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.

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
Yet time and time again that is what God has said He will do. God has chosen how the gospel will be declared throughout the world. Thomas believed because he saw but Jesus said blessed are those who not seeing believe.

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Your point?
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
You may not believe in speaking in tongues, but you sure do write in a strange language. ;)
I believe speaking in tongues is God bringing His word in other languages other than Hebrews a alone as a sign against those who mock God with the oral traditions of men . Making God a circus seal ….show us a miracle and then we will continue to walk by sight as a law of the fathers .

I think it strange that some do not acknowledge what the sign confirms and to who it is against. Yet for all that is reveled they still will not hear the word of God prophecy but rather as a evil generation that continue to walk by sight called mocking God who gives us his faith to walk after his word as the light unto our path.

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

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

Below is the open book test . Question #1 fill in the blanks.

Tongues are for a sign, not to them that _________, but to them that _______. But the word of God serves not for them that __________ not , but for those which _________.

Pass that test the rest of the doctrine falls into place as it is written or as Christ said again as it is written the one source of Christian faith it not have you ben experienced in making a noise without meaning.

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law 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.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
795
159
43
"tool of glossolalia"

Where did that term come from? When has the term “tool" ever been applied in context to the Gifts of the Holy Spirit? Never. Tool is a term interjected by those who do not hold to the context of what is known as the “Chiasmata” and “pneumatika.”

I will say the word “glossolalia” does not address the cause and effect without showing where it is used in the word of God. Therefore without 1cor 12 to 14 chapters, the word glossolalia can mean whatever one wants IF you do not keep it on context to the word of God. The focus is not on glossolalia in 1cor 12 to 14.

The focus is on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which we were not to be unlearned in them. You can say glossolalia all you want but when you say it in context to the Gifts of the holy Spirit they are not nature but supernatural because it is God who is giving them.

Yes, “tool”.

I think in order to understand what I’m talking about, you have to first disassociate what people call “tongues” today from “tongues” in the Bible – the two are entirely different things and are not at all related or connected.

What people are calling “tongues” today is non-cognitive non-language utterance, not to be confused with, equated to, or identified as Biblical “tongues” (which simply refer to real, rational languages (s)). They are by no means one in the same. It’s like comparing apples to oranges, as the saying goes.

I agree. Spiritual gifts are not ‘(spiritual) tools’. Though I guess if you really wanted to get into semantics, I suppose that the argument could be made that if one is using such a gift to bring people to Christianity, then technically, you could call it a ‘tool’ of sorts, but that’s kind of splitting hairs, and another story.

Glossolalia (NC-NLU’s), on the other hand, has been around for millennia, it is by no means unique to Christianity; however, its use in Christianity is a relatively recent one. Glossolalia is a spiritual tool. It is no different than other spiritual tools used in other Christian denominations and in other faiths; This includes everything from rosary beads to a shaman’s drum, to a Tibetan tingsha (bell) . These are spiritual tools used to connect the ‘user’ to the divine and in some cases receive an answer/insight/healing, etc. from the divine. Glossolalia is no different, and; as the tool that it is, can be a powerful one as attested by many of those to use it.


On another note – with respect to the concept of Scripturam ex Scriptura (or the full phrase, Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandum esse) – ‘Scripture is to be explained by Scripture’. I’m certainly not opposed to the concept; however, I just don’t think it works well. Explaining scripture requires one to draw from many sources.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Yes, “tool”.

I think in order to understand what I’m talking about, you have to first disassociate what people call “tongues” today from “tongues” in the Bible – the two are entirely different things and are not at all related or connected.

What people are calling “tongues” today is non-cognitive non-language utterance, not to be confused with, equated to, or identified as Biblical “tongues” (which simply refer to real, rational languages (s)). They are by no means one in the same. It’s like comparing apples to oranges, as the saying goes.

I agree. Spiritual gifts are not ‘(spiritual) tools’. Though I guess if you really wanted to get into semantics, I suppose that the argument could be made that if one is using such a gift to bring people to Christianity, then technically, you could call it a ‘tool’ of sorts, but that’s kind of splitting hairs, and another story.

Glossolalia (NC-NLU’s), on the other hand, has been around for millennia, it is by no means unique to Christianity; however, its use in Christianity is a relatively recent one. Glossolalia is a spiritual tool. It is no different than other spiritual tools used in other Christian denominations and in other faiths; This includes everything from rosary beads to a shaman’s drum, to a Tibetan tingsha (bell) . These are spiritual tools used to connect the ‘user’ to the divine and in some cases receive an answer/insight/healing, etc. from the divine. Glossolalia is no different, and; as the tool that it is, can be a powerful one as attested by many of those to use it.


On another note – with respect to the concept of Scripturam ex Scriptura (or the full phrase, Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandum esse) – ‘Scripture is to be explained by Scripture’. I’m certainly not opposed to the concept; however, I just don’t think it works well. Explaining scripture requires one to draw from many sources.
I would agree with the use of tools as in Glossolalia. But drawing from other sources must equal what Christ said when faced with experiences of the unknown that some might call out of the body experiences in the wilderness when three times Christ said, "as it is written" or as Romans 1 declares faith to faith the unseen to the unseen. 1 Corinthians sums it up.

Can you give an example of drawing faith from many sources if that is what your n meant?

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 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.Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.1 Corinthians 1:2:11-13
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
Yes, “tool”.

I think in order to understand what I’m talking about, you have to first disassociate what people call “tongues” today from “tongues” in the Bible – the two are entirely different things and are not at all related or connected.

What people are calling “tongues” today is non-cognitive non-language utterance, not to be confused with, equated to, or identified as Biblical “tongues” (which simply refer to real, rational languages (s)). They are by no means one in the same. It’s like comparing apples to oranges, as the saying goes.

I agree. Spiritual gifts are not ‘(spiritual) tools’. Though I guess if you really wanted to get into semantics, I suppose that the argument could be made that if one is using such a gift to bring people to Christianity, then technically, you could call it a ‘tool’ of sorts, but that’s kind of splitting hairs, and another story.

Glossolalia (NC-NLU’s), on the other hand, has been around for millennia, it is by no means unique to Christianity; however, its use in Christianity is a relatively recent one. Glossolalia is a spiritual tool. It is no different than other spiritual tools used in other Christian denominations and in other faiths; This includes everything from rosary beads to a shaman’s drum, to a Tibetan tingsha (bell) . These are spiritual tools used to connect the ‘user’ to the divine and in some cases receive an answer/insight/healing, etc. from the divine. Glossolalia is no different, and; as the tool that it is, can be a powerful one as attested by many of those to use it.


On another note – with respect to the concept of Scripturam ex Scriptura (or the full phrase, Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandum esse) – ‘Scripture is to be explained by Scripture’. I’m certainly not opposed to the concept; however, I just don’t think it works well. Explaining scripture requires one to draw from many sources.
no that is your understanding from interjecting humanism into the Holy Spirit gifting. Non-cognitive non- language utterance, is not how the word of God describes the gifts of tongues. You also do not address the word "unknown" in context to the gift. 1cor 14:4 which is a new one or a foreign language. You limit the context of languages because you do not understand it and think there is only 36 languages in the world, hey guy you need to get out more.

"Glossolalia (NC-NLU’s), on the other hand, has been around for millennia, it is by no means unique to Christianity; however, its use in Christianity is a relatively recent one." the idea that the gifts of the Holy Spirit started recently (the 1900's) in hindsight of
1. the word of God
2. Church history from 95AD to 1900's.




the context of glossa is not in the millennia of understanding, it is found in the word of God. Mark 16, Acts chapter 2,10, and 19 1cor chapter 12 to 14. You use pagan teaching to explain the word of God; you are in error.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
I would agree with the use of tools as in Glossolalia. But drawing from other sources must equal what Christ said when faced with experiences of the unknown that some might call out of the body experiences in the wilderness when three times Christ said, "as it is written" or as Romans 1 declares faith to faith the unseen to the unseen. 1 Corinthians sums it up.

Can you give an example of drawing faith from many sources if that is what your n meant?

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 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. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.1 Corinthians 1:2:11-13
you would agree to refer the gifts of the Holy Spirit as a tool, one was man decides to use or not to. The problem with your "tool" analogy is the Holy Spirit is the one who gives them.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
795
159
43
Can you give an example of drawing faith from many sources if that is what your n meant?

This may not be the greatest example but take the Tower of Babel narrative. If just using scripture to explain scripture, it doesn’t really paint an accurate picture, or perhaps a better way of putting it, is that it leads one to different conclusions.

To take just one line – “And the whole earth was of one language…”.

I think that if just scripture is used, one would arrive at the conclusion that “whole world/earth” here was to be taken literally. If we step outside the box of scripture, and view it from a say a historical perspective and ask ourselves what exactly would have encompassed the ‘whole world’ to someone living thousands of years ago in a small section of what we today call the Middle East, we arrive at a whole different conclusion. This conclusion puts the rest of the story in more perspective as to what exactly this common language likely was where is just scripture is used, one is left to guess (which has led to many incorrect theories).

Admittedly, not the best way to explain it, but you get the general idea.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
This may not be the greatest example but take the Tower of Babel narrative. If just using scripture to explain scripture, it doesn’t really paint an accurate picture, or perhaps a better way of putting it, is that it leads one to different conclusions.

To take just one line – “And the whole earth was of one language…”.

I think that if just scripture is used, one would arrive at the conclusion that “whole world/earth” here was to be taken literally. If we step outside the box of scripture, and view it from a say a historical perspective and ask ourselves what exactly would have encompassed the ‘whole world’ to someone living thousands of years ago in a small section of what we today call the Middle East, we arrive at a whole different conclusion. This conclusion puts the rest of the story in more perspective as to what exactly this common language likely was where is just scripture is used, one is left to guess (which has led to many incorrect theories).

Admittedly, not the best way to explain it, but you get the general idea.
Your right it is not a great example, Scripture is not a box, it is the Word of God.
 

stonesoffire

Poetic Member
Nov 24, 2013
10,665
1,829
113
You are the second person I met who believes that. If he did, would Luke have translated it from Aramaic or Hebrew? They say it is written in a very different style from Paul's. Paul doesn't put his name on it, either, as he does with his other letters.
My personal opinion is that it was Apollo.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
I believe speaking in tongues is God bringing His word in other languages other than Hebrews a alone as a sign against those who mock God with the oral traditions of men . Making God a circus seal ….show us a miracle and then we will continue to walk by sight as a law of the fathers .

I think it strange that some do not acknowledge what the sign confirms and to who it is against. Yet for all that is reveled they still will not hear the word of God prophecy but rather as a evil generation that continue to walk by sight called mocking God who gives us his faith to walk after his word as the light unto our path.

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

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

Below is the open book test . Question #1 fill in the blanks.

Tongues are for a sign, not to them that _________, but to them that _______. But the word of God serves not for them that __________ not , but for those which _________.

Pass that test the rest of the doctrine falls into place as it is written or as Christ said again as it is written the one source of Christian faith it not have you ben experienced in making a noise without meaning.

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law 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.
None of which explains what happened with Cornelius and his household in Acts 10.
 

yellowcanary

Junior Member
May 22, 2018
122
78
28
None of which explains what happened with Cornelius and his household in Acts 10.
Cornelius and his household speaking in tongues was a sign/proof to Peter and others present that God's grace thru Christ had come to the gentiles as well as the jew.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
Cornelius and his household speaking in tongues was a sign/proof to Peter and others present that God's grace thru Christ had come to the gentiles as well as the jew.
Exactly, which has nothing to do with Garee's assertion that speaking in tongues was only a sign to rebellious Jews.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Seriously?

God does not act in a capricious fashion. Miracles are not part of the gospel. The word of God is the means by which the gospel is conveyed and the means by which the Holy Spirit brings men unto a saving knowledge of Christ

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
Seriously?

God does not act in a capricious fashion. Miracles are not part of the gospel. The word of God is the means by which the gospel is conveyed and the means by which the Holy Spirit brings men unto a saving knowledge of Christ

For the cause of Christ
Roger
You equate miracles with "capricious" (something I haven't even suggested). It's no wonder you don't believe they happen today; your perspective is simply not biblically sound. There isn't a single example recorded in Scripture of a miracle that can be called "capricious". God had a purpose in every one of them. All of the ones in the NT were redemptive.

Nobody has claimed that "miracles are part of the gospel". However, Paul stated clearly that he wanted the faith of the Corinthians to rest on God's power, not on human wisdom. God's power is demonstrated in activities that are beyond human capacity. There is no verse stating that miracles will cease, even when tongues and prophecy eventually do.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,112
4,374
113
Seriously?

God does not act in a capricious fashion. Miracles are not part of the gospel. The word of God is the means by which the gospel is conveyed and the means by which the Holy Spirit brings men unto a saving knowledge of Christ

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Hmm so when Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." John 14:12 Jesu was not meaning what HE said?

When Jesus said In Matthew 28: 19-20

"
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

He did not mean that ?

When Jesus said in Mark 16:15- 18

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Jesus did not mean that?

Do you even know what the context of the word Salvation
"sōtēria"
deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation


or Saved means?

sōzō
save, heal, and deliver. Did you read what Jesus said in Luke 4 :18


"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

But you say Miracles are not part of the Gospel. FYI Salvation is a miracle. what prideful comments you continue to make while ill-informed .
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Exactly, which has nothing to do with Garee's assertion that speaking in tongues was only a sign to rebellious Jews.

That's not what I am asserting. What I am saying is tongues which is simply the "word of God" called "prophecy" was spoken in many languages other than Hebrew alone as a sign to confirm those who refuse to believe God's word. but rather chase after the oral traditions of men. They hear it but no do not exercise the faith that comes by hearing the voice of God called prophecy.. " yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord."

Define the law properly as to what it confirms and to who the sign is against . Then the rest of the doctrine falls into place

Follow the oral tradition that the sign seekers have set up today. ….make a noise and it confirms a person has the Holy Spirit then the law is turned up side down and loses it effect to be against the unbelieving no faith, Jew who mock the word of God by refusing to believe God rather than man.

In the law 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 Corinthians14:21-22


Who is it that will not hear God. Does the sign confirm they have the Holy Spirit as the charismatics say? Or does it confirm they do not believe the word of God prophecy with men of other tongues (clearly understood languages) other than Hebrew alone which was the language used before Acts 2?
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Hmm so when Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." John 14:12 Jesu was not meaning what HE said?

The key to understanding is in the meaning of ... "because I go unto my Father".

I would offer there is no greater miracle than salvation. The greater in that verse reflects the fact that as the Son of man, Jesus was limited to what he could do as in unless he leaves the Holy Spirit could not to the full work he could, after the Son of man left.

Jesus who refused to stand in the glorious or unseen Holy place reserved for God not seen. The Son of man resisted being called good which defines God not seen , and is why blasphemy was forgiven against his fleshly presence but not after he left . After he left Peter was moved to bring the word of God . Three thousand souls in the twinkling of the eye entered the kingdom of God. At the most before that in respect to the whole ministry perhaps five hundred . The greater had to with the number affected by one of the Holy Spirit not seen. As always God is not served by human hands whether its healing of the temporal or the eternal we do not accredit the work of God to those he moved. When men did attribute the work of God not seen to the hands of those seen. The unbelievers (no faith) made the disciples into gods in the likeness of man.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
Hmm so when Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." John 14:12 Jesu was not meaning what HE said?

.
Jesus raised the dead. If you want to do more than He did as per that promise, go raise the dead and more, don't restrict yourself to meaningless words (tongues), anyone can do that.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
Jesus raised the dead. If you want to do more than He did as per that promise, go raise the dead and more, don't restrict yourself to meaningless words (tongues), anyone can do that.
As you have just done.