Concerning the gift of tongues

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

considering that there was no interpreter at least it doesn't say there was maybe it really was giberish speaking? you would think the scriptures would say there was an interpreter we assume it was known language but without an interpreter there was it really?

Why would it be gibberish if there was no interpreter? That just means that the speaking in tongues in that case was just for the individual's benefit according to the Holy Spirit.


🚟

 

[Blain]

Why would it be gibberish if there was no interpreter? That just means that the speaking in tongues in that case was just for the individual's benefit according to the Holy Spirit.


🚟

Because they thought they were drunk, if one is speaking even in an unknown language native to that person you wouldn't think a drunk person could form full on words or sentences

 

[Mem]

I only ask because I have heard some speak in languages and others in giberish if there is a case to be made for the giberish part I am wondering if that could be a legit tongues

I really don't care what anybody thinks it is. I will say, at the risk of any semblance of credibility being totally wiped, that I am fluent in "cattish," which sounds like gibberish.

 

[GWH]

Kindly show us who said Paul's epistles were not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

We're waiting........

Kind of sad dontcha think if you have to make up something?

It is very sad that you do not acknowledge the post by Lafftur to which my comment was attached.
I was kinda hoping you had dropped the divisive debasing.

 

[Blain]

I really don't care what anybody thinks it is. I will say, at the risk of any semblance of credibility being totally wiped, that I am fluent in "cattish," which sounds like gibberish.

I love catfish but I hate shrimp

 

[Mem]

Because they thought they were drunk, if one is speaking even in an unknown language native to that person you wouldn't think a drunk person could form full on words or sentences

That was the pointed I attempted to make, if the tongues were known languages that were unknown to some hearers of it, then they would at least have recognized it was a known language that they were aware of, regardless of whether they understood that language. They'd at least have been able to identify it as a distinct language they'd heard spoken with the native community and it seems there is a suggestion that the gift of interpretation was given to those that 'heard in their native tongue' while it wasn't given to those that supposed they were drunk.

 

[Blain]

That was the pointed I attempted to make, if the tongues were known languages that were unknown to some hearers of it, then they would at least have recognized it was a known language that they were aware of, regardless of whether they understood that language. They'd at least have been able to identify it as a distinct language they'd heard spoken with the native community and it seems there is a suggestion that the gift of interpretation was given to those that 'heard in their native tongue' while it wasn't given to those that supposed they were drunk.

perhaps that is why an interpreter is required because it would seem like gibberish but only the spirit can understand it

 

[Mem]

perhaps that is why an interpreter is required because it would seem like gibberish but only the spirit can understand it

Hence, Paul's instruction concerning public manifestations, yes. These two gift work together in conjunction with the other in that case. Otherwise, what profit comes from it to edify the body? But that doesn't mean it doesn't profit one that prays in the spirit, in his prayer closet. Nor does it imply one that prays alone in his closet will not get the interpretation unless he does so within the public.

 

[Blain]

Hence, Paul's instruction concerning public manifestations, yes. These two gift work together in conjunction with the other in that case. Otherwise, what profit comes from it to edify the body? But that doesn't mean it doesn't profit one that prays in the spirit, in his prayer closet.

yeah that makes sense and escpecially if in public

 

[Blain]

this verse came to mind Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. so if one is speaking what would be considered gibberish and there is no interpreter it is to edify themselves hence the prayer language if I am to understand it correctly

 

[Mem]

yeah that makes sense and escpecially if in public

I don't think I've been given the measure need to speak boldly in tongues in public. Maybe I'm too selfish in that sense, keeping it all for myself. Idk. But yes, I'd rather speak words of distinct understanding than speak in tongues, in public, though I speak often in tongues, in private.

 

[Blain]

I don't think I've been given the measure need to speak boldly in tongues in public. Maybe I'm too selfish in that sense, keeping it all for myself. Idk. But yes, I'd rather speak words of distinct understanding than speak in tongues, in public, though I speak often in tongues, in private.

I wouldn't say it is selfish as the verse I posted even says what tongues is for

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

I don't think I've been given the measure need to speak boldly in tongues in public. Maybe I'm too selfish in that sense, keeping it all for myself. Idk. But yes, I'd rather speak words of distinct understanding than speak in tongues, in public, though I speak often in tongues, in private.

I agree. When I'm at at church that allows speaking in tongues, I'm pretty quiet when I speak in tongues.

I've never felt the Holy Spirit cause my voice to carry over the rest of the voices singing and speaking in the Spirit that everyone should quiet down for me to be heard.

I've also not ever been used by the Holy Spirit to interpret although there were times a verse or passage would come to my mind and the interpreter would announce the same verse or passage.


🚟

 

[Blain]

I agree. When I'm at at church that allows speaking in tongues, I'm pretty quiet when I speak in tongues.

I've never felt the Holy Spirit cause my voice to carry over the rest of the voices singing and speaking in the Spirit that everyone should quiet down for me to be heard.

I've also not ever been used by the Holy Spirit to interpret although there were times a verse or passage would come to my mind and the interpreter would announce the same verse or passage.


🚟

yeah a lot of times when I hear people try to speak in tongues they shout it like really loudly but if tongues is to edify ones self you and @Mem are doing it how it was supposed to be done

 

[GWH]

Do you teach that unless a person says 'Jesus is Lord' they are not really saved? You know, how would we, in this century, know all that Jesus OR Paul taught? I would also like to remind you that if Paul thought something he was saying was not inspired by the Holy Spirit, he actually said so.

I don't think the order matters as much as you do. Nothing changes if it is the truth.

I teach that Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailer that GRFS was this: “Believe in the Lord Jesus.” (ACTS 16:31)
This is GRFS in a nutshell.

Jesus Himself expressed GRFS even more succinctly using three, four and five letter words: “Ask… seek… knock…” (MT 7:7). This indicates that God graces every sinful soul with the ability or opportunity to understand how to be saved (MT 7:7, cf. 1TM 2:3-4), which might be called “seeking grace“. As Hebrews 11:6 states: “he [God] rewards those who earnestly seek him” (cf. IS 45:19). Seeking God is the beginning of saving faith, and not seeking God or rejecting His salvation in Christ is the essence of evil atheism or faith in I-dolatry (RM 3:11, 1:18-23).

Then I consider the obvious question to ask at this point: “What is GRFS for those who have never heard of Jesus?” (which includes everyone living B.C. and millions of people who have lived A.D.) If God loves the world (JN 3:16) and wants everyone to be saved (2TM 2:4), then He must provide an opportunity. God’s just judgment is illustrated by Jesus in the Parable of the Talents (MT 25:14-29), which indicates that God will judge souls on the basis of the truth (Word = Christ per JN 1:1f.) they have received.

And then I continue with the 5-point elaboration of the kerygma/nutshell.

 

[ocean]

1.

Actually, I am amazed that so many folks think Paul's writings were not inspired by Jesus and thus should not be followed.
I thought only Jude and James were considered problematic by some.

2. ocean, post: 5491302, member: 333985"]Kindly show us who said Paul's epistles were not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

We're waiting........

Kind of sad dontcha think if you have to make up something?


3.

It is very sad that you do not acknowledge the post by Lafftur to which my comment was attached.
I was kinda hoping you had dropped the divisive debasing.

4. I addressed you because of your false statement. It is still false. I'm not sure who you think you are that you believe I need to address another person to somehow appease you, but I'm not interested in continuing to discuss your opines on Paul as previously stated. Now if you want to have a pout about that please go right ahead. Your apparent tendency towards passive aggression is something I really have no time for so I doubt I need to engage you again.

 

[CS1]

You asked me for scripture, I gave you.
But this is not enough for you, because its supports not your view.
Thats then your problem!

It's not my fault you did not know the context of Joel's chapter 2.

 

[Dino246]

Whatever the case for tongues today, it absolutely is abused by many of its proponents. This thread reminds me of a Christian friend, an old guy and a unique character, very witty with a lot of very clever one liners and made-up words to replace real ones and make a comment about them. Every time tongues came up in a discussion he'd just launch into "shecomeonahondashecomeonahonda..." until one of us would smack him, but not because we didn't understand his commentary.

I don't disagree that there is abuse of "tongues"... but is it abused more than of any other aspect of Christianity? I think not. There is flagrant abuse of faith, of money, of healing, of prophecy, of preaching, of hermeneutics, and probably anything else you care to name.

We don't argue about whether the use of money should be abolished because people abuse it. Let's get some integrity.

 

[GWH]

1.

2. ocean, post: 5491302, member: 333985"]Kindly show us who said Paul's epistles were not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

We're waiting........

Kind of sad dontcha think if you have to make up something?

3.
4. I addressed you because of your false statement. It is still false. I'm not sure who you think you are that you believe I need to address another person to somehow appease you, but I'm not interested in continuing to discuss your opines on Paul as previously stated. Now if you want to have a pout about that please go right ahead. Your apparent tendency towards passive aggression is something I really have no time for so I doubt I need to engage you again.

So much for my hoping.
(Bad hair day?)

 

[studier]

I don't disagree that there is abuse of "tongues"... but is it abused more than of any other aspect of Christianity? I think not. There is flagrant abuse of faith, of money, of healing, of prophecy, of preaching, of hermeneutics, and probably anything else you care to name.

We don't argue about whether the use of money should be abolished because people abuse it. Let's get some integrity.

So, we accept tongues because other things are also abused, or we look for the truth in all things?

Also, I don't need tongues to buy a loaf of bread.

FWIW, I'm not a strict cessationist as I was originally taught to be. I have some issues in the Text with that position. However, I have been around a lot of abuse of it and am very guarded about its typical open use and supposed proof of the Spirit.