Tongue Speaker's Survey
- Thread starter Enow
- 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.
Who are you talking to?
The purpose of tongues is for God to speak unto the people in their native tongue and when spoke in the assembly, it is to come with interpretation. Scripture supports that.
Turning it around and say it is a prayer language of the Holy Spirit to explain why no one understands it and why interpretation is not coming is not how you discern tongues when John 16:13 says in all BIBLES that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself and therefore cannot use God's gift of tongues to the people as a prayer language back to God.
Scripture please.
I already have given you scripture to support my point of view. There is nothing about the temple nor only 12 being in that unsaid temple either.
Z
Zi
Guest
So you think the only time the Spirit speaks is thru tongues? And never to us as an individual?
That is a direct contradiction of scripture.
1 Cor 14:
2) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Yes, that much is true.
Your view even contradicts itself. On the one hand, you claim that "tongues is for God to speak unto the people in their native tongue". Then you claim that "it is to come with interpretation". If tongues is for God to speak to people in their native language, why does it need to be interpreted?
One more time, John 16:13 has nothing at all to do with speaking in tongues.
I (and Peacefulbeliever) have already given you scripture and reasons to support that it happened in the Temple.
Again, this is something on which we will not agree.
And here is a copy of my post from Benefits of Speaking, Praying and Singing in Tongues where you also posted this video:
Well, when God told him to get rid of the book - He should have gotten rid of the book period and not kept any part of it! He better be thanking God for his mercy . . . What happened to Ananias and Sapphira when they held back part of the money for the land they sold? (Acts 5) If you or anyone else for that matter choose to not believe in speaking in tongues - then leave the subject alone.
And why are you trying to find things that are against speaking in tongues when Paul received his revelation directly from Jesus Christ - yet you want to attribute the act of speaking in tongues as an act of Satan? Wasn't Jesus accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons? . . . nothing new under the sun!
The devil moves against the things of God aggressively and relentlessly - you just keep helping him, Ok. I will keep speaking truth . . . 1 Cor. 12-14 are given to us so that we are not ignorant of spiritual matters. That we know how to operate with the power that God has given us through his gift of holy spirit. The power to stand against the methods of the adversary . . . the power to enable us to walk like Jesus did. The ability to exhort, edify, and encourage one another in the body of Christ. . . . Contend for the faith!!
Last edited:
The Lord speaks to me all the time through the Holy Spirit within me without tongues and being understood in my thoughts as English, and even through the written word of scripture as kept in the KJV, tongues are not used for that purpose for self edification, especially when Paul admitted that they are unfruitful unless someone interpreted that tongue to him.
1 Corinthians 14:2 & 28 is being used out of context for what Paul was saying which is that tongues is not a stand alone gift for why believers that are zealous for spiritual gifts are to seek the gift of prophesy.
Matthew 6:[SUP]7[/SUP]But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.[SUP]8 [/SUP]Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Since the Father knows before we even ask Him in prayer, I fail to see the necessity of a secret communique between the Holy Spirit & God by route of a vain & profane babbling, and I would shun it when scripture identifies it with the devil's.
Isaiah 8:[SUP]19 [/SUP]And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
It is inconsistent with the truth in scripture.
Matthew 6:[SUP]7 [/SUP]But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.[SUP]8 [/SUP]Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
The Father knows without the Holy Spirit giving that knowledge by route of tongues as some are claiming as to what is happening when tongues does not come with interpretation.
Then you have the command to abstain from all appearances of evil....
1 Thessalonians 5:[SUP]21 [/SUP]Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.[SUP]22 [/SUP]Abstain from all appearance of evil.
The Bible proves the existence of the devil's supernatural tongue as vain & profane babbling before God's gift of tongues of other men's lips to speak unto the people that came at Penetcost.
Isaiah 8:[SUP]19 [/SUP]And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
Now how can any tongue speaker defend their tongue without interpretation by saying "... oh.. well Satan mimics God's tongues" when Isaiah 8:19 would make God mimicking the devil's tongue... and that cannot be.
The only choice left in drawing the line for truth is that God's gift of tongues is ONLY for speaking unto the people as it will be understood by a foreigner or it will come with interpretation in the assembly for that tongue to be God's gift of tongues.
The things you are proposing are, yes.
Tongues is not "vain repetitions". It is not "as the heathen do".
You are letting your fear of something you do not understand keep you from coming to an understanding of it.
Speaking in tongues is not evil, and does not appear evil. Speaking against it, as you do, is evil, or at the very least ignorant.
Speaking in tongues has nothing to do with anything the devil might come up with. And your understanding of what tongues is for remains incorrect.
Your entire argument is basically a strawman. The existence of Isa 8:19 in no way means tongues without interpretation is mimicking the devil.
PLEASE read 1 Cor 14:2 and look at the words that say "speaketh NOT unto men".
In public, the manifestation of tongues should always be interpreted. Not so in private, to yourself.
Enow, your understanding of tongues remains faulty.
Matthew 6:1 Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. . . And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen of others. And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words -
And yes the Father knows what things we have need of before we even ask him but apparently HE. WANTS. US. TO. ASK. HIM. . . . And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.Matt. 21:22
Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. John 16:24
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:Matt. 7:7
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Luke 11:9,10 . . . And we know that he wants us to pray without ceasing . . . 1 Thess. 5:17
So exactly what Matt. 6:7 has to do with speaking in tongues? NOTHING!
Here is what God says about tongues without interpretation; not you or your video: v2) For the one who speaks in a tongue speaks not unto men but to God; for no one understands him, but he (the one speaking) utters mysteries (secrets) in the spirit . . . v4a) The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself . . . that is tongues without interpretation.
The manifestation of the Spirit, i.e. speaking in tongues is not evil. Why would God tell us to do something that is evil?
You are attributing the work of God to Satan, just as the people attributed the works that Jesus did to Beelzebub . . . But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils,. . That is how far off base you are . . . You need to really stop and think about what you are saying.
No, it is speaking secrets to God (1 Cor. 14:2); it is for the edification of the one speaking when without interpretation (1 Co. 14:4a) . . . That is what God says the manifestation of speaking in tongues without interpretation is for . . . Paul goes so far as to make this a command speaking by revelation from God: Now I want you all to speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14:5) . . . Paul prayed in the Spirit and prayed with his understanding also (1 Cor. 14:15) . . . In 14:37 Paul clearly states that the things he is writing are a command of the Lord . . . If any man be ignorant, Let him be ignorant.
W
WingsOfFidelity
Guest
If you are referring to me, I am not confused about the purpose of tongues, nor on when they ceased. When they were in use the written Word, the Bible, was not yet finished. Now that we have the perfect Word they are no longer needed.
Z
Zi
Guest
That's quite a feat to get 120 people in one of these....
I got a joke from you that I heard but will modify a bit to go with the 'one accord' theme. This is fiction, btw.
Jennifer Lopez was walking on the streets of LA, and she came across 20 people trying to squeeze into an Accord. They just couldn't get the 20th person in there. She told them she had always wanted to try something like that. So one of them volunteered to let her take her place. Using her star dance moves, she was able to squeeze into the car as the 20th person.
The moral of the story is: There's always room for J-Lo.
WingsOfFidelity quoted John MacArthur,
This is a much more coherent and respectful-of-scripture interpretation than one of the sermons still on his site, attributed to him, in which he considers the tongues of the Corinthians to be pagan tongues in I Corinthians 14, and to be related to the speech of the oracle of Delphi. That interpretation was actually along the lines of an old 19th century liberal interpretation, if not downright blasphemous. It was still on his site the last I checked. He is not someone to go to for exegesis on spiritual gifts passages.
I Corinthians says whether there be tongues, they will cease. It doesn't say 'the gift of tongues' will cease. That is JM's interpertation.
Historically, there are references to various spiritual gifts mentioned in I Corinthians. Irenenaeus mentions them around 200 AD, including speaking in tongues. He thought it was important that a church be able to raise the dead, something he had experienced. This is one of the historical champions of orthodoxy. Historically, the early church was not cessationist. This is post-Reformation doctrine, not a doctrine found in scripture or in early church writings.
That's a lame argument. John predicts future miracles, the two witnesses would prophesy and shut up the heavens. There has to be a last miracle mentioned in the Bible.
I Corinthians 12 says the Spirit gifts members of the body of Christ with spiritual gifts. The Bible never cancels that teaching. The Bible commands, 'earnestly desire spiritual gifts,' 'covet to prophesy', and 'despise not prophesyings.' The church should obey these commands.
John 3:16 is not quoted in the book of Revelation. Does that mean it is no longer true? How many times does the Bible have to teach something before we believe it?
Man-made doctrine. Where does the Bible say that miracles were about confirming apostolic authority? Non-apostles did miracles, too. Philip, Stephen. I Corinthians 12 lists 'apostles' and 'miracles' as different ministries, so there were some non-apostle miracle workers.
Yet second century writings refer to the gift of prophecy being active in the church, and there are references to miracles throughout history.
Man-made doctrine, and not part of the 'faith once delivered to the saints' that we are taught to contend for.
Is this replacement theology from a dispensationalist? He has a hodge-podge theology when it comes to spiritual gifts, drawing from liberals and replacement theolgians. It's like anything to argue against spiritual gifts.
Paul quotes the verse and applies it to the unbeliever who comes into church. He doesn't specify
the man has to be a Jew.
Faulty reasoning. None of these arguments back up his conclusion that tongues wasn't supposed to be a permanent gift. Paul doesn't say it was given 'primarily' as a sign either. Tongues is a sign to them that believe not. To them that believe, it is one of the gifts that edify. It edifies the church if interpreted.
This is a much more coherent and respectful-of-scripture interpretation than one of the sermons still on his site, attributed to him, in which he considers the tongues of the Corinthians to be pagan tongues in I Corinthians 14, and to be related to the speech of the oracle of Delphi. That interpretation was actually along the lines of an old 19th century liberal interpretation, if not downright blasphemous. It was still on his site the last I checked. He is not someone to go to for exegesis on spiritual gifts passages.
I Corinthians says whether there be tongues, they will cease. It doesn't say 'the gift of tongues' will cease. That is JM's interpertation.
Historically, there are references to various spiritual gifts mentioned in I Corinthians. Irenenaeus mentions them around 200 AD, including speaking in tongues. He thought it was important that a church be able to raise the dead, something he had experienced. This is one of the historical champions of orthodoxy. Historically, the early church was not cessationist. This is post-Reformation doctrine, not a doctrine found in scripture or in early church writings.
That's a lame argument. John predicts future miracles, the two witnesses would prophesy and shut up the heavens. There has to be a last miracle mentioned in the Bible.
I Corinthians 12 says the Spirit gifts members of the body of Christ with spiritual gifts. The Bible never cancels that teaching. The Bible commands, 'earnestly desire spiritual gifts,' 'covet to prophesy', and 'despise not prophesyings.' The church should obey these commands.
John 3:16 is not quoted in the book of Revelation. Does that mean it is no longer true? How many times does the Bible have to teach something before we believe it?
Man-made doctrine. Where does the Bible say that miracles were about confirming apostolic authority? Non-apostles did miracles, too. Philip, Stephen. I Corinthians 12 lists 'apostles' and 'miracles' as different ministries, so there were some non-apostle miracle workers.
Yet second century writings refer to the gift of prophecy being active in the church, and there are references to miracles throughout history.
Man-made doctrine, and not part of the 'faith once delivered to the saints' that we are taught to contend for.
Is this replacement theology from a dispensationalist? He has a hodge-podge theology when it comes to spiritual gifts, drawing from liberals and replacement theolgians. It's like anything to argue against spiritual gifts.
Paul quotes the verse and applies it to the unbeliever who comes into church. He doesn't specify
the man has to be a Jew.
.
Faulty reasoning. None of these arguments back up his conclusion that tongues wasn't supposed to be a permanent gift. Paul doesn't say it was given 'primarily' as a sign either. Tongues is a sign to them that believe not. To them that believe, it is one of the gifts that edify. It edifies the church if interpreted.
Peter, James, and Jude never quoted John 3:16. Does that mean it isn't true. How many times does the Bible have to teach something before we believe it? Two books mention speaking in tongues clearly. Why do all the other books have to mention it for it to be true? Certain books do not mention elders, church discipline, or marriage. Does that mean we reject what the Bible does teach on the subjects?
Last edited:
Well, I was going to answer you, but I thinks everyone else already said pretty much everything I would say.
I was referring to several people actually.
And I'm glad that your perfect, the Bible, is with you here and now.
My perfect, Jesus, is not. And until He is, I - we - need every gift He can give us until then.
That's what I meant about being confused on their purpose. If you think the purpose of the gifts were to lend credence to a book, you're confused.
If you think the purpose of the gifts is to allow us a means to 'import' Christ's redemption into this yet to be redeemed world, then you're not.
Who do you worship, what is your be-all end-all : the Book or the Redeemer?
W
WingsOfFidelity
Guest
W
WingsOfFidelity
Guest
What? I thought everyone was saying they spoke in tongues for their own edification, not for 'the world'. That it was their own personal 'prayer language'. And to that I say, how does it help the person if that person can not understand what 'the spirit' is saying?
1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
And I never said I worshiped the 'book'.
Do you believe the Bible is the Lord's complete Word? Do you believe the Lord's Word is perfect? Do you believe that there should be no adding or taking away from His Word?