Tongues Again???
- Thread starter 88
- 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.
Takes faith to receive and practice a gift He see's fit to dispense, wouldn't happen otherwise.
That is the true "walking in faith"'.
Mere mental ascent is not faith. Salvation is the beginning of the walk, we don't accept salvation
and stop and rest in it, Peter reached a point where the people would lay out there sick along the way
as he went to synagogue, that they might be healed.
He's the same , yesterday, today, and forever.
blessings
That is the true "walking in faith"'.
Mere mental ascent is not faith. Salvation is the beginning of the walk, we don't accept salvation
and stop and rest in it, Peter reached a point where the people would lay out there sick along the way
as he went to synagogue, that they might be healed.
He's the same , yesterday, today, and forever.
blessings
Ahhh, come on, that is a cop-out. I was in the U.S. Air Force between December 1968, and December 1972. Even that long ago, we had people back then who were experts at identifying the language on radio traffic that we had recorded and even breaking new languages, also known as codes. AND you think it is nearly impossible to do the same today with the aid of computer software today. Even this old farm boy knows better than that.
Let's put it this way, you believers in the charismatic tongues, would have a far, far easier time of doing that kind of research. IF YOUR THING is a real language and not just ecstatic utterances known as psychological phenomena, than this kind of continuous arguing trying to convince us it is real.
Let's put it this way, you believers in the charismatic tongues, would have a far, far easier time of doing that kind of research. IF YOUR THING is a real language and not just ecstatic utterances known as psychological phenomena, than this kind of continuous arguing trying to convince us it is real.
VCO, I am trying to convince readers on the forum to believe what the Bible teaches on this issue. There were people in Jesus' day that wouldn't believe in Him unless they saw miracles. And now, you want evidence to believe that there is speaking in tongues when we can read about it in the Bible. Why would I waste my time trying to prove that something the Bible teaches is true when I believe in it already?
As far as airforce people deciphering languages go, good for them. My guess is that most foreign powers they were dealing with had a limited number of languages they were likely to use. The Nazis were never able to break the US codes that used Navajo, when the US went used one of the lesser known languages of the world. Some languages in certain parts of the world have not been documented yet.
As far as airforce people deciphering languages go, good for them. My guess is that most foreign powers they were dealing with had a limited number of languages they were likely to use. The Nazis were never able to break the US codes that used Navajo, when the US went used one of the lesser known languages of the world. Some languages in certain parts of the world have not been documented yet.
Again, Paul said, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels". Other translations say, "If...". If I Corinthians suggests it as possible, you should at least allow for it. It is possible to give one's body to be burned. It is possible to give all one's belongs to the poor. If Jesus' meant something metaphorical by His teaching on moving mountains, then what He taught is possible. If He meant literally moving mountains, then that is possible. So it is possible to move mountains. Why should we conclude that speaking in tongues of angels is impossible? You just assume it is hyperbole and discount the scripture that way. It's like trying to communicate with a preterist.
A better analogy would be if we are arguing whether angels existed and we just had access to the book of Galatians, and you were arguing that they don't, and I was arguing that they do, or might exist based on Galatians 1:8.
Besides, in Revelation, there is an angel preaching the Gospel in there. It's conceivable someone may have heard a real angel preach It is possible that somewhere someone has heard a fallen angel preach.. I can think of a large world religion, some members of which seem fond of holy war, the founder of which claimed Gabriel spoke to him,.
Almost no one speaks in tongues as the apostles did on the day of Pentecost. The error with present day Pentecostals is that they miss the scriptural example, that God works in very sensible ways. God gave the apostles the ability to speak in tongues that they did not know, because those tongues WERE KNOWN by the various Jews that God wanted to minister to. The idea that God would give a person a tongue known only to eskimos when not a single eskimo is present is ridiculous. The gifts of the Spirit were for sensible purposes, not just to make noise.
I think you would benefit from reading all the scriptures that have to speaking in tongues. In I Corinthians 14, Paul says that when someone speaks in tongues 'no man understandeth him'. The gift had to be interpreted through the gift of interpretation to edify others. Please do not teach things the Bible teaches 'ridiculous'.
E
I have tried to understand speaking in tongues as portrayed by the Bible. I have been tought by both sides why the "pentecostal" version is right or wrong, but I want to see it plainly in the word. So I've read it over and over. I would like to hear people's opinion on this section of 1 Corinthians 14.
22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23If 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?
24But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23If 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?
24But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
I hear some say there's no more tongues, or prophecy, or any other gifts of the Spirit, because the canon is complete. Yet with the canon we still see thru a glass darkly, otherwise there would be nothing to argue about or multiple doctrines to discuss.
Those that brag on the completeness of the canon can't even agree with each other. Therefore that "excuse" is hogwash.
Why are there few true gifts in action? Well, how about entertaining the idea of a backsliding church? There was a time during the "dark ages" of the RCC reign that christians knew nothing about scripture. Now, it seems many act like they've arrived. That in itself is an indicator of pride & arrogance, which no truly mature christian posseses in large quantities.
Instead of commitment, we now have doctrinal excuses that explain everything away. Everything we can't discern is declared symbolic, which means we can twist scripture to say anything we want. As a result, all definitions of important words of doctrine have been watered down to mean we no longer do anything if we don't want to & cry forever forgiven as a sin trump card.
There will be those that smart off at the mouth to degrade this view because that's all they know to do. Let 'em..... they're showing their ignorance to the world.
Folks will disagree with how much of what I said is true. But..... if only 30% of what I said is true, the church is in trouble, & they don't know what they're doing. 30%.
There's a famine in the land, not of bread or water, but for the HEARING of the Word of the Lord. But, you say it's everywhere..... & so it is. This famine is a result of people not listening or receiving the engrafted Word that will save their souls. The table's spread but people refuse to eat. They would rather eat of their own concoctions of doctrine because it goes down smooth & requires no chewing or digestion. It's sweet to the taste. In theory it's the best we've had so far. Oh, & the majority loves it, so it must be all right.
For those that believe this way, I have "better" news..... the next set of doctrine offered by the newest televangelist will be even easier than this one to swallow.
With every new doctrine, the ears are scratched even more than the last. But, what good is that in Hell?
Those that brag on the completeness of the canon can't even agree with each other. Therefore that "excuse" is hogwash.
Why are there few true gifts in action? Well, how about entertaining the idea of a backsliding church? There was a time during the "dark ages" of the RCC reign that christians knew nothing about scripture. Now, it seems many act like they've arrived. That in itself is an indicator of pride & arrogance, which no truly mature christian posseses in large quantities.
Instead of commitment, we now have doctrinal excuses that explain everything away. Everything we can't discern is declared symbolic, which means we can twist scripture to say anything we want. As a result, all definitions of important words of doctrine have been watered down to mean we no longer do anything if we don't want to & cry forever forgiven as a sin trump card.
There will be those that smart off at the mouth to degrade this view because that's all they know to do. Let 'em..... they're showing their ignorance to the world.
Folks will disagree with how much of what I said is true. But..... if only 30% of what I said is true, the church is in trouble, & they don't know what they're doing. 30%.
There's a famine in the land, not of bread or water, but for the HEARING of the Word of the Lord. But, you say it's everywhere..... & so it is. This famine is a result of people not listening or receiving the engrafted Word that will save their souls. The table's spread but people refuse to eat. They would rather eat of their own concoctions of doctrine because it goes down smooth & requires no chewing or digestion. It's sweet to the taste. In theory it's the best we've had so far. Oh, & the majority loves it, so it must be all right.
For those that believe this way, I have "better" news..... the next set of doctrine offered by the newest televangelist will be even easier than this one to swallow.
With every new doctrine, the ears are scratched even more than the last. But, what good is that in Hell?
But you misinterpret verses on this subject, because you approach the study ASSUMING your experience is the real McCoy.
Now concerning the Linguists we used, they would listen for phrases that were very common, to identify the language. (You guys could use "Praise the Lord".) Then they would pass it on to a linguist who could translate that language, and he would hand write the translation. And some of those guy wrote like Doctors. How do I know, I was one of the guys that would try to read their hand writing as I typed it before typing it for one of the Officers to read through it. Yeah, I flew a typewriter.
It is amazing that you think they encountered relatively few languages or codes. The enemy would try to disguise their communications and we would disguise ours to try to keep them from gaining any useful information. You must never watch the History Channel or the American Heroes Channel.
I have been debating this subject since the early 80's, and the vast majority of the debates, have degenerating in the Pentecostals and the Charismatics, ending up just arguing. Instead of all the anguish and bitterness, doesn't it seem LOGICAL that instead of arguing, you guys would EAGER to show us real proof, by identifying the language of several speakers. But of course there would have to be several eye witness testimonies from people who really KNOW that the speaker and can testify that they never did study or learn that language. Also there would have to be English/whatever language Dictionary translations to VALIDATE that the translation was accurate.
Don't you find it strange that these arguments have been going on since 1906, and NOT ONE TIME has anybody produced that kind of PROOF to settle these ongoing disagreements?
Now concerning the Linguists we used, they would listen for phrases that were very common, to identify the language. (You guys could use "Praise the Lord".) Then they would pass it on to a linguist who could translate that language, and he would hand write the translation. And some of those guy wrote like Doctors. How do I know, I was one of the guys that would try to read their hand writing as I typed it before typing it for one of the Officers to read through it. Yeah, I flew a typewriter.
It is amazing that you think they encountered relatively few languages or codes. The enemy would try to disguise their communications and we would disguise ours to try to keep them from gaining any useful information. You must never watch the History Channel or the American Heroes Channel.
I have been debating this subject since the early 80's, and the vast majority of the debates, have degenerating in the Pentecostals and the Charismatics, ending up just arguing. Instead of all the anguish and bitterness, doesn't it seem LOGICAL that instead of arguing, you guys would EAGER to show us real proof, by identifying the language of several speakers. But of course there would have to be several eye witness testimonies from people who really KNOW that the speaker and can testify that they never did study or learn that language. Also there would have to be English/whatever language Dictionary translations to VALIDATE that the translation was accurate.
Don't you find it strange that these arguments have been going on since 1906, and NOT ONE TIME has anybody produced that kind of PROOF to settle these ongoing disagreements?
Last edited:
It is good that you actually asked to discuss the Bible. I noticed a lot of one-off verses out of context in discussion slike this. Verse 23 is really important to understand Paul's quote of Isaiah in verse 22 and Paul's point in referring to the verse. Without meditating on the passage a bit and getting an understanding of it, maybe a bit of help from the Spirit, it can seem like a contradiction. On the one hand, we may think if tongues is a sign to unbelievers, that they should respond to it in faith. But Paul illustrates the concept by showing that an unbeliever or uninstructed one responds to speaking in tongues with unbelief, not faith.
One type of sign is a fulfilled prophecy. Jesus had fed the five thousand. We might call that a 'sign' but the Jews wanted a sign from heaven, that is a sign from God, to follow Jesus, right after He fed the five thousand. In Deuteronomy, if a prophet gave a prophecy in the name of the LORD that did not come to pass, the Israelites were not to be afraid of him. So they asked a sign of Jesus. Jesus said a wicked and adutlerous generation asked for a sign and said no sign would be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. This was about his resurrection. So Jesus predicted a future event. When it came to pass, that was evidence that He was a real prophet (though he was actually 'that Prophet' like unto Moses).A sign can be a fulfilled prophecy.
The prophecy from Isaiah already had a short-term fulfillment during the Israelite captivity at the hands of Assyrian, just like the virgin conceiving prophecy likely had a short-term fulfillment, and 'out of Egypt have I called my Son' had a dual meaning. Prophecies about Israel, though fulfilled, could also refer prophetically to Christ. Israel was taken off into captivity with Assyrian or Aramaic speaking captors yelling at them to get back in line, march faster, or whatever. Men of other tongues and other lips spoke to them as God's discipline was exacted upon them for their idolatry and other forms of disobedience and disloyalty to the covenant they were under with God.
But Paul also sees in this passage something else about God speaking through men of other tongues and other lips that applies to the operation of the gift of speaking in tongues. When unbelieving men hear speaking in tongues, they react with unbelief and do not hear. So if an unlearned or uninstructed men comes into the assembly, and all speak with tongues, then he says 'ye are mad.' Like the scoffers on the day of Pentecost who accused the disciples of being drunk, he responds to speaking in tongues with unbelief. This fulfills 'and yet for all that, ye will not hear Me.'Those who believe not hear speaking in tongues, and the sign is fulfilled that they don't hear God through this.
(I find it ironic when some posters react with the same attitude, and like to quote this verse from Isaiah about speaking in tongues, when they are responding to it with unbelief.)
Here is an old quote on the topic that is helpful: fromhttp://www.patristics.co/2016/07/01/what-is-speaking-in-tongues/
One type of sign is a fulfilled prophecy. Jesus had fed the five thousand. We might call that a 'sign' but the Jews wanted a sign from heaven, that is a sign from God, to follow Jesus, right after He fed the five thousand. In Deuteronomy, if a prophet gave a prophecy in the name of the LORD that did not come to pass, the Israelites were not to be afraid of him. So they asked a sign of Jesus. Jesus said a wicked and adutlerous generation asked for a sign and said no sign would be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. This was about his resurrection. So Jesus predicted a future event. When it came to pass, that was evidence that He was a real prophet (though he was actually 'that Prophet' like unto Moses).A sign can be a fulfilled prophecy.
The prophecy from Isaiah already had a short-term fulfillment during the Israelite captivity at the hands of Assyrian, just like the virgin conceiving prophecy likely had a short-term fulfillment, and 'out of Egypt have I called my Son' had a dual meaning. Prophecies about Israel, though fulfilled, could also refer prophetically to Christ. Israel was taken off into captivity with Assyrian or Aramaic speaking captors yelling at them to get back in line, march faster, or whatever. Men of other tongues and other lips spoke to them as God's discipline was exacted upon them for their idolatry and other forms of disobedience and disloyalty to the covenant they were under with God.
But Paul also sees in this passage something else about God speaking through men of other tongues and other lips that applies to the operation of the gift of speaking in tongues. When unbelieving men hear speaking in tongues, they react with unbelief and do not hear. So if an unlearned or uninstructed men comes into the assembly, and all speak with tongues, then he says 'ye are mad.' Like the scoffers on the day of Pentecost who accused the disciples of being drunk, he responds to speaking in tongues with unbelief. This fulfills 'and yet for all that, ye will not hear Me.'Those who believe not hear speaking in tongues, and the sign is fulfilled that they don't hear God through this.
(I find it ironic when some posters react with the same attitude, and like to quote this verse from Isaiah about speaking in tongues, when they are responding to it with unbelief.)
Here is an old quote on the topic that is helpful: fromhttp://www.patristics.co/2016/07/01/what-is-speaking-in-tongues/
Last edited:
I listened to several year's worth of Johnny Mac. When you listen to him carefully, you will find the following:
When he preaches slow in his sermon, it's to state a true fact (in his mind). When he speeds up, it's usually to ramble thru a hazy bunch of phrases that are personal beliefs that have no backing, but sound like the truth.
Just this evening I listened to one about the charismatic movement. In it he spoke a few good truths surrounded by many half-truths. I know he's a well-educated man. That's why I became incensed with him when he said the gift of tongues was abused in Corinth they were PAGAN tongues of other false religions! Oh, he made it sound right, but here's his problem with that: every time he makes such a bodacious statement, he has no historic example, nor any scripture to back it up. He blamed the temple of Diana/Artimis for it, claiming they did a evil tongues ritual in their worship, & that was what the Corinthians were doing. The REAL truth was that Corinth was full of young christians walking in their flesh excited with their gifts. Want proof? Paul NEVER chastised them about their tongues being used to worship demons in their services, which the temple priestesses were doing. 3 letters written & it's not there!
Problem is, there's no such history ANYWHERE to support MacArthur's claims. So what did he do? He fabricated the whole thing to keep the listeners on the edge of their seat. Yep, good 'ole ear tickling.
Johnny Mac speaks faster when he tells false stories; Chuck Swindall quotes more writers & preachers than he does the Bible; And good 'ole Charles Stanley does everything now but pound the pulpit while he pounds his "grace does everything" statements down the hearer's throats.
Yeah, I hear these preachers..... so quit pushing your lies that we havent heard MacArthur. He judges the Pentecostals & charismatics together as one bad apple, all the while he's never stepped in the door of any of their churches.
When he preaches slow in his sermon, it's to state a true fact (in his mind). When he speeds up, it's usually to ramble thru a hazy bunch of phrases that are personal beliefs that have no backing, but sound like the truth.
Just this evening I listened to one about the charismatic movement. In it he spoke a few good truths surrounded by many half-truths. I know he's a well-educated man. That's why I became incensed with him when he said the gift of tongues was abused in Corinth they were PAGAN tongues of other false religions! Oh, he made it sound right, but here's his problem with that: every time he makes such a bodacious statement, he has no historic example, nor any scripture to back it up. He blamed the temple of Diana/Artimis for it, claiming they did a evil tongues ritual in their worship, & that was what the Corinthians were doing. The REAL truth was that Corinth was full of young christians walking in their flesh excited with their gifts. Want proof? Paul NEVER chastised them about their tongues being used to worship demons in their services, which the temple priestesses were doing. 3 letters written & it's not there!
Problem is, there's no such history ANYWHERE to support MacArthur's claims. So what did he do? He fabricated the whole thing to keep the listeners on the edge of their seat. Yep, good 'ole ear tickling.
Johnny Mac speaks faster when he tells false stories; Chuck Swindall quotes more writers & preachers than he does the Bible; And good 'ole Charles Stanley does everything now but pound the pulpit while he pounds his "grace does everything" statements down the hearer's throats.
Yeah, I hear these preachers..... so quit pushing your lies that we havent heard MacArthur. He judges the Pentecostals & charismatics together as one bad apple, all the while he's never stepped in the door of any of their churches.
You are assuming the real McCoy doesn't exist.
If you want to do some research, you could look up a documented case the Pneuma Review website referred to a while back about a documented case of glossolalia that academics would call 'xenoglossia' documented by a Lutheran seminary in a denomination not known for being Charismatic. You could research the case out yourself, instead of insisting that no cases have been documented.
As far as Linguistics deciphering languages goes, if google translate translated languages into a clear, standardized IPA, then maybe that can work. But I noticed while doing a bit of ESL work that native speakers who transcribed the same sentences that sounded the same to my ear transcribed words using different IPA symbols. It turns out, they were pronouncing certain things a bit differently. There are thousands of language not covered by Google translate. If God wants to give someone a tongue of someone present, he can do so.
If you want to do some research, you could look up a documented case the Pneuma Review website referred to a while back about a documented case of glossolalia that academics would call 'xenoglossia' documented by a Lutheran seminary in a denomination not known for being Charismatic. You could research the case out yourself, instead of insisting that no cases have been documented.
As far as Linguistics deciphering languages goes, if google translate translated languages into a clear, standardized IPA, then maybe that can work. But I noticed while doing a bit of ESL work that native speakers who transcribed the same sentences that sounded the same to my ear transcribed words using different IPA symbols. It turns out, they were pronouncing certain things a bit differently. There are thousands of language not covered by Google translate. If God wants to give someone a tongue of someone present, he can do so.
VCO seems to have a very similar position and cited MacArthur's commentary for support. The problem with John MacArthur's position is that if you go verse by verse and actually read the chapter, the details contradict his position. Why would Paul want the Corinthians to interpret tongues if they were pagan.
MacArthur also proposed in an old (1991) sermon that the use of the singular versus plural of tongues is a key to understanding the passage.
But Paul allows speaking in 'a tongue' in verse 28 as long as it is interpreted. How are you going to interpret false gibberish?
This kind of thing irritates me, too. He's supposed to be scholarly and all that, but apparently he hasn't gone through with a Greek Bible or interlinear to determine if a theory he has proposed from the pulpit is true or not, and he said it in church. We all makes mistakes, but this is still up on his gty website where it can mislead people.
It's also nonsense. It is rare indeed for a word to take on a totally different meaning in the plural from in the singular, and it is a convenient, way to 'prove' any nonsense point.
He also makes assertions about church history, as if there were no references to the gifts he doesn't believe in after the first century. How can someone be aware of Warfield without realizing that much of his book involved coming up with a theory to do away with post-apostolic spiritual gifts?
Last edited: