Speaking in tongues
- Thread starter blessedafrican
- 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.
So you want to say that speaking in a tongue you do not understand somehow builds you up in the faith?
Wow that must be the result of modern education.
What of the workman who studies the word of God that he need not be ashamed? Can he do this without understanding? Do you want a doctor treating you who does not know what is written in the medical books about your condition? Or the pilot of the airplane you and your loved ones are on traveling for a vacation. You want the pilot to have no knowledge of how to fly the plane?
The pilot or the doctor may feel edified in being called by their profession but the results of their activities are likely to be less than acceptable.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Wow that must be the result of modern education.
What of the workman who studies the word of God that he need not be ashamed? Can he do this without understanding? Do you want a doctor treating you who does not know what is written in the medical books about your condition? Or the pilot of the airplane you and your loved ones are on traveling for a vacation. You want the pilot to have no knowledge of how to fly the plane?
The pilot or the doctor may feel edified in being called by their profession but the results of their activities are likely to be less than acceptable.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
1
- Show all
I have nothing else to say.
You don't actually support your position, rather you accuse me of "speculative fantasy", not "reading in context", "going way outside of any reasonable biblical exegesis", and more.
If you want to continue to believe cessationism is true, so be it. There is nothing anyone can do.
1 Cor 14:
38) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
You don't actually support your position, rather you accuse me of "speculative fantasy", not "reading in context", "going way outside of any reasonable biblical exegesis", and more.
If you want to continue to believe cessationism is true, so be it. There is nothing anyone can do.
1 Cor 14:
38) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
-
1
- Show all
God condemns self edification .
Tongues, God mocking the Jew with stammering lips as those who mocked him by refusing to hear the word of God, as prophecy spoken in other languages other than the Hebrew was a negative sign to those who refuse to believe the word of God's prophecy... confirming their unbelief (no faith) . No outward sign to those who do beleive the word of God
Today with modern technology they have real time devises where two people can have a conversation neither understanding the language of the other...... that bring us back to the tower of Babel before God confused the languages when man spoke one language .
If God does not interpret the language of both it will be it will become no more than blaring brass or crashing cymbal .like children beating on kettles.
Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.1 Corinthians 14:11
Its a two way street both edify God who does the work.
Tongues, God mocking the Jew with stammering lips as those who mocked him by refusing to hear the word of God, as prophecy spoken in other languages other than the Hebrew was a negative sign to those who refuse to believe the word of God's prophecy... confirming their unbelief (no faith) . No outward sign to those who do beleive the word of God
Today with modern technology they have real time devises where two people can have a conversation neither understanding the language of the other...... that bring us back to the tower of Babel before God confused the languages when man spoke one language .
If God does not interpret the language of both it will be it will become no more than blaring brass or crashing cymbal .like children beating on kettles.
Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.1 Corinthians 14:11
Its a two way street both edify God who does the work.
When Peter went above that which is written and started a oral tradition of men that made with Christ said to no effect . Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? At the end of that work he said if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. he was not promoting going above that which is written as the Catholics beleive thinking of apostles above that which is written . Peter was notorious for going above that which is written, blaspheming the Son of man
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 21:22-25
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 21:22-25
You just pick and choose what you want to believe from Gods word. What you do not understand or do not like you change to suit your purpose.
You cannot even agree that tongues are one of two things. One is the organ of speech in the mouth the other is languages of men. You create out of nothing more than fantasy multiple speculations about unknowable tongues and tongues of angels.
You then have the unmitigated gall to accuse those who refute your speculations as ignorant. Great tribute to all who are Pentecostal of charismatic.
You suppose that not knowing somehow is a noble undertaking and meritorious.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
You cannot even agree that tongues are one of two things. One is the organ of speech in the mouth the other is languages of men. You create out of nothing more than fantasy multiple speculations about unknowable tongues and tongues of angels.
You then have the unmitigated gall to accuse those who refute your speculations as ignorant. Great tribute to all who are Pentecostal of charismatic.
You suppose that not knowing somehow is a noble undertaking and meritorious.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
False.
False.
False. I am fully aware of the distinction.
Also, you are leaving out the manifestation of speaking in tongues, which can be a language of men or of angels.
I am telling you what the scriptures say.
I truly do believe you are ignorant about tongues, and the manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit in general. I have explained my position time and time again, with scripture references. You have not been able to refute anything I have said. All you do is tell me I'm wrong, attack me personally, insult me, accuse me, etc.
False. Just another slam.
You should be ashamed to use that as your sig.
False.
False. I am fully aware of the distinction.
Also, you are leaving out the manifestation of speaking in tongues, which can be a language of men or of angels.
I am telling you what the scriptures say.
I truly do believe you are ignorant about tongues, and the manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit in general. I have explained my position time and time again, with scripture references. You have not been able to refute anything I have said. All you do is tell me I'm wrong, attack me personally, insult me, accuse me, etc.
False. Just another slam.
You should be ashamed to use that as your sig.
Scripturally you are wrong. Scripture determines belief. Belief does not determine how you interpret scripture.
You cannot even define tongues and demonstrate that your beliefs align with Acts and Corinthians and Mark and Joel and Isaiah and Genesis. If your understanding of tongues does not align with those passages then your position is in error.
You are the one using scripture to call others ignorant. Proof texting and using scripture as bludgeon.
I can only hope your soteriology is more biblical than the rest of your doctrinal positions. At least then you will have one doctrine correct. It is the most important and of eternal value so I'll let the rest slide allowing the Lord Who is patient and merciful to disciple you as He sees fit according to your ability.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
You cannot even define tongues and demonstrate that your beliefs align with Acts and Corinthians and Mark and Joel and Isaiah and Genesis. If your understanding of tongues does not align with those passages then your position is in error.
You are the one using scripture to call others ignorant. Proof texting and using scripture as bludgeon.
I can only hope your soteriology is more biblical than the rest of your doctrinal positions. At least then you will have one doctrine correct. It is the most important and of eternal value so I'll let the rest slide allowing the Lord Who is patient and merciful to disciple you as He sees fit according to your ability.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Shrume addressed this, but you didn't like his response, so here's another...
Your logic is flawed. Acts is a record of what actually happened, just as Genesis, Numbers, and 2 Kings are narrative records. Not everything in them is prophesied beforehand. The events don't need to be prophesied beforehand to be authentic.
Your logic is flawed. Acts is a record of what actually happened, just as Genesis, Numbers, and 2 Kings are narrative records. Not everything in them is prophesied beforehand. The events don't need to be prophesied beforehand to be authentic.
You say that (over and over), but you have not come close to proving it even one time.
Agreed.
The manifestation of speaking in tongues is not in Genesis, Isaiah, or Joel at all, and Mark 16:9-20 is questionable. What I have explained about tongues does align with Acts and 1 Cor.
I am not proof texting. I believe what I do about tongues because of the scriptures.
You have made several false claims about Paul, claiming he said things he did not, claiming he did not say things that he did. Just a couple pages ago you made the ludicrous statement that in the New Covenant tongues is not biblical. Even you had to admit you were wrong.
One day you'll be knocked off your self-erected pedestal, Roger, and I won't be the one doing it.
You can have the last word if you like. I'm finding myself sinking to your level, and I don't like it down here.
To anyone else reading this thread, my apologies.
Agreed.
The manifestation of speaking in tongues is not in Genesis, Isaiah, or Joel at all, and Mark 16:9-20 is questionable. What I have explained about tongues does align with Acts and 1 Cor.
I am not proof texting. I believe what I do about tongues because of the scriptures.
You have made several false claims about Paul, claiming he said things he did not, claiming he did not say things that he did. Just a couple pages ago you made the ludicrous statement that in the New Covenant tongues is not biblical. Even you had to admit you were wrong.
One day you'll be knocked off your self-erected pedestal, Roger, and I won't be the one doing it.
You can have the last word if you like. I'm finding myself sinking to your level, and I don't like it down here.
To anyone else reading this thread, my apologies.
-
1
- Show all
This kind of reasoning is below threshold.
The virgin birth of the Messiah happened as it was prophesied, why was it necessary? You seem to say prophesy is nothing but it is everything to a believer. Prophesy is the sign to the believer that God is true and is the sign that God uses to set Himself apart from any other god.
Isa 43:
8Lead out those who have eyes but are blind,
who have ears but are deaf.
9All the nations gather together
and the peoples assemble.
Which of their gods foretold this
and proclaimed to us the former things?
Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right,
so that others may hear and say, “It is true.”
10“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.
11I, even I, am the Lord,
and apart from me there is no savior.
12I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—
I, and not some foreign god among you.
You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “that I am God.
13Yes, and from ancient days I am he.
No one can deliver out of my hand.
When I act, who can reverse it?”
In case you still don't understand what God is saying- He says this is the way He sets Himself apart; He reveals something before it happens , He makes it happen, then He comes to remind you of what He said earlier when it materializes.
That is why the disciples and even Jesus used to say "this is to fulfill ..." because they understand. And this is how God operates even our salvation is promised- so all our hope is based on prophesy. All the disciples had to do was based on prophesy. Even your denial is fulfillment of prophesy.
The virgin birth of the Messiah happened as it was prophesied, why was it necessary? You seem to say prophesy is nothing but it is everything to a believer. Prophesy is the sign to the believer that God is true and is the sign that God uses to set Himself apart from any other god.
Isa 43:
8Lead out those who have eyes but are blind,
who have ears but are deaf.
9All the nations gather together
and the peoples assemble.
Which of their gods foretold this
and proclaimed to us the former things?
Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right,
so that others may hear and say, “It is true.”
10“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.
11I, even I, am the Lord,
and apart from me there is no savior.
12I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—
I, and not some foreign god among you.
You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “that I am God.
13Yes, and from ancient days I am he.
No one can deliver out of my hand.
When I act, who can reverse it?”
In case you still don't understand what God is saying- He says this is the way He sets Himself apart; He reveals something before it happens , He makes it happen, then He comes to remind you of what He said earlier when it materializes.
That is why the disciples and even Jesus used to say "this is to fulfill ..." because they understand. And this is how God operates even our salvation is promised- so all our hope is based on prophesy. All the disciples had to do was based on prophesy. Even your denial is fulfillment of prophesy.
Guys, you're never going to change Roger's mind. Or his mindset. The rebar is in, the concrete has set, and it's not moving any time soon. We go way back, right Rog? I've learned to accept his insanity, I mean in a world of insane people what's one more on our side?
Always nice yankin' your chain Rog
Not entirely. Consider what Paul says of prayer tongues: It is the only one he wished we all would partake of, yet he also said of all the gifts it is the least. Why would he want all of us to do the least thing?
Every other gift is something that God works thru us to towards another person. The gifts we use edify another person, not us. Every one of them, except tongues. It is the only one that specifically edifies the user as well.
We are charged to think of others before ourselves. That's why the gifts are thru us not to us. But after a long hard day of giving it all away, face it you're drained. So you sit in a quiet place and commune with God, speaking directly with Him in His language, all the while recharging like a cell phone on a Qi pad.
That's why it is the least - it is the one thing we do for ourselves instead/along side of others - and that is why Paul wished we all would do it, because we all need to recharge in His presence.
And this gift is specifically made for just that purpose.
Always nice yankin' your chain Rog
Not entirely. Consider what Paul says of prayer tongues: It is the only one he wished we all would partake of, yet he also said of all the gifts it is the least. Why would he want all of us to do the least thing?
Every other gift is something that God works thru us to towards another person. The gifts we use edify another person, not us. Every one of them, except tongues. It is the only one that specifically edifies the user as well.
We are charged to think of others before ourselves. That's why the gifts are thru us not to us. But after a long hard day of giving it all away, face it you're drained. So you sit in a quiet place and commune with God, speaking directly with Him in His language, all the while recharging like a cell phone on a Qi pad.
That's why it is the least - it is the one thing we do for ourselves instead/along side of others - and that is why Paul wished we all would do it, because we all need to recharge in His presence.
And this gift is specifically made for just that purpose.
Guys, you're never going to change Roger's mind. Or his mindset. The rebar is in, the concrete has set, and it's not moving any time soon. We go way back, right Rog? I've learned to accept his insanity, I mean in a world of insane people what's one more on our side?
Always nice yankin' your chain Rog
Not entirely. Consider what Paul says of prayer tongues: It is the only one he wished we all would partake of, yet he also said of all the gifts it is the least. Why would he want all of us to do the least thing?
Every other gift is something that God works thru us to towards another person. The gifts we use edify another person, not us. Every one of them, except tongues. It is the only one that specifically edifies the user as well.
We are charged to think of others before ourselves. That's why the gifts are thru us not to us. But after a long hard day of giving it all away, face it you're drained. So you sit in a quiet place and commune with God, speaking directly with Him in His language, all the while recharging like a cell phone on a Qi pad.
That's why it is the least - it is the one thing we do for ourselves instead/along side of others - and that is why Paul wished we all would do it, because we all need to recharge in His presence.
And this gift is specifically made for just that purpose.
Always nice yankin' your chain Rog
Not entirely. Consider what Paul says of prayer tongues: It is the only one he wished we all would partake of, yet he also said of all the gifts it is the least. Why would he want all of us to do the least thing?
Every other gift is something that God works thru us to towards another person. The gifts we use edify another person, not us. Every one of them, except tongues. It is the only one that specifically edifies the user as well.
We are charged to think of others before ourselves. That's why the gifts are thru us not to us. But after a long hard day of giving it all away, face it you're drained. So you sit in a quiet place and commune with God, speaking directly with Him in His language, all the while recharging like a cell phone on a Qi pad.
That's why it is the least - it is the one thing we do for ourselves instead/along side of others - and that is why Paul wished we all would do it, because we all need to recharge in His presence.
And this gift is specifically made for just that purpose.
I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.1 Cor.14:5
Hi thanks for the reply, I see it more like below
The whole church and not one individual is used to represent God. She the church edifies God as a representative glory of God not seen. The church has no glory of her own. We walk by faith the unseen.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.Mathew 5:14-15
As a representative glory it lights all in the spiritual house of God made up of many lively stones.
The city on a hill above is re-represented in Revlation21 as a high mountain.(Same Greek word)
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;Revelation 21:10 -11
That one function of prophecy to see ahead is not the entire meaning, ( fortune telling). Prophecy is simply God word it can look ahead look to the presence or to the past .
Write the things which thou hast seen (past) , and the things which are (present ), and the things which shall be hereafter;(future)
Revelation 1:19
I think a person could say prophecy is timeless.
In response to post #1,331
"I believe that it has been said that some churches today do not follow Biblical narrative . . . but there are some that do. Why is it you assume that only Pentecostal Charismatic Christians speak in tongues? I am not a Pentecostal Charismatic Christian."
This is sort of a “the majority of people who engage in glossolalia are…” sort of thing – i.e. you do not have to belong to these denominations to ‘speak in tongues’, but the majority do. On a more global scale, anyone can learn to speak in tongues regardless of their beliefs. It's not anything that is unique to Christianity.
"I have . . . Although I do not understand what I said - I am speaking a language because it sounds like a language. What language it is - I do not know. Since I do not understand what I am saying I don't know if it "fits" your criteria. I can tell when a sentence starts and stops."
I think that’s perhaps one of the main operative phrases for virtually all tongues-speakers, i.e. “it’s a language because (to me) it sounds like one".
A person’s glossolalia is generally patterned after what that individual speaker perceives as what a foreign language ‘should’ sound like.
"We are all individuals regardless that it is the same spirit energizing each believer. It is God's discretion what language one speaks."
I get where you’re coming from in the above response, but if ‘tongues’ are a heavenly language, why would there ever be need for more than one? I would think that in the spiritual realm, there would never be a need for multiple languages, particularly a separate language for each speaker. This is getting a bit nit-picky, but if everyone is speaking their own language, how would general communication between two individuals be affected? Certainly, it’s not a matter of knowing the other person’s ‘language’; everyone would need to know thousands of them. Doesn’t stand to reason – only one language would be necessary.
Further, I don’t think the demographic, geographical and chronological reasons/situations that resulted in multiple languages on earth, would even exist.
Again, absolutely no need for more than one tongue/language, yet no two speakers will ever have the same ‘tongue‘ – that heavily evidences modern tongues as being completely self-created, based partly upon how a person perceives what a foreign/unknown language ‘should’ sound like.
"Doesn't all language carry familiar consonant sounds and vowel sounds? Not really understanding your question."
Every language contains an underlying ‘set’ of sounds (called ‘phonemes’). This set of sounds is referred to as a language’s ‘phonemic inventory’. So, for example, if one were to compare the phonemic inventory of, say, Irish Gaelic with that of English, though there would be some overlap of sounds which are found in both languages, English would contain a few sounds which would not exist in Irish, and conversely, Irish will contain a few that do not exist in English.
If a speaker of English who has never been exposed to any other language (in any way, shape or form) were to speak in tongues, his/her tongue would only contain those sounds found in English; it wouldn’t contain any sound not found in ‘phonemic inventory’ of English; this, despite the hundreds of phonemes found in language.
This goes to the point that ‘tongues’ are a self-created phenomenon – a person’s tongue can only contain sounds the speaker has heard before. That doesn't exactly scream 'divinely inspired speech.'
"The mechanics of speaking in tongues is the same mechanics utilized when anyone speaks. The only difference is when we carry on a conversation, we utilize our minds, e.g. think about what we are going to say but when we speak in tongues - we do not have to engage our minds . . . It is the Spirit energizing our speech - we utilize our mouth, tongue, vocal cords, e.g. same mechanics but what we speak is energized by the Spirit."
That would be a textbook definition of random free vocalization, save for the “Spirit energizing our speech”. That almost sounds like it’s more a kind of psychological reinforcing than anything – by that I mean, the production of the sounds is random free vocalization, but it is ‘rationalized’ as being something divine in nature; it’s the only way it can make any sense to the speaker. And, of course, it fits with his/her belief in what they've been taught tongues are.
The fact that it is free vocalization also partly accounts for the reason a person can’t really repeat what they just uttered, nor can they write it down (unless first recorded and then transcribed). The speaker does not need to think about what to say; they just say it.
"I believe that it has been said that some churches today do not follow Biblical narrative . . . but there are some that do. Why is it you assume that only Pentecostal Charismatic Christians speak in tongues? I am not a Pentecostal Charismatic Christian."
This is sort of a “the majority of people who engage in glossolalia are…” sort of thing – i.e. you do not have to belong to these denominations to ‘speak in tongues’, but the majority do. On a more global scale, anyone can learn to speak in tongues regardless of their beliefs. It's not anything that is unique to Christianity.
"I have . . . Although I do not understand what I said - I am speaking a language because it sounds like a language. What language it is - I do not know. Since I do not understand what I am saying I don't know if it "fits" your criteria. I can tell when a sentence starts and stops."
I think that’s perhaps one of the main operative phrases for virtually all tongues-speakers, i.e. “it’s a language because (to me) it sounds like one".
A person’s glossolalia is generally patterned after what that individual speaker perceives as what a foreign language ‘should’ sound like.
"We are all individuals regardless that it is the same spirit energizing each believer. It is God's discretion what language one speaks."
I get where you’re coming from in the above response, but if ‘tongues’ are a heavenly language, why would there ever be need for more than one? I would think that in the spiritual realm, there would never be a need for multiple languages, particularly a separate language for each speaker. This is getting a bit nit-picky, but if everyone is speaking their own language, how would general communication between two individuals be affected? Certainly, it’s not a matter of knowing the other person’s ‘language’; everyone would need to know thousands of them. Doesn’t stand to reason – only one language would be necessary.
Further, I don’t think the demographic, geographical and chronological reasons/situations that resulted in multiple languages on earth, would even exist.
Again, absolutely no need for more than one tongue/language, yet no two speakers will ever have the same ‘tongue‘ – that heavily evidences modern tongues as being completely self-created, based partly upon how a person perceives what a foreign/unknown language ‘should’ sound like.
"Doesn't all language carry familiar consonant sounds and vowel sounds? Not really understanding your question."
Every language contains an underlying ‘set’ of sounds (called ‘phonemes’). This set of sounds is referred to as a language’s ‘phonemic inventory’. So, for example, if one were to compare the phonemic inventory of, say, Irish Gaelic with that of English, though there would be some overlap of sounds which are found in both languages, English would contain a few sounds which would not exist in Irish, and conversely, Irish will contain a few that do not exist in English.
If a speaker of English who has never been exposed to any other language (in any way, shape or form) were to speak in tongues, his/her tongue would only contain those sounds found in English; it wouldn’t contain any sound not found in ‘phonemic inventory’ of English; this, despite the hundreds of phonemes found in language.
This goes to the point that ‘tongues’ are a self-created phenomenon – a person’s tongue can only contain sounds the speaker has heard before. That doesn't exactly scream 'divinely inspired speech.'
"The mechanics of speaking in tongues is the same mechanics utilized when anyone speaks. The only difference is when we carry on a conversation, we utilize our minds, e.g. think about what we are going to say but when we speak in tongues - we do not have to engage our minds . . . It is the Spirit energizing our speech - we utilize our mouth, tongue, vocal cords, e.g. same mechanics but what we speak is energized by the Spirit."
That would be a textbook definition of random free vocalization, save for the “Spirit energizing our speech”. That almost sounds like it’s more a kind of psychological reinforcing than anything – by that I mean, the production of the sounds is random free vocalization, but it is ‘rationalized’ as being something divine in nature; it’s the only way it can make any sense to the speaker. And, of course, it fits with his/her belief in what they've been taught tongues are.
The fact that it is free vocalization also partly accounts for the reason a person can’t really repeat what they just uttered, nor can they write it down (unless first recorded and then transcribed). The speaker does not need to think about what to say; they just say it.