Have you spoke in tongues, if not you are not saved

[sadiebelle]

speaking in togues with no interpretation is next to worthless to the body.

1 Cor. 14:5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Paul is not saying that prophesy is good and speaking in tongues is bad, he is saying that one is better and more edifying than the other because of intrepretation.

 

[Free]

What exactly ARE today's 'tongues'? We need to know the EXACT nature of the issue that we're debating. Then we can take it from there.

This question assumes that tongues today are different that those in the Bible. I see no need to make the distinction. If that is not the answer you're looking for, you need to be more clear in your question.

 

[Julian Pyke]

Re: Unclean spirit

If one is speaking in tongues then he is:

1. Unscriptural
2. Not of the Holy Spirit
3. Stealing foro his own personal use that which was meant for Israel
4. Walking by sight and not by faith
5. Ignoring I Cor. 1:22 and 14:22
6. Seeking fleshly experiences
7. Confused as a termite in a yoyo when it comes to what is meant for Israel and what is meant for the body of Christ.....and on top of that..
8. He always seems to choose his experience over sound doctrine when confronted. :o

Wasn't that fun? 8-)

God bless

1. Ok, if it's not scriptual, why in the world is it in the Bible? It says it's the holy spirit talking to God.

 

[Henry]

sadiebelle

Paul is just being polite, he is saying that they are acting like a bunch a crazy people with all that tongues stuff. He says that people from the outside thing they are nuts ! And I would add that tongues is language, not babble.

free

This question assumes that tongues today are different that those in the Bible. I see no need to make the distinction.

WoW! You do not think that we need to test things and see if they are biblical or not, just someone saying so is all you need?

Please, give me a break tongues of the Bible and the silly nonesence the we hear today is not the same at all. The tongues of the bible are actually real languages not silly bable driven by peer preasure and emotionalism.

Julian Pyke

1. Ok, if it's not scriptual, why in the world is it in the Bible? It says it's the holy spirit talking to God.

The word is there, but the meaning has been hyjacked. Certainly today people use words from that bible with an entirely different meaning then what the Bible intends.

And the Bible NEVER says it is the Holy Spirit talking to God, for goodness sakes the Holy Spirit is GOD !! This is one of the ways that modern churches have twisted the bible for their own use. The Bible does not teach this private prayer language or angelic language or what ever you want to call it, it is heresy.

 

[AVBunyan]

Re: Unclean spirit

1. Ok, if it's not scriptual, why in the world is it in the Bible? It says it's the holy spirit talking to God.

Let me ask you this - God told the Jews in the OT to sacrifice a lamb - do you sacrifice a lamb? I mean it is in the Bible is it not? :o

A little food for thought - and I trust you will give it some thought.

God bless

 

[Free]

WoW! You do not think that we need to test things and see if they are biblical or not, just someone saying so is all you need?

Is that what I said? That is not even implied in my statement. Besides, how does the Bible say to test "things"? It's simple: any spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. Have you asked every person who speaks in tongues if they, or the spirit that causes them to speak in tongues, acknowledge that Jesus has come in the flesh?

Have you tested this Henry? Or do you just rely on your own personal theological and doctrinal assumptions and interpretations of the Bible?

My point is that the question asked already has the hidden assumption that there is a distinction between tongues today and those of the early Church.

The tongues of the bible are actually real languages not silly bable driven by peer preasure and emotionalism.

Then it should be easy for you to prove this point. First, prove that every instance of tongues in the Bible is a "real" language (you may have to define what you mean by that first). Second, prove that every instance of modern tongues is not a "real" language.

If you are prepared to do this, I am more than prepared to back up my position with Scripture.

Let me ask you this - God told the Jews in the OT to sacrifice a lamb - do you sacrifice a lamb? I mean it is in the Bible is it not?

A little food for thought - and I trust you will give it some thought.

I gave it some thought. And I have found that your analogy is poor for this debate.

 

[Julian Pyke]

Your thought is poor, but I will show you that what you said and what I say. you say do i sacrafice a lamb, but the Bible also goes on and shows us Jesus came and the old law was abolished. In the NT speaking in tongues was made known, and known that it will go on from egneration to generation.

Acts 2:38

38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."

The gift of the Holy Ghost is our spirit, God in us. Our spirit speaks to God in tongues that we do not know what it is saying but God does. It says that the gift is to you, your children, and generation after that, and even those of whom God will call. Showing us that it will never die.

~~~~

1 Corinthians 14

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 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 shopws us that tongues is not always understood, so we pray that the interpritation is revelead to us.

~~~
1 Corinthians 14:2 - For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

__

Again, I show you this scripture.

UNKNOWN TONGUE... we do not know what it is... but God does. God knows. Unknown tongues Speaks to God, not to men. Its our spirit... our spirit speaketh myseries unto us, our spirit is praying, not us.

 

[SputnikBoy]

What exactly ARE today's 'tongues'? We need to know the EXACT nature of the issue that we're debating. Then we can take it from there.

This question assumes that tongues today are different that those in the Bible. I see no need to make the distinction. If that is not the answer you're looking for, you need to be more clear in your question.

Sputnik: I'm sorry, I thought the question was most clear. I'll reword it. What, then, was the definition of 'tongues' in the scriptures? We really DO need to clearly determine in our minds the answer to this question. Otherwise we tend to get way off track and emotionally involved. I'll add my own two cents worth here ...as a couple of other posters have already acknowledged, 'tongues' were known languages but 'unknown' to the speaker. Do we agree on this?

 

[AVBunyan]

Must compare spiritual with spiritual

Your thought is poor, but I will show you that what you said and what I say. you say do i sacrafice a lamb, but the Bible also goes on and shows us Jesus came and the old law was abolished. In the NT speaking in tongues was made known, and known that it will go on from egneration to generation.

Thanks Julian for your thoughts - I think you failed to reason thorough the over-simplified illustration. Come let us reason together.

My point was this - because it is in the Bible does not mean the doctrine is for ous. The Bible is a book of progressive revelation. I understand that the real Lamb came and did away witht he law. My point was is that truths are constantly being revealed and new instructions are given to different folks at different times.

The sacrificing of lambs have gone away with the appearing of the new Lamb. Signs & wonders and tongues have gone away due to the fact that God has put Israel, as a nation, "on the back burner" for now. Acts is a transitional book that deals with God moving form dealing with the Jews and the earthly kingdom message to the body of Christ and the high calling of heavenly truths.

Again, Acts is a transitional book and I Corinthians was written during Acts so some things there have been put aside for more advanced revelation by Paul latter on starting with Ephesians.

Look real close at these two verses and you tell me what they say - not what they mean.

1 Cor 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
The Jews require signs for them to believe - always have and always will till the kingdom comes - started with Moses and the burning bush and continued on during the Gospels. why do you think our Lord kept using miracles? those hard-hearted folks had to see to believe - we are told to walk by faith now!

Now look at who tongues are for:
1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:
Tongues are for a sign and ho wnrequires signs to believe? Tongues are for those who do not believe. When was the last time you saw tongues being used for unbelievers - be honest - most of the time they are used in the presence of believers.

Now during Acts the Jews were the ones who were not believing at the time - only some were - because of their unbelief (Rom. 11) God opened up the message to the Gentiles just like he said he would in the OT. God did this for two reasons:

1. He said he would bring the Gentiles in on the blessings .
2. To provoke the Jews to jealousy - Romans 10-11

Tongues were a sign of judgment to the Jews that they were being unbelievers and that God was bringing in the Gentiles in on the blessings.

Now, Julian - I ask you to sincerely ponder the above - compare the verses and pray about the matter. Be very careful in the book of Acts.

May God bless :D

 

[Free]

We really DO need to clearly determine in our minds the answer to this question. Otherwise we tend to get way off track and emotionally involved. I'll add my own two cents worth here ...as a couple of other posters have already acknowledged, 'tongues' were known languages but 'unknown' to the speaker. Do we agree on this?

I wouldn't say that 'tonuges' are necessarily known languages. As I have asked someone else and have yet to receive an answer, one would have to prove that every instance of tongues in the NT is a 'real' language. To ultimately prove modern tongues false, one would have to show that all instances of modern tongues is not a 'real' language and also prove with Scripture that the gift ceased with the Apostolic era.

In all of this we also must know what is meant by 'real' language. Is it just human language (I am unconvinced that 1 Cor. 13:1 is strictly hyperbole)? Is it only a language that exists at a given period in history? Also, regarding your definition of tonuges: what of the instances where tongues were unknown to both the speaker and the listener? Does this make those instances false?

 

[Henry]

Free


You can not possible believe that this rambling nonesence we hear in so many churches is really from God. Come one week to week these people ramble the same sounds, they even teach each other how to "speak in tongues" and all that jive.

The fact is that in the NT we know they where speaking an earth language.

1. They lived in a multi-cultural setting, many languages, with one central language. To say a tongue is the same as saying a language the words are the same. When the NT talks about a tongue, it is talking about languages.

2. They where instructed not to speak in tongues unless there was someone to interpret so all could understand, this was not possible if they where merely babbling and someone took a pop shot at what they where saying, but they would know if there was someone to interpret becuase they knew the languages that each other spoke.

So, If I were to speak in spanish then I would know that someone else did too, and that he could interpret what I was going to say to the others.

3. When people spoke in tongues people heard them praising God, and how can they have known what they where they where saying unless they where speaking a language that was understood.

4. The day of pentacost they spoke in the languages of the nations. REAL languages not just babble.

The only time there was babble that was not understood was at the tower of bable, and that was not a good thing.

The FACT is that this so called prayer language or the angelic language is just a false teaching, it pure emotionalism driven by peer presure and false teachers.

Churches that do this are doing this from the flesh, it is not from God.

 

[AVBunyan]

Why so difficult?

Why is this subject so difficult? Why are you folks debating as to whether they were languages or not? why not go to the root of the issue!.
One more time with feeling....

1. What are tongues for?
Answer - 1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign,

2. Who requires signs?
Answer - 1 Cor 1:22 For the Jews require a sign,
Exo 4:1 And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me,

3. Who are tongues for?
Answer - 1 Cor 14:22 but to them that believe not:

4. Who are tongues not for?
Answer - 1 Cor 14:22 not to them that believe,

5. Who were the unbelievers during the Acts that Paul was trying convince?
Answer - the Jews
Acts 13:41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Acts 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Acts 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Summary?

Are you a believer?
Fine, then tongues are not for you.

Are you an unbelieving Jew during the book of Acts?
Great, then tongues are for you.

You see how simple that is???? :o :o :o

Hey mods and admins - we need the head-banging smile here!

God bless :-?

 

[JM]

AV, I missed ya brother, where ya been?

 

[Free]

Free

You can not possible believe that this rambling nonesence we hear in so many churches is really from God.

Why can't I?

Come one week to week these people ramble the same sounds, they even teach each other how to "speak in tongues" and all that jive.

Yes, I have heard of teaching happening, but not once have I ever seen it done or had someone try and do it to me.

The fact is that in the NT we know they where speaking an earth language.

1. They lived in a multi-cultural setting, many languages, with one central language. To say a tongue is the same as saying a language the words are the same. When the NT talks about a tongue, it is talking about languages.

It doesn't follow from your above statement that this means it was an 'earth language'. One of my points is that just because the word "language" is used, it doesn't necessarily mean that the language is an earthly language or even one from the known languages of the area.

2. They where instructed not to speak in tongues unless there was someone to interpret so all could understand, this was not possible if they where merely babbling and someone took a pop shot at what they where saying, but they would know if there was someone to interpret becuase they knew the languages that each other spoke.

With 'pop shot,' you are ignoring the gift of interpretation. Besides, what your statement implies is that the speaker knew the language he was about to speak in.

So, If I were to speak in spanish then I would know that someone else did too, and that he could interpret what I was going to say to the others.

And here is an example of the above. Here you assume that you know you will speak in Spanish, but then tongues isn't unknown to the speaker. So this argument is no good at all.

3. When people spoke in tongues people heard them praising God, and how can they have known what they where they where saying unless they where speaking a language that was understood.

First, I believe it is usually stated that people heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. This does not mean that the praising of God was done in tongues. Second, even it is the case that praising God was in tongues, you would still have to show that this occurs in every instance to give this argument any weight.

4. The day of pentacost they spoke in the languages of the nations. REAL languages not just babble.

I haven't denied what happened on the day of Pentecost, no one is.

The only time there was babble that was not understood was at the tower of bable, and that was not a good thing.

Your consistent and fallacious use of "babble" in reference to tongues is rather silly.

The FACT is that this so called prayer language or the angelic language is just a false teaching, it pure emotionalism driven by peer presure and false teachers.

Churches that do this are doing this from the flesh, it is not from God.

First, you have given no biblical or reasonable evidence to show that it is false. Second, you are fallaciously making blanket statements about all who speak in tongues and all occurrences of tongues when you don't know how it happens in 99.9999% of churches where tongues occurs.

All that you have proven is that you, like most others in here, deny modern tongues for reasons that are not biblical.

 

[Free]

AV,

Your whole post proves nothing. :-?

Also, I would like to ask if all Jews are saved? If not, why would they not require a sign as well?

 

[AVBunyan]

Right Division

AV,Your whole post proves nothing. :-?

I'm not at all surprised at your response Free - the posts were for others who would apply the scriptural principle of comparing scripture with scripture - to those folks my previous posts would be clear.

And my last post couldn't be any plainer - I just let the scriptures answer the questions that some of you folks have been spending page after page on.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Re: Right Division

AV,Your whole post proves nothing. :-?

I'm not at all surprised at your response Free - the posts were for others who would apply the scriptural principle of comparing scripture with scripture - to those folks my previous posts would be clear.

And my last post couldn't be any plainer - I just let the scriptures answer the questions that some of you folks have been spending page after page on.

Sputnik: Yes, it was a good post. It needs to be also emphasized, however, that it was the gospel of Jesus Christ that was being preached to others in a language they could understand. Those so gifted with this ability (certainly not every Christian) were partaking of the Great Commission to spread the Good News to every nation of the world. The Holy Spirit enabled them to do so as Jesus had predicted (Luke 24:45-49). The 'babble' being promoted today in many Pentecostal churches - along with other spurious 'gifts' - is nothing less than self-serving as well as a mockery to God. It needs to be exposed.

 

[Julian Pyke]

Why do people think speaking in tongues is NEEDED to be saved?

 

[captain_crunch]

Are you all not aware that it is "By Faith we are saved"??? nothing huh? Well that includes speaking tongues... YEs it is possible to do so... Do I believe all these churches who participate as such really doing it... no. Most of them are not. Most of it is hyped up... and it should NOT be done in church... Based on Av's posts... the verses put there are basically clear.. not for the believer's and the church.. are the believers... so well there ya go.

 

[Julian Pyke]

Are you all not aware that it is "By Faith we are saved"??? nothing huh? Well that includes speaking tongues... YEs it is possible to do so... Do I believe all these churches who participate as such really doing it... no. Most of them are not. Most of it is hyped up... and it should NOT be done in church... Based on Av's posts... the verses put there are basically clear.. not for the believer's and the church.. are the believers... so well there ya go.

There are, that I know of, two tongues the Bible speaks of. One, as you have said, tongues everyone understands (in Matthew) and another, as I have said. He is proof of what I have said.

1 Corinthians 14:2 - For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

The HOLY SPIRIT speaketh mysteries, Your spirit. You speak to God which no man understands.

Basically, there are many speaking in tongues meanings in the Bible.