Speaking in tongues

SarahM777 · May 23, 2013

Here is what I see,isn't Paul contradicting himself when he says they will end and then he turns around and says that only three remain which are faith,hope and love,if the signs were to continue till Jesus comes back? So why does Paul say three remain if they are to continue till Jesus comes back? Two will not remain when Jesus comes backs because we will no longer have need of faith and hope. So isn't Paul indicating that there would come a time when the signs would end,and if so isn't he indicating that they will end sometime before Jesus comes back?

Graybeard · May 23, 2013

I feel it is wrong for everyone to speak in tongues at the same time in Church, tongues are more effective when spoken in private prayer especially when one does not know what to pray because ones spirit knows what to pray for.

zone · May 23, 2013

A-Omega said:

[video=youtube;APzQrbbw6S0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APzQrbbw6S0[/video]

Learning to Interpret - Gift of Tongues

ok...here's a lovely woman, obviously sincere.
she is offering a teaching on desiring and learning to receive and use the gift of interpreting tongues.
she says that gift is prophecy - that when one interprets tongues, it is a word straight from Father God.

(1:46)

she talks about needing to grow, to exerise our faith and responsibilities.
she discusses bearing fruit, which is good, no problems with this part.

(2:40)

then she says the importance of these spiritual disciplines (ceasing sin; feeding on the word, etc) are no different from the gift of interpretation - you have to exercise it.

after the first step - when you get the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and are speaking in tongues....then you have to do all these things to do spiritual housecleaning - generational cleaning; wipe out the sins of the forefathers (the chatter?)....

a channel for hearing God is now available.
a sample training exercise is when you have a prayer topic, you're focused....you have them in your mind as you're praying....

(5:00)

she proceeds to explain that when you are praying in tongues out loud, your heart is conveying the message....you just start out with even one word....you begin to sense, or feel....thoughts....and the interpretation begins in the mind...

...taking everything captive, that's when the interpretation comes:

you'll know if it's you or God.
if you're consciously in the spirit seeking God, don't allow the enemy to get you to question whether it was God or you.

it's like a parable (?)

example - you go to a taco stand, and they are not speaking english, and you have to think about how you are going to communicate with them.....

(7:30)

being hooked in speaking in tongues, you already have a toe in....maybe you only have a word or two.
you know one word, then you pantomime the rest....

as you grow in the gift, you hear more words in the spirit as you press in...pray in tongues more and you hear words:
elements might come out like....the fire of God is cleansing you.

it's not like i am hearing God actually saying every word, that's what makes it hard....not a perfect phrase.

people think, and the devil banks on ....when you're a baby, do you come out of the womb speaking full sentences? no.

but as you get older....

etc.

~

so, as i said, this is a perfectly likeable lady, who truly appears to believe what she is saying.
she's not acting like benny hinn or whatever.

QUESTIONS:

is she describing authentic tongues experiences?
is she right about how you learn to interpret your own tongue-speaking?

specifically, is this part accurate?:

you'll know if it's you or God.
if you're consciously in the spirit seeking God, don't allow the enemy to get you to question whether it was God or you.

inge · May 24, 2013

The basic is the Bible and your personal relationship with God, leave internet out of it.

This questions are only legitimate when you are sincere looking. When you do not believe in tongues you do not need to know. If you do believe in tongues: The basic is the Bible and your personal relationship with God, leave internet out of it. Internet is not our Bible.
Therefore do your own words judge you.

If you do say this and you do not believe in tongues you say this because....
a) you are nice and sincere
b) you just tried to find one to run through hoops
c) you like to laugh about the matter
d) asking questions can confuse

As long as anyone is not able to see if your motive is right, noone will step up to answer your questions....is my guess.

If you are sincere...

Do I understand it correct that....
Is it Biblical that......
I do not believe....

not "Is she....."
"Is this or that person"

inge · May 24, 2013

Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?1 Cor 4:6

If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?1 Cor 13:24

If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.1 Cor 14:27

You are correct Greybeard.

A-Omega · May 24, 2013

zone said:

Thank for the video and the breakdown. But I meant someone who is interpreting tongues in a Biblical manner.

Notice she does not even reference Scripture about interpreting and then speaking so the person who interpreted you can now speak in tongues.

The Apostles never trained in tongues on Pentecost. Cornelius and his family did not have to train or work their way up and they spoke in tongues in the exact same manner as the Apostles did.

And Scripture says the person speaking tongues always knows every word they utter. That is a given. What Paul was trying to correct is making sure the audience has interpretation so they can be edified.

She also left this out from 1 Corinthians 14:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law."

My point is just that one never sees tongues or tongues interpretation being done in the manner depicted in Scripture.

peacefulbeliever · May 24, 2013

SarahM777 said:

#1 The only manifestation that you could even consider to be "a sign" would be tongues spoken aloud without interpretation and that is a sign for unbelievers: 14:22.

#2 Doesn't it also say that knowledge will vanish away? (knowledge - gnosis - 1) knowledge signifies in general intelligence, understanding a) the general knowledge of Christian religion b) the deeper more perfect and enlarged knowledge of this religion, such as belongs to the more advanced c) esp. of things lawful and unlawful for Christians d) moral wisdom such as is seen in right living) Once we are face to face with our Lord and Savior; we will have no need for tongues (message from God), prophecy (either future or for edification, exhortation) nor knowledge because we will be in his presence and will KNOW as we are known; i.e. no longer "in part"

#3 IF prophecy has failed; IF tongues have ceased - then why did Paul write Chapter 14? Chapter 14 goes into how these things should be handled in the church for edification for the church and to do all these things decently and in order? If tongues ceased why did Paul say: Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues?

Follow after (to press on: figuratively of one who in a race runs swiftly to reach the goal; to seek after eagerly) charity (agape, the love of God) and desire spiritual (pneumatikos - matters belonging to the Divine Spirit; b) one who is filled and governed by the Spirit of God) but rather that ye may prophesy. . . .12) Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual (pneumatikos) seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. . . .

Stephen63 · May 24, 2013

LCMS Post Cessationist Theology: The (LCMS) Lutheran View of Charismatic Gifts in the 20th Century

[h=3]The (LCMS) Lutheran View of Charismatic Gifts in the 20th Century[/h]The above quote pretty much defines the earliest exegetical understanding of LCMS Lutherans in relationship to affirming the possible continuity of charismatic gifts - past the New Testament era. The reference is from William Arndt, the famous co-editor of the Greek-English dictionary. It comes from a conference paper that he gave in 1930 and was published in the very first journal of Concordia Lutheran Seminary at St. Louis.

William Arndt also writes about some of the other passages that speak of the distribution of charismatic gifts - e.g. 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Romans 12. In the 1930 conference paper, that is referenced above, Arndt asks the crucial question: Does the content of the promise made by Jesus to his church include the charismata? Arndt replies:

Let us not say: The Bible teaches that the charismatic gifts were confined to the early Church. There are no Scripture passages… by means of which we can prove that the extraordinary gifts possessed by Christians in apostolic times…were intended for, and given to the Church of early New Testament times only. In my conviction we cannot prove that the Bible carries such teaching… - Emphasis added
The above opinion Seminary faculty judgment by William Arndt has a privileged position. As such, unless compelling reasons exist to change it, the statements contained in the article by Arndt remain the basis for determining the LCMS position on whether the full range of charismatic gifts are confined to distribution in the early New Testament Church.

Stephen63 · May 24, 2013

About a generation after William Arndt wrote this article, in the early 1970's, a committee called the C.T.C.R. in the LCMS was formed to explore issues and concerns related to Neo-Pentecostal theology. Among other things, the committee reminded the church at large (emphasis added):

We do not reject the possibility that God may endow some in Christendom with the same gifts and abilities as the New Testament church...we shall take heed to not quench the Spirit... (C.T.C.R. Report on the Charismatic Movement, 1977)

The above statement clearly demonstrates that the C.T.C.R. rejected durative charismatic cessationism in the Reformed dispensational sense. Yet, to be super precise, in examining the 1972 report, it looks like they did not consider it likely that the full range of the gifts could still be expected in established congregations. For example, the 1972 report states:
... passages such as Mark 16:17-18 and 1 Cor. 13:8-10 do not clearly [sic] promise that God will endow His church throughout the centuries with the charismatic gifts that were given to the early Christians...
The report goes on to state:
While Lutheran theologians have at times differed in their understanding of the term 'baptism with the Holy Spirit,' they have rather consistently held[sic] that the extraordinary charismatic gifts mentioned in Acts and 1 Corinthians were no longer given [sic] after the close of the apostolic age...
This begs the question: Why were members of the C.T.C.R. not aware that there exists a substantial body of evidence that the extraordinary charismatic gifts have frequently occurred in church history? For example, see here for patristic testimony that demonstrates that the extraordinary charismatic gifts were not confined to the apostolic age - i.e. the distribution of gifts ended in the church at the death of the last canonical apostle.

Stephen63 · May 24, 2013

Of course, the various members of the C.T.C.R. were limited in their understanding, as they did not have internet access to explore historical questions related to charismatic theology. It also should be noted that in the early 1970's the LCMS was going through a rather tumultuous time. Many of the best and brightest theologians had just left the church to head for what was soon to become the ELCA branch of American Lutheranism. So, the pool of what the C.T.C.R. considered true "Lutheran theologians" might very well have been restricted to just a handful of scholars - all of whom, unfortunately, had a less than adequate view of church history.

So, the sad reality of the situation is that the C.T.C.R. appears to have had a deficient understanding and grasp of church history. The committee members were evidently unaware of the evidence for the full range of the charisms during the patristic era as well as more modern European church history. As a case in point, the C.T.C.R. did not mention or consider the writings of Wilhelm Löhe (1808 - 1872) - who was widely known for having a vibrant healing ministry. In addition to Löhe, there were other Lutherans in Europe with a strong healing ministry in the 19th century. For example, in the ministry of Johann Christoph Blumhardt (1805-80) and his son Christoph Friedrich Blumhardt (1842-1919) well attested healing miracles occurred on a regular basis.

In addition to the above references, it appears that the members of the C.T.C.R. were also not aware of certain upper class Lutherans in the 19th century who were known to have practiced devotional glossolalia in the form of a spiritual language of jubilation. For example, see this site for the famous case of Wilhelm von Below (1790-1843) and his brothers Karl and Heinrich along with Field-Marshal Leonhard Graf von Blumenthal. According to reliable sources, Prussian officials of high importance were drawn to these 19th century renewal meetings at Reddenthin or elsewhere, including the young Otto von Bismarck, and the von Gerlach brothers - one of whom was the king's closest friend.

Stephen63 · May 24, 2013

Finally, the C.T.C.R. obviously did not factor in the opinion of August Friedrich Christian Vilmar (1800-1868). Vilmar served as professor of theology at Marburg and was a church leader in the Hessian Lutheran Church. He wrote in his 1874 Dogmatics (II) (emphasis added):

Christians can “eagerly desire‟ these charismata (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:39); those who once had such a charisma can “rekindle‟ it (2 Tim. 1:6); they should not “carelessly neglect‟ it (1 Tim. 4:14). Those who have these gifts do not possess them only for themselves, but for the edification and well-being of the congregation (1 Cor. 14:12)

... We must assert that, where and when the charismata which belong to the arrangement of members in Christ's body have been lost, they have been lost only through the neglect of their possessors. We must also assert that it is possible to rekindle the charismata.

Just as the power of Holy Baptism can be rekindled in a person, so the Holy Spirit, who is just as present and available personally today, as in the apostolic age, can revive his full range of powers in the church, if we but open ourselves to believe wholeheartedly and only in the real presence of the Holy Spirit among us
...In contrast to Chrysostom we must assert: Wherever faith is truly strong, there the charismata will be available and active. According to the Acts of the Apostles, they did not serve to awaken faith, but were the outcome of full faith in the risen Lord Jesus. They are, however, means for the growth of members in the body of Christ. As faith in the church is rekindled, faith in the charismata and the charismata themselves will undoubtedly also be rekindled. (Sourced from this paper & translation by John Kleinig)

Stephen63 · May 24, 2013

So, why was the C.T.C.R. formed? Contrary to popular opinion, it was not intended as a grand jury to determine doctrinal disputes and set aside earlier theological judgments - such as that quoted earlier by William Arndt. Rather, it was developed as a type of theological "think tank." According to the LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters(April 29, 1983, Opinion on the Role and Function of C.T.C.R.), “Until the Synod has taken action, a proposal of the Commission is of an advisory nature for study and guidance and not binding on the membership of the Synod.” The same opinion noted:  
The Commission on Constitutional Matters finds that the Commission on Theology and Church Relations itself has attempted to make this clear, but its proposals continue to be regarded by many as setting forth the official position of the Synod, which is an erroneous conclusion.
So, while the C.T.C.R. did some good work in critiquing the charismatic movement, they could have done better in articulating a more positive view of the charismatic gifts for today. In my opinion, what the C.T.C.R. should have said is this:
...the New Testament promises of charismatic gifts in Scripture should not be considered as an absolute promise for all times and places.
They should have simply pointed out that:
...just like there are general non time bound promises that God will answer prayer, so promises related to charismatic gifts should be understood as general non time bound promises. In other words, all promises for temporal gifts in the Bible should be interpreted as situational/conditional in both context and application and not normative in application.

In other words, they're saying they believe in it, but not as constant or on a normal basis. But they do believe in it

Stephen63 · May 24, 2013

Finally, the C.T.C.R. should have also pointed out that:

... in light of a theology of the cross, it is also highly likely that God in his sovereignty may (from time to time) decide to totally hide himself and not leave any discernible traces of answered prayer. There is no uniformity of spiritual experience that a Christian can lay claim to.

Still, the C.T.C.R. did well in stating (emphasis added):

We do not reject the possibility that God may endow some in Christendom with the same gifts and abilities as the New Testament church...we shall take heed to not quench the Spirit [sic]... (C.T.C.R. Report on the Charismatic Movement, 1977)

That specific statement by the C.T.C.R., that was just quoted, is extremely important in that it reaffirms the initial opinion of William Arndt and shows that the L.C.M.S. clearly rejects Reformed durative charismatic cessationism.

Stephen63 · May 24, 2013

The reason I'm using the LCMS is they're supposed to be the most conservative of the Lutheran groups, that others claim that they staunchly believe in cessationism, believing that all the gifts ceased around 70 A.D.

SarahM777 · May 25, 2013

Stephen63 said:

That is not what is at the heart of the issue. The heart again goes back to is it from God or not.

Correct me if I am wrong on this,if I remember correctly you said you are a pastor and you have seen the real right? And God does not want His people t die from a lack of knowledge correct? Wouldn't it be something that God would want us to know the difference between the real and the fake? Sine you say you have the real wouldn't it be good to tape the real and upload it and then upload a fake, then go through two to compare the real to the fake so we would be able to spot the fakes?

TheMachine · May 26, 2013

Man this topic goes round and round and round and round again....... I figure if you believe in the gifts of the Spirit awesome!
If you don't awesome!

I was explained the gift of tongues like this and it made sense to me.

Of the four that the New Testament talks about, two are public, and two are private.

the two public ones:

- tongues as a sign to the unbeliever

1 Corinthians 13:22 'therefore tongues is a sign, not to those who believe but to the unbelievers'

this occurs in Acts 2.

Tongues as a sign to the unbeliever occurs when the holy spirit transcends our intellect empowering us to speak, preach, or teach in any language of this earth, of which we have not had any previous experience.
this only happens when the holy spirit wills.

- tongues for interpretation.

1 Corinthians 14:5 "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues,c]" class="footnote">[c] but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues,d]" class="footnote">[d] unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. "

This is one of the nine gifts of the spirit. That is where we are in a public assembly, and the spirit of God comes upon a person and they begin to speak in a heavenly language, and paul says THAT must be interpreted. <--- that is the tongues to which paul refers to in the end of corinthians 12.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the two private

-tongues for intercession.

Romans 8:26-28.
'and the holy spirit helps us in our distress, for we don't even know what we should pray for, nor how we should pray. but the holy spirit prays for us in groaning which cannot be expressed in words and the father who knows all hearts knows what the spirit is saying for the spirit pleads for us believers in harmony with God's own will

John Bevere goes on to explain that this type of tongues actually goes beyond tongues and into actual groaning.
he says that this type of tongue has been lost in the church. I quote him "i was out praying this morning and it hit me this morning, i was praying ; God had me interceding over a situation and i was praying over it, and it got to the point beyond tongues and i just had this urge.. and i had to begin to groan.. and listen, the power that is released when you begin to enter into that kind of intercession is just mind-boggling."

- Tongues for personal prayer, which result in personal edification.

1 corinthians 14:4 'he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself/herself.'

for that reason, paul says (verse 14)

'For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. '

Jude 20 But you, beloved build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.

"when praying in tongue, we build ourselves up, we edify ourselves"
the word edify means 'edifus', which means to build a structure.
the word edify is derived from edifus' which means to build a massive magnificent building, so when you pray in tongues, your actually erecting a superstructure, a divine operation inside of you to begin to house the presence and power of God.

Once again if you believe it cool and if you don't cool.
Cool, Cool Cool Cool!

The Machine

Troy and Abed in the moooooorrrrrrning!........Troy and Abed

just-me · Jun 14, 2013

I can't see that the gift of tongues is used for any other reason than a sign to the unbelievers stated in 1 Corinthians 14:20-23. On the other hand, if it is supposed to be understood, how can we edify ourselves without understanding? I can't see how that is done. Edification is understanding, that has nothing to do with a feeling. When the Spirit makes intersession, it is because we haven't the words to express the depth of whatever we are bringing before the throne of grace. The word "edify" relates to receiving greater understanding. How can we be edified if we have no idea what we are speaking? That just doesn't make any sense to me. Nevertheless, I think it is supposed to be used as a sign for the unbelievers that don't speak the language of the one speaking in tongues, then the unbeliever knows beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it is a direct message from God because the unbeliever understands in his or her own language the message that God is giving to them even though the one speaking doesn't know what they are saying. Or....... maybe they do. No matter, the Bible says it's sign for the unbeliever, and NOT for the believer.

just-me · Jun 14, 2013

Has it really gone so far that people are taking classes to speak in tongues, similar to going to school to learn a foreign language? Come on!

just-me · Jun 14, 2013

jinx said:

So what you are saying is that in order to have the other gifts of the Spirit that you have to have the tongues gift first? If you can read the Bible in context how would you interpret 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 (KJV)
[SUP]27 [/SUP]Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
[SUP]29 [/SUP]Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
[SUP]30 [/SUP]Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
[SUP]31 [/SUP]But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

The answer to these rhetorical questions asked by Paul is................ NO.

Search

Speaking in tongues

SarahM777

Banned

Graybeard

Guest

zone

Senior Member

inge

Senior Member

inge

Senior Member

A-Omega

Guest

peacefulbeliever

Senior Member

Stephen63

Banned

Stephen63

Banned

Stephen63

Banned

Stephen63

Banned

Stephen63

Banned

Stephen63

Banned

Stephen63

Banned

SarahM777

Banned

TheMachine

Guest

just-me

Banned

just-me

Banned

just-me

Banned