Speaking in tongues

[garee]

So QUOTE them. Don't just paraphrase what you think they claim. Quote what they actually write, and respond to that.

Otherwise it's just tilting at the wind.

One poster said....("You need to get out more … the world is full of Holy Spirit revival with baptisms in water and the Spirit along with miracles, healings, and of course people speaking in tongues." ) This was as if the kingdom of God came by observation and not by rightly dividing what the eyes see according to the prescription for mixing faith the eternal things of God......below.

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.2 Corinthians 4:18

They know who they are. They would be the brothers and sisters who I think turn the doctrine of tongues upside down and just love the show of signs and wonders gospel . falling back, making sounds , healing with the touch of the hand etc

The same all who look to widen the authority of the word of God as it is written through some experience they had. Christian walk by faith not after the fleshly experiences of this life as if the kingdom of God did come by observation.

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.2 Corinthians 4:18

It seems to be the direction this topic took off to as soon as the idea of "sign gifts" as some sort of outward evidence of being filled with the Spirit popped up. Many sign seekers were discussing the tongues doctrine without even looking to the foundation in the Old testament and the law being shown worked out (1 Corinthians 14) as a sign that confirmed they were not be filled with the Spirit but filled with a oral tradition of men . . and even after that it seems they held tight to their tradition not desiring to let go therefore making the word of God without effect..

 

[garee]

Some people who do not yet have much faith actually do need a supernatural sign that God is working. I would not begrudge them this miracle.
For example Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes for the hungry crowd. He asked his dsiciples if they could buy them lunch first but they had no money. What would bring more glory to God...that his disciples put on lunch for 5000 with their own money and resources or if they asked God for a miracle?

After that miracle many more believed in Him. yes He may have got people that were only hanging round Jesus for a feed. But it was really do show his doubting disicples that all things are possible with God.

A similar situation happens with tongues. Interestingly it was 5000 people added to the church that day of Pentecost, the same number who ate the loaves and fishes.

I would offer. The supernatural sign is that new creatures can and therefore do believe in a God not seen. It is not of them but did come from the supernatural one. We have the treasure of His power in us but must remember it is not of us. Unless any man boast in false pride.

Signs follow after in order to show the unseen work is finished. Each sign is designed as a metaphor for different parts of the spiritual healing that show the person has believed the gospel .

Giving sight to the blind is a indication the gospel was heard for the blind see and those who claim they see, are blinded by the gospel the same with hearing the deaf hear and those who say they do will be made deaf by the mighty waters of the word. and walking will walk by faith or leprosy... all signs that follow the hearing of faith point to the spiritual healing that have been received.

I think we could say every believer receives the fulness of that healing as new creatures Giving us eyes to see, ears to hear, feet to bring the gospel, helping hand to show our desire of unity.

It would be like planning a trip faithfully to a city considering this or that and as a work of faith the previous plan is put into action arriving in that city .And when leaving a sign follows and informs the person they have left the city limits thankyou for visiting. . The sign that follows does not point ahead as the prophecy, but would point back to the unseen work .

Signs follow prophecy they are not a source of prophecy. Prophecy our one source of faith, as it is written .

 

[Dino246]

One poster said....

WHO?

Please use the "Post Reply" button and actually QUOTE the post so we all know who you're accusing and can verify that the person did, in fact, post the words to which you respond.

Otherwise, it looks like you're just making up statements so you can argue with them.

 

[tanakh]

One main point not often emphasised is that when the Apostles spoke in tongues the people who heard them speak heard their own languages and the countries they came from are listed. It was a sign of the reversal of Gods judgement on the people of Babel a sign of the kingdom that brings humanity together once more under Gods sovereignty.

 

[Absolutely]

"There just isn’t anything in Paul’s letter (or any other place ‘tongues’ are referenced) that does not describe real, rational; language(s) situations."

No argument on that point.

Paul said " i will pray in the spirit,and pray in the understanding"
"I will sing in the spirit,and in the understanding"
"......he that prays in an unknown tongue edifies himself"
"The spirit prays,but the mind is unfruitful"

None of that helps your argument that it MUST BE a known earthly language.
No argument there

 

[Waggles]

WHO?

Garee is quoting me Dino246

One poster said....("You need to get out more … the world is full of Holy Spirit revival with baptisms in water and the Spirit along with miracles, healings, and of course people speaking in tongues." )

 

[Absolutely]

"There just isn’t anything in Paul’s letter (or any other place ‘tongues’ are referenced) that does not describe real, rational; language(s) situations."

No argument on that point.

Paul said " i will pray in the spirit,and pray in the understanding"
"I will sing in the spirit,and in the understanding"
"......he that prays in an unknown tongue edifies himself"
"The spirit prays,but the mind is unfruitful"
None of that points to " it HAS TO be a known language"

 

[cv5]

Paul said " i will pray in the spirit,and pray in the understanding"
"I will sing in the spirit,and in the understanding"
"......he that prays in an unknown tongue edifies himself"
"The spirit prays,but the mind is unfruitful"
None of that points to " it HAS TO be a known language"

Nevertheless, it is not intentionally deceptive gibberish baby blather either.

 

[Kavik]

Paul said " i will pray in the spirit,and pray in the understanding"
"I will sing in the spirit,and in the understanding"
"......he that prays in an unknown tongue edifies himself"
"The spirit prays,but the mind is unfruitful"
None of that points to " it HAS TO be a known language"

Pray/Sing “in the spirit” does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying/singing. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' ("tongues") in connection with this phrase. “Praying (or singing) in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays/sings in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.

I don’t see the first two references as being anything but real language.

Take ‘unknown’ out of there (it’s a later addition) and replace the archaic “tongues” with the more modern “language”. If one prays aloud in a language no one else at the public worship speaks, then yes, the only person benefiting is the one speaking as he’s the only one who understands what he’s saying. It benefits no one else (thus, he is speaking “not to man, but to God” – to everyone else, he’s just uttering ‘mysteries’).

Again, absolutely no reference to anything but real, rational language(s).

“My spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful” – “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as defined above. “Unfruitful” is typically taken in the passive sense (produces no fruit/benefit for me), but I would argue that the meaning here is in the active sense (produces no fruit/benefit for others). The Greek ‘akarpos’ can be taken either way.

Thus, though I’m praying in the Spirit (again, as defined further above), if I pray in a language unknown to others in attendance, my understanding (of what I’m saying), does not benefit anyone else (produces no fruit for others). Indeed, this is not a new concept. Luther’s Bible of the late 1400’s translates the phrase in the active sense as well: (in English) “My understanding brings no one fruit”. Clearly a reference to real, rational language(s).

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with what modern tongues-speakers are doing, it’s just not the same “tongues” (read ‘languages’) as described in the Bible; the former describes non-cognitive non-language utterance (glossolalia/free-vocalization), the later describes real, rational language(s).

 

[cv5]

Pray/Sing “in the spirit” does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying/singing. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' ("tongues") in connection with this phrase. “Praying (or singing) in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays/sings in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.

I don’t see the first two references as being anything but real language.

Take ‘unknown’ out of there (it’s a later addition) and replace the archaic “tongues” with the more modern “language”. If one prays aloud in a language no one else at the public worship speaks, then yes, the only person benefiting is the one speaking as he’s the only one who understands what he’s saying. It benefits no one else (thus, he is speaking “not to man, but to God” – to everyone else, he’s just uttering ‘mysteries’).

Again, absolutely no reference to anything but real, rational language(s).

“My spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful” – “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as defined above. “Unfruitful” is typically taken in the passive sense (produces no fruit/benefit for me), but I would argue that the meaning here is in the active sense (produces no fruit/benefit for others). The Greek ‘akarpos’ can be taken either way.

Thus, though I’m praying in the Spirit (again, as defined further above), if I pray in a language unknown to others in attendance, my understanding (of what I’m saying), does not benefit anyone else (produces no fruit for others). Indeed, this is not a new concept. Luther’s Bible of the late 1400’s translates the phrase in the active sense as well: (in English) “My understanding brings no one fruit”. Clearly a reference to real, rational language(s).

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with what modern tongues-speakers are doing, it’s just not the same “tongues” (read ‘languages’) as described in the Bible; the former describes non-cognitive non-language utterance (glossolalia/free-vocalization), the later describes real, rational language(s).

New Age Liberal Pentecostals are obsessed with tongues, tragically. And erroneously.

 

[Dino246]

New Age Liberal Pentecostals are obsessed with tongues, tragically. And erroneously.

And? Some Christians are thieves, liars, and adulterers. Does that make all Christians such? No. Your statement is the fallacy of guilt by association.

 

[Dino246]

Garee is quoting me Dino246

Thanks Waggles. I'm hoping Garee will learn that he cannot simply make up his own version of what others believe, and respond as though it accurately represent the beliefs of others. By quoting what people actually post and responding directly to it, hopefully his posts will have more relevance, and he will see that his version is not only inconsistent with Scripture, but with the actual beliefs of real people as well.

 

[Absolutely]

Pray/Sing “in the spirit” does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying/singing. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' ("tongues") in connection with this phrase. “Praying (or singing) in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays/sings in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.

I don’t see the first two references as being anything but real language.

Take ‘unknown’ out of there (it’s a later addition) and replace the archaic “tongues” with the more modern “language”. If one prays aloud in a language no one else at the public worship speaks, then yes, the only person benefiting is the one speaking as he’s the only one who understands what he’s saying. It benefits no one else (thus, he is speaking “not to man, but to God” – to everyone else, he’s just uttering ‘mysteries’).

Again, absolutely no reference to anything but real, rational language(s).

“My spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful” – “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as defined above. “Unfruitful” is typically taken in the passive sense (produces no fruit/benefit for me), but I would argue that the meaning here is in the active sense (produces no fruit/benefit for others). The Greek ‘akarpos’ can be taken either way.

Thus, though I’m praying in the Spirit (again, as defined further above), if I pray in a language unknown to others in attendance, my understanding (of what I’m saying), does not benefit anyone else (produces no fruit for others). Indeed, this is not a new concept. Luther’s Bible of the late 1400’s translates the phrase in the active sense as well: (in English) “My understanding brings no one fruit”. Clearly a reference to real, rational language(s).

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with what modern tongues-speakers are doing, it’s just not the same “tongues” (read ‘languages’) as described in the Bible; the former describes non-cognitive non-language utterance (glossolalia/free-vocalization), the later describes real, rational language(s).

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.
That is from 1 cor 14
Now combine my other verses that you misrepresented.
Your 1st paragraph attempts to address singing in the spirit.
You completely leave out " sing with the understanding"
By Leavinging out that CONTRAST, your " explaining" is a new mental inproved. Modification of what is there.

You cant logically make it into something " known" when it is CLEARLY DESCRIBING a heavenly UNKNOWN language.
One you mock. Actually mocking the Holy Spirit.

 

[Absolutely]

Nevertheless, it is not intentionally deceptive gibberish baby blather either.

Nevertheless a bible study proves not anything you have posted.

Those walking in the gifts have CLEAR affirmation of confirmation through Gods word.

 

[garee]

One main point not often emphasised is that when the Apostles spoke in tongues the people who heard them speak heard their own languages and the countries they came from are listed. It was a sign of the reversal of Gods judgement on the people of Babel a sign of the kingdom that brings humanity together once more under Gods sovereignty.

That's a good example. I think we could come up with many signs applications that speak of God prophesying using all the nations of the world to send out the gospel as a sign the time of reformation had come. Male and female, Jew and gentile as one people set aside as his eternal bride.. It was also a sign against those who do not believe in God confirming their unbelief (no faith)

Acts 2:15-17 King James Version (KJV)For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

 

[cv5]

And? Some Christians are thieves, liars, and adulterers. Does that make all Christians such? No. Your statement is the fallacy of guilt by association.

Therefore I will constrain my objections to those who are obsessed with tongues.

 

[Dino246]

Therefore I will constrain my objections to those who are obsessed with tongues.

It is my observation that those who oppose modern tongues are the obsessive ones. And no, I'm not pointing fingers.

 

[Absolutely]

Therefore I will constrain my objections to those who are obsessed with tongues.

I have been in the Lord for 40 years. Always in spirit filled fellowships.
Never seen one person obcessed with tongues.

You obviously have not a clue as to what you are talking about

 

[Kavik]

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.
That is from 1 cor 14
Now combine my other verses that you misrepresented.
Your 1st paragraph attempts to address singing in the spirit.
You completely leave out " sing with the understanding"
By Leavinging out that CONTRAST, your " explaining" is a new mental inproved. Modification of what is there.

You cant logically make it into something " known" when it is CLEARLY DESCRIBING a heavenly UNKNOWN language.

1 Cor. 14 is perhaps the quintessential passage used to ‘proof’ modern tongues.

There just isn’t anything in that passage however that even remotely suggests the speaker does not understand what he’s saying.

To put the phase in a more modern English – “For one who speaks in a language, speaks not to men, but to God; no one understands (or put better, ‘no one hears with understanding’)…..”

One also has to take into consideration the demographic situation in Corinth as well. To postulate modern ‘tongues-speech’ here just doesn’t stand to reason given the context of not only the passage itself, but also the everyday communication situation in Corinth. Modern tongues-speech just isn’t there.

To take a sort of analogy –

If I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything but English is pretty slim to nil.

If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at that particular service. In this sense, therefore, I am speaking only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as previously defined), I’m speaking “mysteries”, just an idiomatic way of saying “we have no clue what he’s saying”.

Any allusion to modern tongues-speech must be intentionally read into the passage; it’s just not there. The crux for tongues-speakers is that “praying in the Spirit” is equated with tongues-speech, thus the only possible way to interpret the passage is that the speaker himself has no clue what he’s saying. If he does, it negates the concept of modern tongues-speech.

The passage 1 Cor. 14:15 referring to singing in the Spirit and with understanding. I would have to say that this only reinforces the more correct definition of praying/singing in the Spirit – it has nothing to do with modern tongues-speech. If I sing in the Spirit (as previously defined), I can certainly sing with understanding (assuming I’m singing in my native language or one that I understand).
Again, there just isn’t any suggestion of modern tongues-speech unless one reads the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic redefinition of “praying/singing in the Spirit” into the passage.

In his entire letter, Paul is only talking about real , rational language(s) – always known to the one(s) speaking it/them, but not always known to those listening to or hearing it/them.

 

[cv5]

It is my observation that those who oppose modern tongues are the obsessive ones. And no, I'm not pointing fingers.

"oppose modern tongues"

On the contrary.....I welcome genuine tongues of the 40AD sort. The "modern" bogus tongues? Not so much. I pine for the sign gift days to be perfectly honest. In fact I wish that I possessed the sign gifts.