Rules Governing The Gift Of Tongues
- Thread starter WebersHome
- Start date
-
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.
There are volumes that can be written on the subject of “tongues” – the below is an attempt at a brief summary on the phenomenon as viewed and studied through the lens of linguistics.
First, let me state that I am neither a so-called cessationist nor a continuationist (frankly, I’ve never heard the two terms until just late last year); thus, the views offered below are not derived from any particular religious context, view, or slant, but rather one based on a more in depth reading of the two main sources cited as evidence for modern ‘tongues’: the Pentecostal narrative of Acts, and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
There are a few types of “tongues”; I classify them quite differently however: ‘tongues’ as described in the Bible, and the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic practice/understanding of ‘tongues’. The later includes those practiced by many non-Christians in their various cultural traditions. Contrary to how many view it, Biblical tongues are in no way mutually inclusive with the latter; they are two totally different phenomenon.
Biblical ‘tongues’ are simply real languages, perhaps unknown (i.e. foreign) to those listening to them, but known by the speaker (typically his/her native language). All Biblical references to tongue(s) (‘glossa’) describes one of two things: the physical organ in the mouth, or real language(s); there is no reference to tongues in the Bible that cannot be explained in the context of real language(s).
The more common practice used by Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians seems to be one of interpreting Scripture to fit the modern practice/connotation of what glossolalia is perceived to be. The only praying going on with tongues is the deep subconscious praying of the individual (in whatever their native language happens to be); inspired, of course, by their deep faith and beliefs. There is nothing divine or miraculous going on here, in fact, there is nothing being done that can’t be explained in natural terms.
Interpretation may again also be inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs, but the relatively generic messages of most interpretations do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. This is clearly evidenced in that if one gives the same glossic string to ten different people who can interpret tongues, one will get ten different interpretations typically non-related to each other. In this respect, glossolalia fails even the most basic criteria which define communication itself, let alone language.
The all too common come-back to this issue of ‘multiple interpretations’ is that God/the Holy Spirit simply gives different interpretations to different people. As one on-line writer quips (and I couldn’t have said it better myself), “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for glossolalia in the first place.”
So, if not language, what exactly is being produced?
Tongues is the Christian term for what is more commonly known as glossolalia. A phenomenon practiced by many other cultures and religions. It’s all done essentially the same way.
How does one define glossolalia? In the most simple of terms, it is non-cognitive non-language utterance (NC-NLU’s) composed of random free vocalization – essentially the subconscious “playing with language”. Due to the nature of glossolalia, the language producing centers of the brain (particularly the area controlling grammar) are not overly engaged when one practices it, as a study done by the University of Pennsylvania (2010), using SPECT imaging, demonstrated.
Study after study (including my own) all lead to the same conclusions. Let’s look at some facts regarding glossolalia/tongues - Glossolalia consists of only those sounds found in the speaker’s native language (and any language they may have been exposed to), though typically the phonemic inventory (set of sounds) that any given speaker will use is considerably less than what occurs in his/her native language.
Anyone can learn to produce glossolalia relatively easily in a matter of minutes; it’s nothing that requires a great deal of practice or thought. Further, ‘word’ stress and general accent are typically those of the speaker’s native language. A person from Georgia is going to sound like a person from Georgia when “speaking tongues”, i.e. typically there’s no “foreign accent”, so to speak, in glossolalia. It is the generation of simple syllables all of which are almost exclusively ‘open’ syllables (i.e. Consonant-Vowel-Consonant-Vowel, etc.). Glossolalia has no grammar; thus, also no syntax (word order).
One noticeable feature of tongues-speech (T-speech) with respect to American speakers, is that many will typically trill their r’s when “speaking in tongues”. With some it’s more a what’s called a ‘flap’ – the ‘t’ in “water” – than an actual trilled ‘r’. Why is this done? It makes the glossic utterance sound more “foreign” to the speaker.
Because tongues are produced subconsciously and draw on a limited "pool" of phonemes and particularly due to the open syllable structure, they seem to "roll off the tongue" and many people report being able to seem to speak considerably faster or easier than when normally speaking. There's really nothing more mysterious than that going on here with respect to "fluency" with T-speech.
All of the preceding also applies to the so-called “singing in the Spirit”; it is simply sung glossolalia rather than spoken.
The above, as well as many additional features too lengthy to explain in detail here, demonstrate that ‘tongues’ fail as language on virtually any criteria by which ‘language’ is defined. It simply isn’t what many people would like it to be.
Incidentally, just because the sound or tone of someone’s glossolalia/tongues does not match your preconceived idea of what a ‘tongue’ is supposed to sound like, does not make it inherently “demonic”. Further, there is no such thing as “faking tongues” – the question is “faking what?” Faking the fluent production of syllables? To produce syllables fluently is to produce syllables fluently. I would posit a definition of “faking tongues” as the ‘conscious effort of a speaker to produce glossolalia’ as opposed to the natural flowing of syllables as is normally produced by the subconscious.
Being something that is self-created, no two ‘tongues’ will ever sound the same and many speakers report being able to speak various ‘tongues’ (i.e. the concept here being that the speaker discerns them as separate from each other). Each time a person produces T-speech, s/he may draw on a different subset of phonemes on which the T-speech is based; thus, it comes across as different/separate tongues.
Something to note is that when Paul describes different “kinds of tongues”, the word he uses for ‘kinds’ actually denotes ‘families’ (‘genos’), i.e. in this case, language families (e.g. Semitic as opposed to Italic, as opposed to Celtic, etc.) – there is no way to interpret that phrase as anything but referring to real languages.
If T-speech met the criteria of language and had a definite lexicon, structure and grammar, I’d be the first to say, “Hey, you’re on to something here that’s supernatural and really needs to be looked at more closely and studied”, but tongues simply isn’t that. Neither are modern tongues xenoglossy – there are, in fact, no known provable cases of xenoglossy…anywhere.
Still though, despite this, the Pentecostal/Charismatic community is rife with examples of ‘tongues’ being heard/understood as real language(s). It is truly unfortunate that no such cases have ever been documented and studied. It would either answer a lot of debate and questions, or it would create a slew of additional questions and areas for study. In most cases, such reports are very anecdotal and lack specifics. I am not beyond believing that that the divine can speak to a third party through someone. This is common in a lot of faith traditions and is actually the more “correct” (if I can call it that) usage of glossolalia.
Let me ask if you have ever heard someone speak in tongues and thought “That doesn’t sound like tongues” or “That sounds demonic”. What was your basis for thinking that? What was it that made you doubt the ‘authenticity’ of their tongues as opposed to yours? I’d be curious to know.
Some people are quick to tell me that I am trying to ‘explain the spiritual in earthly terms’, or something along those lines. There are many intangible things in religion that that must be taken on faith alone; they cannot really be proven, nor can they be disproven. Tongues, however is not one of these things – it is something that is very tangible, it is something physical. Tongues can be examined, analyzed and studied.
Glossolalia is essentially a tool – a way to initiate a connection to the divine.
Glossolalia as practiced in most other cultural and/or faith traditions around the world typically entails a petitioner seeking aid in the emotional and/or spiritual healing process, who is helped by the practitioner (minister, priest, shaman, healer – whatever s/he is called in that culture). It is rarely, if ever, the petitioner him/her self who is engaging in the actual glossolalia; it’s almost always involves a third party.
In these instances glossolalia is used as a tool to establish a ‘connection’ to the divine, a message is received (either directly or indirectly via an interpreter) that is extremely pertinent to this third party’s situation and, as a result, with the message delivered, the petitioner may begin the process of emotional/spiritual healing. It is important to note that the glossolalia itself does not contain the message; it’s simply the tool by which to establish and maintain the connection to the divine.
Though this more ‘correct”, if I may call it that, use of glossolalia does occur in the context of Christianity, from all accounts I have read or been told about, instances of this are exceedingly rare. Whether or not it is rare because most people do not practice glossolalia ‘correctly’ (due to a misconception of what it actually is) is a matter for further study/debate. In addition, whether or not Christian practitioners realize that glossolalia is simply the tool used to enter into the process (not the means) may also be a matter for debate.
Next time you speak tongues, take out your phone; put it on voice recorder, and record yourself for about a minute. Then play it back and take a listen, truly listen to the utterances – play the recording back over and over and write them down and look at them. Can you see the patterns, the play on sounds, repetitions of syllables, predictability of syllable structures, the constant use of particular vowels over others – then ask yourself, is this language or simply something that mimics it and is only a façade of language? Next, listen to the tongues/glossolalia of say a Shaman from Siberia and you’ll notice he’s producing his tongues the same exact way you are. They may even sound like something you’ve heard before – are his ‘tongues’ any less divine than yours?
As a Linguist who has studied the phenomenon, my take on it is that tongues/glossolalia is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best – the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In some extreme cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience.
I am not against the practice of glossolalia; particularly if it is a way for the speaker to strengthen his/her own spiritual path, but understand what it really is and perhaps just as importantly (indeed, if not more importantly) ……understand what it is not.
First, let me state that I am neither a so-called cessationist nor a continuationist (frankly, I’ve never heard the two terms until just late last year); thus, the views offered below are not derived from any particular religious context, view, or slant, but rather one based on a more in depth reading of the two main sources cited as evidence for modern ‘tongues’: the Pentecostal narrative of Acts, and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
There are a few types of “tongues”; I classify them quite differently however: ‘tongues’ as described in the Bible, and the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic practice/understanding of ‘tongues’. The later includes those practiced by many non-Christians in their various cultural traditions. Contrary to how many view it, Biblical tongues are in no way mutually inclusive with the latter; they are two totally different phenomenon.
Biblical ‘tongues’ are simply real languages, perhaps unknown (i.e. foreign) to those listening to them, but known by the speaker (typically his/her native language). All Biblical references to tongue(s) (‘glossa’) describes one of two things: the physical organ in the mouth, or real language(s); there is no reference to tongues in the Bible that cannot be explained in the context of real language(s).
The more common practice used by Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians seems to be one of interpreting Scripture to fit the modern practice/connotation of what glossolalia is perceived to be. The only praying going on with tongues is the deep subconscious praying of the individual (in whatever their native language happens to be); inspired, of course, by their deep faith and beliefs. There is nothing divine or miraculous going on here, in fact, there is nothing being done that can’t be explained in natural terms.
Interpretation may again also be inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs, but the relatively generic messages of most interpretations do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. This is clearly evidenced in that if one gives the same glossic string to ten different people who can interpret tongues, one will get ten different interpretations typically non-related to each other. In this respect, glossolalia fails even the most basic criteria which define communication itself, let alone language.
The all too common come-back to this issue of ‘multiple interpretations’ is that God/the Holy Spirit simply gives different interpretations to different people. As one on-line writer quips (and I couldn’t have said it better myself), “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for glossolalia in the first place.”
So, if not language, what exactly is being produced?
Tongues is the Christian term for what is more commonly known as glossolalia. A phenomenon practiced by many other cultures and religions. It’s all done essentially the same way.
How does one define glossolalia? In the most simple of terms, it is non-cognitive non-language utterance (NC-NLU’s) composed of random free vocalization – essentially the subconscious “playing with language”. Due to the nature of glossolalia, the language producing centers of the brain (particularly the area controlling grammar) are not overly engaged when one practices it, as a study done by the University of Pennsylvania (2010), using SPECT imaging, demonstrated.
Study after study (including my own) all lead to the same conclusions. Let’s look at some facts regarding glossolalia/tongues - Glossolalia consists of only those sounds found in the speaker’s native language (and any language they may have been exposed to), though typically the phonemic inventory (set of sounds) that any given speaker will use is considerably less than what occurs in his/her native language.
Anyone can learn to produce glossolalia relatively easily in a matter of minutes; it’s nothing that requires a great deal of practice or thought. Further, ‘word’ stress and general accent are typically those of the speaker’s native language. A person from Georgia is going to sound like a person from Georgia when “speaking tongues”, i.e. typically there’s no “foreign accent”, so to speak, in glossolalia. It is the generation of simple syllables all of which are almost exclusively ‘open’ syllables (i.e. Consonant-Vowel-Consonant-Vowel, etc.). Glossolalia has no grammar; thus, also no syntax (word order).
One noticeable feature of tongues-speech (T-speech) with respect to American speakers, is that many will typically trill their r’s when “speaking in tongues”. With some it’s more a what’s called a ‘flap’ – the ‘t’ in “water” – than an actual trilled ‘r’. Why is this done? It makes the glossic utterance sound more “foreign” to the speaker.
Because tongues are produced subconsciously and draw on a limited "pool" of phonemes and particularly due to the open syllable structure, they seem to "roll off the tongue" and many people report being able to seem to speak considerably faster or easier than when normally speaking. There's really nothing more mysterious than that going on here with respect to "fluency" with T-speech.
All of the preceding also applies to the so-called “singing in the Spirit”; it is simply sung glossolalia rather than spoken.
The above, as well as many additional features too lengthy to explain in detail here, demonstrate that ‘tongues’ fail as language on virtually any criteria by which ‘language’ is defined. It simply isn’t what many people would like it to be.
Incidentally, just because the sound or tone of someone’s glossolalia/tongues does not match your preconceived idea of what a ‘tongue’ is supposed to sound like, does not make it inherently “demonic”. Further, there is no such thing as “faking tongues” – the question is “faking what?” Faking the fluent production of syllables? To produce syllables fluently is to produce syllables fluently. I would posit a definition of “faking tongues” as the ‘conscious effort of a speaker to produce glossolalia’ as opposed to the natural flowing of syllables as is normally produced by the subconscious.
Being something that is self-created, no two ‘tongues’ will ever sound the same and many speakers report being able to speak various ‘tongues’ (i.e. the concept here being that the speaker discerns them as separate from each other). Each time a person produces T-speech, s/he may draw on a different subset of phonemes on which the T-speech is based; thus, it comes across as different/separate tongues.
Something to note is that when Paul describes different “kinds of tongues”, the word he uses for ‘kinds’ actually denotes ‘families’ (‘genos’), i.e. in this case, language families (e.g. Semitic as opposed to Italic, as opposed to Celtic, etc.) – there is no way to interpret that phrase as anything but referring to real languages.
If T-speech met the criteria of language and had a definite lexicon, structure and grammar, I’d be the first to say, “Hey, you’re on to something here that’s supernatural and really needs to be looked at more closely and studied”, but tongues simply isn’t that. Neither are modern tongues xenoglossy – there are, in fact, no known provable cases of xenoglossy…anywhere.
Still though, despite this, the Pentecostal/Charismatic community is rife with examples of ‘tongues’ being heard/understood as real language(s). It is truly unfortunate that no such cases have ever been documented and studied. It would either answer a lot of debate and questions, or it would create a slew of additional questions and areas for study. In most cases, such reports are very anecdotal and lack specifics. I am not beyond believing that that the divine can speak to a third party through someone. This is common in a lot of faith traditions and is actually the more “correct” (if I can call it that) usage of glossolalia.
Let me ask if you have ever heard someone speak in tongues and thought “That doesn’t sound like tongues” or “That sounds demonic”. What was your basis for thinking that? What was it that made you doubt the ‘authenticity’ of their tongues as opposed to yours? I’d be curious to know.
Some people are quick to tell me that I am trying to ‘explain the spiritual in earthly terms’, or something along those lines. There are many intangible things in religion that that must be taken on faith alone; they cannot really be proven, nor can they be disproven. Tongues, however is not one of these things – it is something that is very tangible, it is something physical. Tongues can be examined, analyzed and studied.
Glossolalia is essentially a tool – a way to initiate a connection to the divine.
Glossolalia as practiced in most other cultural and/or faith traditions around the world typically entails a petitioner seeking aid in the emotional and/or spiritual healing process, who is helped by the practitioner (minister, priest, shaman, healer – whatever s/he is called in that culture). It is rarely, if ever, the petitioner him/her self who is engaging in the actual glossolalia; it’s almost always involves a third party.
In these instances glossolalia is used as a tool to establish a ‘connection’ to the divine, a message is received (either directly or indirectly via an interpreter) that is extremely pertinent to this third party’s situation and, as a result, with the message delivered, the petitioner may begin the process of emotional/spiritual healing. It is important to note that the glossolalia itself does not contain the message; it’s simply the tool by which to establish and maintain the connection to the divine.
Though this more ‘correct”, if I may call it that, use of glossolalia does occur in the context of Christianity, from all accounts I have read or been told about, instances of this are exceedingly rare. Whether or not it is rare because most people do not practice glossolalia ‘correctly’ (due to a misconception of what it actually is) is a matter for further study/debate. In addition, whether or not Christian practitioners realize that glossolalia is simply the tool used to enter into the process (not the means) may also be a matter for debate.
Next time you speak tongues, take out your phone; put it on voice recorder, and record yourself for about a minute. Then play it back and take a listen, truly listen to the utterances – play the recording back over and over and write them down and look at them. Can you see the patterns, the play on sounds, repetitions of syllables, predictability of syllable structures, the constant use of particular vowels over others – then ask yourself, is this language or simply something that mimics it and is only a façade of language? Next, listen to the tongues/glossolalia of say a Shaman from Siberia and you’ll notice he’s producing his tongues the same exact way you are. They may even sound like something you’ve heard before – are his ‘tongues’ any less divine than yours?
As a Linguist who has studied the phenomenon, my take on it is that tongues/glossolalia is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best – the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In some extreme cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience.
I am not against the practice of glossolalia; particularly if it is a way for the speaker to strengthen his/her own spiritual path, but understand what it really is and perhaps just as importantly (indeed, if not more importantly) ……understand what it is not.
I think we are looking at two different definitions of "practice".... You are talking about "putting something into practice"... in other words, DOING it.
I'm talking about practice in the sense that one is not very good, or adept at something, so they have to practice to improve their performance. If you have to start at square one, and LEARN how to do something, whether it is teaching, prophesying, or speaking in tongues, is that a gift? Or is it a learned thing?
I firmly believe we are to put our gifts into practice... in other words, we are to DO them.
I don't think our gifts are something that we are given just a little bit of the gift, and we have to practice them to become adept at it... like learning to hit a baseball... you practice at that, to get better at it. If you are already a professional batter, you join a team and put your gift into practice.
Timothy was being told that they already had the gifts, they were simply afraid to use them... Paul said "put those gifts into practice" He wasn't saying practice (learn how to use) the gift until you are good enough to "put it into practice"
I'm talking about practice in the sense that one is not very good, or adept at something, so they have to practice to improve their performance. If you have to start at square one, and LEARN how to do something, whether it is teaching, prophesying, or speaking in tongues, is that a gift? Or is it a learned thing?
I firmly believe we are to put our gifts into practice... in other words, we are to DO them.
I don't think our gifts are something that we are given just a little bit of the gift, and we have to practice them to become adept at it... like learning to hit a baseball... you practice at that, to get better at it. If you are already a professional batter, you join a team and put your gift into practice.
Timothy was being told that they already had the gifts, they were simply afraid to use them... Paul said "put those gifts into practice" He wasn't saying practice (learn how to use) the gift until you are good enough to "put it into practice"
S
well did I miss something Kavik? I'm asking because you also state you are not a Christian on your bio. so, while you appear to possibly be a Christian by slinging around words like cessationist or continuationist and state you are neither, it seems you are actually neither because it is impossible for you to be either as you are not saved to begin with.
sure, you can come along and say that does not matter and your research is pure because...fill in the blanks
BUT what you do not take into account regarding Christianity, is that Christians are more than the Bible.
You cannot explain what is going on because you leave out the defining element of what makes a Christian a Christian.
well good on yah, eh? generous of you
so how do you explain people who do not know a language who actually speak a language because I have. Spanish. I do not know Spanish but I have spoken it.
go figure
Last edited:
it s the same thing did not Jesus teach Peter and the other for three years before they were let go on their own>? so you think that a Preacher does not need to practice which is prepare also in context to the message God gave them?
The definition of " practice" i have used is in context to the verses and passages used in the word of God .
the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1cor 12,13,14 and the Gifts to the church which are the five-fold ministry Pastors, teachers, evangelist, apostles and prophets all had to grow into the office how did they do that? prayer and studying the Word of god and practicing on hearing God.
the bible is very clear that we do learn as we grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. The word of God is clear that the Holy Spirit Leads us and guides us into all truth. That is not given in one day that is learned over a life time.
we practice our faith and Jesus is perfecting us daily In HIM
S
okay Kavik
so every post you have made is in a thread on tongues where you have taken the occasion to perform studious explanations resulting from your studies, keeping in mind you do not know Christ, but you believe you may have the explanation for the work of the Holy Spirit
you started the thread 'Tongues perceived as a real language' three weeks ago and introduced yourself in a thread about tongues with an edification on your personal approach to the study of same
more research here for you?
so every post you have made is in a thread on tongues where you have taken the occasion to perform studious explanations resulting from your studies, keeping in mind you do not know Christ, but you believe you may have the explanation for the work of the Holy Spirit
you started the thread 'Tongues perceived as a real language' three weeks ago and introduced yourself in a thread about tongues with an edification on your personal approach to the study of same
more research here for you?
Kavik
you did not answer my question I asked you sometime back . in ref to: modern God and and Ancient God ability? Can God do today what HE did then? and if not where in the word of God does it say Tongues has stopped?
I do not take the word of a linguist over the power and ability of God. Human reasoning does not change Gods word.
Please don't be silly.... I have prayed that the Spirit give me all the gifts that I'm capable of using... I would willingly and gratefully accept, and put into practice any gift I received.
Perhaps when I said it was the "least of the gifts" I misspoke.... but Paul said it was not one of the better gifts... not me.
I have never said that people that speak in tongues are not gifted.... I merely stated my observations about the ones that CRAVE the gift of tongues, to the exclusion of anything else... if they cannot speak in tongues, they feel somehow "not spiritual" enough. And, that I have seen some people tell others they have to be "taught" how to speak in tongues. THAT is not being given a gift by the Spirit.... that is bypassing the giving of the gift by the Spirit, so that you can appear to have been given the gift.
Personally, I don't think we need to tell anyone what our gifts are. I believe they will be able to SEE what/how we have been gifted.
Sort of the opposite of "it's not bragging if you can DO it".... it's "if you have to brag about it, you don't have the gift"
Perhaps when I said it was the "least of the gifts" I misspoke.... but Paul said it was not one of the better gifts... not me.
I have never said that people that speak in tongues are not gifted.... I merely stated my observations about the ones that CRAVE the gift of tongues, to the exclusion of anything else... if they cannot speak in tongues, they feel somehow "not spiritual" enough. And, that I have seen some people tell others they have to be "taught" how to speak in tongues. THAT is not being given a gift by the Spirit.... that is bypassing the giving of the gift by the Spirit, so that you can appear to have been given the gift.
Personally, I don't think we need to tell anyone what our gifts are. I believe they will be able to SEE what/how we have been gifted.
Sort of the opposite of "it's not bragging if you can DO it".... it's "if you have to brag about it, you don't have the gift"
FYI ,
Paul did not say "was not one of the better gifts". However, you are correct we should not worship the gift of tongues I agree with you there that is not what they are for. you must understand that that is immaturity and unlearned would you not agree ? YES it does hurt and prevent people from being open the gifts of God but I can ensure you Preacher have done far more damage than the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1cor 12,13,14 .
Paul did not say "was not one of the better gifts". However, you are correct we should not worship the gift of tongues I agree with you there that is not what they are for. you must understand that that is immaturity and unlearned would you not agree ? YES it does hurt and prevent people from being open the gifts of God but I can ensure you Preacher have done far more damage than the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1cor 12,13,14 .
Why does that matter? He seems to be contributing to the discussion in a civilized, organized way. Should he not be a part of the discussion because he does not agree with you? He stated clearly that he was not against glossolalia... he's not calling anybody any names...
Where's the beef?
I found his study to be very interesting.
Where's the beef?
I found his study to be very interesting.
I don't think the apostles were "practicing their preaching" for three years... I think they were learning their subject.
If someone is given a miraculous gift by the Spirit, they should be able to immediately DO it, or put it into practice.
If you have to start at the very beginning, like at Toastmasters, and learn how to speak in public, and expound on your topic, that is not a miraculous gift of preaching. That is a learned ability.
The apostles were given miraculous gifts because others knew they were "unlearned" men, but they could expound and TEACH others, without having gone to school to learn HOW to teach. Jesus taught them WHAT to teach...
If someone is given a miraculous gift by the Spirit, they should be able to immediately DO it, or put it into practice.
If you have to start at the very beginning, like at Toastmasters, and learn how to speak in public, and expound on your topic, that is not a miraculous gift of preaching. That is a learned ability.
The apostles were given miraculous gifts because others knew they were "unlearned" men, but they could expound and TEACH others, without having gone to school to learn HOW to teach. Jesus taught them WHAT to teach...
indeed, not everyone has tongues, so its important that we dont assume if we dont, another doesnt. not everyone is a prophet, a pastor, speaks in tongues, or has the gift of interpreting that tongue ect. God designed it that way so we would come together in His name rather than letting it drive us apart or making it an individual thing. we can only be full when we come together imparting our own gifts to others whatever those Gifts may be. whether the gift is leadership or the meekest service within the church no one is more important than the next and no one should judge another for whatever Gift they do not possess, buit rather impart those things to one another.
its sad to see the divisions that things like the subject of tongues causes. One person who hasnt experienced it, sometimes take that as it doesnt exist and Gods word says that it certainly does. coming to gether within the framework of Gods word would cause growth in the things of God
its sad to see the divisions that things like the subject of tongues causes. One person who hasnt experienced it, sometimes take that as it doesnt exist and Gods word says that it certainly does. coming to gether within the framework of Gods word would cause growth in the things of God
me, uptight? You haven't been around long enough to know me that well. I'm about one of the most laid-back folks around.
YOU were the one that was accosting him about his posting on this topic.... I was simply asking you why it gave you so much heartburn. I've got nothing against you... but you should let others speak their mind without being so confrontational... unless they are an obvious troll.... and I haven't seen that in his posting. And I'm GOOD at spotting trolls.... it's one of my gifts...
a chill pill? Man, I haven't heard that since the 80's.... lol. love ya, sis...
edit:.... oh, and you left the "t" out of my handle.... makes me sound sort of "Charlie Sheen-ish"
YOU were the one that was accosting him about his posting on this topic.... I was simply asking you why it gave you so much heartburn. I've got nothing against you... but you should let others speak their mind without being so confrontational... unless they are an obvious troll.... and I haven't seen that in his posting. And I'm GOOD at spotting trolls.... it's one of my gifts...
a chill pill? Man, I haven't heard that since the 80's.... lol. love ya, sis...
edit:.... oh, and you left the "t" out of my handle.... makes me sound sort of "Charlie Sheen-ish"
S
are you going to ask CS1 why he asked the questions to kavik and made the comments he did?
cause I only asked why kavik was here and asked if he was adding to his research
CS1 actually was tougher on him
you know horneguy, I think you may have a little displaced anger going on
kindly just keep yourself in line and don't worry about me
sounds like you want to fight. I'm not interested.
back off please. I'm not interested in whatever it is that is actually going on with you that you are not addressing
since CS1 was actually tough on him, and I just asked a simple question, maybe you would really like to tell CS1 something too?
Last edited: