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.
There were no unsaved Jews present. There was nobody present to hear them in a way that would confirm your position.
That is not the way it is being used in this conversation or in the most common practices of the Pentecostal or charismatic churches. It is used very loosely and not well defined.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
To hear them hear what? Prophecy in their own tongue without a private interpreter? That position?
What would having no unsaved Jew or Italian present have to do with hearing prophecy And the law in regard as a sign to any man who does not hear prophecy and therefore does not believe a invisible God. The unbelieving Jew is used as a sign to the whole world .God is no respecter of persons . God who is a supernatural Spirit is not a man as us as if he was of Jewish origin. Jews had the honor to be used for both those who represent a believer (inward Jew)and the other( outward of the flesh) as those who have no faith and do not believe in a God not seen, God calls them fools or a evil generation. A man must be born again after the incorruptible seed of the word of God prophecy
wrong you are not an authority on Pentecostal doctrine. That is your opinion. The statement of faith by the aog, cogic, and four square directly refute your claim which makes up over 70 million Pentecostals.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're making unsubstantiated assumptions that don't align with the context. First, Scripture doesn't say that Cornelius and the others spoke in "Italian" (more likely Latin). Second, Peter stated that "they spoke in tongues" and referenced that as evidence that they were filled with the Holy Spirit. It's likely that Peter would have recognized Latin, known that Cornelius speaking it was normal, and thought nothing of it. The context indicates that they were speaking in a tongue foreign to the speakers as Peter and the others did at Pentecost. There were no unsaved Jews present, so your repeated assertion that tongues was only a sign to rebellious Jews is absolutely irrelevant.
Irrelevant to this particular case.
If you think CS1's post was "venomous and caustic", then you have very thin skin. If memory serves, you have posted worse.
this seems to be the thing now
what about this? "Oh its to the jews"
what about that? "that was written to jews"
Oy vey! This is new doctrine make no mistake about it, weird stuff. They should pay me for each time that weak sauce argument is used!
No it is the comment of CS1 and not of every Pentecostal. Are the fruit of humanistic doctrine which has crept into the church today? Your issue is you are Pharisees and think your human reasoning is superior to all others. Also, your Bias did not have the ability to have the full context of my comment, that is because you are untruthful too.
I remember how he posted to me in another thread on tongues when I first came here. He has posted worse.
The Holy Spirit took control of everyone that he gave ears to hear what the Spirit was saying. The Jews were hearing what the gentile were saying and vice versa. The hearing of His voice clearly is relevant whenever he speaks
While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit took control of everyone who was listening. Some Jewish followers of the Lord had come with Peter, and they were surprised that the Holy Spirit had been given to Gentiles. Now they were hearing Gentiles speaking unknown languages and praising God. "These Gentiles have been given the Holy Spirit, just as we have! I am certain that no one would dare stop us from baptizing them.” Acts10;44-47
You're overlooking the obvious: there were no unsaved Jews present. The Gentiles spoke in tongues when the Holy Spirit came on them. If tongues are only a sign to rebellious Israelites, then why did the Holy Spirit empower the Gentiles in this situation? They didn't merely speak in their native language(s); that would be unremarkable. Because of this, we can conclude speaking in tongues is not merely a sign against rebellious Jews!
What would hearing prophecy, the word of God have to do with the unsaved .It can work in either ones heart?
The sign (observable) Is that God promised to demonstrate to the world to those who do not believe in a God not seen. He accomplishes the good purpose of His will by using al things written in the law and prophets as the book of one not seen written with the finger of God..
A sign against rebellious Jews or gentiles male or female who rather do whatsoever their own mouths and minds conclude they refuse to believe God as the atheist Jews below
As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.Jerimiah 44:16;17
Th sign which is not observable is others will hear the same words and as a sign believe God not seen, in their newly created hearts .
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 Corinthians 14: 21-22
There were no unsaved people present when Cornelius and the others spoke in tongues. Peter and his companions were saved. Cornelius and his companions were being saved. The Holy Spirit filled them and they spoke in tongues, demonstrating that they were saved. That leaves nobody present who did not believe God's word. There were no "rebellious people" present... at all.
Your argument would make sense if Peter and his companions spoke in tongues prior to Cornelius being saved. The text doesn't say that and doesn't even hint at it. Think it through, in that context: if tongues were a sign for the rebellious, why were they manifested in the absence of the rebellious?
No one is saying there was were unsaved people. it not the point even though the gentiles that were there hold the gospel in their own tongue and believed in a invisible God not seen.
God sent the gentile Cornelius to help Peter understand the a parable hiding the meaning from Peter for that very purpose . There were many people there who could of heard the word and believed
But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.Acts10 :26_27
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For they heard them "speak with tongues", and magnify God. Then answered Peter,Acts10 :44-46
You are saying it. You are saying that "speaking in tongues" is a sign against rebellious Jews. There were no rebellious Jews present to hear Cornelius speak in tongues. Therefore your assertion that the sign is only for that purpose is not valid.
No Garee; God gave Peter the vision of the unclean animals in the sheet to show Peter not to call unclean what God has called clean. God sent Peter to take the gospel to Cornelius, which he would not have done otherwise.
Some of us are capable of repentance. Others unfortunately just become bitter and hateful of Christians. If you hate other Christians you have a problem with the teaching of Jesus.
For the cause of Christ
Roger