Tongues???
- Thread starter 88
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Paul was very clear, there is prophecy, and there are tongues. He defined the time and place differences between them very clearly. They are not one and the same. Covet one, do not forbid the other.
Jesus wasn't talking about spiritual tongues, He was talking about the verbal diarrhea that so many to this day wallow in. Like the guy who spends 30 minutes 'interpreting' a 60 second prophecy.
And once again, if it's not real then why does it work exactly like God said it would?
Jesus wasn't talking about spiritual tongues, He was talking about the verbal diarrhea that so many to this day wallow in. Like the guy who spends 30 minutes 'interpreting' a 60 second prophecy.
And once again, if it's not real then why does it work exactly like God said it would?
Why would a Christian not believe that God can raise the dead? Either the Lazarus kind of the kind that Christ experienced?
It's not happening on every street corner, but I know of some accounts. My wife may have done that when she met her. I met a preacher who claimed to have been raised from the dead.
It's not happening on every street corner, but I know of some accounts. My wife may have done that when she met her. I met a preacher who claimed to have been raised from the dead.
I was raised Pentecostal. My family moved a lot, so I went to Pentecostal churches from 1974 onward, with several years in evangelical churches overseas keeping contact with Pentecostals, during that time.
The only churches I've heard of that teach that you aren't saved if you don't speak in tongues are the Oneness Pentecostals. One of these groups is the United Pentecostal Church International. There are smaller groups and independent churches. Some go by 'Apostolic' but that can mean something else, too, especially if you go overseas. (Trinitarian Pentecostals call themselves that in South Africa, and I've seen presumably trinitarian Charismatics use the term.)
If you know any Pentecostals who call themselves 'Holiness' who teach that, please let me know the name and location. That would be a real oddity. Traditions influenced by John Wesley tend to be Trinitarian. 'Holiness' Pentecostal denominations, like Holiness denominations in general, have historical ties to the Methodists.
The only churches I've heard of that teach that you aren't saved if you don't speak in tongues are the Oneness Pentecostals. One of these groups is the United Pentecostal Church International. There are smaller groups and independent churches. Some go by 'Apostolic' but that can mean something else, too, especially if you go overseas. (Trinitarian Pentecostals call themselves that in South Africa, and I've seen presumably trinitarian Charismatics use the term.)
If you know any Pentecostals who call themselves 'Holiness' who teach that, please let me know the name and location. That would be a real oddity. Traditions influenced by John Wesley tend to be Trinitarian. 'Holiness' Pentecostal denominations, like Holiness denominations in general, have historical ties to the Methodists.
I think if we look over the conversation, we have two basic positions. One holds rather literally to the text of scripture. I Corinthians 12 says that the manifestations of the Spirit, including 'divers tongues' are given as the Spirit wills. The book also says 'Covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues'.
There are those who take a very strict position on believing and obeying these scriptures.
Then there are those who rely on their experience of the external world, be it manifestations of tongues they don't consider legitimate, or whatever else, and theological reasoning, to argue that these scriptures no longer apply.
The real issue here is the authority of scripture.
There are also some other issues, like certain folks possibly assuming things about speaking in tongues that aren't justified by the text, be they positive or negative. I wouldn't say that speaking in tongues is the best kind of prayer. A prophetic type prayer like we read in the Psalms could be just as 'Spirit-led' in my opinion, with the benefit of edifying others as well. Speaking in tongues needs to be interpreted to edify others.
There are those who take a very strict position on believing and obeying these scriptures.
Then there are those who rely on their experience of the external world, be it manifestations of tongues they don't consider legitimate, or whatever else, and theological reasoning, to argue that these scriptures no longer apply.
The real issue here is the authority of scripture.
There are also some other issues, like certain folks possibly assuming things about speaking in tongues that aren't justified by the text, be they positive or negative. I wouldn't say that speaking in tongues is the best kind of prayer. A prophetic type prayer like we read in the Psalms could be just as 'Spirit-led' in my opinion, with the benefit of edifying others as well. Speaking in tongues needs to be interpreted to edify others.
Im not really against or pro Tongues. I believe that if its done correctly with interpretation and all its ok, if not the person should stay quiet. God can guide english prayers as well, its not always tongues. If God has something to say through prayer, let him speak to the Church. If he says something to say through prophesy, so let him speak and build up the church that way.
I wont dare to say ''God doesnt/cant do that lalala'' He can do the impossible.
I dont really understand why people are so nuts about tongues and prophesy through tongues. Its just one of many gifts, yet theres no thread about the 7 gifts in Romans or any other. And that is sad. ALL gifts together is what is important. Not one alone. Just as the Body of Christ needs legs and feet. Without feet we fall and without legs too. We need all parts.
I wont dare to say ''God doesnt/cant do that lalala'' He can do the impossible.
I dont really understand why people are so nuts about tongues and prophesy through tongues. Its just one of many gifts, yet theres no thread about the 7 gifts in Romans or any other. And that is sad. ALL gifts together is what is important. Not one alone. Just as the Body of Christ needs legs and feet. Without feet we fall and without legs too. We need all parts.
How come you cannot see that the Charismatic Movement when it began, redefined what the Scriptures meant by TONGUES? We think that was definitely an ERROR. Therefore there is nothing you can ever say or do to convince us that the Charismatic tongues are from GOD. We only believe in the original meaning, which is doing what the Apostles did, with unbelieving Jews hearing in their own dialektos. THAT AND ONLY THAT is what we believe Paul meant when he said, "do not forbid to speak in tongues"; BECAUSE, those miracles in the early days of the Church were converting a lot of Jews to believe in JESUS as their MESSIAH. That is because Joel the Prophet told them that one day they would hear GOD SPEAK TO THEM through men of strange tongues proclaiming the might works of GOD. There is nothing stranger than men who could not speak their language moments before, suddenly speaking their language with the correct accent as if they had lived with them their whole lives. THAT IS WHAT WE BELIEVE PAUL WAS TALKING ABOUT. To us, it is almost a sad joke to call the Charismatic tongues the same thing.
Acts 2:16 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
To us, anything less than what the Apostles did IS NOT TONGUES, but merely a counterfeit or imitation. We are at peace with GOD concerning our beliefs, but it has been my experience that many from your side of the fence are not at peace with us being at peace with GOD pertaining our view of what constitutes the Genuine TONGUES.
Last edited:
One brief observation, you appear to be adding meaning to that expression that just is not there. Yes, I am talking about "divers tongues".
1 Corinthians 12:10 (YLT)
[SUP]10 [/SUP] and to another in-workings of mighty deeds; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; and to another divers kinds of tongues ( [FONT=Gentium !important]glôssa )[/FONT]; and to another interpretation of tongues:
Glossa simply means "a language".
Last edited:
VCO,
So, it appears here that you are saying that you do not believe in I Corinthians. I know you implied that you were 'mainline' and not believing the Bible seems pretty 'mainline' in this day and age.
Or maybe you think the scenario in I Corinthians where 'no man understandeth him' is equal to or greater than those present understanding.
It is hard to see how you could have really studied on the passages on tongues and made a statement like you did above.
I don't think USING capital LETTERS like that is really going to communicate the DISTINCTION you want TO make to YoUR READER.
That is why I almost always change the word TONGUES to tongues when referring to the charismatic experience, so as to differentiate between the GENUINE GIFT that we are not to forbid, and the counterfeit that CHRIST HIMSELF FORBADE:
So, it appears here that you are saying that you do not believe in I Corinthians. I know you implied that you were 'mainline' and not believing the Bible seems pretty 'mainline' in this day and age.
Or maybe you think the scenario in I Corinthians where 'no man understandeth him' is equal to or greater than those present understanding.
It is hard to see how you could have really studied on the passages on tongues and made a statement like you did above.
I don't think USING capital LETTERS like that is really going to communicate the DISTINCTION you want TO make to YoUR READER.
That is why I almost always change the word TONGUES to tongues when referring to the charismatic experience, so as to differentiate between the GENUINE GIFT that we are not to forbid, and the counterfeit that CHRIST HIMSELF FORBADE:
I believe tongues are a language, too. But it is reasonable to look at the context to determine what this gift was like. I Corinthians 14 goes into some detail on speaking in tongues. And it is reasonable to conclude that this reference in chapter 12 is referring to the same gift.
You might assert that there was a gift of being able to just instantly know and understand various human languages, which would be different from what Paul described in I Corinthians 14, and you might assert that is 'divers tongues.' All things are possible with God, and God could give someone a seemingly 'natural' ability to speak and understand a language instantly, the way native speakers understand it. I cannot prove that this is not what I Corinthians 12 is talking about. But it is not what I Corinthians 14 is talking about. And it is more reasonable to assume that chapter 12 is talking about the same gift I Corinthians 14 is talking about.
As far as my own beliefs about tongues being languages goes, take a look at my previous posts. Historically, Pentecostals have believed that tongues are languages. There were testimonies from Azusa Street (Seymour's Apostolic Times newsletter, the book The Comforter Has Come, Val Dez book, Fire on Azusa, and an early 1970's interview of attendees at the revival by Vincent Synan on YouTube) of people coming into the revival meetings and hearing their own languages spoken 'in tongues.' I know there are other accounts of this from growing up in the Assemblies of God because I've heard them. Spoken by the Spirit contained accounts of things like this, some of them from A/G missionaries.
I've never actually heard a Charismatic or Pentecostal call speaking in tongues 'ecstatic utterances' from the pulpit. That's stuff from academic writing, and it isn't really accurate in a lot of cases. One doesn't have to be in an ecstatic state to speak in tongues, and someone could be in an ecstatic state and speak in their native language. So it is a bad description of speaking in tongues.
I know there are some Charismatics who don't seem to think of speaking in tongues as languages, or not generally human languages. I don't think this is the majority view. Painting Pentecostals and Charismatics as not believing in tongues as languages is a straw man as far as I'm concerned.
You might assert that there was a gift of being able to just instantly know and understand various human languages, which would be different from what Paul described in I Corinthians 14, and you might assert that is 'divers tongues.' All things are possible with God, and God could give someone a seemingly 'natural' ability to speak and understand a language instantly, the way native speakers understand it. I cannot prove that this is not what I Corinthians 12 is talking about. But it is not what I Corinthians 14 is talking about. And it is more reasonable to assume that chapter 12 is talking about the same gift I Corinthians 14 is talking about.
As far as my own beliefs about tongues being languages goes, take a look at my previous posts. Historically, Pentecostals have believed that tongues are languages. There were testimonies from Azusa Street (Seymour's Apostolic Times newsletter, the book The Comforter Has Come, Val Dez book, Fire on Azusa, and an early 1970's interview of attendees at the revival by Vincent Synan on YouTube) of people coming into the revival meetings and hearing their own languages spoken 'in tongues.' I know there are other accounts of this from growing up in the Assemblies of God because I've heard them. Spoken by the Spirit contained accounts of things like this, some of them from A/G missionaries.
I've never actually heard a Charismatic or Pentecostal call speaking in tongues 'ecstatic utterances' from the pulpit. That's stuff from academic writing, and it isn't really accurate in a lot of cases. One doesn't have to be in an ecstatic state to speak in tongues, and someone could be in an ecstatic state and speak in their native language. So it is a bad description of speaking in tongues.
I know there are some Charismatics who don't seem to think of speaking in tongues as languages, or not generally human languages. I don't think this is the majority view. Painting Pentecostals and Charismatics as not believing in tongues as languages is a straw man as far as I'm concerned.
Will this help you understand?
Greek Strong's Number: 945Greek Word: [FONT="]βατταλογέω[/FONT]
Transliteration: [FONT="]battalogeō[/FONT]
Phonetic Pronunciation:
bat-tol-og-eh'-o
Root: from Battos (a proverbial stammerer) and <G3056>
Cross Reference: TDNT - 1:597,103
Part of Speech: v
Vine's Words: Repetitions
Usage Notes:
English Words used in KJV:
use vain repetitions 1
[Total Count: 1]
from Battos (a proverbial stammerer) and <G3056> (logos); to stutter, i.e. (by implication) to prate tediously :- use vain repetitions.
Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.
Transliteration: [FONT="]battalogeō[/FONT]
Phonetic Pronunciation:
Root: from Battos (a proverbial stammerer) and <G3056>
Cross Reference: TDNT - 1:597,103
Part of Speech: v
Vine's Words: Repetitions
Usage Notes:
English Words used in KJV:
use vain repetitions 1
[Total Count: 1]
from Battos (a proverbial stammerer) and <G3056> (logos); to stutter, i.e. (by implication) to prate tediously :- use vain repetitions.
Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.