Speaking in tongues

[DJ2]

I know that's what you said.


"Modern day tongues" are tongues.


You're repeating yourself.

If you knew that is what I said then you have no excuse.

If you believe modern day tongues are the same as New Testament tongues give the scriptual and physical evidence basis.

It is your claim. Show your hand or fold.

 

[Dino246]

We are all influenced by personal experiences.
There are a lot of Pentecostal people in my area. They like to call themselves FULL GOSPEL churches. Just a way of saying that those who do not teach and practice speaking in tongues are less than they are.
Years ago there was even a group that called themselves FULL GOSPEL BAPTIST. Did not last long.
Each and every one of these different groups (over 20) that I have spoken with over the last 50 years believe that speaking in tongues is proof of salvation and anyone who does not is lost a Hell bound.
These people put more importance on calling attention to their perceived holiness as evidenced by their speaking in tongues than anything else.
This is my experience. This is why I have so much trouble with those who constantly preach tongues.

With that experience I would probably share your perspective. My experience is quite different. I have never attended a church where "speaking in tongues" was encouraged and considered the proof of salvation. I have attended churches that believed that speaking in tongues was one gift among many. I have never interacted with someone who spoke in tongues and called attention to their perceived holiness for doing so, nor with anyone who considered others inferior for not speaking in tongues.

Further, those who "constantly preach tongues" in a discussion thread about tongues can hardly be judged on that issue. I could assume that, for example, John146 "constantly preaches KJV-only" when in fact he may discuss many issues... but I happen to have only seen his posts lauding the KJV.

 

[garee]

No one wrote this.

"Well how else could a person confirm they have the Holy Spirit as some sort of a outward "sign gift"? Where do you find the two words sign and gift working together to mean Charismaticism ? Does the kingdom come by observation

Or is there no such thing as a sign gift to give a person some kind of confidence God is working in them? Is not a new desire coming from a new spirit and new heart to do the will of God enough?

 

[Dino246]

If you knew that is what I said then you have no excuse.

If you believe modern day tongues are the same as New Testament tongues give the scriptual and physical evidence basis.

It is your claim. Show your hand or fold.

It is utterly ridiculous to demand physical evidence for sounds produced two thousand years ago... unless you're willing to lend your time machine for the purpose, that is.

 

[SpoonJuly]

With that experience I would probably share your perspective. My experience is quite different. I have never attended a church where "speaking in tongues" was encouraged and considered the proof of salvation. I have attended churches that believed that speaking in tongues was one gift among many. I have never interacted with someone who spoke in tongues and called attention to their perceived holiness for doing so, nor with anyone who considered others inferior for not speaking in tongues.

Further, those who "constantly preach tongues" in a discussion thread about tongues can hardly be judged on that issue. I could assume that, for example, John146 "constantly preaches KJV-only" when in fact he may discuss many issues... but I happen to have only seen his posts lauding the KJV.

I have attended some of these meetings in the past.
The preachers were like a cheerleader at a football game.
Their who purpose was to get the whole congregation to work themselves up to the point that all were SPEAKING IN TONGUES.
I often wonder how they think such glorifies God?

 

[Dino246]

"Well how else could a person confirm they have the Holy Spirit as some sort of a outward "sign gift"? Where do you find the two words sign and gift working together to mean Charismaticism ? Does the kingdom come by observation

Or is there no such thing as a sign gift to give a person some kind of confidence God is working in them? Is not a new desire coming from a new spirit and new heart to do the will of God enough?

The term "sign gift" has several meanings. It may mean, "a manifestation for the purpose of attesting to a truth" as in Jesus' healing of the lame man attesting His authority to forgive sins. It may mean, "a manifestation that produces an sense-able event" such as a healing or other miracle. Scripture does not identify any particular gift of the Holy Spirit as a "sign gift" but that does not preclude using the term as a general category to distinguish is from other forms of gifts such as helps or administration.

 

[Dino246]

I have attended some of these meetings in the past.
The preachers were like a cheerleader at a football game.
Their who purpose was to get the whole congregation to work themselves up to the point that all were SPEAKING IN TONGUES.
I often wonder how they think such glorifies God?

I've been at this kind of meeting too. I recall one observer labeling the speaker as a charlatan. In retrospect, I fully agree. However, I would suggest that the character and practices of charlatans do not, by themselves, make the scriptural validity of "speaking in tongues" false. There is more to be considered. Itchy ears seek tickling, and empty bellies seek nourishment, but neither "speaking in tongues" nor food are therefore suspicious. The charlatans are just providing "junk food" that feeds the flesh.

 

[DJ2]

It is utterly ridiculous to demand physical evidence for sounds produced two thousand years ago... unless you're willing to lend your time machine for the purpose, that is.

New Testament tongues were not simply "sounds" but a physical supernatural experience that led few to doubt its vaildity unlike modern day tongues which is indistingusihable from babble.

 

[DJ2]

I've been at this kind of meeting too. I recall one observer labeling the speaker as a charlatan. In retrospect, I fully agree. However, I would suggest that the character and practices of charlatans do not, by themselves, make the scriptural validity of "speaking in tongues" false. There is more to be considered. Itchy ears seek tickling, and empty bellies seek nourishment, but neither "speaking in tongues" nor food are therefore suspicious. The charlatans are just providing "junk food" that feeds the flesh.

Regardless of how many charlatans are out there, where is the real New Testament tongues being spoken? Is their roof full of holes?
Give me the name of the church that is doing this and the names of the roofers.

 

[garee]

I know that's what you said.


"Modern day tongues" are tongues.


You're repeating yourself.

Modern days tongues today as a diversity of known language is accomplished by a electronic deivce as a real time translator used between two different languages . When two people get to together of different languages using that device neither will be a Barbarians to the other.... like a reversal of the tower of Babel.

There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.1 Corinthians 14:10-11

The gospel is a two way stret a mutual gift that works in both, the hearer and the speaker, or speaker and the hearer .Mutually edifying God who does the all the work.

The new device today is all we have. Other then people going to school to learn other languages. I think God alone knows all the langue's of the world some people know a few like 7 or so if there memories serve them .

Because new revelations, as prophecy a has ceased, ….tongues God's interpretation (inspiration) in many languages other than the Hebrew alone have also ceased.

Why go above that which is written and ignore the warning not to?

 

[Dino246]

Regardless of how many charlatans are out there, where is the real New Testament tongues being spoken? Is their roof full of holes?
Give me the name of the church that is doing this and the names of the roofers.

First, you're mixing unrelated metaphors. Second, since you have an a priori belief that modern "tongues" aren't genuine, giving you locations is a waste of time.

 

[Noose]

You are insisting that one particularly limited sense of "diverse" is the only possible sense. If I read the term, "diversity of tongues" in any context, I would interpret it as "many different languages", not "broad vocabulary and well-developed syntactical structure within one language". I suspect most people would do the same.

You can not classify things that you don't understand. The sounds that babies produce; can you call them diverse?

 

[Dino246]

...
Because new revelations, as prophecy a has ceased, ….tongues God's interpretation (inspiration) in many languages other than the Hebrew alone have also ceased.

Why go above that which is written and ignore the warning not to?

You go "above" that which is written, by ignoring what is plainly stated in 1 Corinthians 14:5. Paul writes, "I wish that you all prophesied". You equate prophesying with producing new Scripture; that is demonstrably invalid. Saul prophesied among the prophets. His words are not Scripture. Their words are not Scripture. Philip's four daughters prophesied. Their words are not Scripture. The two are simply not synonymous.

 

[notuptome]

No just you have the unwillingness so say what ever christian would say when asked that question, you are the one who dodged it not me; I answered it . I'm sure you are in harmony that was not the question. I'm not trying to demonstrate you are in error , I just asked question that I have asked many people over the years . I have been saved since I was 15 and called to the minster at 16 . went to Bible school at 19, study under many great men and women I am a life long learner , and yes I have be wrong and have been corrected. And I thank God for it. You could not say that , that is not a judgement that is a fact. And No I would not care to listen to a person who is unwilling to say they never have been corrected ever in their understanding of the bible. Great men and women in the word of God were corrected. You who are spiritual restore one weak in the faith, that word spiritual means mature .
were done

I've been saved and in the same church for over 40 years. I have been subjected to fundamentalist teaching over that time period. We have had speakers from around the world come and speak to us. Some great evangelists, some great missionaries and some great Christian educators. None of them brought to us faulty teaching and we have avoided modernism.

I applaud you being a life long learner but it does not excuse your error regarding tongues in the modern church. As long as you are sound on your soteriology we can have fellowship but we will not agree on tongues.

I recognize that only God in His mercy can correct you. I have learned or been corrected not to brow beat those with whom I have doctrinal differences.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Dino246]

You can not classify things that you don't understand. The sounds that babies produce; can you call them diverse?

That's another ridiculous assertion. I can tell that the sounds produced when one person "speaks in tongues" are essentially different than the sounds produced when a different person "speaks in tongues", just as I can tell that Finnish sounds very different than Farsi or Tagalog, though I don't understand any of the three. I don't need to understand the language to recognize "diversity".

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I believe that God gifts men to His service in todays church. Eph 4:11 would be a confirmation of the same.

Great idea but scripture is what has caused to confirming signs of tongues to cease. The authority of the speaker is now in the bible and no longer dependent upon the man. Apostles and prophets needed to demonstrate their authority in the early church.

Scripture in 1Cor does say that the sign of tongues is for unbelievers. Scripture also says that it is Jews that seek signs and not Gentiles. So yes it is in scripture. It just doesn't suit your narrative.

It's ok because I won't accuse you of not being saved like some would do to me as a non tongues speaker.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

tongues are one of the gifts that are both for a sign and also for the church

you refusal to acknowledge this does not cancel out scripture

I know you insist that tongues were only for the Jews, but we all know that is not in the Bible but you add it for your own convenience to excuse your lack of belief

I've never said anyone who did not speak in tongues was not saved

and you most likely know that

scripture does not say that so I would not say it either

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Thanks for letting us know where you and your Revival Fellowship stand--------
If we do not speak in tongues we are going to Hell.

and here is a fine example of why threads go south

kindly show us who stated that if you do not speak in tongues you go to hell

in this thread, who said that?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Are you going to endeavor to correct me? Perhaps reveal to me some great doctrinal error?

I have bounced some things off of men that I trust to verify or gain greater insight into but actual error? I'm pretty cautious about what I believe. I rely upon Gods word and the Holy Spirit to guide me. To date the Holy Spirit has not failed me.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

that's pretty funny Roger, coming from you, while you run around on every thread about tongues (there are too many and the other gifts sadly neglected) correcting EVERYONE who says they do speak in tongues

do you hear yourself? LOL!

 

[7seasrekeyed]

So you want to judge me? Well if you demonstrate from Gods word that I am in error I would be only too happy to receive the correction. Subjective interpretation will not serve as evidence that I am not in harmony with Gods teaching.

Peter was not wrong doctrinally only in some sanctification items.

Some here believe that tongues are of such magnitude that if you do not speak in tongues you are not saved. Perhaps you could devote some teaching on why that is incorrect. My teaching would obviously biased. LOL

For the cause of Christ
Roger

you know, people make this claim, but I have never seen anyone on this board say they believed that

that would be an extreme focus on tongues and the focus of scripture is not tongues

and plenty has been said in this forum about why that view is not correrct

you must have a 'handbook' of objections that you co-authored

I'm not picking on you, just catching up in the thread

 

[7seasrekeyed]

"Well how else could a person confirm they have the Holy Spirit as some sort of a outward "sign gift"? Where do you find the two words sign and gift working together to mean Charismaticism ? Does the kingdom come by observation

Or is there no such thing as a sign gift to give a person some kind of confidence God is working in them? Is not a new desire coming from a new spirit and new heart to do the will of God enough?

what?