Speaking in tongues

[Sketch]

And that passage in Romans has absolutely zero to do with the modern tongues phenomenon. It's typically taken completely out of context as another way to 'proof' the modern experience in a Biblical narrative.

Translation: You don't speak in tongues.

 

[cv5]

Read I Corinthians more carefully. Look at 14:28. Paul says '...if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church and let him speak to himself and to God.'

Here, the speaker chooses to keep silent in the church instead of anouncing his uninterpreted tongue for all to hear. Here the speaker can choose to speak to himself and to God.

You missed my point. Whether silent or not, the Gift originates from Above by the Will of God for His express purpose. I do not see that today. See my Sid Roth video.

 

[Sketch]

I believe in spiritual gifts, but do a word study on what the KJV calls 'groanings which cannot be uttered' comparing the Greek word with 'as the Spirit gave them utterance.'

These groanings in Romans 8 cannot be uttered. Tongues clearly can be uttered because in Acts 2, they spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. If they can't be uttered, you would'n't hear them.

I just don't get how using this as a passage for speaking in tongues ever got any mileage in the Pentecostal or Charismatic movement. It just doesn't hold water, IMO, and it doesn't make sense. Kenneth Hagin used a commentary from AW Pink where he described the groanings as words that could not be spoken with 'intelligible speech' or words to that effec.t And this is just arguing off the turn of phrase the commentator used, not the actually meaning of the words in the passage. Hagin was influential, and some of his ideas found some traction outside of the Word of Faith movement. Probably, like many other ideas, that could have not been original with him.

Whatever the case, I don't see any specific passages that say tongues are for intercession, though I would not say the Spirit could not use it that way.

We should accept speaking in tongues as a genuine gift, but that doesn't mean we have to accept everything every preacher or layperson says about speaking in tongues. Since speaking in tongues is a 'doctrinal distinctive' and has a lot to do with the identity of certain groups, there has been a tendency to really stretch the importance of the practice and sometimes the interpretation of passages. For example, when Paul says 'no man understandeth him', that's how tongues works in a meeting without interpretation. I don't see Paul's point as being about the importance of praying in tongues so the Devil can't hear you and interfere with your prayers being answered. Who cares if the Devil hears our prayers? Is the Prince of Persia going to get in the way? All authority on heaven and earth is given unto Jesus.

Then there is the idea that it is good for a whole church to get together and pray in tongues at the same time so they can all 'build their spirits' and be powerful for whatever comes next in the service. Why can't people 'build their spirit' at home. The prooftexts for these practices are in a passage about how speaking in tongues doesn't edify other people in the assembly unless it is interpreted.

There are extremes on both sides. One is people being too gung ho about speaking in tongues in a disorderly fashion, possibly a problem at Corinth, and the other is rejecting the practice even within Biblical guidelines.

I think everyone gets too hung up on the groaning part and complete misses what is being said about it.
The Spirit interceding for us... in accordance with the will of God. Does anyone not want that?

Romans 8:26-28
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

 

[cv5]

Translation: You don't speak in tongues.

Just post a video/audio of YOU speaking in tongues. I mean, evidently it is a daily occurrence, why not edify the board?

 

[presidente]

You missed my point. Whether silent or not, the Gift originates from Above by the Will of God for His express purpose. I do not see that today. See my Sid Roth video.

In I Corinthians, 14, we see it is possible for the speaker in tongues to speak in tongues in a disorerly manner, to speak when they should not.

Even prophets could continue speaking when they should actually yield the floor for another sitting by.

There is stewardship involved in the use of the gifts.

 

[presidente]

Just post a video/audio of YOU speaking in tongues. I mean, evidently it is a daily occurrence, why not edify the board?

It would not edify us unless it were interpreted and we heard the interpretation.

 

[cv5]

Two questions:
If someone testified that God spoke to them, would you accept their testimony?
If someone was healed after being prayed for, would give God the glory for their healing?

Not from any of the Pentecostal frauds that I knew back in the day. Or Sid Roth either.
The tongues I heard were a joke, a fraud, a bizarre figment of an addled mind.....sounding exactly like Sid Roth in that video that I posted.
These people are deceived and deceiving others IMO.

 

[cv5]

It would not edify us unless it were interpreted and we heard the interpretation.

Exactly. I will spend my own time, resources and money to obtain a interpretation trust me. All I need is the bona fides. So evasive, so difficult to obtain, any yet so commonplace. How Quixotic? How ironic? How absurd?

 

[cv5]

Translation: You don't speak in tongues.

Just one question. One only. Is Sid Roth speaking in tongues?
Yes or No.

 

[jaybird88]

It would not edify us unless it were interpreted and we heard the interpretation.

how are you improved by this?

 

[garee]

Since you are so sure that your definition is valid, please provide two independent references that support it. I've given you one for mine; here are three more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning

https://www.britannica.com/topic/circular-argument

Now, either you are capable of supporting your definition as valid and widely accepted, or you aren't. I won't hold my breath.

Atheism uses circular reasoning .

Not sure about widely excepted as a law of faith. But more the revealing or parables and paradoxes the signified language of God --

Without parables the word of God was not inspired .The meanings hidden, yet obvious . Many I have met say parables are not even prophecy as part of God's perfect unseen law .

Like the parable he who has ears. Obviously not our own hearing but the ears that come as The holy Spirit reveals his will to the churches . Hiding the spiritual understand as a law.

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:Mathew 13:9-14

Circular reasoning is paradoxical thinking,

https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/circular-reasoning/

https://creationministry.org/circular-reasoning/

http://godorabsurdity.blogspot.com/2013/12/circular-reasoning.html

 

[garee]

Just one question. One only. Is Sid Roth speaking in tongues?
Yes or No.

According as he defines tongues yes. But not according to the tongues. The understandable languages of God as he defines it.

Its the difernce bewtween Ugh ?#!; $ and words .Words have meanings already applied to them

 

[cv5]

According as he defines tongues yes. But not according to the tongues. The understandable languages of God as he defines it.

Its the difernce bewtween Ugh ?#!; $ and words .Words have meanings already applied to them

What I meant.....is that incident legitimate, real, bona fide, tongues? Or babbling fraud?

 

[presidente]

Exactly. I will spend my own time, resources and money to obtain a interpretation trust me. All I need is the bona fides. So evasive, so difficult to obtain, any yet so commonplace. How Quixotic? How ironic? How absurd?

There is a gift of interpretation of tongues. Read I Corinthians 12. Paul never said to go find a language expert to interpret the tongues.

I'm not really interested in helping you with your particular quest. If I were going to research such a thing, and I had the time resources and dedication, I might go interview a couple of the people I have interacted with online or one in person who say they have either spoken in tongues that were recognized or heard it. But I've got other proverbial fish to fry, and I'll let y ou do your own research.

 

[cv5]

There is a gift of interpretation of tongues. Read I Corinthians 12. Paul never said to go find a language expert to interpret the tongues.

I'm not really interested in helping you with your particular quest. If I were going to research such a thing, and I had the time resources and dedication, I might go interview a couple of the people I have interacted with online or one in person who say they have either spoken in tongues that were recognized or heard it. But I've got other proverbial fish to fry, and I'll let y ou do your own research.

Paul never said to go find a language expert to interpret the tongues.
He didn't say don't go and do so either. Verification would be a great benefit to the world of unbelievers as well as the Church IMO.

I'm not really interested in helping you with your particular quest.
You would think that Pentecostals would be chomping at the bit to support their view, voluminously, vigorously, vociferously. Believe me I would in their shoes.

Thus far....nothing but evasion and obfuscation IMO.

 

[Sketch]

Just one question. One only. Is Sid Roth speaking in tongues?
Yes or No.

When Jesus told his diciples that they would be fishers of men, I don't think he meant trolling.

 

[Waggles]

http://www.revivalcentresofpng.org/

 

[cv5]

When Jesus told his diciples that they would be fishers of men, I don't think he meant trolling.

Just the facts please. Not shucking and jiving and tapdancing around the truth. Or guilt trips either.

 

[Sketch]

Just the facts please. Not shucking and jiving and tapdancing around the truth. Or guilt trips either.

I am now officially asking you to leave me alone.

 

[Dino246]

Atheism uses circular reasoning .

...

Circular reasoning is paradoxical thinking,

https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/circular-reasoning/

https://creationministry.org/circular-reasoning/

http://godorabsurdity.blogspot.com/2013/12/circular-reasoning.html

/QUOTE]
Not a single one of your reference links supports "circular reasoning" as you have been (mis)using the term. In fact, none of them define it! The first just discusses the only valid form of circular reasoning. The second and third both support the definition I advanced. None of them define or even suggest that the meaning is "paradoxical thinking". Circular reasoning is not and has nothing to do with paradoxical thinking.

In a nutshell, circular reasoning is presenting an assertion and using that assertion to prove itself. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with 'arguments going round and round" and it is employed by Christians and non-Christians alike. Circular reasoning has no inherent spiritual attachment; it is neutral.

You have repeatedly presently your view on circular reasoning as though it has something to do with atheism. Your argument fails miserably because neither fallacies nor laws of logic are not atheistic in nature. Plus, I'm not an atheist! I'm a Christian who understands logic... I use the brain God gave me to think through arguments and find the flaws in them. If you actually read through the articles you cited, and checked the links, you would find Dr. Jason Lisle's defense of the laws of logic. He's a Christian too, and credits God as the source of the laws of logic.

So, the next time someone introduces a term unfamiliar to you, find out what it actually means instead of making up a definition for it and arguing from that basis.