospel in your world.

It's plainly evident that you're wrong, and it's time that you stop playing games with the word of God and start accepting it for what it says instead of adding to it and inventing your own private interpretations.
Same one book of prophecy .

Its plainly evident you are looking for a alternative source of the faith of God needed to hear him not seen .

If the new tongues is not the gospel that can drive out demons as lying spirits than what is it? A unknown wonderment? Something that fills something??
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
2,294
423
83
so you cannot properly respond

didn't think you would

you give a non sequitur response far too often for an individual that tells others to study the Bible

you obviously have 0 integrity or you would try to delve into the Bible you pretend to know all about
What you did not understand with my writing? No, I dont know everything. But I learened that useing verses out of the context is not helpful for to find the right meaning of the verse. In opposit you can come to wrong conclusions. RCC,JW useing all the bible, but in their teachings they come to strange results. Will say to false teachings.
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
10,789
915
113
Perhaps a bit of a misnomer when you put it the way you do (i.e. 'every human action is cognitive'). It's not my own term, but as I understand it in this sense, it's 'non-cognitive' in that the speaker is not consciously thinking about what sounds s/he is going to produce. So unlike in speaking a real language where (even though it happens in a minutest fraction of a second) one is thinking about the sounds that are going to be produced in a particular utterance (i.e. the brain is in the process of generating 'language'), glossolalia doesn't require that; the sounds are completely random - no real thought (cognitive) process (insofar as producing language) is necessary> hence the term 'non-cognitive' (in the sense that you're not thinking about what you're going to say; there's no real thought process involved in what you're saying - it just happens).

Probably not the best way to explain it, but hope you kind of get the idea.
That makes great sense. Voluntary sounds coming from inside produced by thoughts or rather involuntary sounds like getting the wind knocked out. . . . Umph, or Brrrrrr when Cold, Ahhhhheeeeee when falling out window Ochhhh, ohh tender foot stepping on stones. .

Thoughts coming into our minds from another source of faith . The bible calls it "will worship".

I think the teaches in Colossian 2 points towards that kind of ideology

Colosisains 2: 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a "voluntary humility" and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Colosisains 2: 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh

I would think we would humble our selves under the hearing of God's word as it is written . Not volunteering our own imaginations as will worship. The new age gospel of experiencing unknown wonderments
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
10,198
4,886
113
Same one book of prophecy .

Its plainly evident you are looking for a alternative source of the faith of God needed to hear him not seen .

If the new tongues is not the gospel that can drive out demons as lying spirits than what is it? A unknown wonderment? Something that fills something??
Your response is essentially, "I am innocent because you've done something wrong." Well, I haven't, and you haven't even begun to admit your error, let alone address it.

How about you quote me where I have said anything to support the idea that it is "plainly evident" that I'm "looking for a (sic) alternative source of the faith of God...". Provide the evidence or withdraw the accusation.

In Acts 2, what was spoken? Tongues. Languages (plural!). The message was the gospel; the medium for that message was unlearned languages spoken by the disciples. You've conflated the two. Peter, Paul, James, Stephen, and all the others preached the gospel, not 'the tongue'.
 

7seasrekeyed

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2017
7,518
3,106
113
What you did not understand with my writing? No, I dont know everything. But I learened that useing verses out of the context is not helpful for to find the right meaning of the verse. In opposit you can come to wrong conclusions. RCC,JW useing all the bible, but in their teachings they come to strange results. Will say to false teachings.

my dear, you are not even using verses PERIOD. you keep referring to dead men and old books

God is alive and His Spirit gives life

unlike this thread through which the common theme of God has changed because I said so seems to have taken root :whistle:
 

Absolutely

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2018
2,604
653
113
that is your opinion you can make your point personal all you want. " While Peter was YET speaking " is not the doctrinal context to the full chapter of Acts 10. I did not omit any verse that is a false narrative you are trying to project of me.

IF you are framing the full chapter of Acts 10 on " while Peter was yet Speaking" as your foundational text for one being saved after receiving the Holy Spirit while not taking every salvation in the Book of Acts and the Empowering of the Holy Spirit as it is recorded, you are in error.

It is not my knowledge it is the full word of God I am not the one who said
"I don't need acts 10 to fit a doctrine."

You did. Without all of Chapter 10 verses, 1- 48 and you think " while Peter was yet Speaking" is it? What is said before and after provides the full context to what happened in verse 44? Without all of the Chapter, you would be right.

You suggest I omitted verse 44 I did not but you stated you do not need Acts 10 to fit a doctrine.

I leave those here to witness and judge for themselves.

Good day
Then show me where they got saved before they spoke in tongues.
I will wait
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
2,294
423
83
my dear, you are not even using verses PERIOD. you keep referring to dead men and old books

God is alive and His Spirit gives life

unlike this thread through which the common theme of God has changed because I said so seems to have taken root :whistle:
So I assume you has no idea of bible teaching? Every word of God is a alive.
Where you went for bible study?
 

7seasrekeyed

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2017
7,518
3,106
113
So I assume you has no idea of bible teaching? Every word of God is a alive.
Where you went for bible study?

wondering whether to correct your grammer which seems to be getting worse, even for English as a 2nd language individual,
or address the smarmy comments your peanut gallery likes so much

this is the Bible Discussion forum

do you have any response to the actual Bible verses I quoted and commented on?

it seems you have caught the same idea that the best response when you have no response, is to make fun of the person who knows what they are talking about

if you cannot respond to the fact Peter used Joel's prophecy and said it was fulfilled, then why don't you just go play grown ups
with your little boyfriends somewhere else


remember...as one of your chums likes to reflect...everyone is watching. 'they' would like to know what you think of what Peter said


Peter quotes the prophet Joel on the day of Pentecost and explains it as follows:

But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day. And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'"

so again we see that God does not pour out His Spirit willy nilly but only on those who call on His name

it is important to remember that the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, so, if a person is not saved and has not turned from sin, God is not pouring out His Spirit on them except to convict them of sin and even then it does not mean they will turn to God

as we know many converts were Gentile...as we follow Paul we see him writing to Gentiles converted to belief in Christ as their Savior...so it is error to state Joel was only speaking of Israel

further, Peter states 'these' are not drunk...referring to the 119 people behind him speaking in tongues...so we do see that speaking in
tongues can be misinterpreted as something not of God as we have seen a number doing in this thread and in other threads that discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit



it is vital to understand the order of the book of Acts and the fact that Peter told the gathered crowd below the building from which he spoke, that that which they were witnessing was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel in the book by the same name

there is only one gospel and those of us who are following Christ here and do speak in tongues and do have various spiritual gifts, have said so countless times while those who apparently are not afraid to lie, continue to accuse us and state ridiculous things that no one has said
 

Absolutely

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2018
2,604
653
113
It's you who is resorting to assumptions here and most likely in an effort to accommodate a preconceived idea or theology. Once again, in Acts 10:43-44, we read - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.

*So the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message and not on those who heard nothing at all. These Gentiles heard the message in verse 43 and believed, received the Holy Spirit and were saved before water baptism. Acts 10:44 says, while he was "still speaking," which means, he already started talking and said, "WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM RECEIVES REMISSION OF SINS." So I don't have to assume anything and lost unbelievers do not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Before these Gentiles were water baptized they "received" the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47). In view of this, there are two passages that clearly demonstrate they were saved. They are Romans 8:9 and 1 John 4:13.

Romans 8:9 - However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If one has received the Holy Spirit they "belong" to Christ. To belong to Christ does not describe the condition of a lost unbeliever but a saved believer - such was the case of these Gentiles before they were water baptized.

1 John 4:13 - By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. Because they received the gift of the Holy Spirit, these Gentiles abided in God and God abided in them. To abide in God and to have God abide in you does not describe the condition of a lost unbeliever but a saved believer - such was the case of these Gentiles before they were water baptized. *There are no examples of lost unbelievers receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament and also, spiritual gifts are ONLY for the body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 12)

The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, were saved and a part of the body of Christ before water baptism. Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid them from being baptized because of their unacceptance of these Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles were clearly SAVED BEFORE WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit was proof of this. Praise God! :)
Under your deal all saved just normally speak in tongues.
You act like its just bread and butter.
Uh,no.the jews marveled that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the gentiles.
There is zero evidence they were saved while peter was speaking. Zero.
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
2,294
423
83
wondering whether to correct your grammer which seems to be getting worse, even for English as a 2nd language individual,
or address the smarmy comments your peanut gallery likes so much

this is the Bible Discussion forum

do you have any response to the actual Bible verses I quoted and commented on?

it seems you have caught the same idea that the best response when you have no response, is to make fun of the person who knows what they are talking about

if you cannot respond to the fact Peter used Joel's prophecy and said it was fulfilled, then why don't you just go play grown ups
with your little boyfriends somewhere else


remember...as one of your chums likes to reflect...everyone is watching. 'they' would like to know what you think of what Peter said


Peter quotes the prophet Joel on the day of Pentecost and explains it as follows:

But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day. And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'"

so again we see that God does not pour out His Spirit willy nilly but only on those who call on His name

it is important to remember that the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, so, if a person is not saved and has not turned from sin, God is not pouring out His Spirit on them except to convict them of sin and even then it does not mean they will turn to God

as we know many converts were Gentile...as we follow Paul we see him writing to Gentiles converted to belief in Christ as their Savior...so it is error to state Joel was only speaking of Israel

further, Peter states 'these' are not drunk...referring to the 119 people behind him speaking in tongues...so we do see that speaking in
tongues can be misinterpreted as something not of God as we have seen a number doing in this thread and in other threads that discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit



it is vital to understand the order of the book of Acts and the fact that Peter told the gathered crowd below the building from which he spoke, that that which they were witnessing was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel in the book by the same name

there is only one gospel and those of us who are following Christ here and do speak in tongues and do have various spiritual gifts, have said so countless times while those who apparently are not afraid to lie, continue to accuse us and state ridiculous things that no one has said
Strange is, that acvordng your statement before 1900 nobody was found who practised this. In germany then before 1907 you cant find born again christians. The same with australia. Do you think over which consequences your teaching has?
I have nothing against spiritual gifts, if they are given from God. But i cant understand a teaching which claimes before 1900 was no rwal christianity. Who claimes that all believers who dont speak in tongues are no real christians.
Thats a result when verses like from Joel 2 are not correct interpretet.
 

7seasrekeyed

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2017
7,518
3,106
113
Strange is, that acvordng your statement before 1900 nobody was found who practised this. In germany then before 1907 you cant find born again christians. The same with australia. Do you think over which consequences your teaching has?
I have nothing against spiritual gifts, if they are given from God. But i cant understand a teaching which claimes before 1900 was no rwal christianity. Who claimes that all believers who dont speak in tongues are no real christians.
Thats a result when verses like from Joel 2 are not correct interpretet.

if you are looking for your Bible, maybe you left it where you usually put things you do not use often

that would be the book you need to consult ;)
 

Absolutely

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2018
2,604
653
113
You left off what happened.
It says while peter was yet speaking.

You got a problem with what is says,not what i am saying.

"While he was speaking "means he did not get out all his sentences.
It means litterally "before he finished"

So,they were moved upon by the Holy Spirit AND SPAKE IN TONGUES prior to being born again.

You need that verse omitted.

You framed that without that verse.
Your claim can not be defended.
Your centering that event on your "knowledge".
Your knowledge tells you it can not happen.
And yet many were emersed in the Holy Spirit outside of the new covenant.

I don't need acts 10 to fit a doctrine.
It says what it does.
When repeated it is too dificult to accept

""nowhere does the context even suggest they were not saved and received the empowering of the Holy Spirit before conversion. ""

That means they ,according to your logic,were saved but not baptised before peter started speaking.
You claim vs 37 "that word that you know" means they were saved but not baptised.

And yet they are the first gentile converts which the jews were astonished AFTER they spoke in tongues.
IOW you have no case,which is WHY you need that verse "while peter spoke" eliminated.
×××××××^^^^^THIS^^^^^×××××××