Tongues???
- Thread starter 88
- 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.
*****Paul thought it was foolish to speak in tongues as a teaching gift-----the purpose of the Gifts of the Spirit is edification---- pray in tongues personally for edification---tongues could be interpreted which is equal to prophecy for edification...
**** we pray in English----- we pray in tongues---- and we pray with groaning at times too...
Enow wrote,
You should stick with what the Bible says. Saying we all drink of the same Spirit is not the same as saying 'there is no other drink' of the Spirit. Paul says to be filled with the Spirit. The implication is that it is possible for a believer not to be filled. If that were not the case, what would be the purpose of the instruction to be filled with the Spirit in Ephesians.
You are twisting scripture to support your own doctrine. We can all read it and see it does not say what you assert.
I've heard some songs about asking people to fall. I don't know if I've ever heard anyone actually teach you get filled with the Spirit by asking the Holy Spirit to fill you. For the most part, I think this is another straw man argument as far as I'm concerned. If you find someone who disgrees with you on that particular point.
You also make unrighteous judgment. Apostacy is falling away from the faith. If you think Pentecostals are wrong about a second baptism, why is their idea apostacy and not all these ideas of yours that contradict the scriptures?
I used to be on a discussion list with a Classics professor, a field of study which includes Greek and Latin. He had a PhD and was a chair at one point at a state university before he retired.
His stance on this is that 'two or at the most three' does not refer to the number of speakers since the verse is about one ('tis') speaking in tongues, and one person does not suddenly become two or three people when he speaks in tongues. If I understood him right, he took it to refer to the number of utterances from a single individual.
The interpretation I heard in the A/G/ had to do with two or three speakers in tongues in a church meeting. I do not necessarily agree with that. But I don't think I've ever encountered your interpretation. Do you have any examples of commentators who read Greek who agree with that?
I'm not following you. Tongues about breaking up with a prom date? Taking a recording of those tongues? I wasn't aware that the Corinthians had prom dates or recording devices. Why would Paul be writing about tongues that would tell people to break up with their prom date? Why would his instructions have anything to do with recording devices if they didn't have them? I don't see how your ideas here have much to do with what the Bible teaches, and I don't really follow exactly how it is supposed to support what you said earlier.
Btw, where you go to church, does the preacher preach on who you are supposed to go to the prom with? I've never heard an interpretation of tongues that dealt with such a topic. Usually they are more focused on Biblical truths.
You are contradicting I Corinthians 14:5 and 13.
Verse 13 says for the one who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret.
You should stick with what the Bible says. Saying we all drink of the same Spirit is not the same as saying 'there is no other drink' of the Spirit. Paul says to be filled with the Spirit. The implication is that it is possible for a believer not to be filled. If that were not the case, what would be the purpose of the instruction to be filled with the Spirit in Ephesians.
You are twisting scripture to support your own doctrine. We can all read it and see it does not say what you assert.
I've heard some songs about asking people to fall. I don't know if I've ever heard anyone actually teach you get filled with the Spirit by asking the Holy Spirit to fill you. For the most part, I think this is another straw man argument as far as I'm concerned. If you find someone who disgrees with you on that particular point.
You also make unrighteous judgment. Apostacy is falling away from the faith. If you think Pentecostals are wrong about a second baptism, why is their idea apostacy and not all these ideas of yours that contradict the scriptures?
I used to be on a discussion list with a Classics professor, a field of study which includes Greek and Latin. He had a PhD and was a chair at one point at a state university before he retired.
His stance on this is that 'two or at the most three' does not refer to the number of speakers since the verse is about one ('tis') speaking in tongues, and one person does not suddenly become two or three people when he speaks in tongues. If I understood him right, he took it to refer to the number of utterances from a single individual.
The interpretation I heard in the A/G/ had to do with two or three speakers in tongues in a church meeting. I do not necessarily agree with that. But I don't think I've ever encountered your interpretation. Do you have any examples of commentators who read Greek who agree with that?
I'm not following you. Tongues about breaking up with a prom date? Taking a recording of those tongues? I wasn't aware that the Corinthians had prom dates or recording devices. Why would Paul be writing about tongues that would tell people to break up with their prom date? Why would his instructions have anything to do with recording devices if they didn't have them? I don't see how your ideas here have much to do with what the Bible teaches, and I don't really follow exactly how it is supposed to support what you said earlier.
Btw, where you go to church, does the preacher preach on who you are supposed to go to the prom with? I've never heard an interpretation of tongues that dealt with such a topic. Usually they are more focused on Biblical truths.
You are contradicting I Corinthians 14:5 and 13.
Verse 13 says for the one who speaks in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret.
Last edited:
I don't think I've ever heard anyone preach that tongues are a 'sign' that someone is filled with the Holy Spirit. I might have read a Oneness follower write something like that on FidoNet in the 1980's.
Do you think Peter and John were wrong to lay hands on those who had already believed the Gospel for them to receive the Holy Ghost in Acts 8? Do you think it was wrong for Paul to lay hands on about 12 men in Acts 19 who had already believed the Gospel and who had already been baptized, albeit recently?
Do you think Paul was preaching a false Gospel when he told the Ephesians to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Do you think the Holy Spirit he told them to be filled with was a different Spirit from the One by which they had been sealed as described in earlier in the book?
Your thinking is not in line with scripture on this issue.
Why do you say this? Do you not believe? Have you not faith? Or is it that you have not been taught how to speak what God has given the Born again saints which he has given them that ask, have you not ask of the father to receive this?
I may have misunderstood what you were saying but in other christian forums not of this site, a woman did say that, and so it is possible that some may say the same thing at this site. I read your words as meaning that, and so obviously, you were not clear in your statement. Thank you for the clarification as I am glad you are not saying that.
I am calling you out on that one by how you are judging here. John 16:13 in all Bibles testify that the Holy Spirit cannot speak His own words to utter or speak His own intercessions. That is why in the KJV, itself is used because He is not giving those intercessions of His by Himself, because He cannot utter then when they are unspeakable; hence "with groaning which cannot be uttered" in Romans 8:26. That is why in verse 27, we read of Another that knows the mind of the Spirit as well as searches our hearts as He intercedes for the saints in according to the will of God of there being only one Mediator between God and man ( 1 Timothy 2:5 ) wherein Christ gives the unspeakable intercessions of the Spirit's, our intercessions, and Christ's own intercessions for us at that throne of grace so that when the Father says "Yes" to any of those intercessions, the Son answers the prayer so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answered prayers and received thanksgiving in Jesus's name for answered prayers.
Since the Holy Spirit speaks what He hears, it is your reading of the other parts of scripture that is not lining up with scripture. All modern Bibles have translated wrong in Romans 8:26-27 because it goes against John 16:13 in those Bibles.
The KJV has it right but because of blindness by the other Bibles, they refuse to see Romans 8:26-27 in the KJV is giving a different message than what all modern Bibles are giving in Romans 8:26-27 even though Romans 8:26-27 of all modern Bibles is going against John 16:13 as written in all those modern Bibles.
So... you say at the beginning of this post that you were not saying that, but now you are?
Scripture does not leave an inch for someone to speak that tongue and conveniently interpret that same tongue at that same moment. No.
...except he interpret by another....
1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]13 [/SUP]Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.[SUP]14 [/SUP]For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.[SUP]15 [/SUP]What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
That "he" is another that interpret. How can we be sure? Look at the guideline in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]27 [/SUP]If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.[SUP]28 [/SUP]But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.[SUP]29 [/SUP]Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
Paul always meant for another person to judge the prophesy and another person to interpret the tongues, because he gave precedent on how the manifestations of the Spirit would be given earlier plainly.
1 Corinthians 12:[SUP]7 [/SUP]But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.[SUP]8 [/SUP]For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;[SUP]9 [/SUP]To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;[SUP]10[/SUP]To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:[SUP]11 [/SUP]But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.[SUP]12 [/SUP]For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.[SUP]13 [/SUP]For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.[SUP]14 [/SUP]For the body is not one member, but many.......
For the Holy Spirit to give tongues and then the interpretation of that tongue given goes against this scripture below;
1 Corinthians 12:[SUP]20 [/SUP]But now are they many members, yet but one body.[SUP]21 [/SUP]And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
That means for someone to speak in tongues and say he can interpret that tongue, he is basically saying I have no need of any one else in the body of Christ for I can interpret my own tongue.
So no.
Oh ho. But tongue speakers are saying, we have another drink of the Holy Spirit to get this tongue ( hence the another baptism of the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues ) OR for those that believe we receive the Holy Spirit with tongues as separate from salvation, then they are claiming they had that drink of the One Spirit over other believers that do not have that drink.
So it is in contrast I say what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 12:13 , especially in relations to spiritual gifts which has the one baptism of the Holy Ghost at our salvation Romans 8:9 ) has nothing to do with believers seeking spiritual gifts when He is already in them.
Who are YOU supposed to pray to for spiritual gifts? Jesus Christ at that throne of grace. Jesus answers prayers.
John 14:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me....[SUP]13 [/SUP]And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.[SUP]14 [/SUP]If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Asking the Holy Spirit to answer by falling on saved believers in bringing tongues or other sensational signs in the flesh like falling down is not the Holy Spirit answering those prayers BECAUSE that is not His JOB !!!!
Climbing up another way around Jesus to the Holy Spirit for that tongue is why it never comes with interpretation but is a stranger's voice.
John 10:1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.[SUP]2 [/SUP]But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.[SUP]3 [/SUP]To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.[SUP]4 [/SUP]And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.[SUP]5 [/SUP]And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
You want to follow that voice? I can't stop you. I can only pray for you.
There are other calls to be sober rather than be drunk with wine that does not call for a continuous filling of the Spirit. Ephesians is a call to remain filled with the fruits of the Spirit rather than sow to the works of the flesh by being drunk with wine.
But.. you are reading your experience and that tongue which comes with no interpretation into scripture, thereby twisting scripture to support your tongue that was in the world before Pentecost had come and to support the other apostate calling that is not of Him.
That is all it takes to lead believers into thinking something that has already happened in the past when they are singing it as if it is currently something a believer is to do, and so when it does happen, no one, not you, nor me, can tell them that was not the Holy Spirit when He was already in them by faith in Jesus Christ as promised.
What you are saying is of the same tree that is producing evil fruits. That methodology of focusing on the Holy Spirit is how anyone seeks to be filled by the Holy Spirit; and the fact that they are seeking to be filled by the Holy Spirit proves where their focus is when waiting to receive Him supernaturally in bringing tongues with no interpretation.
My neighbor across the street was sharing with me one day how she was reading the Bible at her kitchen table when the Holy Spirit came over her, bringing tongues. She went on to testify that moment was when she was saved because she got it all at once.
Is it any wonder why when believers that hear that, seek to receive the Holy Spirit in the same way and when they do, start preaching that if you do not speak in tongues, you do not have the Holy Spirit, and therefore you are not saved?
An evil fruit.
Then I had asked her what she was reading that led her to believe in Jesus Christ. She did not know what I had meant as she went on to explain that she went to her pastor to ask her about that incident and the pastor pointed to something in the Book of Acts. Then she told me that others in her church experienced the same thing doing other stuff, wherein she rolled her eyes at that thus impressing upon me what those other stuff was incredulous that led her to disbelieve their testimonies. And no, she did not care to share what they were doing at the time that the event happened.
So even here.. when believers are not seeking it actively when John warned us not to believe every spirit but test them and that test is about knowing that Jesus Christ is in you is how we know that the spirits coming over us later on in our lives as saved believers was not the Holy Spirit.
And you be remiss in not acknowledging how they do not stop there with receiving the Holy Spirit again with evidence of tongues as they seek to be filled supernaturally again and again and again after a sensational sign in the flesh.
Give an inch...you are giving every apostate movement of the spirit that YOU KNOW is not of Him, grounds to continue worse & worse & worse. Like the "holy laughter" movement where the spirit fall on them giving them uncontrollable laughter while causing some to fall down or slide down in their seats or whatever in confusion.
The second baptism with the Holy Ghost is DENYING Jesus Christ is in them in hypocrisy.
Does your pastor welcome you to church, and then although you are sitting in the pews in service, he stops, walks away from the pulpit and steps outside standing in the doorway, calling your name to come in for the service is about to start?
No. Then why do believers ask for the Holy Spirit to come when He is already in them BY FAITH in Jesus Christ?
Because they experienced something later on in life and just plain believed it as of God without testing the spirits by the scripture to see that it was not.
Wisdom comes from the Lord; so ditch those professors with college degrees. Jesus is your Good Shepherd. Not them.
1 John 2:[SUP]18 [/SUP]Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.[SUP]19 [/SUP]They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.[SUP]20 [/SUP]But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.[SUP]21 [/SUP]I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.............[SUP]26 [/SUP]These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.[SUP]27 [/SUP]But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.[SUP]28 [/SUP]And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
Last edited:
A woman said that she could interpret while she was interpreting? What's wrong with that?
Can you chew gum while you chew gum? Can you type while you type? Please go back and actually read your statement. I don't know what you wanted to say. You worded something wrong, and you didn't catch what I meant when I pointed it out.
I do not believe someone interprets while he speaks in tongues. He can speak in tongues first, and then interpret. It's sequential, not at the same time. Maybe God could gift someone to speak in tongues and interpret in sign language simultaneously. I suppose it's theoretically possible. But sequential is certainly the norm.
First someone speaks in tongues. Then someone interprets. The speaker in tongues could also be the interpreter.
The speaker in tongues doesn't interpret while he is speaking in tongues for two reasons.
1. He only has one mouth, so he can't say two things at the same time.
2. Other people can't hear the interpretation while he's speaking with tongues.
I Corinthians 14:5 and 14:13 both talk about the speaker in tongues interpreting. So the interpreter may be the speaker in tongues.
To say this violates the idea of different members of the body having different roles doesn't make sense either since throughout the life of the believer more edification takes place than just that one message in tongues and interpretation. The one who speaks in tongues and interprets it may receive ministry from others in numerous ways, such as prophecy, teaching, exhortation, and healing.
Your assuming, aren't you, that the only intercessions the Spirit is involved with are the unutterable kind. The passages you mention do not say that. That is not a reasonable assumption, either, considering what we already know about the Holy Spirit from many other scriptures.
The Spirit's role after Jesus' ascend includes saying things the disciples could not yet bear when He was on earth. Jesus was and is able to pray, isn't He? Do you think Jesus can't pray? If Jesus can pray, then why can't the Spirit pray. If Jesus can pray out loud, then why can't the Spirit pray out loud? If Jesus can pray out loud, and the Spirit takes what is Christ's and delivers it to the disciples, why would you think the Spirit can't have any verbal prayers? Is that your position?
'Only' in that verse doesn't prove your point at all.
There seems to be a difference between some other manuscripts and the textus receptus. I don't see how they get 'only' out of 'an' in the KJV, though. Be that as it may, neither the KJV or the other translations support what you are saying.
Btw, do you think the canon of scripture was open until 1611?
I Corinthians 14:5 and 13 clearly allow the speaker in tongues to also interpret. So the one who interprets in verse 28 can also be the one who speaks in tongues.
I don't see 'by another' in the KJV. What translation are you using?
If you think 'he' refers to someone other than the speaker, there is no pronoun translated 'he' there in the Greek. It's just a verb. You do realize that Paul wrote the epistle in Greek originally, and not in King James English, right? The KJV is a translation, and not the original.
In English, what you are saying doesn't make sense. There is no one else in the text referred to that can be 'he' in that passage there except the one who interprets. Verse 5 doesn't work, either.
I really don't get this. I'm wondering why you are sticking to your guns on this one. I mean, it's really obvious that your wrong. And this is the Bible we are talking about. The point is to deepen our understanding of the truth, right? So why stick to your guns on this when you are wrong? It makes no sense, and it doesn't do anyone good and can do harm.
You are arguing based on a parallel grammatical structure, but against really plainly stated scripture. Verse 13 cannot mean what you interpreted it to mean. Verse 5 also mentions the speaker in tongues interpreting. It is allowed. Others in the congregation can judge (or 'weigh carefully) interpretations of tongues as well.
The way you are interpreting that passage, the 'to another' part, contradicts I Corinthians 14, so you are interpreting it wrongly. I Corinthians 14:13 tells the one who speaks in tongues to pray that he may interpret, and it's talking about the same person. If the Holy Spirit couldn't give the same person two gifts, it wouldn't say that. Paul healed, and Paul spoke in tongues. Paul was also able to teach. He had multiple gifts. It is true that the Spirit gives one gift to one, and one to another, but that passage doesn't say He never gives two gifts to one person.
I just gave you a lot of scripture to reprove that and you still do not see anything wrong with that? Then I cannot help you, brother. I leave you to God, and I need His help to do that also.
None of the scriptures you posted addressed the issue of whether it was possible to do X while doing X.
Can you type while you are typing? I can? Everyone who types does. It's tautological.
That's also reading into what's not being said.
Opinion.
Everyone has an opinion but no one says it's opinion, everyone claims what comes out of their mouths as fact.
How many contradicting facts are there?
It would difficult to do X when God is no longer bringing X
X = the word of God prophecy. X has ceased. therefore the difernt manners he used to bring it have ceased.
It was the unbelieving Jew that sought after signs by a work they performed before they would believe God . The cross was their stumbling block.
He called them a evil generation. Christians walk by faith, not by that seen outwardly, And today because we no longer have prophecy in part what they hear we know it is not new prophecy..
Prophecy for those who can believe X. Signs as lying wonders for those who violate the last warning in the book of X (the word of God.
Jesus still exist. The Bible still exists. Your argument doesn't make sense from that perspective. The gift of prophecy is still active. The two witnesses will prophesy as well.
I suppose I am at fault for introducing algebra into the conversation. We could just stop having a regular conversation, and now present all our ideas as a series of variables like X and Y.
Your quote did not have much to do with the point I was making. I was responding to Enow opposing interpreting while interpreting. I suspect he typed the sentence wrong, and I was pointing that out since he didn't catch it after a few posts.
Signs by a work they performed? Huh? What are you talking about? When the Jews demanded a sign of Jesus, how was that 'a sign by a work they performed.' Sometimes you string religious words and phrases together into sentences that do not make much sense. I do not know what you are trying to say.
The apostles asked Jesus for the sign of His coming and He answered their question in detail. He did not accuse them of being wicked or adulterous.
Jesus would not give the wicked and adulterous a sign (of the type they demanded) except for the sign of His resurrection. But He did give His disciples a sign.
This is basic logic. You seem to be making the error of affirming the consequent. It's the same faulty logic show in this flawed syllogism.
"If you get shot 500 times with an M-16 in the heart, you die. George Washington died. Therefore, he must have been shot 500 times with an M-16 in the heart"
Not all dead people got shot with an M-16. And not all who ask for signs are wicked and adulterous, either.
No one said the gift of prophecy is not in effect it has not ceased .Its new prophecy that has..prophecy the word of God will not perish until the new heavens and earth appears . Prophecy is simply the word of God in its entirety alone. To prophecy is to declare the existing word of God .To add to it a person would have to first violate the commandment not to add to the book of prophecy.
We walk by faith (the unseen) not after some work seen that we could perform. That's what the believing Jew sought after.
Christ said its a evil generation (natural man) that does seek after one before they think they are trusting God . He informs us the last is the sign of Noah.
Why would a person need more that He has revealed?
We walk by faith the unseen.
They demanded that he work to perform one before they would belive.. They made the ceremonial laws as shadows that pointed towards Christ into moral laws as a work they could perform .After performing them they used that to think it proved they had the Holy Spirit.
The time of reformation has come the shadows have become sight as the sign of Noah and today they still look to perform something outwardly to prove they have Christ inwardly.
We have all the knowledge available by the word of God prophecy. We are not to add to it.
God moved Paul to write the words he wrote, called prophecy.It was not his own private interpretation (revelation.)
The knowledge of God that we could have is in respect to the word of God alone, His knowledge. People perish for lack of it.
When he was a child he reasoned after the wisdom of this world, the philosophies of men .The knowledge of God helps to put away those childish things, if men obey it and do what it says.
The unbelieving Jew (no faith) as an oral tradition of men(fathers) as commandments of men walked by sight according to a work they could perform in their flesh. The Greek said show me God by the philosophies of men as some sort of intellectual gospel . It was foolishness to them to walk by faith (the unseen) just as the cross was foolish to the unbelieving Jew. (no faith)
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, “and” the wisdom of God. 1Co 1:21