Speaking in tongues

[Waggles]

God heals indiscriminately. no such thing as Chraistmaticisim . Sign gift , the two words will not be found working together to give that kind of a idea.
We walk by faith the kingdom of God does not come by observation

You never cease to amaze others on CC with your gobbledegook and nonsense.
When confronted with the truth of scriptures or the truth of scripture obedient doctrine and faith you retreat into nonsense.
So many of your posts are incoherent and absurd.

 

[garee]

You never cease to amaze others on CC with your gobbledegook and nonsense.
When confronted with the truth of scriptures or the truth of scripture obedient doctrine and faith you retreat into nonsense.
So many of your posts are incoherent and absurd.

I think you meant doctrines or works, not faith the unseen

I guess I am one of those amazing kind of people (.God heals indiscriminately )Its amazing he heals anyone one .

Non sense or biblical sense ?

I can read and hope I am being led by the Spirit .

Looking at foundation (Isaiah 28) which you seem to avoid. Who is the sign of stammering (mocking) lips in reference to?. Those who beleive all things written in the law and the prophets, as prophecy, or those who refuse to hear the word of God .(prophecy)?

The thing is will you follow it till the end?

Note....(Purple in parenthesis) my comments

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering 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 (not the gibberish 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,(not the gibberish 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 28:11-15

Try and remember we walk by faith, the unseen eternal, and not by sight the temporal observing some work we could do like make a noise or fall backward .

What does the sign confirm and to whom does it confirm ? Its the key to understanding.

22 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.

Which one is the sign in respect to?

 

[DJ2]

What do you think about the instances after Acts 2 in which believers spoke in tongues? These aren't identified as specific languages.

Correct, they are not identified as anything other then utterances. To label the utterances of today as the same as what was happening 2000 years ago is a unfounded assumption at best. We do not know what 1st century "tongues" sounded like, any claim of doing this today is both biblically and logically baseless.. In other words, any use of events after Pentecost to prove modern day "tongues" as genuinely the same as Paul's "tongues" is simply a guess.

 

[Dino246]

Correct, they are not identified as anything other then utterances. To label the utterances of today as the same as what was happening 2000 years ago is a unfounded assumption at best. We do not know what 1st century "tongues" sounded like, any claim of doing this today is both biblically and logically baseless.. In other words, any use of events after Pentecost to prove modern day "tongues" as genuinely the same as Paul's "tongues" is simply a guess.

Agreed, but by the same logic, asserting that modern "utterances" (blatant abuses aside) are not the same as the tongues as mentioned in Acts and Corinthians is also without foundation.

 

[DJ2]

Agreed, but by the same logic, asserting that modern "utterances" (blatant abuses aside) are not the same as the tongues as mentioned in Acts and Corinthians is also without foundation.

Also agreed, both assertions are simply assumptions. With the exception of speaking in a known but unlearned language using biblical examples of tongues cannot be applied today without first knowing what those 1st century tongues sounded like.

The referencing of "Corinthians" tongues instead of "Acts" tongues as a proof-text for modern day tongues is simply a convenient way of explaining away the need to prove the legitimacy of the claim. The inability of this movement to present what should be clear evidence of their claim is damning to their cause.

 

[shrume]

Also agreed, both assertions are simply assumptions. With the exception of speaking in a known but unlearned language using biblical examples of tongues cannot be applied today without first knowing what those 1st century tongues sounded like.

That DOES occasionally happen today, but it is rare.

The referencing of "Corinthians" tongues instead of "Acts" tongues as a proof-text for modern day tongues is simply a convenient way of explaining away the need to prove the legitimacy of the claim. The inability of this movement to present what should be clear evidence of their claim is damning to their cause.

What would satisfy you? What would be clear evidence to you?

Some people are interested in trying to figure out the Bible we do have.

Some are content to dismiss some things as unknowable or even damning if explicit 1), 2), 3) instructions are not given.

 

[Dino246]

The referencing of "Corinthians" tongues instead of "Acts" tongues as a proof-text for modern day tongues is simply a convenient way of explaining away the need to prove the legitimacy of the claim. The inability of this movement to present what should be clear evidence of their claim is damning to their cause.

1 Corinthians is normative; Acts is exemplary. We should expect that gifts, including tongues, are distributed to the Church, because Paul tells us so. We may find that people speak in tongues as empowered by the Holy Spirit, because Luke tells us so.

Luke records in detail what happened at Pentecost. He doesn't go into such detail in the other cases. It is reasonable but not required that later manifestations of tongues are similar to the Pentecost case(s). There is nothing in Scripture stating that the language spoken as a "tongue" must be a language known to anyone; that is just what did happen at the first infilling. You require evidence according to your interpretation of Scripture; there is nothing inherently wrong with that, until you require that others share your interpretation.

 

[Dino246]

Correction: Acts contains examples. "Exemplary" has a related but distinct meaning.

 

[DJ2]

That DOES occasionally happen today, but it is rare.


What would satisfy you? What would be clear evidence to you?

Some people are interested in trying to figure out the Bible we do have.

Some are content to dismiss some things as unknowable or even damning if explicit 1), 2), 3) instructions are not given.

No, this does not happen occasionally. You have been told this but it does not happen. You want to believe it "occasionally" happens to make this movement genuine but it is not happening, hence it is not of God. The physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit did not occasionally happen in far away lands with little evidence. It purposely happened in broad daylight with many witnesses in order to validate the message and messenger as being from God. The pentecostal movement will have much to answer for when the real movements of the Holy Spirit are present.

My faith is one of the unseen, it does not need to be satisfied with supernatural events. The real issue is why do you accept such claims as those presented by this movement and not others (i.e. space aliens or bigfoot) since both are simply unproven assertions?

The claims of the pentecostal movement are not unknowable by any means, they are by nature very knowable. If the claims of the pentecostal movement were true, we would all know it.

 

[DJ2]

1 Corinthians is normative; Acts is exemplary. We should expect that gifts, including tongues, are distributed to the Church, because Paul tells us so. We may find that people speak in tongues as empowered by the Holy Spirit, because Luke tells us so.

Luke records in detail what happened at Pentecost. He doesn't go into such detail in the other cases. It is reasonable but not required that later manifestations of tongues are similar to the Pentecost case(s). There is nothing in Scripture stating that the language spoken as a "tongue" must be a language known to anyone; that is just what did happen at the first infilling. You require evidence according to your interpretation of Scripture; there is nothing inherently wrong with that, until you require that others share your interpretation.

You are simply trying to dance around the reality of this movements inability to explain the lack of prima facie to their own claims of physical supernatural manifestations. There should be ample presumptive evidence of the speaking and interpreting of tongues but none exist.

Why? Because it is simply not happening.

 

[shrume]

No, this does not happen occasionally. You have been told this but it does not happen. You want to believe it "occasionally" happens to make this movement genuine but it is not happening, hence it is not of God.

Whether you like it or not, it does still occasionally happen.

The physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit did not occasionally happen in far away lands with little evidence.

That's true. But what IS rare is that when a person speaks in tongues aloud in public, someone in the room will understand the language. But it almost never happens, which is why when a person speaks in tongues in public, it must be interpreted.

It purposely happened in broad daylight with many witnesses in order to validate the message and messenger as being from God.

That's right. God underscored the significance of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit by giving the apostles languages to speak that were understood by others present.

The pentecostal movement will have much to answer for when the real movements of the Holy Spirit are present.

My faith is one of the unseen, it does not need to be satisfied with supernatural events. The real issue is why do you accept such claims as those presented by this movement and not others (i.e. space aliens or bigfoot) since both are simply unproven assertions?

Space aliens and bigfoot are not in the Bible.

The claims of the pentecostal movement are not unknowable by any means, they are by nature very knowable. If the claims of the pentecostal movement were true, we would all know it.

The fact that you deny it proves your statements false.

 

[Noose]

1 Corinthians is normative; Acts is exemplary. We should expect that gifts, including tongues, are distributed to the Church, because Paul tells us so. We may find that people speak in tongues as empowered by the Holy Spirit, because Luke tells us so.

Luke records in detail what happened at Pentecost. He doesn't go into such detail in the other cases. It is reasonable but not required that later manifestations of tongues are similar to the Pentecost case(s). There is nothing in Scripture stating that the language spoken as a "tongue" must be a language known to anyone; that is just what did happen at the first infilling. You require evidence according to your interpretation of Scripture; there is nothing inherently wrong with that, until you require that others share your interpretation.

Of what use is it if the speaker or anyone else doesn't understand it?
Even inanimate objects make understandable sound, a trumpet blow prepares the soldiers for war- howbeit that you make meaningless sounds?

 

[yellowcanary]

Luke records in detail what happened at Pentecost. He doesn't go into such detail in the other cases. It is reasonable but not required that later manifestations of tongues are similar to the Pentecost case(s). There is nothing in Scripture stating that the language spoken as a "tongue" must be a language known to anyone; that is just what did happen at the first infilling. You require evidence according to your interpretation of Scripture; there is nothing inherently wrong with that, until you require that others share your interpretation.

It is not only reasonable but factual to state that all heard them speak in their native tongues (languages) at Pentecost. But here you are suggesting that reason be disregarded when later instances of tongues occurred during the apostolic era ? How many times should Luke have "gone into more detail" ... or Peter, or Paul ?

 

[shrume]

Of what use is it if the speaker or anyone else doesn't understand it?

It is of use to the speaker because he is speaking divine secrets with God (1 Cor 14:2), he is edifying himself (1 Cor 14:4), he is giving thanks well (1 Cor 14:17), he is speaking the wonderful works of God, magnifying God (Acts 2:11; 10:46), and more.

Even inanimate objects make understandable sound, a trumpet blow prepares the soldiers for war- howbeit that you make meaningless sounds?

That's why in the church, whenever tongues is spoken aloud, it must be interpreted (1 Cor 14:5, 13, 15, 27).

 

[Noose]

It is of use to the speaker because he is speaking divine secrets with God (1 Cor 14:2), he is edifying himself (1 Cor 14:4), he is giving thanks well (1 Cor 14:17), he is speaking the wonderful works of God, magnifying God (Acts 2:11; 10:46), and more.

That's misrepresentation of Paul.
You can not give thanks if you don't know what you are saying and you can't edify yourself if you don't understand anything. Praying is petitioning a need to God and God says He already knows what we need beforehand- so you can't put forward a need in a language that you don't understand.
You always pray for something that you know you are praying for but the bible says sometimes words may fail us, that's when the Holy spirit may intervene and intercede with groans too deep for words- this happens while you praying for a well known need.

That's why in the church, whenever tongues is spoken aloud, it must be interpreted (1 Cor 14:5, 13, 15, 27).

Today's tongue has no interpretation whatsoever., i've been there, done that. You are not speaking to a child who is just out of school.

 

[yellowcanary]

It is of use to the speaker because he is speaking divine secrets with God (1 Cor 14:2), he is edifying himself (1 Cor 14:4), he is giving thanks well (1 Cor 14:17), he is speaking the wonderful works of God, magnifying God (Acts 2:11; 10:46), and more.

What a pity it is that you don't understand what these divine secrets are. Not secret(s) to God incidentally .. but to you only. And so they remain. Self edification ... giving thanks ... speaking the wonderful works of God and magnifying Him. Aren't these things better accomplished with understanding also as Paul made clear ?

 

[shrume]

That's misrepresentation of Paul.

No it isn't.

You can not give thanks if you don't know what you are saying and you can't edify yourself if you don't understand anything.

Even Paul said that when he spoke in tongues he did not understand what he was saying (1 Cor 14:14).

Praying is petitioning a need to God and God says He already knows what we need beforehand- so you can't put forward a need in a language that you don't understand.

Nonetheless, Speaking in tongues is praying in the spirit.

You always pray for something that you know you are praying for but the bible says sometimes words may fail us, that's when the Holy spirit may intervene and intercede with groans too deep for words- this happens while you praying for a well known need.

That's great. But it does not negate what speaking in tongues is, and what it is for.

Today's tongue has no interpretation whatsoever.

Yes, it does.

i've been there, done that. You are not speaking to a child who is just out of school.

Apparently I am speaking with someone who has never been to a church where tongues is interpreted.

 

[shrume]

What a pity it is that you don't understand what these divine secrets are. Not secret(s) to God incidentally .. but to you only. And so they remain.

You may choose to belittle and disbelieve this:

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.

I believe it.

Self edification ... giving thanks ... speaking the wonderful works of God and magnifying Him. Aren't these things better accomplished with understanding also as Paul made clear ?

We are to do both.

 

[yellowcanary]

What a pity it is that you don't understand what these divine secrets are. Not secret(s) to God incidentally .. but to you only. And so they remain. Self edification ... giving thanks ... speaking the wonderful works of God and magnifying Him. Aren't these things better accomplished with understanding also as Paul made clear ?

Unless of course you are speaking of a new revelation(s) that wasn't given us in scriptures ? But what were we told about adding or taking away from that which is written ?

 

[jaybird88]

why is it that when the berean Jews tested Pauls teachings against scripture they all check out, yet when we do that exact same thing with the angel language doctrine we can not confirm it?
something does not add up.