Born Again Speaking in Tongues

[wolfwint]

if you are looking for your Bible, maybe you left it where you usually put things you do not use often

that would be the book you need to consult

I did sister😀 i did. Thats why i come to this thoughts.

 

[wolfwint]

if you are looking for your Bible, maybe you left it where you usually put things you do not use often

that would be the book you need to consult

And itis not interesting that you cant find this teaching in the early church?
You can find tonguespeaking, but not this pentecostal/ charismatic teaching.

 

[notuptome]

there is only one gospel and those of us who are following Christ here and do speak in tongues and do have various spiritual gifts, have said so countless times while those who apparently are not afraid to lie, continue to accuse us and state ridiculous things that no one has said

One gospel is correct. Spiritual gifts are also correct. Speaking or praying in tongues is not correct. 1 Cor is a letter of correction to a church that was out of order according to the apostle. Todays church wants to act like the church in Corinth and they are no more correct today than those in Corinth in the first century.

Many seek Christ not for truth but for excitement. The sweet token God has given us is His unchanging word. His Spirit leads and guides us into His truth. Truth ought to delight our souls far beyond anything else in this world. The word is how we know the nature and person of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[garee]

Do you realize you're agreeing with someone who isn't even a Christian? What is the sign that is needed for such people?

Do you realize you're agreeing with someone who isn't even a Christian? What is the sign that is needed for such people?

Truth is truth. God can use a unbeliever to bring his gospel truths just as easily as a Atheist .He is not served by human hands as a will

Tongues is one of the many manners God brought prophecy the word of God scripture as it is written. Giving us a cognitive understanding of one that dwell in the heart of new creatures. Or one source of Christian faith coming from God not seen.

Non cognitive would be any ohter source that atempts to bring in information Jesus set the patern in the wilderness when a lying spirit from within the fleshly mind of Jesus attempted to draw the Son of man from the the Father , The father put his words on the lips of the Son of man and all three times said as it is written Experience which is becoming the new gospel is not the validator of unseen spiritual truth. . . . . . . as it is written. . . . . . . alone is.

Colossians 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Ask your self . Where does Christian thought come from ?

 

[garee]

Your response is essentially, "I am innocent because you've done something wrong." Well, I haven't, and you haven't even begun to admit your error, let alone address it.

How about you quote me where I have said anything to support the idea that it is "plainly evident" that I'm "looking for a (sic) alternative source of the faith of God...". Provide the evidence or withdraw the accusation.

In Acts 2, what was spoken? Tongues. Languages (plural!). The message was the gospel; the medium for that message was unlearned languages spoken by the disciples. You've conflated the two. Peter, Paul, James, Stephen, and all the others preached the gospel, not 'the tongue'.

It was not my goal to offend you or play games .Sorry for the mannerism. My hope was to defend that which defends us. It seems you are looking for a alternative source of faith?

You wrote

It's plainly evident that you're wrong, and it's time that you stop playing games with the word of God and start accepting it for what it says instead of adding to it and inventing your own private interpretations.

What is the new tongue that can drive out lying spirits? I say the gospel?

 

[Dino246]

Non cognitive would be any ohter source that atempts to bring in information

That isn't what non-cognitive means... at all. Once again, you are making up a definition for a term with which you are unfamiliar. Just look it up.

 

[Dino246]

It seems you are looking for a alternative source of faith?

Please provide actual quotations of things that I have written that give you that idea.

What is the new tongue that can drive out lying spirits? I say the gospel?

Where do you get the idea that "the new tongue... can drive out lying spirits"?

 

[Dino246]

One gospel is correct. Spiritual gifts are also correct. Speaking or praying in tongues is not correct. 1 Cor is a letter of correction to a church that was out of order according to the apostle. Todays church wants to act like the church in Corinth and they are no more correct today than those in Corinth in the first century.

Many seek Christ not for truth but for excitement. The sweet token God has given us is His unchanging word. His Spirit leads and guides us into His truth. Truth ought to delight our souls far beyond anything else in this world. The word is how we know the nature and person of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

So when Cornelius and his companions spoke in tongues, they were out of order. Hmm... Peter didn't say anything about that. Maybe because it wasn't out of order.

 

[notuptome]

So when Cornelius and his companions spoke in tongues, they were out of order. Hmm... Peter didn't say anything about that. Maybe because it wasn't out of order.

Since Cornelius was not in the church at Corinth you assertion is meritless. Greedy Gentiles at Corinth were abusing the goodness of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[UnderGrace]

Perhaps a bit of a misnomer when you put it the way you do (i.e. 'every human action is cognitive'). It's not my own term, but as I understand it in this sense, it's 'non-cognitive' in that the speaker is not consciously thinking about what sounds s/he is going to produce. So unlike in speaking a real language where (even though it happens in a minutest fraction of a second) one is thinking about the sounds that are going to be produced in a particular utterance (i.e. the brain is in the process of generating 'language'), glossolalia doesn't require that; the sounds are completely random - no real thought (cognitive) process (insofar as producing language) is necessary> hence the term 'non-cognitive' (in the sense that you're not thinking about what you're going to say; there's no real thought process involved in what you're saying - it just happens).

Probably not the best way to explain it, but hope you kind of get the idea.

Yes the "non-cognitive" might be descriptive of the "automaticity" of the behaviour.

The common quality is automaticity, the experience of the activity being performed by itself.

Also,

Unlike people engaged in “attention-focusing tasks” like mindful meditation, people speaking in tongues while being scanned showed decreased cerebral blood flow activity in the prefrontal cortices.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17046214

 

[Dino246]

Since Cornelius was not in the church at Corinth you assertion is meritless. Greedy Gentiles at Corinth were abusing the goodness of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

So it was the church in Corinth that was out of order, not 'speaking in tongues' that was out of order? Consider carefully before answering.

"Greedy Gentiles"? Where do you get that 'meritless' assertion?

 

[Kavik]

Yes the "non-cognitive" might be descriptive of the "automaticity" of the behaviour.

Yes, exactly - you don't consciously think about it or really give it any thought; you just do it.

 

[posthuman]

1. Can the average person be taught to produce free vocalization?​

​

Yes.
Learning to free vocalize is easier than learning to ride a bicycle. As with the bicycle, the practitioner may feel foolish and awkward at first. But practice makes perfect. Moreover, though at first a person may feel self-conscious, after he has learned he may sometimes forget that he is doing it. It is something that he can start or stop at will without difficulty. *8​

One easy way for a person to learn is to pretend that he is speaking a foreign language. He starts speaking, slowly and deliberately producing syllables. Then be speeds up, consciously trying to make it sound like a language would sound. Once he is doing well, he just relaxes and does not worry any longer about what comes out.​

​

*8 Cf. ibid.. pp. 44-149; Pattison, JASA 20:78.​

((quoting this interesting article: https://frame-poythress.org/linguistic-and-sociological-analyses-of-modern-tongues-speaking-their-contributions-and-limitations/))

 

[posthuman]

Perhaps a bit of a misnomer when you put it the way you do (i.e. 'every human action is cognitive'). It's not my own term, but as I understand it in this sense, it's 'non-cognitive' in that the speaker is not consciously thinking about what sounds s/he is going to produce. So unlike in speaking a real language where (even though it happens in a minutest fraction of a second) one is thinking about the sounds that are going to be produced in a particular utterance (i.e. the brain is in the process of generating 'language'), glossolalia doesn't require that; the sounds are completely random - no real thought (cognitive) process (insofar as producing language) is necessary> hence the term 'non-cognitive' (in the sense that you're not thinking about what you're going to say; there's no real thought process involved in what you're saying - it just happens).

Probably not the best way to explain it, but hope you kind of get the idea.

i don't think that's necessarily true. there is glossolalia in which people are, whether consciously or subconsciously, actively trying to imitate the linguistic patterns of real language. ((see my post above this one, for an example))
in that case it would be just as cognitive as someone who speaks a language they do know, which people with a fluency don't actively devote cognitive thought to what words to choose or how to enunciate them; they simply speak with their mind focused on the ideas they are trying to convey, which may be completely non-verbal & non-aural.

 

[garee]

Please provide actual quotations of things that I have written that give you that idea.


Where do you get the idea that "the new tongue... can drive out lying spirits"?

Hi thanks for the reply

I get that idea it would seem by your supporting another opinion of one those who do not answer questions, those who look to experience to confirm something they perform. I am trying to establish the mutual foundation of the tongue doctrine. Its foundation would seem it is all but destroyed in favor of a new experience wonderment gospel. a source of mysticism (not as it is written the true source of Christian faith )

What does the sign represent according to the law established in Isaiah 28 written in 1 Corinthians 14:22-23. It is the law of signs. Sign are for those who believe not, no faith, the rebellious .Prophecy the tongue of God. The Christians one true source of faith. . . for those who believe God through prophecy (not through signs after what the eyes see the temporal. .

If you follow the misunderstanding that tongues are unknown sounds then: boo, peep or eeek could drive out lying spirits. In His name or authority is the word of God. . . the new tongue given to the believer. . the gospel will drive them out.

Mark 16:17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues

Again if it not the new tongue.Then what is that drives them out as that the disciples could not drive out?

 

[garee]

i don't think that's necessarily true. there is glossolalia in which people are, whether consciously or subconsciously, actively trying to imitate the linguistic patterns of real language. ((see my post above this one, for an example))
in that case it would be just as cognitive as someone who speaks a language they do know, which people with a fluency don't actively devote cognitive thought to what words to choose or how to enunciate them; they simply speak with their mind focused on the ideas they are trying to convey, which may be completely non-verbal & non-aural.

In the beginning was the word. not unknown sounds. Words develop speech and communication as a law of understanding. .

I would think there are two possible sources by which we could believe another not seen. as one who brings thoughts into our fleshly minds. Words not sounds brought to our memory that he has taught us, words that give understanding. . One of the promised functions of the Holy Spirit our comforter and teacher..

Words draw pictures of our understanding. Visions that appear by an unknown source are illusions of things not seen. Coming from the imagination of ones hard heart. They can puff oneself up as a wonderment or will worship. . . . voluntary humility to a unknown source. I willed it I did it. ... But in the end they bite like the poison of a false gospel

In Mathew 4 when the father of lies causes a illusion bringing a vision into the mind of Jesus . . . sign as lying wonder . Some call it out of the body or direct a dream .The father strengthened the Son and put the words. . . as it is written. . . three times in the mouth of Jesus . Three denotes the end of the matter. No strong delusion was sent to Jesus to beleive the lie. He confirmed the one source of faith as it is written

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.Colossian2:18-23

 

[Dino246]

Hi thanks for the reply

I get that idea it would seem by your supporting another opinion of one those who do not answer questions, those who look to experience to confirm something they perform. I am trying to establish the mutual foundation of the tongue doctrine. Its foundation would seem it is all but destroyed in favor of a new experience wonderment gospel. a source of mysticism (not as it is written the true source of Christian faith )

What does the sign represent according to the law established in Isaiah 28 written in 1 Corinthians 14:22-23. It is the law of signs. Sign are for those who believe not, no faith, the rebellious .Prophecy the tongue of God. The Christians one true source of faith. . . for those who believe God through prophecy (not through signs after what the eyes see the temporal. .

If you follow the misunderstanding that tongues are unknown sounds then: boo, peep or eeek could drive out lying spirits. In His name or authority is the word of God. . . the new tongue given to the believer. . the gospel will drive them out.

Mark 16:17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues

Again if it not the new tongue.Then what is that drives them out as that the disciples could not drive out?

Once again, you would do well to take a course in basic English grammar. Sometimes it is quite difficult to determine the meaning of your word collections.

I believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are all active today. It's really that simple.

What does the sign represent? That God is at work today!

Regarding the driving out of unclean spirits, the sentence structure precludes your interpretation. It does not say that tongues will cast out devils; rather, it says that the believers will cast out devils.

 

[garee]

Once again, you would do well to take a course in basic English grammar. Sometimes it is quite difficult to determine the meaning of your word collections.

I believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are all active today. It's really that simple.

What does the sign represent? That God is at work today!

Regarding the driving out of unclean spirits, the sentence structure precludes your interpretation. It does not say that tongues will cast out devils; rather, it says that the believers will cast out devils.

Yes they are all active today with what we do have. . . the whole revealed will of God , the perfect law sealed up till the end of time.

Some are looking for a alternative source of faith to confirm something .

I know God is at work. I meant the sign of tongues spoken of in 1 Corinthians 14; 22-23 . the sign of ; yet for the prophecy of the word of God they will not believe in a God not seen . That sign. What does it confirm .

And yes believers cast them out with the new tongue. the gospel . Not by the toe of their sandals . Not like the disciples they tried to cast them out without the gospel .They refused to vacate the premises'.

 

[notuptome]

So it was the church in Corinth that was out of order, not 'speaking in tongues' that was out of order? Consider carefully before answering.

"Greedy Gentiles"? Where do you get that 'meritless' assertion?

Greedy Gentiles ae those who sought not the truth of Gods word but the excitement of miracles and tongues. Babes in Christ carried away with their own earthly passions.

1 Corinthians is clearly a letter of correction to the church at Corinth. They had many issues in the church not the least of which was the man living in sin with his fathers wife and the church tolerating the arrangement. They were making the Lords supper a meal in which folks were getting drunk and perverting the holy elements of the ordinance. This group of believers abused the gifts of the Holy Spirit and were trying to speak in tongues of their own volition and not the moving of the Holy Spirit.

Cornelius had the correct and proper attitude toward God and holiness.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Kavik]

i don't think that's necessarily true. there is glossolalia in which people are, whether consciously or subconsciously, actively trying to imitate the linguistic patterns of real language.

Yes - the way I like to explain it on occasion is that "tongues" are not gibberish - gibberish does not try to mimic real language; glossolalia does.

The "non-cognitive" part of the term "non-cognitive non-language utterance" (NC-NLU) is, as I mentioned, perhaps a bit of a misnomer. I tend to think that the person who coined the term (not me) meant it in the sense that either the speaker isn't really consciously thinking about what s/he is producing, and/or the language producing centers of the brain aren't going to be used all that much in its production (as the often quoted Univ. of Penn. study done several years ago demonstrated). In a way, it's a bit like when you blink your eyes during the normal course of a day; there's no real conscious thought process involved - it's just done. In that sense it can be said to be essentially a "non-cognitive" process. I think that's the gist of the "NC" part of NC-NLU.

I do agree with what you say further above. Yes, definitely - for some 'speakers' it is initially a very cognitive process as they "learn" to speak in 'tongues'. Once they kind of 'get the hang of it', it becomes essentially a non-cognitive (as described above) process.