Speaking in tongues

[holdup]

Despite the strident and irrational protestations, they are and were actual spoken languages requiring an interpreter.

Baby talk gibberish is not tongues by the standard of Scripture, it is a farce, and an insult.
Quite frankly it alienates many from believing, exactly the opposite of intended function of true tongues.

that is funny you say “baby talk” because baby’s do talk and have thought AND do communicate we or many are not able to know what they are saying yet they talk. So you dismiss even a baby lol. I bet you hold high regards for Sigmund Freud

 

[cv5]

Can someone explain to me the uniqueness of this gift of speaking in tongues which most congregations in my neighbourhood insist on acquiring? Is it in any way superior to or more edifying than other gifts?

which most congregations in my neighbourhood insist on acquiring

Who exactly are they insisting to?

that is funny you say “baby talk” because baby’s do talk and have thought AND do communicate we or many are not able to know what they are saying yet they talk. So you dismiss even a baby lol. I bet you hold high regards for Sigmund Freud

Please replace the term "baby talk" with "mindless incoherent babbling".

Thank you.

 

[garee]

According to the book of Luke, there was at least one prophetess between Malachi and the time John the Baptist started his ministry in the desert, and we know God gave at least one man a revelation. There could have been others besides Anna and Simeon.

Hi thanks

I would offer many received what they did have in part as prophecy during the 400 year silent period. They as us had a working relationship with the unseen Spirit of Christ who reveals himself as it is written as the law of His faith. The perfect had not come un till John of the island of Patmos years later..

But there were not any new revelations attributed to Anna and Simeon. They did go above that which is written "in part" at that time.

There was a claim of hidden/private/mystic books, ( Apocrypha) made up of private interpretations as revelations of men and not revelations of God. Simply another tradition of men that make the written tradition of God without effect.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

This advice of yours is not in the Bible. The book of Job tells us of how God warns people through dreams. The verse you quote about not going to the desert or the secret places to see if someone says the Messiah is there does not say what you say in the quote above.

It's my two cents . We all have fingerprints as personal comments. Sorry for the difference. Thanks for a opportunity to offer my view it is a little different . It would seem the desert or secret place is the private un seen "Holy place of God". it representing that will as living thoughts of God. The food at first the disciples knew not of. You could say the Holy Spirit defines that in Job 23.

When God was bringing new revelations, dreams was one of the many manners .God is no longer bringing any new revelations after any manner. Today its like personal experience has become the new unseen God . Today …..Have a dream accredit it to God. Have a out of body experience accredit it to God. The new source of faith walk after the imagination of ones own heart as it was in the days of Noah.

Even when The Holy Spirit was brining new prophecy. Not every dream was a revelation of God. It was rare .

I think dreaming provides a way for God to heal our mental heath . No dream for three nights people can start to be come delusional.
If we are to walk by faith the eternal not seen and not by sight after what the eyes see . I would ask myself why would I go above that which is written or what some call sola scripture. Is there a loving law missing by which we could know him more adequately ?

Where do you get this revelation of yours? Do you claim to have heard an audible voice or a dream to reveal it to you? What kind of extrabiblical source are you relying on for these teachings of yours?

From the book of God's revelation the living abiding word which he informs us cannot return void of the purposes by which he sends it as it is written and not above it. he magnifies it as His authority above his perfect name being subject to it.

I would suggest without parables using the prescription for rightly dividing the parable (2 Corinthians 4:18) in search of as silver and gold the spiritual understanding Christ spoke not without with.

2 Corinthians 4:18 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.

 

[presidente]

Despite the strident and irrational protestations, they are and were actual spoken languages requiring an interpreter.

This is a straw man argument if I ever saw one.

 

[RickyZ]

Not a problem. Should I encounter genuine tongues, I there is a good chance that I will be able to confirm the incident. Its not all negative lol.

Well, while I believe that to be true, I have to wonder if the propensity to issue a blanket denial might preclude the recognition of a genuine use. Me, I live in the streets and words on a page don't mean anything to me if they don't translate into action in the streets. I could tell you of experiences I have had, but several here have already assured me that I am an unreliable eye witness. One even promised to write a letter to the judge should I ever need to get out of jury duty . So, I won't debate the tongues issue with you, I would just ask, why would satan go to such humongous lengths to create the dog and pony show, if there weren't at least a kernel of truth to be hidden it?

 

[cv5]

Well, while I believe that to be true, I have to wonder if the propensity to issue a blanket denial might preclude the recognition of a genuine use. Me, I live in the streets and words on a page don't mean anything to me if they don't translate into action in the streets. I could tell you of experiences I have had, but several here have already assured me that I am an unreliable eye witness. One even promised to write a letter to the judge should I ever need to get out of jury duty . So, I won't debate the tongues issue with you, I would just ask, why would satan go to such humongous lengths to create the dog and pony show, if there weren't at least a kernel of truth to be hidden it?

I have to wonder if the propensity to issue a blanket denial might preclude the recognition of a genuine use

Blanket denial? Hardly. In fact I am seeking data and evidence to support tongues in this present age, knowing full well the reality in the latter. So far no dice. Still looking.

 

[cv5]

This is a straw man argument if I ever saw one.

LOL. Nope. That was a declaration of fact, supported by Scripture. I am in no way misrepresenting the opposing position, rather, I am clarifying it.

 

[RickyZ]

I have to wonder if the propensity to issue a blanket denial might preclude the recognition of a genuine use

Blanket denial? Hardly. In fact I am seeking data and evidence to support tongues in this present age, knowing full well the reality in the latter. So far no dice. Still looking.

Fair enough, but what's the burden of proof? What would it take to provide supporting evidence? I could give you my testimony, but you wouldn't accept that. I could give you scripture, but you'd just bid one back. So what would it take to make you think hmmm....

 

[garee]

This is a straw man argument if I ever saw one.

Its seems simple to me. Find out by going to the foundation of doctrine of tongues in the Old testemtment Isaiah 28 and look to the law of it in 1 Coriorinthians 14 which confirm it. Then determine which group the "sign" is in reference to and what it actually does confirm.

Its like David said in the Psalms. If the unbeliever destroys the foundation of the doctrines of God how will we ever come to the truth of the matter? The doctrine is not a new testament foundation as most here seem to try and make it into. .( make a sound.. build your self up as evidence to everyone a person is a believer). Where in the end of the matter someone came up with a new lying wonder as a new innovation .

For with stammering (mocking lips) lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:Isaiah 28:11-14

In the law (not a philosophical theory ) it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore 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.1 Corinthians 14 21-22

 

[Waggles]

here is yet another wonderful testimony to the truth of Pentecostal faith
from Faye who attends the same local assembly that I do here in South Australia

http://www.miracles.areonthe.net/TE...d - now have joy, peace, direction -Faye-.pdf

 

[cv5]

Fair enough, but what's the burden of proof? What would it take to provide supporting evidence? I could give you my testimony, but you wouldn't accept that. I could give you scripture, but you'd just bid one back. So what would it take to make you think hmmm....

As I have indicated several times, upload your video/audio testimony of tongues and we can follow up with an internal Church authority investigation to confirm veracity, including polygraphs testing if necessary.

 

[garee]

here is yet another wonderful testimony to the truth of Pentecostal faith
from Faye who attends the same local assembly that I do here in South Australia

http://www.miracles.areonthe.net/TESTIMONY Collection/Testimonies - Main Collection/Life changed/Life changed - now have joy, peace, direction -Faye-.pdf

What does she say in respect to the sign of Stammering lips . Who is the sign in respect to and what does it confirm?

 

[Waggles]

What does she say in respect to the sign of Stammering lips . Who is the sign in respect to and what does it confirm?

Read Faye's testimony for your answers.

 

[notuptome]

Pentecostalism and the modern charismatic movement have their genesis in a private interpretation of 1 Cor 12-14. The appearance of tongues in Acts 2 is a specific account of what happened that day. There is no evidence that the Acts 2 tongues are the tongues claimed in the modern charismatic or Pentecostal church.

Are the tongues of 1 Cor 12-14 the same tongues of Acts 2? Or any of the other tongues in the book of Acts?

To hear most of the folks claiming to speak in tongues we should are expected believe in some euphoric sensation of speaking for God in a language only God understands and hope for someone to be in attendance that can translate it into something we all can appreciate. I do not see that in the book of Acts.

The notion of praying in tongues is not at all supported in 1 Cor 12-14 as others would have us to believe. In context the allusion to praying in tongues is hyperbole and not a command to practice this form of prayer.

Christians are to be Christ-like. We are to proclaim Christ and salvation through His name.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Kavik]

Are the tongues of 1 Cor 12-14 the same tongues of Acts 2? Or any of the other tongues in the book of Acts?

I would say, yes - all are real, rational language(s) - perhaps not understood by those listening to/hearing them, but always understood by the speaker(s) - they are his/their native language(s).

I don't believe the above holds true for speakers of modern tongues though. Theirs is a complete re-interpretation of the narrative/text to fit or 'proof' the modern phenomenon in the context of Biblical narrative.

 

[Kavik]

"here is yet another wonderful testimony to the truth of Pentecostal faith
from Faye who attends the same local assembly that I do here in South Australia"

From Faye’s testimony –

“While praying a week later at home I said a hew “hallelujahs” and spoke in the most beautiful language. From that moment I knew I was a born-again Christian, I felt the total difference within; there was joy, peace and direction in my life that I’d never felt before.”

This is a typical reaction to the use of modern tongues; i.e. the feeling of inner joy, peace, etc.

Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’. Indeed, for those that use it, it is very psychologically fulfilling. It’s almost like primal screaming. When people practice ‘tongues’, they feel a sense of sweet release in that all stress can be gone after the experience. Faye’s testimony is a typical example.

It is important to note however that the sentiments described above can be experienced with glossolalia in virtually any other culture that practices it.

People can describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…not so much. When a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs – this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to it.

As I’ve mentioned previously, modern tongues is just another tool, like chanting, deep prayer, or meditation, etc.; a way by which one may establish a closer relationship with the divine and strengthen one’s spiritual path. In this respect (i.e. as the tool it is), it can be quite powerful one to accomplish these goals, as attested by many of those who use it.

In this respect, I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'. The use of modern tongues as the tool that it is, can be very powerful.

The experience is real; it can be, and often is, described as being nothing short of miraculous or divine. For many, it is a catalyst leading to a completely better, improved, more spiritual and different life, as it were. But the means by which that is accomplished; namely ‘tongues’, is a completely self-created phenomenon not found in Biblical narrative. For Christians who practice it, it’s a fairly new addition to the Christian tradition. Glossolalia itself has been around for millennia.

Does the fact that the phenomenon is not ‘Biblically attested‘ make it somehow wrong? No, of course not; but it’s not quite what it’s speakers wish/believe it to be either.

 

[garee]

Read Faye's testimony for your answers.

I read her story she does not seem to have looked at her Bible God's testimony .She does not mention God mocking those who refuse to hear the gospel. Read the bible testimony conflicts with her testimony. Begin in the foundation the Old testemtment Isaiah 28 then work to where it defines the law (1 Corinthians 14:21-22) making it easy to see who the sign points to and what it does confirm .

What does it confirm?

Then the rest of the doctrine of tongues becomes clear.

Unless the testimony of the Bible has no concerns for us then make a noise and belief

in the law it hath been written, that, `With other tongues and with other lips I will speak to this people, and not even so will they hear Me, saith the Lord;' so that the "tongues are for a sign", not to the believing, "but to the unbelieving"; and the prophesy [is] not for the unbelieving, but for the believing,1 Corinthians 14:21-22

 

[garee]

"here is yet another wonderful testimony to the truth of Pentecostal faith
from Faye who attends the same local assembly that I do here in South Australia"

From Faye’s testimony –

“While praying a week later at home I said a hew “hallelujahs” and spoke in the most beautiful language. From that moment I knew I was a born-again Christian, I felt the total difference within; there was joy, peace and direction in my life that I’d never felt before.”

This is a typical reaction to the use of modern tongues; i.e. the feeling of inner joy, peace, etc.

Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’. Indeed, for those that use it, it is very psychologically fulfilling. It’s almost like primal screaming. When people practice ‘tongues’, they feel a sense of sweet release in that all stress can be gone after the experience. Faye’s testimony is a typical example.

It is important to note however that the sentiments described above can be experienced with glossolalia in virtually any other culture that practices it.

People can describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…not so much. When a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs – this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to it.

As I’ve mentioned previously, modern tongues is just another tool, like chanting, deep prayer, or meditation, etc.; a way by which one may establish a closer relationship with the divine and strengthen one’s spiritual path. In this respect (i.e. as the tool it is), it can be quite powerful one to accomplish these goals, as attested by many of those who use it.

In this respect, I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'. The use of modern tongues as the tool that it is, can be very powerful.

The experience is real; it can be, and often is, described as being nothing short of miraculous or divine. For many, it is a catalyst leading to a completely better, improved, more spiritual and different life, as it were. But the means by which that is accomplished; namely ‘tongues’, is a completely self-created phenomenon not found in Biblical narrative. For Christians who practice it, it’s a fairly new addition to the Christian tradition. Glossolalia itself has been around for millennia.

Does the fact that the phenomenon is not ‘Biblically attested‘ make it somehow wrong? No, of course not; but it’s not quite what it’s speakers wish/believe it to be either.

Good way of explaining. The fleshly feeling .I am not sure why you would say there is nothing wrong. If its not of the faith that comes from hearing God its sin and men should stop and find a different way to feel good about themselves.

It like you mentioned with chanting. The repetition is not in question as vain we can approach God over and over with a matter. But it is the manner that is vain. In that way one experience is to many but unto them ten thousand is not enough.

Matthew 6:7 `And -- praying -- ye may not use vain repetitions like the nations, for they think that in their much speaking they shall be heard,

 

[RickyZ]

My rather lengthy and persistent personal study of tongues is pretty well wrapped up.

The statement above pretty much says that this statement is false:

Should I encounter genuine tongues, I there is a good chance that I will be able to confirm the incident.

Because it says your mind is made up that ALL private tongues are false. Therefore you would never be able to confirm a genuine use, because you are determined that among the babble and baby talk there can't be a legitimate use.

I have received many, many revelations (current applications of existing scripture) and words of knowledge that glorified God while speaking in tongues. It's funny how doing something false could result in the very things God said they would result in.

I'm not trying to talk you into accepting tongues. I'm just hoping you will open your mind enough to consider why would satan bother to falsify something that is already apparently false... unless it actually isn't.

 

[notuptome]

I would say, yes - all are real, rational language(s) - perhaps not understood by those listening to/hearing them, but always understood by the speaker(s) - they are his/their native language(s).

I don't believe the above holds true for speakers of modern tongues though. Theirs is a complete re-interpretation of the narrative/text to fit or 'proof' the modern phenomenon in the context of Biblical narrative.

To be biblical tongues they must be the tongues described in the bible. The problem arises in the interpretation of the word tongue and it's multiple meanings as translated into English. Cloven tongues of fire is illustrating the glory of God resting upon the speakers not the tongues being spoken. Fire is described as having tongues referring to the flames themselves. Tongues are languages among men. Tongues are organs of speech in the mouths of men and animals. Even my shoes have tongues. My shoes do not utter any audible sounds.

Context is essential in understanding which interpretation of the word for tongues is intended in the passages.

For the cause of Christ
Roger