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.

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,165
1,795
113
No one suggested there are no more spiritual unseen gifts. There simply is no such thing as sign gifts to include healing,
You need to read your Bible.

I Corinthians 12
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, (NKJV)

There are lots of examples of healing in the Bible. These gifts were active when whatever verse you think justifies your theory about seen versus unseen was written.

Signs are for those who believe not prophecy.
You need to stop implying that Jesus and the apostles did not believe prophecy. They believed prophecy and did signs and wonders.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
You need to read your Bible.

I Corinthians 12
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, (NKJV)

There are lots of examples of healing in the Bible. These gifts were active when whatever verse you think justifies your theory about seen versus unseen was written.



You need to stop implying that Jesus and the apostles did not believe prophecy. They believed prophecy and did signs and wonders.
No one said the apostles did not believe the word of God prophecy. That is clearly what I am not implying

Faith like prophecy is a unseen gift. The same with healings. God heals whosever he chose to heal . When men attribute healing to the Apostles seen as a sign its a sign of blasphemy . We can pray and hope God might heal us. Just as he heals those who have no faith. Ultimately all healing comes when we receive our new risen from the dead incorruptible bodies.

Acts 14:11And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.

In regard to sign and wonder Jesus said it is a evil generation (natural man) that has "no faith" that does seek after the temporal things seen before they will commit faith. This makes jesus into a circus seal show us a trick and then we will believe.

The last positive sign was the sign of Jonas it reflected the work of the cross. there are many sign that show a person is in rebellion with God.

Again no such thing as a "sign gift" we walk by faith looking to the unseen things of God the eternal .Not to the temporal things of this world

Matthew 12:39But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:


Luke 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
795
159
43
There is, unfortunately, just no instance of actual documented xenoglossy – anywhere.

Clearly, this is false. You may be thinking of a particular kind of literature. I spoke with a Pentecostal historian, the founder of the field, and he mentioned accounts that were documented. I have a book on my shelf of accounts of events at Azusa Street. Eye witness testimony is a form of documentation if it is written. Eye witness testimony is a form of evidence scripture addresses, and experiments in a lab are not.

I have to disagree. As mentioned, there are numerous accounts in the tongues-speaking community of instances where a person supposedly heard someone speaking in tongues and it was perceived as the person’s native language, or someone recognized it as such-and-such a language. All instances of these are purely anecdotal. Virtually nothing is known about either party; the speaker or the ‘hearer’), nor is any specific details or information on what transpired given. I suspect many of these stories are told to bolster and promote the tongues experience within the tongue-speaking community. Such accounts essentially amount to hearsay with minimal detail.

Azuza Street has to be taken with a “grain of salt”, as the saying goes; people were purported to be speaking literally dozens of different languages which, when “tested in the field” via several missionary trips, proved to be, as they say, an ‘epic fail’. Not one person was reported to be able to speak in the language of the country they were in. It’s shortly after that experience that the Pentecostal understanding and teaching of tongues was changed from xenoglossy to ‘prayer language’. They needed a way to justify the experience since the original assumption, xenoglossy, obviously wasn’t what was happening. With all due respect to her, Agnes Ozman never spoke or wrote a word of Chinese in her life.

In ancient times, there was no documenting evidence as we have today – eyewitness testimony was really all you had. If three people swore they heard Joe speaking language X, then Joe indeed was speaking language X (despite the fact that said three witnesses may not have been able to speak a word of language X; to them it just sounded like it, so it was assumed that was it). Such accounts too need to be taken for what they are.

I do believe that this is the most logical and reasonable interpretation and the one that, given the context and point in history, makes the most sense…..

Nobody has the natural ability to prophesy, work miracles, or discern between spirits. Some of the other gifts could be "natural" but taken as a whole, they can't be. Unsaved persons can have a "knack" for certain things too... clearly not "gifts of the Spirit".

Some people do have these abilities – again, a natural propensity to be able to do something with seeming ease can be, and usually is, considered a gift. A person’s religious path is irrelevant; they just have this gift. One does not need to be “saved”, or even Christian to be able to be said to be able to prophesy, work miracles, or discern spirits. Though they may be called by different names in different spiritual paths, these things do exist outside the world of Christianity. They are all gifts.

It is only in Christianity however, and specifically if the possessor of said gift chooses to use it for the church and the further glory of God, is it them usually referred to as a “gift of the Spirit”.

As to the "tongue" always being known by the speaker, there is no scriptural support for that assertion. If the person knows the language, it isn't a "gift of the Spirit". Any person with moderate intelligence, saved or not, can learn a second language.

I have to disagree – the speaker always knows what he himself is saying; it’s the audience that doesn’t always understand as they may not speak his language. To them, he is speaking “in a tongue” (one needs to remember that “tongue(s)” simply mean language(s)),and may be “uttering mysteries” – another way of saying “it’s all Greek to me”, or as they say in Poland, “I’m listening to a Turkish sermon”.

A random individual speaking his/her native language doesn’t have a ‘gift of the Spirit’, but someone who is gifted in learning languages and uses this knowledge to further the word/glory of God can certainly be said to have a ‘gift of the Spirit’.

Yes, just about anyone can learn another language, but not everyone has the ability to learn them quickly and easily and to learn several, perhaps even at the same time; that’s a gift (whether considered “of the Spirit” or not).

I’ve said this in previous posts and I’ll repeat it again – if you speak in tongues, record yourself for about a minute; if you can control the speed of your speech, try and speak a bit more slowly than your normal speaking pace (makes transcribing easier) – post the recording here and we can take a look at it.

Most phones have a voice recorder by which you can save a file of the recording and send it to your computer. From there you can attach it to your post here. I'd love to hear a few examples of clearly spoken tongues-speech.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
If you interpret a verse in a way that contradicts other scriptures, that's a good sign you are interpreting wrong. I Corinthians 12 teaches that one part of the body does not say to another 'I have no need of thee.' This book goes to great lengths to persuade believers to use their gifts to edify one another in church meetings. You should interpret John's teaching in line with what other scripture teaches.
I am not saying one part of the body does not need another. I am saying there is no such thing as a sign gift (Charismaticism) used to falsely confirm a person has been born again or proof the Holy Spirit is working in them . We walk by faith the unseen eternal .Not after the things seen the temporal .The literal temporal as the letter of the law it kills. The unseen Holy Spirit it mends.

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Corinthians 4:18
 

wolfwint

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2014
3,778
943
113
62
I don't accept the 'initial evidence doctrine', but I'd like to point out that historically, there were other groups speaking in tongues. There was a prayer meeting in Germany in the 1800's, some cases of it in England and Scotland. In the late 1800's in the US, there are accounts of churches speaking in tongues in Maine, and a movement in Indiana with the Fire Baptized Holiness, and there were revivals in the 1890's in North Carolina in the churches that later organized as the Church of God (Cleveland) where there was speaking in tongues.
I talking not from only speaking in tongues which you will find among nonbelievers, too. I am talking about the claim that you are only have received the baptism with the Holy Spirth if you can proof it with the speaking in tongue. As it was taught since the first person received it in Topeka. Please tell me which pentecostal and charismatic groups dont teach this?
You mentioned several groups i the churchhistorie. Which of this groups taught that nobody can have the true baptism with the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
No one said the apostles did not believe the word of God prophecy. That is clearly what I am not implying

Faith like prophecy is a unseen gift. The same with healings. God heals whosever he chose to heal . When men attribute healing to the Apostles seen as a sign its a sign of blasphemy . We can pray and hope God might heal us. Just as he heals those who have no faith. Ultimately all healing comes when we receive our new risen from the dead incorruptible bodies.
If the healing isn't "seen", it isn't real. Unfortunately many have, to their detriment, claimed "healing" which has no evidence, and have ignored real medical symptoms which refute the healing. I agree that actual healing should not be attributed to a person though.

Again no such thing as a "sign gift" we walk by faith looking to the unseen things of God the eternal .Not to the temporal things of this world
This has been refuted. You're playing a broken record.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
(quoted: Nobody has the natural ability to prophesy, work miracles, or discern between spirits. Some of the other gifts could be "natural" but taken as a whole, they can't be. Unsaved persons can have a "knack" for certain things too... clearly not "gifts of the Spirit".)

Some people do have these abilities – again, a natural propensity to be able to do something with seeming ease can be, and usually is, considered a gift. A person’s religious path is irrelevant; they just have this gift. One does not need to be “saved”, or even Christian to be able to be said to be able to prophesy, work miracles, or discern spirits. Though they may be called by different names in different spiritual paths, these things do exist outside the world of Christianity. They are all gifts.

It is only in Christianity however, and specifically if the possessor of said gift chooses to use it for the church and the further glory of God, is it them usually referred to as a “gift of the Spirit”.
You are essentially asserting that some non-Christian (and non-Israelite) persons have the natural ability to prophesy the future accurately just as did Isaiah, Daniel, or Agabus. That's utterly ridiculous. We aren't discussing people who are "said to be able to prophesy" etc., but people who actually do prophesy, work miracles, and discern between spirits.

(quoted: As to the "tongue" always being known by the speaker, there is no scriptural support for that assertion. If the person knows the language, it isn't a "gift of the Spirit". Any person with moderate intelligence, saved or not, can learn a second language.)
I have to disagree – the speaker always knows what he himself is saying; it’s the audience that doesn’t always understand as they may not speak his language. To them, he is speaking “in a tongue” (one needs to remember that “tongue(s)” simply mean language(s)),and may be “uttering mysteries” – another way of saying “it’s all Greek to me”, or as they say in Poland, “I’m listening to a Turkish sermon”.
The events in Acts give absolutely no indication that the newly-inspired individuals who were "speaking in tongues" were speaking in their native or other learned languages. You are welcome to your belief, but it has no scriptural support.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
If the healing isn't "seen", it isn't real. Unfortunately many have, to their detriment, claimed "healing" which has no evidence, and have ignored real medical symptoms which refute the healing. I agree that actual healing should not be attributed to a person though.



This has been refuted. You're playing a broken record.
LOL An old one 78 rpms.

God heals indiscriminately .He is no respecter of persons.

Has been refuted ? When? Where? How?

Its an evil generation that looks to a sign they are called natural man. They have no faith, not little, none.

They are the ones, natural unconverted men that make Jesus into a circus seal. Show us a trick and then we will confirm we are believers.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

John 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying (declaring the word of God, prophecy) serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe

No outward sign, the temporal for those who walk by faith the unseen, eternal .
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,612
2,633
113
This debate will never be solved.

I try to be open-minded. And I try not to blush when people start just screaming out loud in tongues at the grocery store. YES this has happened to me, I was so embarrased.
Oy vey.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,165
1,795
113
No one said the apostles did not believe the word of God prophecy. That is clearly what I am not implying
So you would agree that they did miracles without rejecting prophecy? They saw miracles without rejecting prophecy? Their ministry in healing was not evidence of faith, unbelief, looking to the seen rather then unseen,?

When men attribute healing to the Apostles seen as a sign its a sign of blasphemy .
You shouldn't be too legalistic about the wording people use. God worked through Paul to heal, but in this verse, it's worded this way.

Acts 28:8
It happened that the father of Publius lay sick with fever and dysentery. And Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him, healed him.

In regard to sign and wonder Jesus said it is a evil generation (natural man) that has "no faith" that does seek after the temporal things seen before they will commit faith. This makes jesus into a circus seal show us a trick and then we will believe.

The last positive sign was the sign of Jonas it reflected the work of the cross. there are many sign that show a person is in rebellion with God.
The apostles, Stephen and Philip performed signs, so no, that was not that last sign.

Do you realize that you repeatedly write things that contradict the scriptures?

Again no such thing as a "sign gift"
'Sign gift' is a label typically used by people who do not believe God still gives certain types of gifts. They divide gifts into categories, the ones they want to still be here, and the ones they aren't comfortable with. They typically call the later group 'sign gifts' and say they do not operate anymore. So if you are arguing with people that believe God gives these gifts and say there is no such thing as a 'sign gift', that's a strawman argument.
we walk by faith looking to the unseen things of God the eternal .Not to the temporal things of this world
I think you suffer from a false dichotomy. Jesus and the apostles did miracles. Were they looking to the unseen things of God? Were they looking to the temporal things of this world? Miracles from God are related to the kingdom of God, and are not characteristic of the things of this world.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,165
1,795
113
I talking not from only speaking in tongues which you will find among nonbelievers, too. I am talking about the claim that you are only have received the baptism with the Holy Spirth if you can proof it with the speaking in tongue. As it was taught since the first person received it in Topeka. Please tell me which pentecostal and charismatic groups dont teach this?
You mentioned several groups i the churchhistorie. Which of this groups taught that nobody can have the true baptism with the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues?
I'm not sure of pre-1900 groups that taught that. I can think of maybe one may who might have held that view, based on a quote from him, but there is no evidence that he spoke in tongues himself, though he believed in it. But I already posted that I do not believe in the 'initial evidence doctrine.'

FF Bosworth was an early Pentecostal who did not believe that tongues was the exclusive sign of baptism with the Holy Ghost. He left the Assemblies of God over it, went back to the Christian and Missionary Alliance, and continued healing ministry. There are probably plenty of congregations in the prophetic movement and similar movements taht believe in gifts of the Spirit but don't teach 'initial evidence.' I don't think the Vineyard taught initial evidence like that in the '80's when Wimber was doing signs and wonders seminars.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,165
1,795
113
There is, unfortunately, just no instance of actual documented xenoglossy – anywhere.

Clearly, this is false. You may be thinking of a particular kind of literature. I spoke with a Pentecostal historian, the founder of the field, and he mentioned accounts that were documented. I have a book on my shelf of accounts of events at Azusa Street. Eye witness testimony is a form of documentation if it is written. Eye witness testimony is a form of evidence scripture addresses, and experiments in a lab are not.

I have to disagree. As mentioned, there are numerous accounts in the tongues-speaking community of instances where a person supposedly heard someone speaking in tongues and it was perceived as the person’s native language, or someone recognized it as such-and-such a language. All instances of these are purely anecdotal. Virtually nothing is known about either party; the speaker or the ‘hearer’), nor is any specific details or information on what transpired given. I suspect many of these stories are told to bolster and promote the tongues experience within the tongue-speaking community. Such accounts essentially amount to hearsay with minimal detail.
Well, you can disregard accounts they document of such experiences as dishonesty. That's really convenient. I've read an article by Dennish Balcombe where he reported hearing speaking in tongues in English. He wrote it, it's on the internet. So it's a documented account. You can dismiss documented accounts as lies, but don't say they don't exist. I spoke with his daughter, and she reported to me that she'd seen a little Chinese grandma speaking in tongues in English. A first-hand account written down is documentation. History uses first-hand accounts. It doesn't have to be in a linguistics peer-reviewed journal or whatever niche you are thinking of to be documented. It doesn't have to be a lab experient.

Before Garr went to India hoping to speak in tongues in their languages, he spoke in tongues-- a different tongue than he had been speaking in prior to that-- and an Indian man told him what he was saying. Garr and some of the other missionaries made a theological assumption that they would be able to preach in tongues. The Bible does not teach or guarantee that. Speaking in tongues typically functions like we see in I Corinthians, where no one understands and it has to be interpreted with the gift of interpretation of tongues.

In ancient times, there was no documenting evidence as we have today – eyewitness testimony was really all you had. If three people swore they heard Joe speaking language X, then Joe indeed was speaking language X (despite the fact that said three witnesses may not have been able to speak a word of language X; to them it just sounded like it, so it was assumed that was it). Such accounts too need to be taken for what they are.
What account do you have in mind? Are you rejecting the Acts account? I am not familiar with other ancient accounts that mention specific languages.

I do believe that this is the most logical and reasonable interpretation and the one that, given the context and point in history, makes the most sense…..


Using the quotes function makes these posts much easier to read, btw, especially if someone has their scren set to monotone.

I am not a first century historian, but the diglossia theory takes some huge leaps and runs contrary to what I've read of history. First of all, assuming diglossia in the first place. Priests ministered in Hebrew, but where is the support for the idea that other languages would have been forbidden in the temple or weren't used in the temple? I recall reading about Greek-speaking synagogues in Jerusalem. There were certainly Greek-speaking synagogues among the diaspora, many of whom would also visit Jerusalem. Edersheim goes into detail about this, how they would argue fine points of doctrine from the Septuagint which they considered to be inspired. Synagogues in the holy land might have readings in Hebrew with teaching or translation of the teaching done in Aramaic. There is no reason to think that speaking in foreign languages would have been so shocking either outside the southern walls where the upper room was, or even in the temple.

Also, assuming that only a few languages was spoken is a huge and unrealistic assumption. It is likely that many proselytes would have spoken ethnic languages, not just Greek.

The interpretation is very counter-intuitive to the reading of the text. Where did any Greek-speaking interpreter of scripture interpret the passage that way? Why did it take 1900+ years for someone smart enough to come along to tell us what Acts 2 really means?
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
795
159
43
You are essentially asserting that some non-Christian (and non-Israelite) persons have the natural ability to prophesy the future accurately just as did Isaiah, Daniel, or Agabus. That's utterly ridiculous. We aren't discussing people who are "said to be able to prophesy" etc., but people who actually do prophesy, work miracles, and discern between spirits.

By “said to be able to” I do mean that they are able to. From a purely Christian perspective; no, it’s not the same at all. From a more global perspective, yes, what they do is really no different.

The events in Acts give absolutely no indication that the newly-inspired individuals who were "speaking in tongues" were speaking in their native or other learned languages. You are welcome to your belief, but it has no scriptural support.

I’ll have to strongly disagree with that – the Pentecost narrative clearly describes real, rational languages; not modern tongues-speech. The Pentecostal narrative does not describe a “miracle of hearing” (i.e. apostles speaking modern tongues-speech and people hearing it in their own language). Though they came from many different lands of the Diaspora, Jews gathered in Jerusalem for Shavu’ot spoke one (or both) of only two languages. For an in-depth discussion see:

https://christianchat.com/blogs/another-understanding-of-“tongues”-at-pentecost-part-1.176660/
https://christianchat.com/blogs/another-understanding-of-“tongues”-at-pentecost-part-2.176661/
https://christianchat.com/blogs/another-understanding-of-“tongues”-at-pentecost-part-3.176662/
https://christianchat.com/blogs/another-understanding-of-“tongues”-at-pentecost-part-4-final.176663/

It’s a lot of reading, but it examines the Pentecostal narrative in a more historic perspective with respect to language.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
You are essentially asserting that some non-Christian (and non-Israelite) persons have the natural ability to prophesy the future accurately just as did Isaiah, Daniel, or Agabus. That's utterly ridiculous. We aren't discussing people who are "said to be able to prophesy" etc., but people who actually do prophesy, work miracles, and discern between spirits.

By “said to be able to” I do mean that they are able to. From a purely Christian perspective; no, it’s not the same at all. From a more global perspective, yes, what they do is really no different.

You're welcome to provide evidence of non-Christians accurately prophesying (not merely predicting from available evidence).

The events in Acts give absolutely no indication that the newly-inspired individuals who were "speaking in tongues" were speaking in their native or other learned languages. You are welcome to your belief, but it has no scriptural support.
I’ll have to strongly disagree with that – the Pentecost narrative clearly describes real, rational languages; not modern tongues-speech. The Pentecostal narrative does not describe a “miracle of hearing” (i.e. apostles speaking modern tongues-speech and people hearing it in their own language).
I say, "The horse is black", and you say, "No, apples don't grow in Alaska."

I agree with you, but you haven't addressed what I wrote, let alone refuted it.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Relevance?



My post #2295, page 115 of this thread.



Refuted already.

Yes refuted already. No such thing as a sign gift. Its an evil generation that seek after one. Believers walk by faith the unseen eternal .

Why make Jesus into a circus seal. as in show me a miracle as evidence the Holy Spirit is working and then people will commit to walking by sight? After all, all die not receiving the promise of a new incorruptible body

For the Jews require a sign and the Greeks seek after wisdom:But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;! Corinthians 1:22-23

Why a stumbling block to the Jew that God mocked with stammering lips?

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

John 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Noose,

One type of sign is a fulfilled prophecy. There are a number of these in the Old Testament. When someone speaks in tongues and unbelievers reject it as occured in Paul's example in I Corinthians 14, 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me' is fulfilled in a way.
God mocking them by speaking other languages other then Hebrew is because they refuse to repent. Not so they would repent. If they believe not prophecy than neither would they believe if one rises from the dead. like Jesus.

They refused to hear God. Signs are against those that rebel it does not support them . Prophecy supports those who believe .

Tongues is prophecy spoken of in any language God choses to bring his word .Stammering lips or mocking lips is God speaking in other languages other than Hebrew yet for all that, they will not hear Me' is fulfilled in a way.

No sign gifts .Sign curses yes. Its an evil generation that seeks after one
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
If it is a sign for unbelievers, why is it done in closets, in churches, only certain times on Sundays (scheduled times) and funny thing is that it always follows a certain format for each person; i mean, if a person uses Bs and Ks in their tongue, it will always be Bs and Ks and if another uses Zs and Rs, it will always be that, week in and week out clearly showing that there's no particular message in it but it something that is well memorized.

Q. How is it a sign for unbelievers if unbelievers don't understand what is being said?
Its a sign against them.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
Yes refuted already. No such thing as a sign gift. Its an evil generation that seek after one. Believers walk by faith the unseen eternal .
It's really better not to be ridiculous and stubborn. When you find someone claiming that they are seeking signs, then your broken record might be relevant. I don't claim that, so your repetition is silly.