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.
The gifts of the Spirit don't just make noises and God's ways are not man's ways....The ways of the Spirit is foolishness to the natural man if he is unwilling to walk in the Spirit...It is Spiritually Discerned.
1Corinthians 2:12-14
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Corinthians 2:12-14
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Nothing is impossible with God ... everything is possible. None of us would argue this point. But this in no way influences the contrast of what the purpose of tongues was for in Jesus' day and what many claim them to be today. Nowhere are we told of an angelic language. Paul used a hyperbolic example for emphasis. "If I could" .. "even if I could" .. "though I" .. all pertaining to the uselessness of such in the absence of love. In a post a page or two back, Cee spoke of the hearers of the tongues spoken at pentecost as having been given the gift of interpretation .. claiming this is why they heard the words in their own languages. Two things to consider here. Number one ... Can/do unbelievers operate in the gifts of the Spirit ? And number two ... What was there to interpret when the hearing was in an earthly language already understood by them ? ALL heard in each their own languages .. plural. This was the miracle of tongues. Not a mention of some mystery angelic dialect. In Corinth, the believers were childishly misusing this gift of spoken languages previously unknown to them from God because they were both carnal and immature. Hardly the example to seek after, no ? In any event, I wish you and all on this thread a truly blessed Christmas in our Lord 
Your beliefs are highly debatable which is what we are doing. You ignore any scripture that contradicts what you believe. You read other scripture with a classic slant to support your contentions.
No belief, no matter how ardently held if it contradicts scripture has any virtue. To contradict scripture in one point is the same as contradicting all of scripture.
You are entitled to believe whatever you want but when you endeavor to teach it to others you must expect it to be vetted according to the scriptures.
The Pharisees rejected the teaching that Jesus gave because they would not receive the teaching of their scriptures. Jesus never contradicted scripture nor did Jesus ever teach anything that was contrary to the nature and character of God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
No belief, no matter how ardently held if it contradicts scripture has any virtue. To contradict scripture in one point is the same as contradicting all of scripture.
You are entitled to believe whatever you want but when you endeavor to teach it to others you must expect it to be vetted according to the scriptures.
The Pharisees rejected the teaching that Jesus gave because they would not receive the teaching of their scriptures. Jesus never contradicted scripture nor did Jesus ever teach anything that was contrary to the nature and character of God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I have seen very little genuine vetting using applicable Scriptures, but a lot of border line agruing, and some name calling.
I have stated several times that I post to encourage Non-Charismatics, and I do not want to debate or have arguments any Charismatics or Pentecostal. I have had numerous, at least dozens of Charismatics and Pentecostals wanting to debate me ever since the early 80's, and it is our beliefs as born again Non-Charismatic Christians, that they are the ones that contradict scriptures based on misunderstanding and putting the emphasis on personal experience and NOT on comparing Scripture to Scriptures. That is why I have frequently posted that I will agree to disagree up front with any and all Charismatics and Pentecostals. But true to nature most ignore that plee to agree to disagree, and launch at least an unwanted heated debate that degenerates, and some even start off with the name calling. I have no problem with your believing in your experience, but I do have a problem with those who try to push non-charismatics, into accepting their belief in the Charismatic thing as the Real McCoy gift of TONGUES.
I have stated several times that I post to encourage Non-Charismatics, and I do not want to debate or have arguments any Charismatics or Pentecostal. I have had numerous, at least dozens of Charismatics and Pentecostals wanting to debate me ever since the early 80's, and it is our beliefs as born again Non-Charismatic Christians, that they are the ones that contradict scriptures based on misunderstanding and putting the emphasis on personal experience and NOT on comparing Scripture to Scriptures. That is why I have frequently posted that I will agree to disagree up front with any and all Charismatics and Pentecostals. But true to nature most ignore that plee to agree to disagree, and launch at least an unwanted heated debate that degenerates, and some even start off with the name calling. I have no problem with your believing in your experience, but I do have a problem with those who try to push non-charismatics, into accepting their belief in the Charismatic thing as the Real McCoy gift of TONGUES.
Last edited:
Which denomination teaches that adultery laws are no more because everyone does it?
Which denomination states knowledge is no more because nobody has it?
Which denomination states that Jesus' teaching on WATCHING is no more because nobody does it?
WHO states that teaching on Repentance is no more because preachers don't preach it anymore?
True elders very rarely SERVE anymore..... Instead they order, command, & demand people follow their rules. Does that mean their illegal "office" they hold is about to come to an end?
There's a LOT of things the church doesn't do anymore..... but that STILL doesn't justify teaching that God took it away.
It's nothing but rebelliousness & excuses for never having to answer for it.
But where sin abounds, grace abounds, right? Not when one REFUSES to study the scriptures, REFUSES to accept the truth, & REFUSES to change from glory to glory, even by the Spirit of the Lord.
There are some that grace won't cover because they don't judge the scriptures equally, skipping over what they believe are NON-ESSENTIALS.
Which denomination states knowledge is no more because nobody has it?
Which denomination states that Jesus' teaching on WATCHING is no more because nobody does it?
WHO states that teaching on Repentance is no more because preachers don't preach it anymore?
True elders very rarely SERVE anymore..... Instead they order, command, & demand people follow their rules. Does that mean their illegal "office" they hold is about to come to an end?
There's a LOT of things the church doesn't do anymore..... but that STILL doesn't justify teaching that God took it away.
It's nothing but rebelliousness & excuses for never having to answer for it.
But where sin abounds, grace abounds, right? Not when one REFUSES to study the scriptures, REFUSES to accept the truth, & REFUSES to change from glory to glory, even by the Spirit of the Lord.
There are some that grace won't cover because they don't judge the scriptures equally, skipping over what they believe are NON-ESSENTIALS.
How do you expect us to accept any thing you believe about those those Scripture when it is MINUS the KEY identifier of the Genuine Gift of TONGUES, which is unbelieving Jews hearing the speaker in their own native dialect.
Just for the sake of being historically accurate. ". . . the Navajo were used exclusively in the Pacific, primarily because the Navajo code talking program was a Marine program. And the marines did not serve (with individual exceptions) in Europe.
. . ."
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27ct0w/why_werent_navajo_code_talkers_used_in_europe/
Just for the sake of being historically accurate. ". . . the Navajo were used exclusively in the Pacific, primarily because the Navajo code talking program was a Marine program. And the marines did not serve (with individual exceptions) in Europe.
. . ."
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27ct0w/why_werent_navajo_code_talkers_used_in_europe/
George Barna had some survey that included a section on beliefs in tongues. It said something about tongues 'in the time of Christ.' I thought that was a bad question. Before the ascension, if we call that 'in the time of Christ', that kind of makes sense. But post-ascension, we are all equally 'in the time of Christ' now as the apostles at Pentecost. We do call the years on the calendar 'AD', in the year of our Lord.
Anyway, the use of the phrase "in Jesus' day" in the quote above could be a bit confusing.
One of his examples was about his body being burned? Does burning exist? Another example was moving mountains. Do mountains exist? Do tongues of men exist? Why, of all the noun-phrases in the passage, do you single out 'tongues of angels' and insist that this is hyperbole and that such tongues do not exist. Paul raises the possibility that they do exist, so we should at least allow for the idea that they may exist and that someone may speak in them, if we believe the passage is inspired.
There were two St. Gregory's in the 4th century who wrote on this. One thought the miracle was in the hearing. The other thought that it was in the speech. The 'miracle in the ear' interpretation seems convoluted to me. The passage says they were speaking with other tongues (languages). Why interject the idea that the languages they spoke in were not the same languages the hearers heard.
Besides, if the interpretation were in the hearer's ears, this is still different from I Corinthians 14. Apparently, one individual has to interpret AFTER the message is given. If the interpretation were the hearing of the individuals in the crowd, you have multiple interpreters--- but not interpreting anything. In I Corinthians 14:28, there is one interpreter interpreting so the congregation can hear. It's still not the same as Acts 2 under this other scenario.
As you point out you'd also have people who were not disciples of Jesus operating in the gift of interpretation which is different from what I Corinthians 12 is talking about. Chapter 14 is about believers interpreting.
Why have a convoluted interpretation when a straightforward one works just fine?
Why should it be a problem if God does things differently at different times. On one occasion, Jesus healed a blind man by using spit to make mud and putting mud in the man's eyes and asking him to wash. On another occasion, Jesus put His hands on a man's eyes.
Imagine someone lamenting, "Oh no. It doesn't make sense. In this verse we learn that Jesus healed a blind man by making mud. In the other, he put his hands on the man's eyes. I know... maybe there was some mud in his hands when he put his hands on the man. Okay...it all makes sense now."
It makes perfect sense if Jesus didn't have mud in his hands when he laid hands on the man who saw men as tree walking. Why? Because Jesus did not have to do every single miracle exactly the same way. Why couldn't God have people present who understood tongues on one historically important occasion, but when it was used in church, no one understands speaking in tongues and a gift of interpretation is needed to convey the interpretation to the congregation? It makes perfect sense when we realize that God can do things differently on different occasions.
Sure, they were misusing the gift, or so we can assume, since Paul seems to be correcting misuse. But Paul still teaches a lot of doctrine about speaking in tongues and prophesying that we should benefit from. Saying the Corinthians were immature and then not paying attention to the detailed teaching of doctrine in the passage isn't going to help an individual better understand speaking in tongues or other topics in the passage.
Merry Christmas to you, too.
Anyway, the use of the phrase "in Jesus' day" in the quote above could be a bit confusing.
One of his examples was about his body being burned? Does burning exist? Another example was moving mountains. Do mountains exist? Do tongues of men exist? Why, of all the noun-phrases in the passage, do you single out 'tongues of angels' and insist that this is hyperbole and that such tongues do not exist. Paul raises the possibility that they do exist, so we should at least allow for the idea that they may exist and that someone may speak in them, if we believe the passage is inspired.
There were two St. Gregory's in the 4th century who wrote on this. One thought the miracle was in the hearing. The other thought that it was in the speech. The 'miracle in the ear' interpretation seems convoluted to me. The passage says they were speaking with other tongues (languages). Why interject the idea that the languages they spoke in were not the same languages the hearers heard.
Besides, if the interpretation were in the hearer's ears, this is still different from I Corinthians 14. Apparently, one individual has to interpret AFTER the message is given. If the interpretation were the hearing of the individuals in the crowd, you have multiple interpreters--- but not interpreting anything. In I Corinthians 14:28, there is one interpreter interpreting so the congregation can hear. It's still not the same as Acts 2 under this other scenario.
As you point out you'd also have people who were not disciples of Jesus operating in the gift of interpretation which is different from what I Corinthians 12 is talking about. Chapter 14 is about believers interpreting.
Why have a convoluted interpretation when a straightforward one works just fine?
Why should it be a problem if God does things differently at different times. On one occasion, Jesus healed a blind man by using spit to make mud and putting mud in the man's eyes and asking him to wash. On another occasion, Jesus put His hands on a man's eyes.
Imagine someone lamenting, "Oh no. It doesn't make sense. In this verse we learn that Jesus healed a blind man by making mud. In the other, he put his hands on the man's eyes. I know... maybe there was some mud in his hands when he put his hands on the man. Okay...it all makes sense now."
It makes perfect sense if Jesus didn't have mud in his hands when he laid hands on the man who saw men as tree walking. Why? Because Jesus did not have to do every single miracle exactly the same way. Why couldn't God have people present who understood tongues on one historically important occasion, but when it was used in church, no one understands speaking in tongues and a gift of interpretation is needed to convey the interpretation to the congregation? It makes perfect sense when we realize that God can do things differently on different occasions.
Sure, they were misusing the gift, or so we can assume, since Paul seems to be correcting misuse. But Paul still teaches a lot of doctrine about speaking in tongues and prophesying that we should benefit from. Saying the Corinthians were immature and then not paying attention to the detailed teaching of doctrine in the passage isn't going to help an individual better understand speaking in tongues or other topics in the passage.
Merry Christmas to you, too.
The only Pentecostals I have heard of that believe that are Oneness Pentecostals. They split off of the Trinitarian portion of the movement around 1918, I think it was. Some of them believe you have to be baptized with someone saying "in Jesus' name" or words to that effect which mentioned the name of Jesus in order to be saved, in addition to speaking in tongues. And then there are some that are not as strict about that belief in the Oneness movement, or so I've read. I've never been a part of the Oneness movement.
But I've never encountered a Trinitarian Pentecostal church that taught that you had to speak in tongues to be saved.
But I've never encountered a Trinitarian Pentecostal church that taught that you had to speak in tongues to be saved.
Your 'key identifier' does not show up in Paul's interpretation/application of the passage. It is noticeably absent. Paul applies the Isaiah passage to an unbeliever or uninstructed person coming into the church who hears speaking in tongues, without requiring that his hypothetical visitor be Jewish.
Also, Paul does not teach that the only purpose of tongues is for a sign. Tongues edify the speaker. The gift is listed among gifts that are given to the members of the body 'profit withal'. So there you have a purpose for tongues, to benefit the body of Christ. Speaking in tongues together with interpretation edifies the church.
Who are tongues a sign to? Them that believe not. When they hear speaking in tongues, a scripture is fulfilled, which is a sign, a fulfilled prophecy. The scripture is 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me.'
That is the application Paul takes from an Isaiah prophecy which already had a short-term fulfillment in the past during the time of the captivity.
We don't get a complete understanding of a chapter like this if we just pick one or two verses and ignore the flow of argument and all the little details that make it up throughout the passage.
Also, Paul does not teach that the only purpose of tongues is for a sign. Tongues edify the speaker. The gift is listed among gifts that are given to the members of the body 'profit withal'. So there you have a purpose for tongues, to benefit the body of Christ. Speaking in tongues together with interpretation edifies the church.
Who are tongues a sign to? Them that believe not. When they hear speaking in tongues, a scripture is fulfilled, which is a sign, a fulfilled prophecy. The scripture is 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me.'
That is the application Paul takes from an Isaiah prophecy which already had a short-term fulfillment in the past during the time of the captivity.
We don't get a complete understanding of a chapter like this if we just pick one or two verses and ignore the flow of argument and all the little details that make it up throughout the passage.
Go back and look through the posts in this thread. You are the one who does not deal with individual scriptures on the topic. You proposed a theory that contradicts several scriptures in I Corinthians 14. Paul makes a series of arguments to explain to the Corinthians that tongues needed to be interpreted to build up the church. Your theory that the tongues were pagan in no way fits with Paul's instructions on genuine tongues. So I did challenge you to explain how the interpretation of pagan tongues could edify the body of Christ.
I post in response to messages like yours to help prevent people from falling into error or continuing in error. I don't care if they are from Charismatic or noncharismatic backgrounds. I don't think my interactions with other people should be limited by such things.
As far as name-calling goes, I see accusations on both sides, some true, some false. If I point out that early on in the thread, you quoted a source who called the very speaking in tongues in scripture 'pagan tongues', that's not name-calling. I haven't called you names. I have called this interpretation of yours garbage, which is pretty light considering how rancid it is. It is disrespectful to the Holy Spirit to present the idea that His gifts are pagan in origin. The gifts in the Bible itself should definitely not be accused of such by those who claim to believe the Bible. But I haven't called you names.
I also pointed out that if someone claims the Lord put it on her heart that the whole Charismatic movement was false, that's a claim to extrabiblical revelation, since the Bible does not teach such a thing. (I don't endorse all aspects of the Charismatic movement, btw. I do believe that the Spirit gives gifts, as the Bible teaches.)
I post in response to messages like yours to help prevent people from falling into error or continuing in error. I don't care if they are from Charismatic or noncharismatic backgrounds. I don't think my interactions with other people should be limited by such things.
As far as name-calling goes, I see accusations on both sides, some true, some false. If I point out that early on in the thread, you quoted a source who called the very speaking in tongues in scripture 'pagan tongues', that's not name-calling. I haven't called you names. I have called this interpretation of yours garbage, which is pretty light considering how rancid it is. It is disrespectful to the Holy Spirit to present the idea that His gifts are pagan in origin. The gifts in the Bible itself should definitely not be accused of such by those who claim to believe the Bible. But I haven't called you names.
I also pointed out that if someone claims the Lord put it on her heart that the whole Charismatic movement was false, that's a claim to extrabiblical revelation, since the Bible does not teach such a thing. (I don't endorse all aspects of the Charismatic movement, btw. I do believe that the Spirit gives gifts, as the Bible teaches.)
Do you not believe that God still speaks today to His children outside of, but bound by, His Word? Can God tell you to take a left, for example, to avoid danger as opposed to you going right? Is that extra-biblical to the degree that it is heretical? Even the apostles were led of the Holy Spirit and told which areas they ought to go to or not. DO we not have the same Holy Spirit inside of us? Then He still speaks today and we ought to listen.
Most of us on this forum, at least in theory, accept I Corinthians 14 as part of the Bible. (When you get down to it, it seems like some treat it as inspired but outdated and for the past, which isn't much different from rejecting it.)
In I Corinthians 14, Paul deals with a genuine gift of speaking in tongues which, when spoken, other people present do not hear it in their own language. In order to edify others, an interpretation has to follow what is spoken in tongues.
This is different from speaking in tongues in Acts 2, because God did not arrange for people to be present to understand. Rather, Paul says when one speaks in tongues 'no man understandeth him'.
The gift is genuine. How do we know? Paul encourages the one who speaks in tongues to pray that he may interpret. Why interpret some false pagan gift? Pagan utterances do not build up the church. Why interpret it?
Paul also wrote, "I speak in tongues more than ye all." He said if he prayed in a tongue, his spirit prayed, but his understanding was unfruitful. But he said he would pray with the spirit and with the understanding. He would pray in tongues. Why would he do it if the gift weren't genuine?
The fact that Paul allowed speaking in tongues and calls his teachings 'commandments of the Lord' is evidence the that speaking in tongues in I Corinthians is a genuine gift.
So arguing that Charismatic speaking in tongues does not resemble the situation with speaking in tongues with Acts 2...on the very same issues where the genuine gift of speaking in tongues in I Corinthians differs with the situation in Acts 2
...is not evidence that Charismatic speaking in tongues is false.
Paul never says unbelieving Jews had to be present for one to speak in tongues. But even if someone accepted your assertion, unbelieving Jews still exist today.
In I Corinthians 14, Paul deals with a genuine gift of speaking in tongues which, when spoken, other people present do not hear it in their own language. In order to edify others, an interpretation has to follow what is spoken in tongues.
This is different from speaking in tongues in Acts 2, because God did not arrange for people to be present to understand. Rather, Paul says when one speaks in tongues 'no man understandeth him'.
The gift is genuine. How do we know? Paul encourages the one who speaks in tongues to pray that he may interpret. Why interpret some false pagan gift? Pagan utterances do not build up the church. Why interpret it?
Paul also wrote, "I speak in tongues more than ye all." He said if he prayed in a tongue, his spirit prayed, but his understanding was unfruitful. But he said he would pray with the spirit and with the understanding. He would pray in tongues. Why would he do it if the gift weren't genuine?
The fact that Paul allowed speaking in tongues and calls his teachings 'commandments of the Lord' is evidence the that speaking in tongues in I Corinthians is a genuine gift.
So arguing that Charismatic speaking in tongues does not resemble the situation with speaking in tongues with Acts 2...on the very same issues where the genuine gift of speaking in tongues in I Corinthians differs with the situation in Acts 2
...is not evidence that Charismatic speaking in tongues is false.
Paul never says unbelieving Jews had to be present for one to speak in tongues. But even if someone accepted your assertion, unbelieving Jews still exist today.
I am not opposed to extra-Biblical revelation as long as it is in line with the revelation in scripture, and of course as long as it is genuine revelation from God. Revelation through creation is extrabiblical revelation, or much of it is. Prophesying is extrabiblical revelation, or can be. Some prophecies are made up of scriptures.
But it is just really ironic for a cessationist to reject the Charismatic movement based partly on extrabiblical revelation.