Bible Study Just What ARE Pentecostal "Tongues"?

[lecoop]

Re: When will tongues cease?

When the perfect comes! When Jesus returns, and we all go to heaven, there will then be no more need for tongues. And there will be no more need for earthly knowledge either!

So when Jesus comes to get us, [earthly] knowledge will vanishe away, and prophecies and tongues will cease.

Coop

Could you please offer proof, coop, that 'the perfect' is indeed referring to Jesus?

Perhaps you can offer proof that it doesn't.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

God is perfect, in each part of the Godhead. If God the Father is perfect, then Jesus the Son is Perfect, and the HG is perfect.

Luke 13:32
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Did the third day come? Yes. Three days and three nights he was in the tomb, but on that third day.....

We, on the other hand, are still being perfected.

Coop

 

[Free]

Just what do you think that 'perfect' refers to Sputnik?

 

[Dave...]

Free wrote:

Which begs the question I asked earlier: When did tongues cease? If God simply said that tongues would cease but didn't say when, you don't have an argument.

Every time someone has posted that God is not dealing with Israel as a nation anymore, that's what they are trying to tell you. This goes back to the first page of this thread.

The gift of Languages was for a specific people at a specific time. Please reread the thread and you will see that this point has been repeated over and over.

coop wrote:

Dave writes this, either because he lacks the reading skills to understand Paul, or lacks the desire to really dig into it. I am sure he knows that Paul disagrees with him. In Dave's mind, going to language school is failing the biblical "tongues test." That is nothing more that ignorance gone to seed. Why? Because Paul said,

This is coming from someone who reposts the same error that I refuted many pages ago. This is typical of the charismatic pentecostal debating tactics.

True story:

Telling stories that in no way can be verified? This may constitute as proof for you coop, but not for me. Even Paul said that he (a man he once knew) who went to heaven, didn't tell anyone about it until some forced him to, because it could not be verified and only opened the door for every false teacher to claim the same thing.

When the perfect comes! When Jesus returns, and we all go to heaven, there will then be no more need for tongues. And there will be no more need for earthly knowledge either!

So when Jesus comes to get us, [earthly] knowledge will vanishe away, and prophecies and tongues will cease.

Coop

And this is a "perfect" example of how my posts are ignored. The perfect has nothing to do with languages, as I have shown.

The gift of laguages will cause itself to stop. It's built in.

Dave

 

[Dave...]

14:2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

If this is a command and something to be desired, then how do you reconsile verse two with These.

12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:

13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

13:5 (love) ...does not seek its own,...(deny self);

14:12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

14:22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.



14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

There is no biblical evidence whatsoever of a private prayer language! We are to pray in an intelligible, understandable way.

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.




This is not brain surgery, look....

1 Cor. 10: 23 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.

Edify who?

24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being.

But those who speak in a tongue......do what?.....edify themselves.


Counterfeit tongues.

The speaker "does not speak to men" (1 Cor. 14:2)

"No one understands him" (1 Cor. 14:2)


Biblical tongues.

The speaker speaks of "the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11) To people of other nationalities (Acts 2:6-11)

"Everyone heard them speak in his own language" (Acts 2:6-11)

14:21 In the law it is written: "With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me," says the Lord.

14:22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

14:22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

This is for Lecoop...

If tongues are gibberish (which you have stated is your position) how can they be a sign to unbelievers? If an unbeliever believes you are uttering nonsensical syllables then there is no evidence of anything miraculous and therefore no "sign". However, if what happened on Pentecost was to occur, that certainly WOULD be a sign.

(But then, that would take a real miracle so I guess that's not on your church program?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Just what do you think that 'perfect' refers to Sputnik?

I don't know. And nor do you. Therefore, to use that particular scripture (1 Corinthians 13:10) to solidly support the Pentecostal practice of 'tongues' is foolhardy. It's simply another example of 'clutching at straws' and trying to make a scripture fit the practice.

The word 'perfect' as found in that particular scripture does NOT give 'Jesus' as the Greek definition, sad to say. The Greek word is 'teleios' and means 'complete' (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); completeness:- of full age, man, perfect.

A similar scripture is found in 1 Corinthians 2:6. "We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the perfect ('teleios'='mature'), but not the wisdom of this age, or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing."
James 1:25 makes reference to the 'perfect (teleios) law of liberty (the Ten Commandments) which any number of Christians toss out as a nonevent. It's the same Greek word though, same definition.

There are many other examples of scriptures that contain the word 'teleios' (5046) and the context and definition in all cases NEVER refers to 'perfect' as being applicable to Jesus as such. Therefore, there is NO REASON at all to suddenly redefine the word and make 1 Corinthians 13:10 say something that it doesn't say. Agreed?

Even if 'perfect' DID mean Jesus - it DOESN'T - it would still give no credibility to Pentecostal 'tongues'. They - Pentecostal 'tongues' - simply cannot be supported by ANY scripture since they are an invention of men.

 

[Free]

Every time someone has posted that God is not dealing with Israel as a nation anymore, that's what they are trying to tell you. This goes back to the first page of this thread.

The gift of Languages was for a specific people at a specific time. Please reread the thread and you will see that this point has been repeated over and over

The repeating of a point doesn't make it true. The fact is is that there is no support for this point. I am certain many/most of you would agree that the forming of Israel as a nation was a fulfillment of prophecy by divine providence. Perhaps you reject that as prophecy or God's hand, perhaps you ought to to keep your argument intact.

So when did tongues cease Dave?

I don't know. And nor do you. Therefore, to use that particular scripture (1 Corinthians 13:10) to solidly support the Pentecostal practice of 'tongues' is foolhardy. It's simply another example of 'clutching at straws' and trying to make a scripture fit the practice.

Speaking of clutching at straws...

You state "I don't know" but go on to state "The word 'perfect' as found in that particular scripture does NOT give 'Jesus' as the Greek definition, sad to say" and "Even if 'perfect' DID mean Jesus - it DOESN'T ". Do you know or do you not what the 'perfect' is? If you are certain that you don't know, then you cannot at all state that it doesn't refer to Jesus. As soon as you say it doesn't mean this or it doesn't mean that, you have contradicted yourself.

There are many other examples of scriptures that contain the word 'teleios' (5046) and the context and definition in all cases NEVER refers to 'perfect' as being applicable to Jesus as such. Therefore, there is NO REASON at all to suddenly redefine the word and make 1 Corinthians 13:10 say something that it doesn't say. Agreed?

Not at all agreed. That is an absolutely absurd argument. The use of 'perfect' in that verse clearly is figurative for something, and that could easily be Jesus just as easily as anything else. But the context adds weight to the argument that it is in fact Jesus. As Lecoop pointed out, there is nothing or no one perfect but God.

They - Pentecostal 'tongues' - simply cannot be supported by ANY scripture since they are an invention of men.

It sure sounds like you first believed they were an invention of men before seeing what Scripture said. Kind of backwards don't you think?



So far, in this whole thread, all we have are claims that tongues ceased, but no one can give any evidence as such. The Bible clearly states that tongues, prophecy and knowledge would cease when "the perfect comes" (1 Cor. 13:10). So for all who claim that tongues and such have ceased, you really ought to be able to figure out what the perfect was, unless of course knowledge of that ceased as well.

For example, those who claim that tongues were only a sign for the Jews and that it ceased when God supposedly stopped dealing with Israel as a nation, what was it that was perfect that came?

 

[SputnikBoy]

So when did tongues cease Dave?

Dave may well come up with his own answer. However ...right up until the early 1900's (Azuza?) we hear nothing more of 'tongues' after 1 Corinthians. Considering the position that Pentecostals take of this practice (some even make a 'salvation issue' out of it), one might logically conclude that the Bible would give this 'gift of the Holy Spirit' much more fanfare than it does. The facts are that 'tongues' are basically skimmed over by the writers of the Bible.

The MAIN reference to 'tongues' as being anything other than 'languages of the world' (NOT from the scriptures, mind you, but from the MINDS of people) comes from a couple of ambiguous (but not really) scriptures in 1 Corinthians where Paul is admonishing the Church of Corinth for their MISuse of 'tongues'! That VERY misuse might well apply to the practice of 'tongues' by the Pentecostal Church of today! But, what have they done? They've made a doctrine out of it!!

There is very much a theme here that REALLY needs to be considered. The Pentecostal Church (generally that is, SOME are more/less extreme in their antics than others) are a very 'animated' church. They don't stop at 'tongues' but also incorporate a number of other practices that have NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS AT ALL. 'Slaying in the spirit', 'holy laughter', 'barking like dogs', etc. etc. are all supposed to be manifestations of the Holy Spirit. EVERYONE who participates in these practices also claim to 'speak in tongues'!

I don't know about anyone else but all of these weird practices throw up an automatic red flag to me. This is NOT of God! It's all delusion ...smoke and mirrors, pounding beat, repetitive lyrics, pumping up the emotions in order to get an outpouring of uninhibited and euphoric and hypnotic and intoxicated responses, the 'expected' and 'the desired' bringing out the base tribal instincts of the inidividual! Check out some of the practices of pagan tribes in certain areas of the world. There appears to be no difference! People are people and all have the potential to be driven in the same direction.

Let me repeat ...ALL those who participate in 'slaying in the spirit', 'holy laughter', 'making sounds like farmyard animals', etc. ALSO claim to 'speak in tongues'! Before I get jumped on ...I DID NOT say that ALL those who claim to 'speak in tongues' participate in these other practices. Some may not. But the actual THEME of the Pentecostal Church ENCOURAGES all of the above by it's very nature of accepting ANYTHING that one might accredit to the Holy Spirit. Supposed 'gifts of the Spirit' and 'miracles' and practices that are 'tangible' (can be 'seen' and 'felt' and therefore 'proven') are the tools of Pentecostalism.

Faith alone doesn't cut it for the charismatics. They require PROOF of the existence of the Holy Spirit. And ...there appear to be no limits to the lengths that some may go to to promote the charismatic forms of exhibitionism. Are Christians mad? Some may be forgiven for believing so after witnessing some of the shananigans that go on in some of the Pentecostal churches! Others of us who know better really need to step up to the plate on this issue and oppose it with all our might.

And ...'prayer language' (the more 'sedate' of the Pentecostal practices) is a figment of the (Pentecostal) imagination. There are NO scriptures that support this ...none at all.

 

[Free]

So you admit then Sputnik that although you believe tongues ceased and the Bible says they would cease when the perfect came, you do not know when they ceased or what the perfect is. You are on very shaky ground indeed to claim that they ceased without any evidence or solid reason for believing so.

However ...right up until the early 1900's (Azuza?) we hear nothing more of 'tongues' after 1 Corinthians.

Perhaps you can show me in 2 Cor. where Paul tells the Corinthian Church to quit speaking in tongues. That it is not mentioned after 1 Cor is irrelevant.

And ...'prayer language' (the more 'sedate' of the Pentecostal practices) is a figment of the (Pentecostal) imagination. There are NO scriptures that support this ...none at all

1Co 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

1Co 14:28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.

 

[lecoop]

Absolutes according to Scripture

There are some things about tongues that we can know absolutely by scripture, if we read without preconceived glasses on.

1.) I will cover this first, since we have not really touched on it much in this thread. It seems that tongues did die out for maybe a thousand years. There is no real proof of this, but it seems so. Was there even one person in the whole world in the year 1000 that spoke in tongues as the Holy Spirit gave the utterance? We just don't know, but it seems that the answer is no. Therefore, one argument from the naysayers is that once tongues died out, if they come back, it must not be the Holy Ghost. Is this a good argument?

We could almost say the same thing for salvation itself! Let's take a time, say 200 years before Martin Luther. Was there even one truly born again person in the whole world? Again, proof one way or the other would be hard to find. However, God went from there, truly the dark ages, where there was very little, or no light of the word of God in the world, to today, where born again people my be approaching 1/3 of the world's population. So God brought us back from a nearly dead church to what we have today. Therefore, it should not be too much of a stretch to say that God could restore everything that was lost in the early church, including tongues.

2.) It seems that the naysayers repeat their nonsense over and over. Why is this? Because they are so sure they are right, that they will not take off their preconceived glasses and read these verses plainly. Case in point?

SputnikBoy said
And ...'prayer language' (the more 'sedate' of the Pentecostal practices) is a figment of the (Pentecostal) imagination. There are NO scriptures that support this ...none at all.

SputnikBoy is saying that there is no such thing as praying in tongues. Is there a verse that disagrees with him? Of course, but his preconceived glasses will not permit him to read:

1 Cor 14
14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Please note these words carefully, SputicBoy: "If I pray in tongues..."
Is not this a prayer in tongues? Is this not a "prayer language?" Would not one then be correct in saying that there is a "prayer language?" It would be whatever language Paul is speaking about in this verse. The KJV translators called it "unknown tongue" because of what Paul had said earlier: "no man understands." Please again notice these two words in the same sentence, with only three words in-between: "pray," and "tongues." Is this coming through your preconceived glasses?


15What 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.

Now, since Paul had just said that when he prays in tongues, he cannot understand what he is saying, (and this goes for every human in the world that prays in tongues. Why? Because "no man understands.") then he must spend at least some time praying in his learned language, so that he can spend some time understanding what he is praying. BUT: Paul says that he will also spend some time praying without understanding, in tongues, which is "praying with the spirit." He will pray both ways. Paul is not saying that he will give up praying in tongues: no, he will pray both ways! So once again, Paul destroys your false theory about prayer languages! We can know absolutely that this is what Paul is meaning here, for he redefines it again in the next verse. He says that a prayer (bless) "with the spirit" is not understood by those present in the room. Why? Because a prayer "with the spirit" is a prayer in tongues; a prayer that comes from the Holy Spirit giving the utterance, to the human spirit, and then prayed out, without going through the mind, and the understanding. not only will Paul pray in tongues, but he will also sing in tongues! This can be the only meaning of this verse, when it is read without preconceived glasses on.



16Else 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?

Wow! Here it is again, what SputnicBoy said was not in scripture: a prayer in tongues; a "prayer language!" Read it closely, SputnicBoy! It is speaking of prayer, for Paul said, "when you shall bless..." Now, what kind of a blessing or prayer is it? Paul said it is a blessing "with the spirit." Is this a prayer in the learned language? No! Absolutely not! This is the umpteenth argument Paul has that tongues are for prayer rather than in church (unless they are interpreted.) We can know absolutely that Paul is saying this is a prayer in tongues, for he says that those in the room do not understand what was prayed. This can be the only meaning, when this verse is read and studied without preconceived glasses on.


17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
Again, Proof that this is a prayer in tongues: those present are not edified. Why? Because they did not understand. Why did they not understand? Because "no man understands!" These three simple words in English seem to be impossible to comprehend through preconceived glasses. However, this concept is very simple, and Paul goes through it over and over. Tongues are spoken from the human spirit, not as ordinary speech that comes from the mind. Please note, "in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." Also the verses we just covered, "with the spirit." It is a very basic and easy concept: a prayer in the learned language is understood, and a prayer in unknown tongues is not understood, for it comes from the spirit, and "no man understands."

Therefore, SpunikBoy, there is absolutely a prayer language. It is there in black and white. However, your preconceived glasses have kept you blinded from the truth.

Another absolute? Yes, absolutely, words spoken in tongues are not understood by anyone, not in any part of the world. They are not worldly languages, as these naysayers would have us believe. Why? Because Paul said, "no man understands." They would have us believe that it just means no man in this room, but somewhere in the world, someone would understand. This is not what Paul is saying at all. It is a "dreamed up," man made doctrine to steal the truth from the church. The roots of this come from hell, as all false doctrine does. Satan is always attempting to steal anything that will bring benefit to the church. There is a prayer in the spirit, in tongues, as this is the primary purpose of tongues. It is a God given gift of allowing our spirit to pray. This is the part of the human where God resides. Therefore, a prayer in the spirit cannot possibly be corrupted by our brain and thoughts, which is not at this point "saved."

3.) Is edifying ones self a good thing? These naysayers would have us believe that this is wrong. Again, this is nothing but nonsense! Do we ever prayer a prayer in our learned language that edifies us? Of course, absolutely! We pray, "Lord, please forgive me..." Does this prayer edify us or build us up in Christ? Absolutely! WE all pray hundreds of prayers designed to bring us closer to God. That is whey their argument is so ludicrous. Anything we can do as Christians that will make us a stronger Christian, is a good thing. Edify, comes from a root word, which we get the word "edifice" from. From a dictionary: "A building, especially one of imposing appearance or size. " We might say, ""it was an imposing edifice." This is exactly how we should appear to the devil! We don't get closer to God and build ourselfs up in Him, to brag before others, "I am closer to God that you are...." I have never heard a Christian do this in my 50 years of living for God. Again, preconceived glasses can cause people to come up with silliness for doctrine.

These points are from the word of God, and are good for doctrine. All scripture is good for doctrine. Acts 19 is good for doctrine, which stated explicitly that people were born again, then baptized in water, and then, at some later time, received the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke in tongues. We really should not need any other verse that this, but God in His mercy, gave us many more. This is another absolute: the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a second work of the Holy Spirit, subsequent to regeneration, and for a different purpose: the anointing to minister. Once again, preconceived glasses prevent people from seeing this simple truth. When they read this, they just have to come up with some excuse why this cannot be a second work of the HS, so they say that this scripture is "transitional" in nature, and is no good for doctrine. How silly can one human be? How can one pick and choose what scripture is good and what isn't for doctrine? This is a VERY dangerous practice!

Coop

 

[Dave...]

There's no connection between the "perfect" and languages. It's a myth. As I have shown. Ignoring this fact only shows the lengths people will go to to deceive themselves.

 

[Dave...]

Free wrote:

The repeating of a point doesn't make it true.

No, it's more like ignoring it will not make it any less true. How many times must I repost the same scripture and make the same points before you guys will actually respond to it in a meaningful way?

Free wrote:

So when did tongues cease Dave?

How many times must I answer this question before you will read it and acknowledge it? AD 70 was the fallen judgement that the sign of tongues last pointed towards. Since God...please, read my posts and you will see the answers.

So when did Jesus die on the cross, Free? If you cannot give me an exact date does that make his death any less sure or significant? Try to fair in your reasoning.

coop wrote:

Please note these words carefully, SputicBoy: "If I pray in tongues..."
Is not this a prayer in tongues? Is this not a "prayer language?" Would not one then be correct in saying that there is a "prayer language?" It would be whatever language Paul is speaking about in this verse. The KJV translators called it "unknown tongue" because of what Paul had said earlier: "no man understands." Please again notice these two words in the same sentence, with only three words in-between: "pray," and "tongues." Is this coming through your preconceived glasses?

Notice the word "if" which destroys your whole argument. Paul was only stressing the uselessness and selfishness of pagan mystery gibberish.

Paul goes on to tell them what they should do, which clearly contrasts what they were doing, which was not speaking in languages ("if").

Which in turn destroys the rest of your argument. Maybe you should take off your preconceived glasses and read these verses plainly.

Dave

 

[lecoop]

Free wrote:

The repeating of a point doesn't make it true.

No, it's more like ignoring it will not make it any less true. How many times must I repost the same scripture and make the same points before you guys will actually respond to it in a meaningful way?

Free wrote:
[quote:19bd3]So when did tongues cease Dave?

How many times must I answer this question before you will read it and acknowledge it? AD 70 was the fallen judgement that the sign of tongues last pointed towards. Since God...please, read my posts and you will see the answers.

So when did Jesus die on the cross, Free? If you cannot give me an exact date does that make his death any less sure or significant? Try to fair in your reasoning.

coop wrote:

Please note these words carefully, SputicBoy: "If I pray in tongues..."
Is not this a prayer in tongues? Is this not a "prayer language?" Would not one then be correct in saying that there is a "prayer language?" It would be whatever language Paul is speaking about in this verse. The KJV translators called it "unknown tongue" because of what Paul had said earlier: "no man understands." Please again notice these two words in the same sentence, with only three words in-between: "pray," and "tongues." Is this coming through your preconceived glasses?

Notice the word "if" which destroys your whole argument. Paul was only stressing the uselessness and selfishness of pagan mystery gibberish.


It is only in Dave's mind that this "if" changes anything. Paul did not say that he would cease to pray in tongues because he did not understand! In fact, just the opposite! He said that he prayed in tongues more than them all! Dave, can you put these two thoughts together and come up with any reasonable conclusion? I mean, the verse here with the "if" according to your idea of its meaning, and the truth that Paul spoke in tongues more than them all. Let's put them together:

Darby's English Translation
14 For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

Paul could have said, for when I pray in tongues - for surely he spent a lot of time praying in tongues! Now, if you say that Paul meant that he spent more time speaking in some other earthly language, that would be foreign to the Corinthians, then you will have to tell us why he would say that his understanding is unfruitful.

Paul goes on to tell them what they should do, which clearly contrasts what they were doing, which was not speaking in languages ("if").

What does Paul go on to say?

Darby's English Translation
14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding.

Paul is speaking here of two ways of praying. Let's see what these two ways are. The first is praying "with the spirit." What does Paul mean? He tells us.

In verse two, Paul says about tongues, "in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." In verse 14, Paul says "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." Then in verse 16, he says, "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?"

We can see then, that Paul is equating tongues with the phrase, "in the spirit" or "with the spirit." And this makes perfect sense, when we understand that when one allows the spirit to speak, the words do not go throught the mind. This brings us to the second method of prayer that Paul speaks of, praying "with the understanding." What does Paul mean by this? Of course, since he is contrasting these two kinds of prayer, he means just the opposite of praying with or in the spirit. These two kinds of praying are mutually exclusive - they cannot be done at the same time. Praying with the understanding, then, is praying in your learned language, where you think thoughts first, and then speak them out.

Now that we have expanded Pauls two kinds of prayer, what exactly did Paul say to do?

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding.

So Paul is telling us here that he will pray in tongues (with the spirit) and he will pray in Greek or Hebrew, his learned languages, which he will understand. For those that disagree with this, I challenge you to speak in English and Spanish at the same time. They are mutually exclusive, just as speaking in tongues and speaking with the understanding is.

Which in turn destroys the rest of your argument. Maybe you should take off your preconceived glasses and read these verses plainly.

So my argument is not destroyed, but rather, made stronger, while yours falls flat.

Dave[/quote:19bd3]

I looked back to see what Dave kept referring to.

Dave said,

How many times must I answer this question before you will read it and acknowledge it? AD 70 was the fallen judgement that the sign of tongues last pointed towards. Since God...please, read my posts and you will see the answers.

It is only in a blinded mind that one would think AD 70 had anything to do with the ending of tongues. Tongues were for the church, not Israel. The church did not end in AD 70.

Dave said,

The gift of Languages was for a specific people at a specific time. Please reread the thread and you will see that this point has been repeated over and over.

This statement is just misguided, and without scriptural support. We note in Acts 2 that it was Jews that received. In Acts 8, it was Samaritans. In Acts 19, Ephesians. In 1 Corinthians, it was more Gentiles. Plainly, tongues are for the church. Yes, they are occasionly used as a sign to unbelievers. This is one of the manifestations of tongues. Remember, KJV says "divers" kinds of tongues. However, Paul makes it very clear that the most important use of tongues for him was prayer. He spent much time praying in tongues.

Dave said

Apart from the primary purpose of tongues, which Paul said was to be a sign to unbelievers (Jews), the secondary uses ( which were necessary so God would not be the author of confusion while the sign was being given ) for tongues serve no benefit above and beyond that which we all can accomplish by regular means. When the sign aspect of tongues is absent, and it is, the secondary uses became expendable.

Where, Dave, do you see that the primary use of tongues was for a sign? Yes, it was given as "a" use or purpose of tongues. However, this was specifically for one manifestation of tongues, which is giving a message in tongues in front of people, in a local body of belivers. However, Paul said that he would rather speak 5 words in his learned language when he was in a group setting. Where then, did Paul speak in tongues more than them all? Of course he gives us the answer. He will pray with the spirit (in tongues.) How can praying with the spirit, probably done alone, be a sign? It isn't. Therefore, there are other puproses for tongues beside the sign. For Paul, it is clear that his main purpose for tongues was prayer, not as a sign. Therefore, your argument of AD 70 is nothing more than a silly notion.

Dave said

There is no such sign being given today like we read about in Acts. The churches who claim tongues for today deny it by their actions, they send their missionaries to school to learn the languages like everyone else.

This sign does happen today. You just don't know about it. And your idea of tongues being a substitute for language school is silly indeed. Tongues were never meant to replace speaking with the understanding, but a tool to go along with it. God created it as a way for our spirits (with His spirit inside) to speak. It is one way we can pray a perfect prayer, without our minds getting in the way.

Dave said,

So I want to pose this question for those who believe in a personal prayer language or tongues for self or Bodily edification...What advantage does tongues hold for the individual or the Body that cannot be accomplished both more efficiantly and with less confusion by normal ( unmiraculous) means?

Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 14.

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

Understanding, according to Paul, was something to be sought after, not neglected.

Before I get to answer your question, I must first destroy another false idea. Dave said "tongues for self or Bodily edification." Praying in tongues builds up the human spirit, not the body. Paul did not look like Arnold for all his praying in tongues. However, he was most definitely a powerful apostle in the realm of the spirit. Now, Dave asks "What advantage does tongues hold for the individual..."

Dave, tongues are a gift from God to the church. Any gift from God will be a benefit, even if no one understood why. However, there are some benefits that we can understand. First and formost, when I have no wisdom of how to pray for something, or if I have a burden to pray, but don't know what it is about, I can pray in tongues. Usually, a few minutes into praying in tongues, my spirit gets across to my mind what I am praying for. Praying in tongues is like a tool. I may be powerless to break loose a nut with my bare hands, but let me get a wrench on it, and I can break it loose. In the same way, tongues are given to us as a tool to be used in our prayer life.

Second benefit. There are some things about humans that for the most part, they do not pray about - at least, no more than a passing prayer. There may be something that is holding them back for progressing in the Lord. It may be something small, like the way they tread their spouse! They never pray about it, for they feel justified because of the way the spouse treats them! And they do not know that this is a roadblock to their spiritual growth. If someone like this spends any real time in praying in tongues, they will be praying for this roadblock in their lives, and they won't even know it! How can one pray for something when he or she has no inclination to pray for it? Dave said, ..."cannot be accomplished both more efficiantly and with less confusion by normal means?" Yes, normal prayer, a prayer with or from the understanding or mind, will be somewhat effective, if the person will pray. But many times, people will not pray about the thing that is their biggest roadblock! (the spouse may know immediately what their biggest roadblock is, but who asks their wife of husband what they should pray about?)

God knew all this, and created a way that we could pray for ourselves, and not even know what we are praying. It may be that one has far to much emphasis on football, and they would NEVER pray for this to be taken away. This may be their roadblock to spiritual growth. However, every time they start praying in tongues, they are praying for God to remove this roadblock!

God may need someone to pray for a church leader in China, that is about to be captured and put in jail. He can pick hundreds of people around the world and have them pray in tongues - and accomplish just what He needs. He does not need to waste time trying to show them the need, so they can pray with the understanding. No, He just has them pray in tongues. He assigns the meaning that He needs for the words spoken, to make a perfect prayer for the moment.

Every Christian needs to pray out their future. However, we don't know our future! For many, if God showed us, we would run! But we can pray out our future ministry in tongues, and cover everything that needs to be prayed over, and do it without knowing what we are saying.

Therefore, there are many things we can accomplish with tongues, that simply cannot be done with praying with our understanding.

Dave said,

I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning here. If you have a supernatural gift to overcome athe language barrior, then you wouldn't need to send every one of your missionaries to school to learn languages.
Pentecostal/Charimatic churches have had to redefine the gift to overcome this obstacle, which in turn destroys their stance on the non-cessation of the gifts.

It is Dave that is redefining this gift. God never meant for tongues to replace learning another language. Yes, God can cause others to hear tongues in their own language, but this happens very seldom. We see it only once in the bible. Paul shows us that the main use for tongues are as a prayer language, and occasionally to give a message from the HS to a local body of believers.

What about Dave's idea that tongues were for a sign to Israel, but that purpose ended in AD 70?

Sorry Dave, but this is as silly an argument as any of the others. I will agree that in Acts 2, those tongues were a sign to unbelieving Jews. However, those 120 that spoke in tongues that day, do you think that was the last time that they ever spoke in tongues? No, tongues were a gift to them that came with the anointing - the baptism with the Holy Spirit that they were told to wait for. So the next time they spoke in tongues, who was it for then?

If we go to Acts 19, Paul came to Ephesus.

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?

They had heard of John's message. how did they hear of John?

Acts 18
24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

You know the story as well as I do. However, let's see if you truly agree with Paul, and the intent of what Paul taught. Notice the question that Paul asked: "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Have you ever asked any believers this question? If not, why not? Paul did. He assumed that these people were born again, and ask then if they had received the HS since they became believers. I don't think you could possibly ask this question, for you don't beleive as Paul did. In fact, you probably wonder why Paul asked such a question!

Why did Paul asked this question? Because Paul knew that "receiving the Holy Spirit" was speaking of the baptism with the Holy Spirit - an event that would come some time after people were born again. We don't need to go far to prove this. It is not a theory, but a doctrine of Paul. We can see in this story that Paul's whole purpose in asking this question, was so that he could lay hands on them, and give to them this mighty baptism with the Holy Spirit.

I know, your argument is going to be that they were not born again. That they became born again when Paul laid his hands on them. For some mysterious reason, known only to those that reject Paul's message of the HS, they say that this was some kind of a transitional period, where the Holy Spirit could not instantly come into a believer's heart and regenerate them. This kind of thinking is extremely dangerous! There is no such thing as a "transitional" time, where the HS had to wait to save someone. HE had been waiting for thousands of years for Jesus to raise from the dead. Now that this was accomplished, HE could save someone in a instant, as we see in Acts 10. He would not even wait for Peter to finish his sermon!

So what do we read here in Acts 19? When Paul found out that they were not even born again, but had only heard about John's baptism, he preached Christ to them:

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

What happened when Paul preached Christ? Usually people were born again. That is how Paul raised up churches everywhere he went. This was no different. They believed Paul's message and were born again. We know from other scriptures that when people are born again, the HS goes into the human spirit, and regenerates it into a new creation. There can be no doubt that these 12 all became new creations in Christ Jesus when they heard Paul preach Christ to them. How do we know? Because Paul had them baptized in water.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Now we see them as new creatures in Christ, born again and water baptized! A new church has been started. What happens next? Let's go back to Paul's question: "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Now Paul knew these people were believers, so what does Paul do?

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

So they spoke in tongues. This was now many years after the church had started in Jerusalem. Can you please tell me how this event had anything to do with a sign to Israel?

Coop

 

[lecoop]

Did tongues cease in 70 AD?

Irenaeus (A.D. 115 to 202) a pupil of Polycarp (A.D. 70-155), who was himself a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote:

"in like manner do we also hear many brethren in the Church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms 'spiritual', they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit".

"[T]he perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father… For this reason does the apostle declare, 'We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,' terming those persons 'perfect' who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used [h]imself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages… whom also the apostle terms 'spiritual,' they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.6.1, ANF, I, 531.)

http://www.bible.ca/tongues-history.htm#data

We see then, that tongues did not cease in 70 AD! Shucks, Dave, there goes another one of your arguments. :-(



Coop

 

[SputnikBoy]

Here are some words from Jesus . . .remember Him? The following is found in Matthew 6:5-8.

(v.5) "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

(v.6) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

(v.7) And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

(v.8) Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. This then is how you should pray: . . ."

Jesus then gives them an example with what has become known as the Lord's Prayer (v.9-13).

I guess the 'tongue-speakers' will refute these scriptures with some typically rehearsed rhetoric.

 

[Ryan Collins]

What do those scriptures have anything to do with speaking in tongues? It's general guidelines for prayer, nothing to do with speaking in tongues.

 

[MrVersatile48]

This centenary feature is very helpful:-

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/004/7.30.html

Back with its highlight to whet your appetites...

Global Expansion
With more than 580 million adherents (growing by 19 million per year and 54,000 per day), the Pentecostal/charismatic movement has become, in just 100 years, the fastest growing and most globally diverse expression of worldwide Christianity. At the current rate of growth, some researchers predict there will be 1 billion Pentecostals by 2025, most located in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The mind-boggling research by David Barrett and Todd Johnson reveals some surprising statistics about the movement:


Pentecostals comprise 3 major streams and 59 diverse categories of worldwide Christianity.


Pentecostals can be found within all 150 non-charismatic Christian traditions.


Pentecostals come from 9,000 ethnolinguistic cultures and speak 8,000 languages.


Pentecostalism is more urban than rural, more female than male, more majority world (66%) than Western world (34%), more poor (87%) than affluent (13%), more family-related than individualist, and more young than old.


Pentecostals are an active presence in 80% of the world's 3,300 largest metropolises.

Barrett and Johnson conclude that "the sheer magnitude and diversity of the numbers involved beggar the imagination." Given this kind of international diversity, are there any clues about what Pentecostalism's central mission may be in tomorrow's world?

I believe Pentecostal/charismatic believers would do well to remember the words of British historian E. H. Carr, "You cannot look forward intelligently into the future unless you are also prepared to look back attentively into the past."

One-Way Ticket
Although Pentecostalism's roots stretch back into the late 19th century, it was at the prayer meetings on Azusa Street, beginning in April 1906, that the movement blossomed into full-blown revival. Worshipers met daily in a 40- by 60-foot wood-frame structure called a "tumbledown shack" by one Los Angeles newspaper. Led by William Joseph Seymour, the African American son of former slaves from Louisiana, the extended prayer sessions were attended by between 300 and 350 people, with many others forced to stand outside. Observers noted that attendees included immigrants, prostitutes, and the poor.


Meanwhile, was it Colin Urquhrt who tells of a top academic Pentecostal who was asked to give a demonstration of tongues from an international, interdenominational conference paltform?

He just said, Abi-dabi, Abi-dabi

He was amazed that the whole crowd began to 'speak in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance'

1 said later, 'U R a genius: if U had faked it, it woulda been a much better fake - such child-like simplicity, making you vulnerable to ridicule, proved U R genuine!'

It's like a Christian's baby language, as the Bible says that, when we don't know what to pray, tongues lets the Holy Spirit pray thru us

 

[Dave...]

I'm not going to keep rewriting the same posts over and over.

Have a nice day.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Here are some words from Jesus . . .remember Him? The following is found in Matthew 6:5-8.

(v.5) "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

(v.6) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

(v.7) And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

(v.8) Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. This then is how you should pray: . . ."

Jesus then gives them an example with what has become known as the Lord's Prayer (v.9-13).

I guess the 'tongue-speakers' will refute these scriptures with some typically rehearsed rhetoric.

What do those scriptures have anything to do with speaking in tongues? It's general guidelines for prayer nothing to do with speaking in tongues.

PRECISELY my point, Ryan! The disciples asked a question of Jesus about prayer and praying. What an opportune time for Jesus to recommend a 'prayer language' to them. But what did He suggest? He told them instead to say a simple prayer in their own language and not to babble like pagans! Jesus told them that God knew in advance what they needed. Even so, they were to acknowledge God by actually asking their needs of Him in SIMPLE 'understandable' langage.

If you're a Pentecostal 'babbler' then I don't doubt why you can't see the relevance of those scriptures. Today's version of 'tongues' are an addiction as sure as are tobacco and alcohol and other drugs. Any ex-'tongue-speaker' will attest to the fact that giving up the practice was difficult for them. They would use any excuse, twist any scripture, even become militant, just to hang on to the euphoric experience.

Like Dave, I don't want to keep regurgitating the same argument that Pentecostal 'tongues' are a fabrication and also a mockery to God! Babble like the pagans if you must but PLEASE don't kid yourselves that it's of God! What is of more concern, perhaps, is that many Pentecostals - deep down - KNOW THIS!

 

[lecoop]

Here are some words from Jesus . . .remember Him? The following is found in Matthew 6:5-8.

(v.5) "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

(v.6) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

(v.7) And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

(v.8) Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. This then is how you should pray: . . ."

Jesus then gives them an example with what has become known as the Lord's Prayer (v.9-13).

I guess the 'tongue-speakers' will refute these scriptures with some typically rehearsed rhetoric.

What do those scriptures have anything to do with speaking in tongues? It's general guidelines for prayer nothing to do with speaking in tongues.

PRECISELY my point, Ryan! The disciples asked a question of Jesus about prayer and praying. What an opportune time for Jesus to recommend a 'prayer language' to them. But what did He suggest? He told them instead to say a simple prayer in their own language and not to babble like pagans! Jesus told them that God knew in advance what they needed. Even so, they were to acknowledge God by actually asking their needs of Him in SIMPLE 'understandable' langage.

If you're a Pentecostal 'babbler' then I don't doubt why you can't see the relevance of those scriptures. Today's version of 'tongues' are an addiction as sure as are tobacco and alcohol and other drugs. Any ex-'tongue-speaker' will attest to the fact that giving up the practice was difficult for them. They would use any excuse, twist any scripture, even become militant, just to hang on to the euphoric experience.

Like Dave, I don't want to keep regurgitating the same argument that Pentecostal 'tongues' are a fabrication and also a mockery to God! Babble like the pagans if you must but PLEASE don't kid yourselves that it's of God! What is of more concern, perhaps, is that many Pentecostals - deep down - KNOW THIS!

What an opportune time for Jesus to recommend a 'prayer language' to them.

Wrong again! Jesus said only what He heard the Father say. It is clear that Father God was not about to mention tongues before the day of Pentecost. Why would God bring up something that would only confuse them at that point in time? They understood little of what Jesus said as it was. I know you are grasping at straws here, but this straw again falls flat. You can tear these pages out of your bible if you want, but please, don't stand in the way of others that desire all that God has for them.

I know you are helpless to undo what God has written through Paul, as much as you want to. However, if you could stand back and see yourself, you should be wondering why you are trying so hard to fight against God. Did you read the post above about what tongue talkers are doing in the church today? We are the fastest growing part of the church. Why is this? There is only one reason: because we are the cutting edge of what the Holy Ghost is doing today. The rest of the church is like an army, going out into battle with no weapons! God planned on giving the church His anointing, because it is the anointing that breaks the yoke. But that sly fox, the devil, has so confused the church world in general, that they can't even understand these scriptures, much less enter in by faith, and receive for themselves.

Were you around during the Charismatic renewal? God swept throught dead denominational churchs, and brought life back into them. It was a wonderful move of God. However, those that had been in these denominations for a while fought against it. There is a principle - what shall I call it? "The camping principle." Over the course of the last 200 to 400 years of the church, I have observed something interesting. People that latch onto a new revelation of God, tend to "camp" there, and miss the next move of God! For instance, those that grabbed Martin Luther's revelation, camped on it so hard, they missed the next big revival, John Wesley! Then those that received John Wesley's revival, missed the next big move of God, Azusa! Then those that came into the church during the early days of the 20th century, in the Pentecostal revival, camped there so hard that they missed the Charismatic renewal, and the "Jesus movement." Those that were camped so firmly on all these previous moves of God, totally missed the next big move of the Holy Spirit: the Word/faith move. Then many that came into the church during the word/faith move, missed the next move: the "toronto blessing." Do you get the picture?

If you go back and study church history, you will see how fiercely these battles were fought! Churches were split. New denominations were started, because the older people were camped so hard on what they received.

What then, is the right thing to do? Stay on the cutting edge of what God is doing! What is HE doing now? He is starting the greatest revival that this world has ever seen. Over the next year or two or three, there will be more miracles than has occured in the entire history of the church. In the days of George Whitefield, one of the greatest evengelists in history, all the bars would close, because no one would come! Can this happen again? I believe it will. God has many, many people to bring into the church, before He returns. However, many in denominational churchs will totally miss this last great move of God. Why? They won't even recognize it! It will be so different than what they are used to.

For the readers, it is not too late! Stay open to what God is doing. Be willing to be used. Listen to the voice of the Spirit. We are living in the most exciting time of the church! Be a part of what God is doing. But before you start, go by way of Acts 2, and receive the anointing Holy Spirit! This baptism with the Holy Spirit is for all! That is, for all who can believe. Just believe God to get just what the 120 got in the upper room. Don't give up until you get it. And be prepared to speak in tongues when you receive. It is the biblical way to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Coop