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.

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
783
113
No, that option is disallowed by Acts 2:4, "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."

They were actually speaking new languages that they had not previously learned. It was a miracle at the disciples' mouths, not at the hearers' ears.
Yes, they spoke in other tongues. It does not say they specifically spoke in all those different languages, what scripture does specify is that the witnesses heard them in their different languages. If God can affect a person's speech, could He not affect another person's hearing?

Prophecy is a tongue with interpretation. It could be that the apostles were speaking in a truly unknown tongue, and the witnesses were acting as interpreters of that tongue.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
12,820
6,904
113
Yes, they spoke in other tongues. It does not say they specifically spoke in all those different languages, what scripture does specify is that the witnesses heard them in their different languages. If God can affect a person's speech, could He not affect another person's hearing?

Prophecy is a tongue with interpretation. It could be that the apostles were speaking in a truly unknown tongue, and the witnesses were acting as interpreters of that tongue.
This would require that the hearers were beneficiaries/recipients of a manifestation of the Holy Spirit (interpretation of tongues) prior to being saved.

God can certainly affect both the speakers and the hearers, and the text allows for that. It doesn't make sense though. The simplest sense is that the disciples were empowered to speak in the various languages known to the hearers, which they themselves could not otherwise speak.

I'll admit that this view still requires speculation, but it seems to me that it requires the smallest leap and makes the most sense.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,391
1,011
113
The bible does not hold to the trinity either. the word is not even in there. I was saved through the UPC teachings and baptized in Jesus name and received the gift of the holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.just like they do all through acts. NOt one person is baptized in the bible as trinity folk baptize. As you study the book Cor. you will find that there are two forms of tongues one for self edification and the other for the church, the one for the body is the one someone must give interpretations for the other is between you and God. No one can tell me it is not so for I have received the gift and speak in tongues. I have experience both forms. Once you experience it no one can say it ain't so.... As far as it being a need for salvation I leave that in Gods hands. But why would you want something that brings you closer to God. just asking
the Bible hold to the concept of the trinity also known as the Godhead which is in the bible /
 

jaybird88

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2015
5,252
421
83
I will stick to terms used in the bible can not go wrong do not want to base what i believe in on a concept.

http://heavenshelpers.org/?id=142&page=CAUTION.

Is it oneness ,Trinty or something else
i clicked the link but couldnt find anything on the trinity. the "Is it oneness ,Trinty or something else" went on about the narrow road.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,391
1,011
113
I will stick to terms used in the bible can not go wrong do not want to base what i believe in on a concept.

http://heavenshelpers.org/?id=142&page=CAUTION.

Is it oneness ,Trinty or something else
the Godhead is not concept it is a Biblical term which describes the Divine Nature of God . "God the Father ,"Creator " God the Son" the Very impression of the Living God made flesh", "God the Holy Spirit " The Spirit of the Living God that confirms to man the truth of HIS Power and nearness
 

glf1

Active member
Jun 10, 2018
314
124
43
PTL!
Here's a thought: According to Jn 17, we will be one with the Lord in the same way that Jesus is one with the Father. When we enter into our redemption and unlike now, where to be present in the body is to be absent from the Lord, we'll be present with the Lord forever and we'll know him as fully as we are known of him. Will our oneness to the Lord affect his trinity-ness? Just a thought...
Maranatha!
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
13,907
2,032
113
Sorry you presented it that way brother . Whose narrow path are we to follow yours or Christ's?

I think systematic theology works the best.
I'm all for systematic theology. Not sure I can follow you about God mocking the Jews through tongues. They were certainly a sign to the Jews. They were a warning of forthcoming judgement but mocking may be a little beyond what the scripture teaches. God did use the Gentiles to provoke the Jews to jealousy that they might come back but mocking is a poor characterization.

Tongues as prophecy only confuses the matter. Keep things simple.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,391
1,011
113
We are no longer allowed to post links anymore?
The post was not really anything to do with the Thread Topic it was the advertising of a group. I saw nothing in context to the topic. What I Did see was " what we do, what we believe ", etc...
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,391
1,011
113
We are no longer allowed to post links anymore?
in addition they attack the doctrine of the Trinity . Which is Biblical and seen in scriptures . I'm not here to debate that topic because it is not the thread topic in this thread. And many can disagree with the concept of the Trinity but it is not false teaching as DEM web page "Heavens helpers states. They can have their opinion , but they are not authoritative here. Nor am I .
 

jaybird88

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2015
5,252
421
83
in addition they attack the doctrine of the Trinity . Which is Biblical and seen in scriptures . I'm not here to debate that topic because it is not the thread topic in this thread. And many can disagree with the concept of the Trinity but it is not false teaching as DEM web page "Heavens helpers states. They can have their opinion , but they are not authoritative here. Nor am I .
Why can't we have a control sub forum to discuss the Trinity?
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
548
108
43
Response to Dino246....

Acts 10 – This is what I was thinking your reference was to, but I didn’t know the chapter in Acts where it’s found – Peter and Cornelius.

Here’s my take on this narrative –

I’m going to paraphrase (and in a few places quote) here and there, from the book “Tongues Revisited – a Third Way” in which the author devotes a section which addresses just this subject.

We have to put this into a bit of quick historical perspective from what we know about Roman soldiers. Given that Cornelius commanded a unit known as the “Italian Regiment”, one may surmise that he was from Italy (Latin, “Italia”) and that his native language was likely Latin. He was in Caesarea with his “household”. A Roman soldier’s ‘household’ would have included not only relatives, but fellow soldiers and slaves as well.

Let’s examine this for a moment as it plays an important role with respect to ‘tongues’.

His relatives, like Cornelius, would have presumably spoken Latin. Fellow soldiers also spoke Latin, but as Roman soldiers it’s important to note that they could have come from just about anywhere in the Empire. Likewise, and especially, his slaves.

In short, though his fellow soldiers spoke Latin, it may not at all have been their native language(s). His slaves, almost certainly not – though they spoke and understood some Latin, it’s very unlikely that they would have been native Latin speakers. Like the soldiers, their native language(s) could have come from anywhere in the Roman Empire.

So, in Cornelius’ household, we essentially have several people who comprised a multi-lingual group. We must also surmise that most of this company also spoke Greek in varying degrees. The passage is silent as to what language Peter and his group, and Cornelius and his group, conversed in; but, as was the practice in the day when speakers of two different languages tried to communicate with each other, the common language of choice was Greek (just as it would be English in today’s world).

Since the narrative reported no communication difficulty, I think it safe to assume that the common language in this scenario would have been Greek. Peter may have known a few words and phrases in Latin (from the Roman occupation of his homeland), but it’s very unlikely he spoke it. Also unlikely is that Cornelius spoke Aramaic with any degree of fluency.

From the narrative, we know that the incident is reported from the perspective of Peter and his group. “They (Peter and his company) heard them speaking in languages (“tongues”) and praising God”.

From this, we can deduce two types of speech here: (1) speech that Peter and his group understood, and (2) speech they did not understand.

Considering Peter and his company report in the narrative that they knew that some of what was said were praises to God, it must have been said in a language they knew (likely Greek, but possibly some recognized Latin). Some of what was said however, they did not understand because it was foreign to them. Peter and his company did not speak, nor apparently recognize, those languages.

To quote from the aforementioned book – “Is praise of God, that is, saying in some way how marvelous God is, evidence for the presence of the Holy Spirit? If backed up by a true understanding of and commitment to God and his work, then I would say it is indeed an indication of the residence in that person of the Holy Spirit. It is to be expected that a new believer will praise the Lord in some way, and these people had just minutes previously become believers in Christ! Cornelius and his family were devout and God-fearing (Acts 10:2, 22). They had accepted the revelation of God that they knew of up to that point, but they were not saved (Acts 11:14). They had become Jewish proselytes, Gentiles who had adopted the faith of the Jews. This was in spite of the disdain in which they were held by ethnic Jews (Acts 10:28) even while they were respected by them (Acts 10:22).”

The likely scenario was that Peter and his company entered Cornelius’s house and Peter addressed the gathered group, telling them about Jesus, his life, resurrection, etc. Cornelius and his company responded to what they heard as a reaffirmation of what they already believed. Reacting joyously, some of them addressed the Lord directly in their mother-tongue; languages Peter and his company did not know or speak or turned to their companions and discussed these tremendous things with them (again in languages unknown to Peter and his companions). Considering the soldiers, and especially the slaves, could have come from anywhere in the Empire – any number of languages are possible here.

To quote directly again - “Some of them, perhaps for the benefit of Peter and his friends, addressed the Lord, or talked among themselves in their shared language (likely, Greek). They were filled with the wonder and joy of having received 'life through repentance' (Acts 11:18). It was very evident to Peter and the others that here were truly converted people. It is so reminiscent of Acts 2; the multilingual situation and the praise of the wonders of God, though in this case it was from newly converted people. Another difference also was that here there were no cultural 'high language/low language' conventions to break. These people were simply thrilled that they were saved and told the Lord so. This is quite sufficient to have prompted Peter's comment, "The Holy Spirit came on them as he came on us at the beginning." “

When a bi-lingual or multi-lingual speaker utters something suddenly/spur of the moment in an emotional outburst (not to be taken with any negative connotations), the speaker will always revert to their native language. That’s just a known fact. These people here were in the same situation and reverted to languages Peter and his company did not speak. Hence, as far as Peter and his company were concerned, they began “speaking in tongues”.

So, no modern tongues-speech here, just plain old real languages. Languages Peter and his friends apparently did not know or recognize. Cornelius and his company were among the non-Jews; thus, any native language(s) they spoke, including Latin itself, would have been considered a “tongue” (read “language”).

With respect to “tongues”, I don’t see this narrative as being anything but a real rational language situation.

Acts 2 - The list of areas, commonly referred to as the “List of Nations” in the Pentecost narrative was not at all irrelevant; it was actually included for political reasons – The blog I referenced addresses your questions, so I won’t go into detail here.

I get what you’re saying about manifestations of the Holy Spirit, and I wish I could explain it better than this, but I think it’s a manifestation of the H/S if that ‘gift/knack/ability’ is used for the glory of God and to further the message of Christianity, i.e. used in a spiritual context. In other words, it’s not so much the ability itself, but rather how it’s used that defines it as being a “manifestation of the H/S”.

Anyone can be granted the ‘gift/ability/knack’ for great wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing abilities, etc., just as anyone can be granted the ability to easily learn languages and/or translate those languages. But it’s how that gift/ability/talent is used that determines/defines it as a ‘manifestation of the H/S”.

Take a totally different ‘gift’ – music. A person may be a ‘gifted’ musician, have the ability/knack/talent, etc. to easily learn to play all sorts of instruments, or to excel at singing, or composing, etc.

For such a person, I would say that they have a God-given ‘gift’ for music. Sure, just about anyone can learn to play an instrument, or to sing, or even compose, but there are those who we say are truly ‘gifted’ at it. Their ability/talent far exceeds the ‘norm’.

Can we say that this is a God-given gift? Yes, I think so. Can it be considered a gift/manifestation of the H/S? I would say if that ability is somehow used in the service of God in whatever way, such that through this ability one could sort of ‘see the power of God’ or the H/S working though this person (that’s probably not the best way to put it, but the only way I can think of to try and explain what I mean by it), then, yes, I would say that it is a manifestation of the H/S. I think that what’s being ‘manifested’ is not so much the particular ability, but rather for an ‘onlooker’ to see the power of God working through this person to further the glory of God (if that makes any sense).

So does that mean that if one has such an ability/gift and doesn’t use it ‘in the service of God‘, that it’s not a ‘gift’? No, I don’t think so. It is a God-given gift; but, it’s not really a manifestation of the H/S either.

In a sense, I think, one could almost argue that that there are two separate concepts here – the gift itself, and one could certainly argue that it’s a gift given by the H/S, and the ‘manifestation of the H/S’ through that gift. That seems to require that the gift be somehow used to further the glory of God.

So, yes, none of the gifts described in Corinthians can be accomplished by just human effort. Sure, people may be able to do these things to some degree by their own efforts, but to truly excel at them to a point where one can say to have been ‘gifted’ the ability, requires divine intervention.

Anyone, Christian or not, can learn a language, but the ability to truly excel at them is a ‘gift’. I don’t hold that one needs to be a Christian to be gifted such abilities – regardless of a person’s spiritual path, they all may be said to be God-given gifts. For that gift to be a manifestation of the H/S however, I think would require one to be Christian (in the broad sense of the term).

That probably doesn’t really answer the question very well, but it’s the best way I can explain how I view it.
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
783
113
This would require that the hearers were beneficiaries/recipients of a manifestation of the Holy Spirit (interpretation of tongues) prior to being saved.

God can certainly affect both the speakers and the hearers, and the text allows for that. It doesn't make sense though. The simplest sense is that the disciples were empowered to speak in the various languages known to the hearers, which they themselves could not otherwise speak.

I'll admit that this view still requires speculation, but it seems to me that it requires the smallest leap and makes the most sense.
True, it is all speculation. But an interesting one to consider. What makes me lean that way is 1 Cor 14. Paul clearly describes two kinds of tongues, one private between you and God, and one public that requires interpretation. The tongues account in Acts is definitely not private with God, and to fit with the other model in Corinthians then the hearers in Acts would be serving as individual interpreters of the tongue. Otherwise we have to add a third kind of tongue, being a supernatural ability to speak in another human (not angelic) language. And there is precedent for that, kind of, in the story of Balaam's donkey. But that then raises another question, can animals be saved and filled with the Holy Spirit, or can animals be beneficiaries/recipients of a manifestation of the Holy Spirit (speaking of tongues) without being saved..?

All speculation ... But if we are to accept 1 Cor 14 as limiting tongues to 2 forms, then the account in Acts is tongues with interpretation.
 

shrume

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2017
2,193
460
83
True, it is all speculation. But an interesting one to consider. What makes me lean that way is 1 Cor 14. Paul clearly describes two kinds of tongues, one private between you and God, and one public that requires interpretation.
They are not two kinds of tongues. They are the same. When tongues is spoken privately, there is no need to interpret. You are still speaking divine secrets to God, magnifying God, giving thanks well, etc. But when tongues are spoken in public, they must be interpreted so people will understand what you said, so the church will be edified.

The tongues account in Acts is definitely not private with God, and to fit with the other model in Corinthians then the hearers in Acts would be serving as individual interpreters of the tongue.
No, the hearers were not individual interpreters. On the day of Pentecost, the languages the apostles were speaking, while unknown to the apostles themselves, were the native languages of the others present.

Otherwise we have to add a third kind of tongue, being a supernatural ability to speak in another human (not angelic) language. And there is precedent for that, kind of, in the story of Balaam's donkey. But that then raises another question, can animals be saved and filled with the Holy Spirit, or can animals be beneficiaries/recipients of a manifestation of the Holy Spirit (speaking of tongues) without being saved..?

All speculation ... But if we are to accept 1 Cor 14 as limiting tongues to 2 forms, then the account in Acts is tongues with interpretation.
There is only one kind of speaking in tongues. Not two, not three. Just one.
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
783
113
They are not two kinds of tongues. They are the same. When tongues is spoken privately, there is no need to interpret. You are still speaking divine secrets to God, magnifying God, giving thanks well, etc. But when tongues are spoken in public, they must be interpreted so people will understand what you said, so the church will be edified.


No, the hearers were not individual interpreters. On the day of Pentecost, the languages the apostles were speaking, while unknown to the apostles themselves, were the native languages of the others present.


There is only one kind of speaking in tongues. Not two, not three. Just one.
No, 1 Cor 14 clearly teaches 2 forms...

One is a tongue with interpretation, which is spoken in public, and edifies the assembly

The second is a tongue spoken in private, between you and God, that edifies the speakers.

Look here to see the difference, as well as the time and place for each, clearly defined:

https://christianchat.com/blogs/prophecy-and-tongues-differentiated-part-1.174929/

https://christianchat.com/blogs/prophecy-and-tongues-differentiated-part-2.174930/
 

shrume

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2017
2,193
460
83
No, 1 Cor 14 clearly teaches 2 forms...

One is a tongue with interpretation, which is spoken in public, and edifies the assembly

The second is a tongue spoken in private, between you and God, that edifies the speakers.

Look here to see the difference, as well as the time and place for each, clearly defined:

https://christianchat.com/blogs/prophecy-and-tongues-differentiated-part-1.174929/

https://christianchat.com/blogs/prophecy-and-tongues-differentiated-part-2.174930/
There is no difference, Ricky. Tongues are tongues. When spoken to yourself (and to God) there is no need to interpret. When spoken in public, they must be interpreted.
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
3,006
690
113
Non of the so called tongues spoken today is real- for the kingdom of God doesn't come with observable signs so that people can say, "look, here it is or there it goes.." or "you see the people at corner blabbering a new language, they belong to the kingdom.."
NO NO NO.

All these things ceased in the 1st century- we are not only talking about tongues, the raising of the dead/ the laying of hands to heal/ the doing of miracles/ the interpretation of tongues, all of them.

Not that i'm guessing, i know what i'm saying, it is all about a timeline, there's times and seasons for everything as prophesied by Daniel. It is at the time of disciples/Apostles/1st century church that the antichrist was being held so that the mandate of spreading the gospel to all nations (before the end times) could be achieved. At that time, all signs and wonders were genuine and they helped the people (Jews & Gentiles) to believe the gospel. The Apostles and disciples under the leadership of Paul & Peter were the two witnesses that Revelation talks about. As long as they witnessed, nothing could touch them hence the miraculous escapes from prisons. Until they finished witnessing then the antichrist takes reign of the world and the first order of events was to pursue them and kill them, then from that point on every sign and wonder has been fake because antichrist comes to deceive.

2 Thess 2:5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Rev 13:11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.

And i'm not speaking as an outsider, i 'spoke in tongues' for some time and all along i thought it was God but it is all fake. Let no body say there are some genuine tongues and some fake tongues. If two men speaks incomprehensible words, there;s absolutely no reason to say one is genuine and the other is fake based on the church they come from or based on how well they behave- that's why i say it is all fake.
The signs and wonders ceased because the antichrist took reign and there can not be a genuine sign here and a fake sign there, it would bring confusion and people would have excuses, it is all fake now so that whoever believes in them have no excuse and God gives them a powerful delusion because they hated truth.
Question for you then: My daughter a year ago was at the dentist and had two cavities that needed fixed. Because of various circumstances we did not get her back until a year later. I earnestly prayed that God would heal the cavities, and indeed this time, even after X-rays, the dentist found nothing! I took it as a miracle from God!

What would you say happened?