TONGUES false teaching.
- Thread starter Major
- 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.
S
Ah the demons have now been suggested. I suggest that those who oppose the gifts and the teaching of the Holy Spirit as He walks us through the word, are the ones troubled by demons.
The denial of what the Bible plainly teaches is the incoherent mumbling and a farce. Just as the gifts can be and are abused, so also are those who believe they have the gift of teaching when what they really do, is to spread a false gospel and preach the doctrines of demons. That is what scripture calls it anyway.
The denial of what the Bible plainly teaches is the incoherent mumbling and a farce. Just as the gifts can be and are abused, so also are those who believe they have the gift of teaching when what they really do, is to spread a false gospel and preach the doctrines of demons. That is what scripture calls it anyway.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
K
I've told this before but worth another telling. Years ago when I was in ministry, we traveled in all denominations, we had a friend join us to play bass guitar. He was dead set against tongues and attended a church that felt the same way. One morning we were in a church where someone spoke out in tongues and another gave the interpretation. When the service was over and we went out to eat we all were worried about his reaction. We began to try and explain and he stopped us and said " I knew". Then he said when he heard the tongues, he knew what the interpretation would be before it was given. Needless to say we were all surprised. He continued to travel with us a few years. I don't know whether he ever looked deeper into the issue but every time I heard people talking about tongues he would tell the story of that morning. It certainly changed his mind.
-
2
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Pentecostalism is a movement, and there are a number of Pentecostal denominations. There is some variety in how Pentecostal churches handle speaking in tongues. There are churches where everyone speaks in tongues at the same time. In some of the churches, everyone prays in English at the same time. This seems to be more common-praying at the same time-- in denominations that have roots in the Holiness movement in the Southeast or the Appalachian mountains.
There are other Pentecostal churches in which one person speaks in tongues, directed to the congregation, and someone else interprets. Some churches teach against preaching in tongues 'en masse' like that without interpretation.
Some Pentecostals argue that the instructions Paul gives in I Corinthians 14:27-28 are about a message in tongues directed at the congregation, not prayer. That does not make much sense to me as I Corinthians 14 treats tongues for prayer and interpreted tongues as the same phenomenon.
Speaking in tongues is speaking in tongues whether those present understand it or not. The scenario Paul addressed was speaking in tongues in the congregation where those present do NOT understand the language.
I Corinthians 14
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.
Arguing that speaking in tongues is not real unless people present understand contradicts I Corinthians 14. Both scenarios can happen.
Most US Pentecostal churches have some sort of historical connection to Azusa Street. There were at least three Pentecostal revivals going on at the same time at the start of the movement. One was in India and is written up in the Azusa Street newsletter. There are many accounts in this newsletter __The Apostolic Faith___ of people hearing speaking in tongues and recognizing it as their own language or people speaking in tongues and others identifying the language, for example Armenian or a Canadian first nation's language. Prior to that in 1901, Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues and others identified the language as Bohemian. There are also cases of people recognizing both the tongue and confirming the interpretation. Val Dez wrote about this happening at Azusa Street in 'Fire on Azusa Street.' The Comforter Has Come tells of someone recognizing a message in 'tongues' at Azusa Street. One of the recently deceased professor Vincent Synan's interviews in the 1960's or '70's with individuals who were children at the revival shows a woman saying that what drew so many people to the revival were other people hearing their own languages there, Japanese, etc.
I have interacted with a number of people, online and in person, who either heard speaking in tongues in their own language or had a tongue they spoke identified as a foreign language someone else' knew.
Historically, the idea of speaking in an actual language is a Pentecostal belief, and it still is.
Paul suggests the possibility of speaking in tongues of men and of angels in I Corinthians 13:1.
That's not what 'unknown' means in that verse, and I do not know of any Pentecostals who tried to argue that the italicised KJV addition 'unknown' means that. This is a straw man. If you are going to disagree with a group, address their real arguments instead of making some up.
Who says that? Sometimes two people get the same interpretation. I have never interpreted tongues in the congregation, but I can think of three people who have talked about getting the interpretation someone else got, but the other person gave it first. The same thing happens with prophecies. I've gotten words of knowledge about people that someone else prophesied soon thereafter.
I know of no Pentecostals who teach that only one person will ever be able to interpret in a congregation. Again, please desist with the straw man arguments. Engage with what people really teach and believe. If someone went to a Pentecostal church and told you these things, they aren't representative of the movement.
Is there a reason you quoted this devoid of context? Let us look at verses before it.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
Paul was writing about praying in tongues, specifically giving thanks in tongues. He said he spoke in tongues more than them all, but in the church he would rather speak five words wiht the understanding than 10,000 in an unknown tongues.
Let's look at the overarching message in the passage. Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians that only the speaker is edified if he speaks in tongues unless the messages is interpreted, because other people in the church need to understand to be edified. In church, all things are to be done unto edifying (v. 26.) Then he gives instructions requiring interpretation of tongues (v. 27-28.)
He's leading up to instructions on how tongues are to be used in church. This passage encourages participants in a church meeting to sing, teach, speak in tongues, interpret tongues, and give prophesyings in a way that edifies other members of the body of Christ. Btw, does that description of a Biblical church meeting look like a church meeting you would want to attend? When Paul writes, 'Let all things be done decently and in order.', he is writing about this verse 'charismatic' order in which someone in the assembly can speak in tongues and another may interpret, which allows for prophesying and has a prophet be quiet if another receives a revelation, a meeting in which 'ye may all prophesy one by one.'
Speaking in tongues does not necessarily have to be more emotional than speaking in one's native language. Some people pray or preach in English rather emotionally. The Bible does not forbid that. There are times when it is appropriate to mourn or rejoice.
There are other Pentecostal churches in which one person speaks in tongues, directed to the congregation, and someone else interprets. Some churches teach against preaching in tongues 'en masse' like that without interpretation.
Some Pentecostals argue that the instructions Paul gives in I Corinthians 14:27-28 are about a message in tongues directed at the congregation, not prayer. That does not make much sense to me as I Corinthians 14 treats tongues for prayer and interpreted tongues as the same phenomenon.
Speaking in tongues is speaking in tongues whether those present understand it or not. The scenario Paul addressed was speaking in tongues in the congregation where those present do NOT understand the language.
I Corinthians 14
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.
Arguing that speaking in tongues is not real unless people present understand contradicts I Corinthians 14. Both scenarios can happen.
Most US Pentecostal churches have some sort of historical connection to Azusa Street. There were at least three Pentecostal revivals going on at the same time at the start of the movement. One was in India and is written up in the Azusa Street newsletter. There are many accounts in this newsletter __The Apostolic Faith___ of people hearing speaking in tongues and recognizing it as their own language or people speaking in tongues and others identifying the language, for example Armenian or a Canadian first nation's language. Prior to that in 1901, Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues and others identified the language as Bohemian. There are also cases of people recognizing both the tongue and confirming the interpretation. Val Dez wrote about this happening at Azusa Street in 'Fire on Azusa Street.' The Comforter Has Come tells of someone recognizing a message in 'tongues' at Azusa Street. One of the recently deceased professor Vincent Synan's interviews in the 1960's or '70's with individuals who were children at the revival shows a woman saying that what drew so many people to the revival were other people hearing their own languages there, Japanese, etc.
I have interacted with a number of people, online and in person, who either heard speaking in tongues in their own language or had a tongue they spoke identified as a foreign language someone else' knew.
Historically, the idea of speaking in an actual language is a Pentecostal belief, and it still is.
Paul suggests the possibility of speaking in tongues of men and of angels in I Corinthians 13:1.
That's not what 'unknown' means in that verse, and I do not know of any Pentecostals who tried to argue that the italicised KJV addition 'unknown' means that. This is a straw man. If you are going to disagree with a group, address their real arguments instead of making some up.
Who says that? Sometimes two people get the same interpretation. I have never interpreted tongues in the congregation, but I can think of three people who have talked about getting the interpretation someone else got, but the other person gave it first. The same thing happens with prophecies. I've gotten words of knowledge about people that someone else prophesied soon thereafter.
I know of no Pentecostals who teach that only one person will ever be able to interpret in a congregation. Again, please desist with the straw man arguments. Engage with what people really teach and believe. If someone went to a Pentecostal church and told you these things, they aren't representative of the movement.
Is there a reason you quoted this devoid of context? Let us look at verses before it.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
Paul was writing about praying in tongues, specifically giving thanks in tongues. He said he spoke in tongues more than them all, but in the church he would rather speak five words wiht the understanding than 10,000 in an unknown tongues.
Let's look at the overarching message in the passage. Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians that only the speaker is edified if he speaks in tongues unless the messages is interpreted, because other people in the church need to understand to be edified. In church, all things are to be done unto edifying (v. 26.) Then he gives instructions requiring interpretation of tongues (v. 27-28.)
He's leading up to instructions on how tongues are to be used in church. This passage encourages participants in a church meeting to sing, teach, speak in tongues, interpret tongues, and give prophesyings in a way that edifies other members of the body of Christ. Btw, does that description of a Biblical church meeting look like a church meeting you would want to attend? When Paul writes, 'Let all things be done decently and in order.', he is writing about this verse 'charismatic' order in which someone in the assembly can speak in tongues and another may interpret, which allows for prophesying and has a prophet be quiet if another receives a revelation, a meeting in which 'ye may all prophesy one by one.'
Speaking in tongues does not necessarily have to be more emotional than speaking in one's native language. Some people pray or preach in English rather emotionally. The Bible does not forbid that. There are times when it is appropriate to mourn or rejoice.
These are likely only very superficial similarities. There was a paranormal article about someone doing some forbidden ritual who allegedly spoke in a recognized foreign language. Demons may be able to imitate even genuine xenoglossic glossalalia.
That is a theory based on some loose evidence, but Plutarch worked there as a priest in the first century, and he defended the oracle for speaking in regular prose rather than the high poetry some of the visitors expected. This argues against those who would argue that the idea of some sort of pagan gibberish was used there at the time.
Yes, but in I Corinthians 14, it is a language which no one present represents. A tongue is a tongue whether others present understand or those present do not understand and it has to be interpreted by a gift of interpretation to edify the congregation. Paul's instructions for church meetings seem to rely on the assumption that those present will not understand without interpretation (I Corinthians 14:27-28.)
They mean that to whom? The difference between prophecy and prophesy is that the former is a noun and the latter is a verb. Then there is a 'secular' definition where both refer to predictions, and a more Biblical understanding which allows for spiritual utterances.
Do you think Gentile nations are required to stone false prophets this day and age? What about adulterers and those who engage in male same-sex sex acts? Do you specifically feel obligated to perform the stoning yourself? Has that gotten you into any trouble with the law?
That is a theory based on some loose evidence, but Plutarch worked there as a priest in the first century, and he defended the oracle for speaking in regular prose rather than the high poetry some of the visitors expected. This argues against those who would argue that the idea of some sort of pagan gibberish was used there at the time.
Yes, but in I Corinthians 14, it is a language which no one present represents. A tongue is a tongue whether others present understand or those present do not understand and it has to be interpreted by a gift of interpretation to edify the congregation. Paul's instructions for church meetings seem to rely on the assumption that those present will not understand without interpretation (I Corinthians 14:27-28.)
They mean that to whom? The difference between prophecy and prophesy is that the former is a noun and the latter is a verb. Then there is a 'secular' definition where both refer to predictions, and a more Biblical understanding which allows for spiritual utterances.
Do you think Gentile nations are required to stone false prophets this day and age? What about adulterers and those who engage in male same-sex sex acts? Do you specifically feel obligated to perform the stoning yourself? Has that gotten you into any trouble with the law?
What exactly is your question? I also notice that Annanias was a disciple. He went to Saul of Tarsus that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. He laid hands on Saul of Tarsus, and there is no record of anyone else doing so. I Corinthians 14:13 may indicate that one may receive a gift in response to prayer.
This is in James, which might be a very early epistle.
I grew up in Pentecostal churches, and the pastors frequently anoint the sick with oil. The one difference is that usually when I saw it, they'd invite people up for prayer and anoint them when they prayed for those who were sick. But my understanding is when they are called for, they do this in hospital rooms if 'call for the elders of the church' is the issue that you are concerned with.
I hear some Baptists also anoint the sick with oil. I am not sure how widespread that is, but I think it was practiced fairly early on in the colonial New Light Baptist movement in the Sandy Creek/Shubel Stearns era or soon thereafter if memory serves me correctly.
The Bible also mentions laying hands on this. Pentecostals do this also.
-
1
- Show all
How did you miss my points? I didn't say whether or not these things are natural, supernatural, demonic, psychotic or chemically induced for sure or not. I tried to make it absolutely clear that the tern speaking in tongues has different meanings to different people and often it's difficult to distinguish all of the possible causes. Only the gift of discernment that also comes from the Holy Spirit can possibly know and share the difference, Discernment is another Gift of the Holy Spirit. People that dont have it can easily be deceived or think that we're either phonies or nuts. Hasn't anyone ever declined going to church with you for that reason?
S
"If" I am not mistaken, isn't that the only reference to 'tongues of angels' in the Bible? I have seen (or heard) some people, including pastors, run off with that and make a doctrine out of it and I don't think it is. A doctrine.
Paul did alot of teaching on tongues (obviously not all in letter form as we have it) so who knows
He also wrote that people were familiar with the wiles of the devil. Gee Paul. Couldn't you have said more about that?
Just some thoughts. The dangers of a public forum.
Paul did alot of teaching on tongues (obviously not all in letter form as we have it) so who knows
He also wrote that people were familiar with the wiles of the devil. Gee Paul. Couldn't you have said more about that?
Just some thoughts. The dangers of a public forum.