Bible Study Just What ARE Pentecostal "Tongues"?

[gingercat]

oh coop, sigh :

 

[Free]

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?

And the same to you. :-?

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.

So what is that was perfect about the destruction of the Temple? What was it about that judgement to which Paul could say that he saw face to face and knew fully even as he was fully known?

And I am not so much interested in an exact date as to an approximation, a time frame, with biblical proof or good reasoning, either of which you have yet to provide. Your date is the earliest I've heard and some say it all ended with the close of canon. That's a few hundred years difference.

You also ignored my other point, namely that God apparently isn't done dealing with Israel as a nation.

 

[lecoop]

oh coop, sigh :

I am just trying to help you avoid your embarrassment, when Jesus asks you, why didn't you receive my mighty baptism with the Holy Spirit?"


Coop

 

[lecoop]

Dave,

If tongues are from the Holy Spirit - and they are - then you will look pretty sad when you face Jesus - as you fight so hard against them. What was Paul's final comment? "Forbid not to speak in tongues." Yet, that is exactly the intent of what you have posted. Why are you so adamantly oposed to Gods plan for His church?

Coop

 

[Ryan Collins]

Paul did say to not forbid speaking in tongues, and if speaking in tongues is from the Holy Spirit, do you speak out against Prophecy as well? If so, you're discrediting the Holy Spirit. For if Speaking in Tongues is outdated, is the Holy Spirit outdated? That's news to me!

 

[Imagican]

Now, go back and read what Paul offers as far as 'tongues' in the Church. He expounds the Corintians to ONLY do that which edifies the Church. But if tongues are spoken he offers plain guidelines with which to follow.

In my experience with churches that teach and practice tongues, I have yet to encounter a single one that follows these guidelines. So, what about these tongues? What about the noise made by those that speak 'together', NOT one at a time and NO MORE THAN THREE. And I have rarely seen someone even attempt to interpret. What about these tongues? And almost every instance that we can even get a hint of concerning the actual nature of tongues indicates that they are 'languages'. Funny, but the tongues that I have heard in my experience sounds like gibberish NOT ANY KIND OF LANGUAGE.

But leave this personal understanding behind and let us focus on Paul's teachings. What of tongues that DO NOT FOLLOW the guidelines laid down by Paul? Are they real, or 'something else'?

 

[Ryan Collins]

How can one say that tongues is not a language? How many languages do you speak? Do you know there are over 6,000 languages in this world? How can you say it's only gibberish and not a language? Do YOU SPEAK 6,000 languages? No.

 

[lecoop]

Are tongues for the church of today?

Mark 16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

If those that believe today and are baptized are truly saved, then these verses are for today. And tongues are part of this package. If we cast out devils today - then tongues are for today.

If we say that the time for tongues is long past, then the time to be saved is long past. If we lose the tongues, then we must lose all the signs.

Coop

 

[Imagican]

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan,

no my friend, I speak one barely fluently, and have a rudimentary knowledge of half a dozen others. But I do not speak them other than the basics that it would take a tourist to survive with.

But, and this is a pretty big but, when someone is mumbling rote gibberish, it it quite obvious that this is NO KNOWN language. And when one takes into account that everyone in a specific church that teaches such, have a 'common' sound to their 'tongues', it becomes obvious that this is 'learned' behavior, whereas, we are told in the Bible that those that spoke in tongues only did so 'as the Spirit gave them utterance'. And without an interpreter, neither you nor I would be able to discern that these 'tongues' were a specific language.

And Ryan, I don't know what tongues to which you refer, but the examples that I speak of, I have witnessed myself and they offer little to place any credence upon. When I have confronted the Pastor of one such church that was teaching these 'tongues', after pointing out that they weren't following the guidelines laid down by Paul, his answer to me was, 'I know'. So, in this case at least, there is little doubt in my mind or heart that they were NOT the tongues spoken of as the authentic tongues of Acts or the true tongues as mentioned by Paul in Corinthians.

I am pretty much in agreement with the rest of those that recognize the Apostolic Era. There was a time that the formation, (and note: FORMATION), of the Church needed miracles and signs that would NOT be needed AFTER the the Church was ALREADY established. In order to show the power of Christ and to offer a sign that those that preached in His name, IN THE BEGINNING, there was need for such that we are NOW to rely upon faith to accept. Did these things happen? There are your miracles. If these miracles were still performed as they were then, then there would be little need for faith. It took a certain amount of influence to establish the Church. Once this was accomplished, I believe that faith is now more important than the 'need' for miracles.

 

[lecoop]

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan,

no my friend, I speak one barely fluently, and have a rudimentary knowledge of half a dozen others. But I do not speak them other than the basics that it would take a tourist to survive with.

But, and this is a pretty big but, when someone is mumbling rote gibberish, it it quite obvious that this is NO KNOWN language. And when one takes into account that everyone in a specific church that teaches such, have a 'common' sound to their 'tongues', it becomes obvious that this is 'learned' behavior, whereas, we are told in the Bible that those that spoke in tongues only did so 'as the Spirit gave them utterance'. And without an interpreter, neither you nor I would be able to discern that these 'tongues' were a specific language.

And Ryan, I don't know what tongues to which you refer, but the examples that I speak of, I have witnessed myself and they offer little to place any credence upon. When I have confronted the Pastor of one such church that was teaching these 'tongues', after pointing out that they weren't following the guidelines laid down by Paul, his answer to me was, 'I know'. So, in this case at least, there is little doubt in my mind or heart that they were NOT the tongues spoken of as the authentic tongues of Acts or the true tongues as mentioned by Paul in Corinthians.

I am pretty much in agreement with the rest of those that recognize the Apostolic Era. There was a time that the formation, (and note: FORMATION), of the Church needed miracles and signs that would NOT be needed AFTER the the Church was ALREADY established. In order to show the power of Christ and to offer a sign that those that preached in His name, IN THE BEGINNING, there was need for such that we are NOW to rely upon faith to accept. Did these things happen? There are your miracles. If these miracles were still performed as they were then, then there would be little need for faith. It took a certain amount of influence to establish the Church. Once this was accomplished, I believe that faith is now more important than the 'need' for miracles.

Hmmm. That is easy for you to say, if you are not the one needing a miracle! Try being born blind? Maybe attacked by a deadly skin cancer? Perhaps born with club feet? Perhaps all knoted up with crippling arthritus?

People have these things today. Therefore, we are in just as much a need for miracles today, and in the early church. Oh, I know of people that have been miraculously healed of each of these things mentioned!

You know, if Jesus is the same today as He was then, does it make sense that the Holy Spirit is the same today as HE was then? Of couse HE is! And He lives in us, just as He did them. The miracles did not belong to the apostles, they belonged to the HS! It has always been His power that performed the miracles. If He is the same today as He was yesterday, then the power to perform miracles is here today. In fact, they are happening all around us, and will continue to happen. Oh, it is the same HS today giving the utterance of tongues, as He did then also.

Coop

 

[SputnikBoy]

So, what you seem to be saying, coop, is that every time we hear someone 'babbling' in the Pentecostal church it's a miracle of the Holy Spirit? Have I got that right? Is that right for you too, Ryan?

 

[lecoop]

Obedience is better

So, what you seem to be saying, coop, is that every time we hear someone 'babbling' in the Pentecostal church it's a miracle of the Holy Spirit? Have I got that right? Is that right for you too, Ryan?

No, what I am really saying, is you attitude toward these scriptures is wrong. Your attitude toward the Holy Spirit is wrong. The proper attitude toward Acts 2 should be, "If they received the baptism with the Holy Spirit, then I want it also."

If Paul said, "forbid not to speak in tongues," and "I speak in tongues more than ye all," your attitude should be, "If anyone here is going to speak in tongues, it will be me!"

Coop

 

[SputnikBoy]

Re: Obedience is better

So, what you seem to be saying, coop, is that every time we hear someone 'babbling' in the Pentecostal church it's a miracle of the Holy Spirit? Have I got that right? Is that right for you too, Ryan?

No, what I am really saying, is you attitude toward these scriptures is wrong. Your attitude toward the Holy Spirit is wrong. The proper attitude toward Acts 2 should be, "If they received the baptism with the Holy Spirit, then I want it also."

If Paul said, "forbid not to speak in tongues," and "I speak in tongues more than ye all," your attitude should be, "If anyone here is going to speak in tongues, it will be me!"

Coop

I don't think my attitude toward the 'tongue' scriptures are wrong at all. I believe I know exactly what they're saying.

Anyway, you really didn't answer my question. The next time I hear someone in the Pentecostal (or whatever) church 'speaking in tongues' am I to believe that this is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit . . .beyond the shadow of a doubt?

Or, would I be justified (and rather bold!) to go to that person and say with authority, "What you are doing, my friend, is contrary to the scripture . . .?"

 

[lecoop]

Re: Obedience is better

So, what you seem to be saying, coop, is that every time we hear someone 'babbling' in the Pentecostal church it's a miracle of the Holy Spirit? Have I got that right? Is that right for you too, Ryan?

No, what I am really saying, is you attitude toward these scriptures is wrong. Your attitude toward the Holy Spirit is wrong. The proper attitude toward Acts 2 should be, "If they received the baptism with the Holy Spirit, then I want it also."

If Paul said, "forbid not to speak in tongues," and "I speak in tongues more than ye all," your attitude should be, "If anyone here is going to speak in tongues, it will be me!"

Coop

I don't think my attitude toward the 'tongue' scriptures are wrong at all. I believe I know exactly what they're saying.

Anyway, you really didn't answer my question. The next time I hear someone in the Pentecostal (or whatever) church 'speaking in tongues' am I to believe that this is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit . . .beyond the shadow of a doubt?

Or, would I be justified (and rather bold!) to go to that person and say with authority, "What you are doing, my friend, is contrary to the scripture . . .?"

The answer to you question is answered already in acts 2. They spoke as the Holy Spirit gave the utterance. Why would it be any different today? The only thing that has changed is time. The Holy Spirit is the same! We are still in the church age - only at the end of it rather than the beginning. If you went up to someone, and said that what they were doing was contrary to scripture, then what you said would be contrary, for Paul said, "forbid not..."

What you can do, is just accept what these scriptures say at face value.

The human spirit speaks the utterance given by the Holy Spirit
The mind is unfruitful, because it is bypassed.
The person so speaking is speaking to God, for "no man understands."
When I pray in tongues, I cannot understand. Therefore, I need to spend some time praying in English, a prayer I can understand.

What is so difficult with these concepts? Why do you not believe what Paul has so clearly written? And last, why have you not received the baptism with the Holy Spirit? Are you a believer? Then the sign of tongues should follow you.

I think one thing that is preventing a clear understanding of Paul's doctrine of tongues, is that far too much weight is put on the story in Acts 2. Many people think that the apostles spoke in all these different languages. However, it this were true, then we would have to throw away 1 Cor 14. Paul simple did not know what he was talking about.

On the other hand, we know Paul was inspired by the HS to write, so what he wrote is truth, and "no man understands." So if "no man understands" then how could someone interpret? Only one way: the Holy Spirit gives them the interpretation just as He gave the utterance in tongues. There is then only one conclusion about Act 2. It must be that these foreigners heard in their language, rather that the apostles speaking in their language. And in fact, that is exactly what Luke wrote: they heard. Many people read that as if it read, "they spoke...." Many people understand this as if they spoke in these langauges. However, the truth is, they heard in their own language. the truth is, no man understands, unless God adds a miracle of hearing.

Coop

 

[MrVersatile48]

Just had time to read the opening @ 20% of this fascinating & exhilarating assessment of Pentecostalism at 100

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/004/10.38.html

See also http://www.azusastreet100.com for celebration details

Also, no doubt, @ http://www.ag.org & http://www.elim.org.uk

Many Christian freeview TV channels will cover it, of course!

Try http://www.BennyHinn.org & http://www.mcwe.com (Dr Morris Cerullo) & http://www.cfan.org (Rheinhard Bonnke) & http://www.JoyceMeyer.org

Must go!

Ian

 

[SputnikBoy]

I saw the name Benny Hinn and an overwhelming feeling of scriptural savvy coupled with intelligent reasoning swept over me. I believe that the unscriptural practices of the Pentecostal Church (charismatic movement) are among the biggest shams ever perpetrated on Christianity. Benny Hinn indeed! Enough said.

 

[gingercat]

I saw the name Benny Hinn and an overwhelming feeling of scriptural savvy coupled with intelligent reasoning swept over me. I believe that the unscriptural practices of the Pentecostal Church (charismatic movement) are among the biggest shams ever perpetrated on Christianity. Benny Hinn indeed! Enough said.

Yup,

They are geniuses at how they are twisting and interpreting the way to satisfy their own desires. That's how satan uses the Scriptures. :evil:

Many, many of us are doing the same things too, except pentecostals are much better than most of us.

 

[lecoop]

I saw the name Benny Hinn and an overwhelming feeling of scriptural savvy coupled with intelligent reasoning swept over me. I believe that the unscriptural practices of the Pentecostal Church (charismatic movement) are among the biggest shams ever perpetrated on Christianity. Benny Hinn indeed! Enough said.

Yup,

They are geniuses at how they are twisting and interpreting the way to satisfy their own desires. That's how satan uses the Scriptures. :evil:

Many, many of us are doing the same things too, except pentecostals are much better than most of us.

Paul said, "no man understands" and "my understanding is unfruitful."

Who then, is twisting this, you or me? I have said all along that when I speak in tongues, it is my spirit man praying, and my mind is bypassed, or does not understanding what I am praying. Paul backs this up with "my spirit prays" and praying "with the spirit."

In light of Paul's clear discription of tongues and how they work, you are the one that twists by insisting that what Paul meant was the ability to speak in some foreign language without the time spent learning. The Holy Spirit disagrees with you, Paul disagrees with you, and I disagree with you.

Tongues are an "made up" language; made up on the spot by the Holy Spirit as He gives utterance. To a bystander they sound like gibberish. However, neither Paul nor the Holy Spirit cares a whit what they sound like! The Holy Spirit attaches a meaning to what is spoken in tongues, and that meaning will be just what the Father wants prayed at that moment in time. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Please study 1 Cor. 14 again, without any preconceived glasses on, and ask the HS what HE meant when He caused it to be written! Tongues are a sign that follows believers, as Mark said: "these signs shall follow those that believe:...they shall speak with new tongues." What does this scripture really mean? It means that if you believe in tongues, you will speak in tongues. If you do not speak in tongues, it is because you do not believe.

Coop

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Funny, but the tongues that I have heard in my experience sounds like gibberish NOT ANY KIND OF LANGUAGE

Precisely, Magic Man - they do not sound like real languages because they aren't. Linguistic experts have studied tapes of Pentecostal tongues and identified them as an intentional or sub-conscious mix-up of english words. Having spent years in the movement, I have heard hundreds of tongues speakers. Not one of them sounded like a legitimate or recognizable language. (For example, I cannot translate French, German, Russian, etc - but I could identify such, or at least a close imitation of such, if I heard it)

Furthermore, many tongues speakers will only exhibit a vocabulary of several "words" :roll: and many times these few words will sound just like the words they have heard other tongues speakers use. A case of simple mimicry.

But the best part is that Lecoop apparently realizes that he cannot defend modern-day pentecostal babbling as genuine languages so he argues they are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE - that they ARE gibberish but that the whole excercise is still somehow a miraculous undertaking of an infinite Spirit for the purpose of providing a sign to people to whom it means nothing because they can't understand what is being said, if anything.

Makes sense doesn't it? :bday:

 

[lecoop]

Funny, but the tongues that I have heard in my experience sounds like gibberish NOT ANY KIND OF LANGUAGE

Precisely, Magic Man - they do not sound like real languages because they aren't. Linguistic experts have studied tapes of Pentecostal tongues and identified them as an intentional or sub-conscious mix-up of english words. Having spent years in the movement, I have heard hundreds of tongues speakers. Not one of them sounded like a legitimate or recognizable language. (For example, I cannot translate French, German, Russian, etc - but I could identify such, or at least a close imitation of such, if I heard it)

Furthermore, many tongues speakers will only exhibit a vocabulary of several "words" :roll: and many times these few words will sound just like the words they have heard other tongues speakers use. A case of simple mimicry.

But the best part is that Lecoop apparently realizes that he cannot defend modern-day pentecostal babbling as genuine languages so he argues they are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE - that they ARE gibberish but that the whole excercise is still somehow a miraculous undertaking of an infinite Spirit for the purpose of providing a sign to people to whom it means nothing because they can't understand what is being said, if anything.

Makes sense doesn't it? :bday:

Sorry, I didn't say it, Paul did, and behind him, the Holy Spirit that "God-breathed" it to Paul. Once again, I will refer you to what Paul said:

"...no man understands..."
"...my understanding is unfruitful..."

I know that none of you want to hear this, but is is the word of God, and profitable for doctrine.

Coop