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.

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
1,539
713
113
I have been in the Lord for 40 years. Always in spirit filled fellowships.
Never seen one person obcessed with tongues.

You obviously have not a clue as to what you are talking about
Really? My former fiancée was obsessed with tongues. So that is my first hand testimony......
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
5,503
3,808
113
65
lawton ok
Really? My former fiancée was obsessed with tongues. So that is my first hand testimony......
I have been in the Lord for 40 years. Always in spirit filled fellowships.
Never seen one person obcessed with tongues.

You obviously have not a clue as to what you are talking about
I have! I've heard from the pulpit that speaking in tongues is proof of salvation. By the likes of Jimmy Swaggart no less.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,082
877
113
I have! I've heard from the pulpit that speaking in tongues is proof of salvation. By the likes of Jimmy Swaggart no less.
I would like to have proof of that statement. Swaggert was not Oneness at all.
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
5,503
3,808
113
65
lawton ok
I would like to have proof of that statement. Swaggert was not Oneness at all.
I never heard of oneness but I listened to Swaggart every morning at 5:30 am and I worked at Melodyland when Trinity Broadcasting was there. I'll look to see if I can find some old clips for you.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
9,898
4,656
113
1 Cor. 14 is perhaps the quintessential passage used to ‘proof’ modern tongues.

There just isn’t anything in that passage however that even remotely suggests the speaker does not understand what he’s saying.

To put the phase in a more modern English – “For one who speaks in a language, speaks not to men, but to God; no one understands (or put better, ‘no one hears with understanding’)…..”

One also has to take into consideration the demographic situation in Corinth as well. To postulate modern ‘tongues-speech’ here just doesn’t stand to reason given the context of not only the passage itself, but also the everyday communication situation in Corinth. Modern tongues-speech just isn’t there.

To take a sort of analogy –

If I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.

If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service. In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as previously defined), I’m speaking “mysteries”, just an idiomatic way of saying “we have no clue what he’s saying”.

Any allusion to modern tongues-speech must be intentionally read into the passage; it’s just not there. The crux for tongues-speakers is that “praying in the Spirit” is equated with tongues-speech, thus the only possible way to interpret the passage is that the speaker himself has no clue what he’s saying. If he does, it negates the concept of modern tongues-speech.

The passage 1 Cor. 14:15 referring to singing in the Spirit and with understanding. I would have to say that this only reinforces the more correct definition of praying/singing in the Spirit – it has nothing to do with modern tongues-speech. If I sing in the Spirit (as previously defined), I can certainly sing with understanding (assuming I’m singing in my native language or one that I understand).
Again, there just isn’t any suggestion of modern tongues-speech unless one reads the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic redefinition of “praying/singing in the Spirit” into the passage.

In his entire letter, Paul is only talking about real , rational language(s) – always known to the one(s) speaking it/them, but not always known to those listening to or hearing it/them.
All of this makes absolutely no sense in light of the fact that "speaking in tongues" is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It therefore cannot be simply speech in one's native tongue that happens to be unfamiliar to those within earshot.

Paul's words regarding praying with the spirit and with the mind make perfect sense if the "language of the spirit" is unknown to the speaker. He is praying, but his mind is unfruitful... not active, not engaged in the process. Therefore he prays with his spirit (the clear context is "in tongues") and he prays with his understanding... two different actions. Jude 20 also makes sense in this context... as the one who prays in a tongue edifies himself (1 Cor 14:2), so we are to edify ourselves, praying in the Spirit. Praying in one's natural language is not described anywhere as "praying in the s/Spirit". It's just "praying".
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
9,898
4,656
113
Really? My former fiancée was obsessed with tongues. So that is my first hand testimony......
So that makes everyone who argues in favour of tongues "obsessed"?

It seems to me that there relational hurt remaining unresolved. Deal with that instead of broad-brushing everyone who happens to remind you of her.
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
5,503
3,808
113
65
lawton ok
@CS1 I'm still looking for the Charismatic conventions from the 80's but here for now.
Don't misunderstand. I believe in speaking in tongues but I don't believe it's proof or necessary.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
1,539
713
113
So that makes everyone who argues in favour of tongues "obsessed"?

It seems to me that there relational hurt remaining unresolved. Deal with that instead of broad-brushing everyone who happens to remind you of her.
Nope and nope. I says what I means and means what I says.
She was a self deluded Pentecostal who hadn't the slightest idea of what tongues are or were.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,082
877
113
I never heard of oneness but I listened to Swaggart every morning at 5:30 am and I worked at Melodyland when Trinity Broadcasting was there. I'll look to see if I can find some old clips for you.
I can tell you there are none. Swaggert was aog up until he refused to adhere to two years of counseling and removal of the pulpit. He only agreed to the 6 month which ended up being like 6 weeks.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,082
877
113
@CS1 I'm still looking for the Charismatic conventions from the 80's but here for now.
Don't misunderstand. I believe in speaking in tongues but I don't believe it's proof or necessary.
he is not Jimmy Swaggert. and this guy states that it is NOT a guarantee of salvation lol.l
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
10,498
879
113
"oppose modern tongues"

On the contrary.....I welcome genuine tongues of the 40AD sort. The "modern" bogus tongues? Not so much. I pine for the sign gift days to be perfectly honest. In fact I wish that I possessed the sign gifts.
Sign gift or spiritual gift? What would a sign profit other than something to gaze at as some sort of trophy? Like take a selfie. What would it confirm?
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
505
91
28
All of this makes absolutely no sense in light of the fact that "speaking in tongues" is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It therefore cannot be simply speech in one's native tongue that happens to be unfamiliar to those within earshot.
Not sure if this is going to come out quite the way I mean it to, but….Yes, it may be a gift; however, said gift is just being referenced in Corinthians. It’s not actually being demonstrated in the narrative any more than ‘healing’, ‘wisdom’, or any of the others are. That is, the language speaking referenced in Corinthians is not demonstrating the actual gift. Why would only one gift (and the least of them to boot) be demonstrated? And, even if one gift were demonstrated in the narrative, why not one of the more prominent ones like healing, prophecy, wisdom??
 

Absolutely

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2018
2,297
581
113
1 Cor. 14 is perhaps the quintessential passage used to ‘proof’ modern tongues.

There just isn’t anything in that passage however that even remotely suggests the speaker does not understand what he’s saying.

To put the phase in a more modern English – “For one who speaks in a language, speaks not to men, but to God; no one understands (or put better, ‘no one hears with understanding’)…..”

One also has to take into consideration the demographic situation in Corinth as well. To postulate modern ‘tongues-speech’ here just doesn’t stand to reason given the context of not only the passage itself, but also the everyday communication situation in Corinth. Modern tongues-speech just isn’t there.

To take a sort of analogy –

If I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.

If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service. In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as previously defined), I’m speaking “mysteries”, just an idiomatic way of saying “we have no clue what he’s saying”.

Any allusion to modern tongues-speech must be intentionally read into the passage; it’s just not there. The crux for tongues-speakers is that “praying in the Spirit” is equated with tongues-speech, thus the only possible way to interpret the passage is that the speaker himself has no clue what he’s saying. If he does, it negates the concept of modern tongues-speech.

The passage 1 Cor. 14:15 referring to singing in the Spirit and with understanding. I would have to say that this only reinforces the more correct definition of praying/singing in the Spirit – it has nothing to do with modern tongues-speech. If I sing in the Spirit (as previously defined), I can certainly sing with understanding (assuming I’m singing in my native language or one that I understand).
Again, there just isn’t any suggestion of modern tongues-speech unless one reads the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic redefinition of “praying/singing in the Spirit” into the passage.

In his entire letter, Paul is only talking about real , rational language(s) – always known to the one(s) speaking it/them, but not always known to those listening to or hearing it/them.
Re read it.
Your conclusion is an utter impossibility.
" he that speaks in an unknown tonges speaks not to men,but to God"

1 Corinthians 14:2
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Your deal is totally off and boggus.
We can easily see that in ch 14 is NOT known or understandable.
Nor is it to men,and ,in fact,it is a mystery.
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
10,498
879
113
All of this makes absolutely no sense in light of the fact that "speaking in tongues" is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It therefore cannot be simply speech in one's native tongue that happens to be unfamiliar to those within earshot.

Paul's words regarding praying with the spirit and with the mind make perfect sense if the "language of the spirit" is unknown to the speaker. He is praying, but his mind is unfruitful... not active, not engaged in the process. Therefore he prays with his spirit (the clear context is "in tongues") and he prays with his understanding... two different actions. Jude 20 also makes sense in this context... as the one who prays in a tongue edifies himself (1 Cor 14:2), so we are to edify ourselves, praying in the Spirit. Praying in one's natural language is not described anywhere as "praying in the s/Spirit". It's just "praying".
Exactly its just praying with others or alone .Others just hearing the word of God . Communication with God .

No secret language to confirm secret communication .

If a person desire mysteries they are hid in the parables.
 

Absolutely

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2018
2,297
581
113
1 Cor. 14 is perhaps the quintessential passage used to ‘proof’ modern tongues.

There just isn’t anything in that passage however that even remotely suggests the speaker does not understand what he’s saying.

To put the phase in a more modern English – “For one who speaks in a language, speaks not to men, but to God; no one understands (or put better, ‘no one hears with understanding’)…..”

One also has to take into consideration the demographic situation in Corinth as well. To postulate modern ‘tongues-speech’ here just doesn’t stand to reason given the context of not only the passage itself, but also the everyday communication situation in Corinth. Modern tongues-speech just isn’t there.

To take a sort of analogy –

If I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.

If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service. In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as previously defined), I’m speaking “mysteries”, just an idiomatic way of saying “we have no clue what he’s saying”.

Any allusion to modern tongues-speech must be intentionally read into the passage; it’s just not there. The crux for tongues-speakers is that “praying in the Spirit” is equated with tongues-speech, thus the only possible way to interpret the passage is that the speaker himself has no clue what he’s saying. If he does, it negates the concept of modern tongues-speech.

The passage 1 Cor. 14:15 referring to singing in the Spirit and with understanding. I would have to say that this only reinforces the more correct definition of praying/singing in the Spirit – it has nothing to do with modern tongues-speech. If I sing in the Spirit (as previously defined), I can certainly sing with understanding (assuming I’m singing in my native language or one that I understand).
Again, there just isn’t any suggestion of modern tongues-speech unless one reads the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic redefinition of “praying/singing in the Spirit” into the passage.

In his entire letter, Paul is only talking about real , rational language(s) – always known to the one(s) speaking it/them, but not always known to those listening to or hearing it/them.
Well it would seem impossible to miss since he is CONTRASTING the 2 " spirit" vs "understanding"
Then you decide in your mind to merge the 2.
Why would you do that?
 

Wansvic

Well-known member
Nov 27, 2018
1,108
389
83
"oppose modern tongues"

On the contrary.....I welcome genuine tongues of the 40AD sort. The "modern" bogus tongues? Not so much. I pine for the sign gift days to be perfectly honest. In fact I wish that I possessed the sign gifts.
You mentioned you wish you possessed the gifts. Pray.
The Apostle Paul expressed one should pray for spiritual gifts to the edifying of the church body.

1 Cor 14:12-13
Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Paul tells us to desire spiritual gifts and the ultimate; to prophesy:
1 Cor 14:1
Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
9,898
4,656
113
Exactly its just praying with others or alone .Others just hearing the word of God . Communication with God .

No secret language to confirm secret communication .

If a person desire mysteries they are hid in the parables.
You say, "Exactly", but then you contradict what I'm saying. Don't restate my words with your terminology, because you will misrepresent my words and fail to understand what I'm stating.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
9,898
4,656
113
Not sure if this is going to come out quite the way I mean it to, but….Yes, it may be a gift; however, said gift is just being referenced in Corinthians. It’s not actually being demonstrated in the narrative any more than ‘healing’, ‘wisdom’, or any of the others are. That is, the language speaking referenced in Corinthians is not demonstrating the actual gift. Why would only one gift (and the least of them to boot) be demonstrated? And, even if one gift were demonstrated in the narrative, why not one of the more prominent ones like healing, prophecy, wisdom??
As 1 Corinthians is a letter, and not a "history" (such as Acts), there is little in the way of "narrative" in it. I didn't claim that Paul demonstrated speaking in tongues; rather, I claimed that he contrasted "praying with the spirit" with "praying with the mind". The context of that statement is a section primarily discussing "speaking in tongues". The clear implication is that "praying with the spirit" is praying in the same "tongues" language.

So, I don't see your point at all.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
505
91
28
@ Absolutely -

No, it’s only an impossibility if modern tongues is read into the text.

Let’s put the passage into a more modern English, and give it a more literal translation from the Greek:

“One who speaks in a language speaks not to men, but to God; for no one hears (with understanding); in the Spirit however, he utters mysteries.”

“One who speaks in a language speaks not to men, but to God” – Yes, if no one listening to me speaks my language, I am, in effect, speaking (praying) only to God.

“For no one hears (with understanding)” Again, correct – if no one speaks my language, no one will understand what I’m saying; they will not hear me with understanding. The Greek uses ‘hear’ in this passage; the parenthetical “with understanding” is inferred.

“In the Spirit however, he utters mysteries” – Again, “praying in the Spirit” is defined as I have it in previous posts (it’s not the words being said, rather how one is praying; i.e. by the power and leading of Spirit and according to his will). So though the speaker is praying in the Spirit, he is still uttering ‘mysteries’ because no one understands his language and no one can derive any benefit from what he’s saying.

There isn’t anything in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech; it’s just not there. It is read into the text by Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians, particularly concentrating on the idea that the speaker has no clue what he himself is saying. There’s nothing there that even remotely would suggest this. In order for modern tongues to be ‘proofed’ in the passage, i.e. in order for “tongues” to work here however, it has to and can only be understood as the speaker also has no clue what he’s saying.

The idea of real, rational language here is further supported by the very demographic make-up of Corinth itself – to suggest it’s anything else simply does not hold.

I don’t really see 1 Cor. 14:15 as a contrast. That said, I can see where tongues-speakers would due to their definition of ‘praying in the Spirit’.

1 Cor. 14:15 ties into vs. 13 and 14 and concludes with v.15.

To sort of quickly paraphrase - if you’re going to pray at a public meeting in a language no one is familiar with, make sure you secure an interpreter so that all may benefit. If you pray in your own language (one that you understand but those listening to you do not), your understanding of it will be unfruitful for others; thus, certainly pray or sing praises in the Spirit, but with understanding (for others) (there’s no “my” in these sentences), otherwise you’re giving thanks enough (to God), but no one else is benefiting from your efforts well enough so that they can join in with an “Amen”.

This whole section deals with real rational language, specifically in an environment such as Corinth where, due to the demographic make-up, everyday communication can be a challenge; let alone the complications and nuances of prayer.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,082
877
113
@ Absolutely -

No, it’s only an impossibility if modern tongues is read into the text.

Let’s put the passage into a more modern English, and give it a more literal translation from the Greek:

“One who speaks in a language speaks not to men, but to God; for no one hears (with understanding); in the Spirit however, he utters mysteries.”

“One who speaks in a language speaks not to men, but to God” – Yes, if no one listening to me speaks my language, I am, in effect, speaking (praying) only to God.

“For no one hears (with understanding)” Again, correct – if no one speaks my language, no one will understand what I’m saying; they will not hear me with understanding. The Greek uses ‘hear’ in this passage; the parenthetical “with understanding” is inferred.

“In the Spirit however, he utters mysteries” – Again, “praying in the Spirit” is defined as I have it in previous posts (it’s not the words being said, rather how one is praying; i.e. by the power and leading of Spirit and according to his will). So though the speaker is praying in the Spirit, he is still uttering ‘mysteries’ because no one understands his language and no one can derive any benefit from what he’s saying.

There isn’t anything in this passage that suggests modern tongues-speech; it’s just not there. It is read into the text by Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians, particularly concentrating on the idea that the speaker has no clue what he himself is saying. There’s nothing there that even remotely would suggest this. In order for modern tongues to be ‘proofed’ in the passage, i.e. in order for “tongues” to work here however, it has to and can only be understood as the speaker also has no clue what he’s saying.

The idea of real, rational language here is further supported by the very demographic make-up of Corinth itself – to suggest it’s anything else simply does not hold.

I don’t really see 1 Cor. 14:15 as a contrast. That said, I can see where tongues-speakers would due to their definition of ‘praying in the Spirit’.

1 Cor. 14:15 ties into vs. 13 and 14 and concludes with v.15.

To sort of quickly paraphrase - if you’re going to pray at a public meeting in a language no one is familiar with, make sure you secure an interpreter so that all may benefit. If you pray in your own language (one that you understand but those listening to you do not), your understanding of it will be unfruitful for others; thus, certainly pray or sing praises in the Spirit, but with understanding (for others) (there’s no “my” in these sentences), otherwise you’re giving thanks enough (to God), but no one else is benefiting from your efforts well enough so that they can join in with an “Amen”.

This whole section deals with real rational language, specifically in an environment such as Corinth where, due to the demographic make-up, everyday communication can be a challenge; let alone the complications and nuances of prayer.
FYI the term Modern tongues is not in the Bible or in Context to what is Known as the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.