Bible Study Speaking in Tongues

[SputnikBoy]

cj - I understand all that. I used to believe that too, however, I now cannot see it supported in scripture anymore so the jury is still out. Although, I'm sure that if one was to speak in tongues for ones own edification I don't think God's going to really care too much...but I'm just having a hard time seeing it supported in scripture.

Sputnik: As always happens when discussing the issue of tongues we seem to have reached the point of vagueness as to WHAT exactly we're debating here. I mean, there's a genuine scriptural tongues (language)and then there's a bogus 'tongues' (babble). Which of the two are we debating? They are NOT the same and we can't possibly apply scriptural texts to support the latter version. So why are we trying unless to refute Pentecostal 'tongues'?

We learn in the Bible about the gift of tongues that enabled certain individuals to convey the gospel to foreigners in the foreigners' own language. These individuals never learned the language in which they can now preach the good news to others. The ability to do so was supernaturally given to them. Okay, that's one issue which really shouldn't warrant any 'debate' as such since we simply accept what the Bible tells us.

Then, about one hundred years ago, ANOTHER brand of 'tongue-speaking' appeared. Whether intentionally deceptive or whether UNintentionally deceptive, these have become the present-day Pentecostal-type practice of 'tongues'. These 'tongues' or 'utterances' are so removed from scriptural tongues that they cannot be supported by any available scripture. Any scripture that IS presented to support this practice has either been misinterpreted, misrepresented, or otherwise 'engineered' to fit the practice.

So, we cannot possibly be discussing either 'edifying the church' or 'edifying oneself' from a scriptural perspective based on the bogus practice of 'tongues' today. It's similar to the analogy of the square peg in a round hole. The jury is NOT still out on this issue because the Bible is very much both the judge and the jury. We need not be scratching our heads on this topic at all since it really IS a pretty cut and dried one. It's only become confusing because MAN has made it confusing. Man MAY have had a little help, however.

My question right now would be this: If 'tongues' and other 'tangible gifts' were to disappear from the Pentecostal and other charismatic movements, would they continue to have a member following at all? Hmmmm .....

 

[cj]

cj - I understand all that. I used to believe that too, however, I now cannot see it supported in scripture anymore so the jury is still out. Although, I'm sure that if one was to speak in tongues for ones own edification I don't think God's going to really care too much...but I'm just having a hard time seeing it supported in scripture.

Amen MM,...... so lets look at scripture.

What is the realm in which God moves?

The Spiritual realm,... yes, but more to the point, the realm of faith.

You said above that you have a hard time "seeing" it supported in scripture. This was an interesting statement, as it follows perfectly the example I used to make my point in the post above.

MM, revelation, not knowledge, is how we begin to gain God. Contrary to the way of "theologians", God isn't gained through the effort of study, but through enlightenment brought in be revelation.

Now surely as we are reading God's word we can receive revelation, but just as surely we can read God's word and receive no revelation.

What gives? What's the "missing" element? Why is there not always full revelation as we read the bible?

Well, the bible tells us why by telling us what is needed?

The first part of this is found in the speaking of Paul to the Ephesians 3-23.


In his words we find the secret to our understanding God.


In love,
cj

 

[bmeasure]

Yes, tongues are real and have a very powerful use today. Mark 16:15-18 makes this very clear. Now, do I believe that people have mis-used this gift? Absolutely, but you can't throw the baby out with the bath-water.

Also, to clarify a bit I believe there is a special (not-understandable) prayer language of tongues which is a highly powerful way of praying in the Spirit. After all, he knows the things we should really be praying for. The second one is actually speaking foreign tongues (foreign languages). There have been many missionaries who have spoken in faith words which they did not understand (unless God gave them discernment of tongues) but the hearers of the message heard fluent language in their own dialects. This is a powerful tool to use for foreign missionaries, needless to say!

 

[Abiyah]

FREE.. Did you ever see this ?

"Free"

Whether glossa is translated as "tongue" or "language" is irrelevant.

Hi there ! ( Free ? Did you ever see this w/regards to "irrelevant" ? )
In every occurrence of "unknown tongue," in the New Testament, the word (especially in I Cor. chapter 14) "unknown" is an added word (italicized in the KJV) by the translators to make the English readable. Tongue MEANS LANGUAGE . (Period)

Basically to try and simplify without over simplification; The Scriptures did not ORIGINALLY state to speak in an UNKNOWN tongue, but that they would speak in OTHER tongues (i.e., other languages) as it is written in Acts chapter 2. This was a gift for communicating the Gospel to peoples of other languages and has absolutely nothing to do with the so -called speaking in tongues that are being carried out in the many churches of today.

In the King James Bible you see some words in italics. These are words that the translators had to add to properly translate the Hebrew/Greek into English. And at times, they did not always add the right words. But they were faithful in that they placed the words that they added in italics so that we would know that the words do not appear in the original Scriptures as such.

In the Acts Scripture, the words are "other tongues" not UNKNOWN tongues. Below is the "tongues" of the book of Acts, and as you can see there was nothing "unknown" about it!

Acts 2:4
" And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost [Ghost=meaning Spirit, as it was from the Greek], and began to speak with OTHER TONGUES, as the Spirit gave them utterance. " (KJV)


Below I have listed the original words in which they were translated from in the scriptures they took from the Greek.

other: Greek word #2087 heteros = other or different:

tongues: Greek word #1100 glossa = a language (specially, one naturally unacquired)

When they spoke these tongues or languages, everybody understood it, the Scripture lists 18 different languages that understood it AT ONCE! Not like today's so-called tongues where only another person can think that he understands it. The Pentecostal Day (Acts ch. 2) tongues were heard and understood by all languages:

So the Scriptures in I Corinthians chapter 14, is simply talking about those that teach God's Word in other languages, other than those which the hearer knows and understands. And "IF" they were to teach to a congregation of a other language, that THEY SHOULD BRING AN INTERPRETER.

In my view what is happening in the churches today in which they pull from I Corinthians chapter 14, is so far removed from the Scriptures that one could only suspect other influences, that are not of the Holy Spirit. I find it to be more on the lines of babbling.

I Corithians 14:33
" For God is NOT the author of confusion [ babble ], but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. "

Abiyah

 

[bmeasure]

Basically to try and simplify without over simplification; The Scriptures did not ORIGINALLY state to speak in an UNKNOWN tongue, but that they would speak in OTHER tongues (i.e., other languages) as it is written in Acts chapter 2. This was a gift for communicating the Gospel to peoples of other languages and has absolutely nothing to do with the so -called speaking in tongues that are being carried out in the many churches of today.

I understand your point, and you make good arguments, but you have left out a few of the Scriptures that we who believe in a spiritual language use to back up our "babbling":
Romans 8: 22-23 - "22) We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23) Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies."

And one of my favorites, which describes how the Holy Spirit prays through us in a "heavenly" language:
Romans 8: 26-27 - "26) In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27) And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

Another which shows the existence of a spiritual language:
1 Cor 13:1 - "1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
This one seems to what I would call "babbling", because they are wasted words.

In my view what is happening in the churches today in which they pull from I Corinthians chapter 14, is so far removed from the Scriptures that one could only suspect other influences, that are not of the Holy Spirit. I find it to be more on the lines of babbling.

This chapter very clearly states that there is a divine language which a Christian can speak in and others won't understand, because he is speaking to God (hence praying in the Spirit). I'm not trying to twist words to mean what I want them to mean, but just reading a very simple instruction for Christians. I have shown how there are several other areas in which this is also backed up. I also am looking at a NIV/KJV/Greek interliniar Bible and see the direct translation of the original text. It very closely follows the NIV translation that I'm going to give here:
1 Cor 14:1-5 - "1) Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2) For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3) But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4) He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5) I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.
Now, to be in agreement, the translation of tongue (which is tongue in the greek interliniar) absolutely could mean "another language" or "other language", and I still see this as being a different language than those spoken by man. First, if you are using the gift of speaking in various languages (a real gift, as even you have agreed on this) you would not be speaking to God as verse 2 states clearly. You would be in fact speaking through the Spirit to other men. Also, why is it so difficult for you to see an angelic (or spiritual, or divine) language as "another language"? Isn't this form of communication in a "other language" than when you pray in english to God?

14) For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. Why would I pray to God in Italien, Spanish, Russian, or Japanese? I would speak to other people in these languages so they could understand the Gospel, but there is no reason for this in personal prayer.

Look, another reason I believe in this stuff is because I have experienced the Spirit moving upon me and speaking in a divine tongue. I know it the same as I know that God exists. I have also personally witnessed what I felt was someone operating in the flesh, and not of the Spirit. I know this is difficult to understand, because I struggled with this being truth for a long time (my mind kept getting in the way). I kept trying to use logic to understand how this worked, but it didn't add up. Finally, I asked God for help and just trusted his Word. I simply acted on faith, then it started working. Hope this helped to explain a little. I'll tell you what, though, I surely don't have it all figured out, and I'm trying to operate in several other giftings also, and haven't done several of them so far. We just have to believe what Scripture says and act. The miracle part is God's job.

 

[Free]

In every occurrence of "unknown tongue," in the New Testament, the word (especially in I Cor. chapter 14) "unknown" is an added word (italicized in the KJV) by the translators to make the English readable. Tongue MEANS LANGUAGE . (Period)

No one here is arguing that "tongue" doesn't mean "language". Whether the word "unknown" appears in the text or not (as in the NASB and ESV) is irrelevant since the idea is implied in the text.

This was a gift for communicating the Gospel to peoples of other languages and has absolutely nothing to do with the so -called speaking in tongues that are being carried out in the many churches of today.

Well that is part of the discussion: is there only one use shown in the Bible for the gift of tongues. There are a few who are saying that it had at least two different uses.

In the Acts Scripture, the words are "other tongues" not UNKNOWN tongues.

Again, this is irrelevant since the disciples didn't know the languages in which they were speaking. So, yes, they were unknown, to the speakers.

tongues: Greek word #1100 glossa = a language (specially, one naturally unacquired)

Here you are giving evidence that tongues were a language unknown to the speaker. But this harms your whole argument as I show below.

So the Scriptures in I Corinthians chapter 14, is simply talking about those that teach God's Word in other languages, other than those which the hearer knows and understands. And "IF" they were to teach to a congregation of a other language, that THEY SHOULD BRING AN INTERPRETER.

And here is where your argument falls apart. If this is the "gift of tongues," the ability to supernaturally speak in a language unknown to the speaker, then how would they know which language they were going to speak so that they could bring an interpreter? Think about it.

In my view what is happening in the churches today in which they pull from I Corinthians chapter 14, is so far removed from the Scriptures that one could only suspect other influences, that are not of the Holy Spirit.

Actually, it is precisely what was happening in the the Corinthian church. It is disorganized and chaotic, which is what Paul is speaking against.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

And here is where your argument falls apart. If this is the "gift of tongues," the ability to supernaturally speak in a language unknown to the speaker, then how would they know which language they were going to speak so that they could bring an interpreter?

The Holy Spirit gives the gift of interpreting so you don't need to know what language you speak ;)

I believe that there is only one tongues and it was the tongues at pentecost - the one used to spread the word. That's the tongues I am debating in this thread - not babble!

 

[Julian Pyke]

I am SICK and TIRED of reading posts that say "i was once here and this happened so I don't believe in tongues."

Well if you were once in a meeting and a guy said God is the devil, would you stop believeing in God because HE was wrong!?

Gesh guys, there are people who put on a show. I have enver seen "twitching, barking, funny stuff" happen when the whole church speaks in tongues. they just do it, no twitching, nothing! however I don't doubt it happens (to put on a show) however it could just be a reaction. I don't know, it's up to the individual. (As in God is so powerful in them their body cannot take it.)

Now guys, All I'm saying is I beleive in two tongues. You guys know what it is. We are debating if your Spirit Man speaking (you speaking in tongues) is real or not.

 

[bmeasure]

Great points, Free! As for your reply, Mary:

The Holy Spirit gives the gift of interpreting so you don't need to know what language you speak.

It's a gift so you never know when you will get it. I believe you could pray for interpretation, but it still says that gifts are given as the Spirit sees fit.
In fact Chapter 14 talks about that you should pray to receive the interpretation, and not that it automatically happens.

I believe that there is only one tongues and it was the tongues at pentecost - the one used to spread the word. That's the tongues I am debating in this thread - not babble!

You can't just choose for others not to enter their input on tongues because you happen to not believe in a spiritual tongue. The fact is that there are hundreds of human languages on earth and a spiritual prayer language, and all of these can be given by the Spirit of God as a gift. You say you believe in Pentecosts tongues, but not in the other instances, I've shown you?

Also, another instance in the OT that shows a clear example of divine tongues and an interpretation is Daniel interpreting the writing on the wall:
Daniel 5:25-29:

25 "This is the inscription that was written:
Mene , Mene , Tekel , Parsin

26 "This is what these words mean:
Mene : God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.

27 Tekel : You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

28 Peres : Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians."

29 Then at Belshazzar's command, Daniel was clothed in purple, a gold chain was placed around his neck, and he was proclaimed the third highest ruler in the kingdom.

If you read the beginning of the chapter it shows how one of the most powerful rulers at that time in the world couldn't summon someone who spoke that language. To this day there is no language that sounds or looks anything like it. Yet Daniel gave an elaborate translation of what those words meant. Look at all those scriptures I've listed above, and look at the story with Daniel, and I believe it's clear that there is a spiritually spoken and discerned language which is not able to be known to man, but by the Spirit of God.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Pentecostal tongues ...that IS what we're debating after all, right? Okay, then let me call a spade a spade. Poppycock and balderdash!

 

[SputnikBoy]

And here is where your argument falls apart. If this is the "gift of tongues," the ability to supernaturally speak in a language unknown to the speaker, then how would they know which language they were going to speak so that they could bring an interpreter?

The Holy Spirit gives the gift of interpreting so you don't need to know what language you speak ;)

I believe that there is only one tongues and it was the tongues at Pentecost - the one used to spread the word. That's the tongues I am debating in this thread - not babble!

Sputnik: Glory be, Merry Menag, thank you! Now if we can just keep that line of thought - present-day Pentecostal babbling as opposed to the authentic Pentecostal tongues of Acts - then we might just have a firm foundation on which to continue this debate. Any number of posters, no offense intended, haven't got a clue as to what this discussion is all about.

 

[SputnikBoy]

I am SICK and TIRED of reading posts that say "i was once here and this happened so I don't believe in tongues."

Well if you were once in a meeting and a guy said God is the devil, would you stop believeing in God because HE was wrong!?

Gesh guys, there are people who put on a show. I have enver seen "twitching, barking, funny stuff" happen when the whole church speaks in tongues. they just do it, no twitching, nothing! however I don't doubt it happens (to put on a show) however it could just be a reaction. I don't know, it's up to the individual. (As in God is so powerful in them their body cannot take it.)

Now guys, All I'm saying is I beleive in two tongues. You guys know what it is. We are debating if your Spirit Man speaking (you speaking in tongues) is real or not.

Sputnik: Julian, it's so difficult to discuss this issue of 'tongues' in a manner that doesn't detrimentally target the 'tongue-speaker'. At the same time, if one believes (as per scripture) that today's 'tongues' are either counterfeit of the real article or simply 'fake', should they not be obligated to expose the practice for what it is?

Does it not strike you as odd that, generally speaking, one needs to be in a Pentecostal setting before this practice manifests itself? It's true. And, if this phenomena is INDEED a gift of the Holy Spirit, why is it then that only Pentecostals (generally speaking again) are given this 'gift'. Why are not masses of Baptists, Lutherans, Adventists, Episcapalians, etc. honored with this 'gift of the Holy Spirit'? Why (generally) only Pentecostals? Does the Holy Spirit reside only in the Pentecostal Church?

Could we not make a logical assumption from this fact alone that people of a particular group are more apt to 'become' what is expected of them? I think so. When one joins a group that believes strongly in a specific religious theme, especially one that indicates a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit such as 'speaking in tongues', then one will strive to attain that special relationship as others in their group have already done. "They 'speak in tongues', I want to do the same," the non-'tongue speaker' may lament. Pretty soon the 'tongue-speaker' may intentionally or unintentionally develop an air of superiority. And why not? They have an infilling of the HS, by golly!

But not all do. Those that can't show evidence of being 'Spirit-filled' feel inferior, not a part of the group, a lesser Christian. In the case of 'tongues', they try and try for the 'gift'. For some reason, other spiritual gifts seem to be of lesser importance, even though 'tongues' is listed as 'least important' in the Bible. It's just GOT to be 'tongues'. It's frustrating. They have an obligation to catch up with others in the group who have already evidenced an 'infilling of the HS'. They try and try, they even get help from others who already 'speak in tongues'. They're told to make sounds, to open their mouth a certain way, to loosen up their tongue. Given time, some less time than others, the magical moment arrives when the 'Holy Spirit' gives them the 'gift' that they have so longed for. They're 'speaking in tongues' at last!

Are they really? No, of course not. Most 'tongue-speakers' acquire this 'gift' through practice, coercian, gullibility, fear of 'not belonging', emotional state of mind, euphoria, any number of psychological reasons. And, ANYONE can practice until perfect! My own son (when 14) could 'speak in tongues' just like a pro. He would 'put on a show' at will just to expose the fakery of it all. This was not of the Holy Spirit but it sounded as genuine as others who 'spoke in tongues' in church.

Is my son's example the reason I'm suggesting that we should reject today's bogus 'tongues'? Nope. Just because he could fake them and have others fooled into believing the authenticity of them didn't mean that others were doing the same. I could even be lying to you. You don't know me, you don't know my son, who cares about some so-called incident told by somebody else anyway? We shouldn't make judgements or decisions based on someone's unreliable story. No, I'm merely saying that 'tongues' or 'utterances' that no one else can understand (babbling) can be faked quite easily by ANYONE.

Now, had my son suddenly started speaking in Swahili, THAT would have been a different matter. That would then have become an official language of the world, one that could be verified by a linguist as being absolutely and unequivocally GENUINE. And, it would also have been necessary for there to have been present a person from Swahili Land in order for THE GOSPEL MESSAGE to be received. No such thing as jabbering away in ANY language unless edifying to the listener. The Holy Spirit doesn't play impressive games. But, it wasn't Swahili, Chinese, Russian, or any known language my son was speaking. It was, sadly, merely impressive sounding genuine BABBLE. So, if it can be faked, then it probably IS fake!

The Bible and the Bible alone is the criteria for determining the genuine from the fake. And, according to the Bible, tongues has to be a genuine language of the world. And it has to be used in such a way as to edify the listener, such as the message of the gospel. There is NO SUCH THING AS AN ANGELIC LANGUAGE. Not from the Bible anyway. There is no such thing as 'divine babble' ...unless we count the Tower of Babel incident as an example. No fair! There is no such thing as 'tongues' being a specific phenomena in and of themselves. Forget them as being something 'mystical'. They are not. 'Tongues' is simple another word for 'language' as in 'known language of the world'. My native 'tongue' is English. If Paul had simply substituted the word 'language' instead of 'tongue' we wouldn't even be debating this issue. Then again, maybe we would ...!

 

[Free]

The Holy Spirit gives the gift of interpreting so you don't need to know what language you speak

Yes, I know, but that is not what Abiyah is arguing. He seems to be arguing that it is a language known to the speaker but unknown to the congregation.

Pentecostal tongues ...that IS what we're debating after all, right? Okay, then let me call a spade a spade. Poppycock and balderdash!

And yet, you have given nothing but your own reasoning to support this position.

Why are not masses of Baptists, Lutherans, Adventists, Episcapalians, etc. honored with this 'gift of the Holy Spirit'? Why (generally) only Pentecostals? Does the Holy Spirit reside only in the Pentecostal Church?

Mat 13:58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

Most 'tongue-speakers' acquire this 'gift' through practice, coercian, gullibility, fear of 'not belonging', emotional state of mind, euphoria, any number of psychological reasons.

Do you have any evidence of this? Have you interviewed enough ‘tongue-speakers’ to know this or been to hundreds of churches that practice tongues and witnessed this? I didn’t think so. You are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.

My own son (when 14) could 'speak in tongues' just like a pro. He would 'put on a show' at will just to expose the fakery of it all. This was not of the Holy Spirit but it sounded as genuine as others who 'spoke in tongues' in church.

That is a very blasphemous thing to do.

Now, had my son suddenly started speaking in Swahili, THAT would have been a different matter…. But, it wasn't Swahili, Chinese, Russian, or any known language my son was speaking

So once again I ask: are you an expert in all the world’s languages and dialects? How would you have even known your son was speaking in Swahili, Chinese, Russian, or any other known language?

So, if it can be faked, then it probably IS fake!

Does counterfeit money mean that real money is fake? Does the ability for Satan to heal people mean that healing is fake? That really is a poor argument.

There is NO SUCH THING AS AN ANGELIC LANGUAGE. Not from the Bible anyway.

Then why would Paul even mention it in 1 Cor 1:13?

They are not. 'Tongues' is simple another word for 'language' as in 'known language of the world'. My native 'tongue' is English. If Paul had simply substituted the word 'language' instead of 'tongue' we wouldn't even be debating this issue. Then again, maybe we would ...!

Of course we would. Since you haven't been following what Abiyah and I are discussing, I'll let fill you in: whether glossa is translated as "tongue" or "language" is completely irrelevant.

So far, you have failed to provide any good rational argument for believing that tongues are what you say and that Pentecostal-style tongues are not biblical. All you have essentially given is that because you think it sounds like babble, it must be babble and, therefore, false.

 

[bmeasure]

This guy sputnik is really crossing the line here! What has made you so superior to everyone else here, Sput? You've really think you've got it all figured out don't you? Be careful that you don't think more highly of yourself than you ought. (scripture)

I am curious to know everyones views on Speaking in Tongues then provide some scriptures on it. I will be elaving to work at camp again in a week so hopefully this topic will be hot before I leave.

This is what was what Julian wrote to start this post originally, so why would you be so arrogant to assume because you want it to change, it will be?

Sputnik wrote:
Pentecostal tongues ...that IS what we're debating after all, right? Okay, then let me call a spade a spade. Poppycock and balderdash!

Where's the spade? Now you look foolish! Hope it was worth it.

And, if this phenomena is INDEED a gift of the Holy Spirit, why is it then that only Pentecostals (generally speaking again) are given this 'gift'. Why are not masses of Baptists, Lutherans, Adventists, Episcapalians, etc. honored with this 'gift of the Holy Spirit'?

First off, this argument is pretty weak before it even gets started. You say "only Pentecostals" then say "generally speaking". Which is it; Generally or "only"? For starters, I don't mess with being any denomination.....you could maybe calle me "inter- or non-denominational", but those are almost denominations themselves. I simply read the word of God and believe what it says, whithout feeling pressured to believe what a denomination believes. In fact I dropped my membership at an AG (Assemblies of God) church because they required me to believe that speaking in tongues is the "initial physical evidence" of being filled with the Spirit. Scripture has told me differently. I don't pick a church based on what denomination, but if they believe the Word of God. Minor differences in beliefs about things are common, but don't "require" me to believe something that isn't scriptural.

Another reason people that believe like you don't recieve that particular form of tongues is that YOU DON'T WANT IT! Do you give people gifts when you know they won't want it? I don't. Also, I know a Luthran pastor that told me that some of his congregation do speak in a "prayer tongue", but they don't consider it orderly to have this happen during a service....only quietly (I don't have a huge problem with this thinking). I also don't think it's orderly to be barking and shouting out of order in church. This is what 1 Cor 14 is addressing, disorderly conduct.

I have never seen someone bark, and don't understand why the Spirit of God would do that, but I'm not going to point out their "speck" when I've got beams in my own eye! It is difficult to be a pastor of some pentecostal assemblies, because you have to be firm yet sensitive to people's feelings. I'm not well enough instructed by God to handle those decisions, yet. But I know that to ban the correct operation of the gifting from service just to stop the "other stuff" isn't the way to go. With your arrogance you presume to know more than many seasoned pastors.

Last thing I can't believe I read was:

My own son (when 14) could 'speak in tongues' just like a pro. He would 'put on a show' at will just to expose the fakery of it all. This was not of the Holy Spirit but it sounded as genuine as others who 'spoke in tongues' in church

I'd stop worrying about what's going on in other churches and get your own home in order! Your son "putting on a show" is a personal insult to the Holy Spirits power. I'm not going to say that he has already commited the unpardonable sin, but I think he's flirting with disaster! Even if you don't believe the Spirit is grieved, your son is still insulting your fellow brothers and sisters who worship your Risen Lord and King. This is sin...period! Now you "allowing" or dare I say "promoting" this kind of behavior is an offense to God on your part!

Matthew 18:6 says:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

I'd be very careful if I were you. God is not pleased with the proud of heart.

 

[Merry Menagerie]

OH Sputnik you're so funny!!! But hey...settle down yeh? Cos there are people here who really believe in the babble thing and up until just recently so did I. And it's quite upsetting to hear people mocking something that one believes in.

But anyway...you don't have to do what I say I just thought that debate is always best when people aren't working from the defence mode is all.

It's a gift so you never know when you will get it. I believe you could pray for interpretation, but it still says that gifts are given as the Spirit sees fit.
In fact Chapter 14 talks about that you should pray to receive the interpretation, and not that it automatically happens.

Yes I undestand that

You can't just choose for others not to enter their input on tongues because you happen to not believe in a spiritual tongue. The fact is that there are hundreds of human languages on earth and a spiritual prayer language, and all of these can be given by the Spirit of God as a gift. You say you believe in Pentecosts tongues, but not in the other instances, I've shown you?

The question is Do you think speaking in tongues is real? I believe yes it is real in regards to the whole pentecostal language thing but I believe that the babble thing isn't real. It's hard for me to say this as I used to believe as you do now until my eyes were opened to a different interpretation of the scriptures I used to use to back it up.

Also, another instance in the OT that shows a clear example of divine tongues and an interpretation is Daniel interpreting the writing on the wall:
Daniel 5:25-29:
Quote:
25 "This is the inscription that was written:
Mene , Mene , Tekel , Parsin

26 "This is what these words mean:
Mene : God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.

27 Tekel : You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

28 Peres : Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians."

29 Then at Belshazzar's command, Daniel was clothed in purple, a gold chain was placed around his neck, and he was proclaimed the third highest ruler in the kingdom.

This isn't the pentecostal tongues or the gift of tongues that is talked about in pentecost.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Pentecostal tongues ...that IS what we're debating after all, right? Okay, then let me call a spade a spade. Poppycock and balderdash!

Free: And yet, you have given nothing but your own reasoning to support this position.

Sputnik: Again, what I'm debating - not sure about everyone else - are the kinds of 'utterances' that one might hear if they attended a Pentecostal church. I am NOT debating the authenticity of tongues as found in the Bible. I have no problem with the latter.

My own reasoning comes about from an understanding as to what Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians. The Book of Acts establishes what tongues are and we should not be adding any other definition merely to support a present-day practice. Other than what I've just stated, Free, what more do you ask of me? How can I offer more proof than what any of us can read for ourselves in the Bible? Paul is REBUKING the Corinthians for their misuse of 'tongues', NOT building a case for present-day 'tongues'.

Why are not masses of Baptists, Lutherans, Adventists, Episcapalians, etc. honored with this 'gift of the Holy Spirit'? Why (generally) only Pentecostals? Does the Holy Spirit reside only in the Pentecostal Church?

Free: Mat 13:58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

Sputnik: I don't think that this text has anything to do with the issue we're debating. The Bible debunks present-day 'tongue-speaking' by virtue of the practice being unscriptural to begin with. The 'unbelief' that some of us have is totally JUSTIFIED.

Most 'tongue-speakers' acquire this 'gift' through practice, coercian, gullibility, fear of 'not belonging', emotional state of mind, euphoria, any number of psychological reasons.

Free: Do you have any evidence of this? Have you interviewed enough ‘tongue-speakers’ to know this or been to hundreds of churches that practice tongues and witnessed this? I didn’t think so. You are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Sputnik: A book titled 'Praise The Lord!' (I don't have the name of the author right now but I can get it) exposes Pentecostal practices by a former Pentecostal minister who was caught up in the whole scene. But this is merely 'fluff'. Again, the BIBLE is the final word on this issue, with or without books of grievances from former ministers of any denomination. We really don't need to interview scores of 'tongue-speakers' or go to hundreds of churches to witness 'the practice of tongues'.

My own son (when 14) could 'speak in tongues' just like a pro. He would 'put on a show' at will just to expose the fakery of it all. This was not of the Holy Spirit but it sounded as genuine as others who 'spoke in tongues' in church.

Free: That is a very blasphemous thing to do.

Sputnik: How can exposing a colossal fake be blasphemy?

Now, had my son suddenly started speaking in Swahili, THAT would have been a different matter…. But, it wasn't Swahili, Chinese, Russian, or any known language my son was speaking

Free: So once again I ask: are you an expert in all the world’s languages and dialects? How would you have even known your son was speaking in Swahili, Chinese, Russian, or any other known language?

Sputnik: I don't need to be an expert on languages, Free. Once we apply the ACTUAL definition as to what tongues were in Acts and the purpose for which they were given, we can reason things out from there. Acts ESTABLISHES the definition of tongues. Paul's writings concerning tongues (that have been covered SO many times) are pertaining to the 'misuse' of the tongues (languages ...sigh) of Acts.

So, if it can be faked, then it probably IS fake!

Free: Does counterfeit money mean that real money is fake? Does the ability for Satan to heal people mean that healing is fake? That really is a poor argument.

Sputnik: But it's the BIBLE that is dictating the genuine here. As long as it (whatever) deviates from the Bible definition then it's a fake. That's all I'm saying and I'm sorry for making this personal. As I mentioned in a previous post, it's difficult NOT to make it personal. I'm not questioning your Christianity. If the truth be known you're possibly a better Christian than I am. As someone already said, I come across as being somewhat arrogant. It isn't intentional.

There is NO SUCH THING AS AN ANGELIC LANGUAGE. Not from the Bible anyway.

Free: Then why would Paul even mention it in 1 Cor 1:13?

Sputnik: Paul mentioned it purely in 'hyperbolic' terms. That IS pretty obvious. He also mentions having 'the gift of prophesy', 'having all knowledge', 'having the ability to move mountains', 'surrendering his body to the flames' in the same kind of 'illustrative' context. He was also apparently making reference (in regard to 'the tongues of angels') to a cultural belief, not a scriptural belief, of his day. Today's Pentecostal 'tongues' cannot be supported by this reference. Besides being lesser than the angels we also know that God can understand WHATEVER native language we happen to speak anyway.

They are not. 'Tongues' is simply another word for 'language' as in 'known language of the world'. My native 'tongue' is English. If Paul had simply substituted the word 'language' instead of 'tongue' we wouldn't even be debating this issue. Then again, maybe we would ...!

Free: Of course we would. Since you haven't been following what Abiyah and I are discussing, I'll fill you in: whether glossa is translated as "tongue" or "language" is completely irrelevant.

Sputnik: It is absolutely relevant since 'language' refers to a 'foreign language'. Even if those in a Pentecostal church WERE speaking an actual language, then they're practicing the whole thing wrong anyway. There is no reason to begin with why they would break out in 'a tongue' since no one in their congregation REQUIRES it. The Holy Spirit would not be giving someone 'the gift' for no logical reason.

Scenario: Someone 'speaks in a tongue'. This is probably a rare event, but someone else interprets. Why? Why did the scenario take place to begin with unless someone (a foreigner) was uplifted as a result of the message? A little bit of game-playing by the Holy Spirit? Surely this kind of practice SHOULD be questioned because it makes no sense!

Free: So far, you have failed to provide any good rational argument for believing that tongues are what you say and that Pentecostal-style tongues are not biblical. All you have essentially given is that because you think it sounds like babble, it must be babble and, therefore, false.[/quote]

Sputnik: If anything, I think the RATIONAL side of my argument has been most sound. Why not present the specific scriptures that today's Pentecostals use to justify their 'tongues'. There really are not that many. They HAVE already been covered as whole, but how about us scrutinizing the SPECIFIC texts?

 

[bmeasure]

And I repeat:

This guy sputnik is really crossing the line here! What has made you so superior to everyone else here, Sput? You've really think you've got it all figured out don't you? Be careful that you don't think more highly of yourself than you ought. (scripture)

I am curious to know everyones views on Speaking in Tongues then provide some scriptures on it. I will be elaving to work at camp again in a week so hopefully this topic will be hot before I leave.

This is what was what Julian wrote to start this post originally, so why would you be so arrogant to assume because you want it to change, it will be?
[quote:6ec1b]Sputnik wrote:
Pentecostal tongues ...that IS what we're debating after all, right? Okay, then let me call a spade a spade. Poppycock and balderdash!

Where's the spade? Now you look foolish! Hope it was worth it.

And, if this phenomena is INDEED a gift of the Holy Spirit, why is it then that only Pentecostals (generally speaking again) are given this 'gift'. Why are not masses of Baptists, Lutherans, Adventists, Episcapalians, etc. honored with this 'gift of the Holy Spirit'?

First off, this argument is pretty weak before it even gets started. You say "only Pentecostals" then say "generally speaking". Which is it; Generally or "only"? For starters, I don't mess with being any denomination.....you could maybe calle me "inter- or non-denominational", but those are almost denominations themselves. I simply read the word of God and believe what it says, whithout feeling pressured to believe what a denomination believes. In fact I dropped my membership at an AG (Assemblies of God) church because they required me to believe that speaking in tongues is the "initial physical evidence" of being filled with the Spirit. Scripture has told me differently. I don't pick a church based on what denomination, but if they believe the Word of God. Minor differences in beliefs about things are common, but don't "require" me to believe something that isn't scriptural.

Another reason people that believe like you don't recieve that particular form of tongues is that YOU DON'T WANT IT! Do you give people gifts when you know they won't want it? I don't. Also, I know a Luthran pastor that told me that some of his congregation do speak in a "prayer tongue", but they don't consider it orderly to have this happen during a service....only quietly (I don't have a huge problem with this thinking). I also don't think it's orderly to be barking and shouting out of order in church. This is what 1 Cor 14 is addressing, disorderly conduct.

I have never seen someone bark, and don't understand why the Spirit of God would do that, but I'm not going to point out their "speck" when I've got beams in my own eye! It is difficult to be a pastor of some pentecostal assemblies, because you have to be firm yet sensitive to people's feelings. I'm not well enough instructed by God to handle those decisions, yet. But I know that to ban the correct operation of the gifting from service just to stop the "other stuff" isn't the way to go. With your arrogance you presume to know more than many seasoned pastors.

Last thing I can't believe I read was:

My own son (when 14) could 'speak in tongues' just like a pro. He would 'put on a show' at will just to expose the fakery of it all. This was not of the Holy Spirit but it sounded as genuine as others who 'spoke in tongues' in church

I'd stop worrying about what's going on in other churches and get your own home in order! Your son "putting on a show" is a personal insult to the Holy Spirits power. I'm not going to say that he has already commited the unpardonable sin, but I think he's flirting with disaster! Even if you don't believe the Spirit is grieved, your son is still insulting your fellow brothers and sisters who worship your Risen Lord and King. This is sin...period! Now you "allowing" or dare I say "promoting" this kind of behavior is an offense to God on your part!

Matthew 18:6 says:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

I'd be very careful if I were you. God is not pleased with the proud of heart.[/quote:6ec1b]

 

[SputnikBoy]

This guy sputnik is really crossing the line here! What has made you so superior to everyone else here, Sput? You've really think you've got it all figured out don't you? Be careful that you don't think more highly of yourself than you ought. (scripture)

Sputnik: I thought for a while before responding to this post because I've just about had it covering the same ground repeatedly. There really IS only a certain amount of times a person can say the same thing. Then they really DO need to move on.

Why am I crossing the line, bmeasure? Should I instead casually concede that an unscriptural practice is taking over so many churches today and just leave it at that? Why initiate a topic to debate to begin with unless both 'pros and the cons' be represented? It would be a pretty boring debate. Not that trying to create interest based on that alone is why I'm participating to begin with. And, the truth of the matter, bmeasure, is that I don't think highly of myself. This debate should have nothing to do with personality anyway but a knowledge and an understanding of the issue that we're debating.

Sputnik wrote:
Pentecostal tongues ...that IS what we're debating after all, right? Okay, then let me call a spade a spade. Poppycock and balderdash!

Where's the spade? Now you look foolish! Hope it was worth it.

Sputknik: ???? Please, let us debate this issue as intelligently as we can.

[quote:7a61a]And, if this phenomena is INDEED a gift of the Holy Spirit, why is it then that only Pentecostals (generally speaking again) are given this 'gift'. Why are not masses of Baptists, Lutherans, Adventists, Episcapalians, etc. honored with this 'gift of the Holy Spirit'?

bmeasure: First off, this argument is pretty weak before it even gets started. You say "only Pentecostals" then say "generally speaking". Which is it; Generally or "only"?

Sputnik: Silly, silly. I was merely preparing myself in advance for those who claimed 'tongue-speaking' but who were not affiliated with a Pentecostal church. There are any number of these people around. GENERALLY SPEAKING, however, the version of 'tongues' we are discussing here (I think) IS predominantly a Pentecostal phenomena.

bmeasure: For starters, I don't mess with being any denomination.....you could maybe calle me "inter- or non-denominational", but those are almost denominations themselves. I simply read the word of God and believe what it says, whithout feeling pressured to believe what a denomination believes. In fact I dropped my membership at an AG (Assemblies of God) church because they required me to believe that speaking in tongues is the "initial physical evidence" of being filled with the Spirit. Scripture has told me differently. I don't pick a church based on what denomination, but if they believe the Word of God. Minor differences in beliefs about things are common, but don't "require" me to believe something that isn't scriptural.

Sputnik: Good. If you now delve a little deeper into the Word of God you'll arrive at the same conclusion about today's 'tongues' that I have.

bmeasure: Another reason people that believe like you don't recieve that particular form of tongues is that YOU DON'T WANT IT! Do you give people gifts when you know they won't want it? I don't. Also, I know a Luthran pastor that told me that some of his congregation do speak in a "prayer tongue", but they don't consider it orderly to have this happen during a service....only quietly (I don't have a huge problem with this thinking). I also don't think it's orderly to be barking and shouting out of order in church. This is what 1 Cor 14 is addressing, disorderly conduct.

Sputnik: Let me tell you this, bmeasure, and you'd better believe it. I most definitely don't want to say ANYTHING that I don't understand myself. I speak English and if I can't get my message through in the language that I understand, then I don't want any kind of 'spirit' doing it for me. You bet that I don't want something 'taking me over' that is totally unscriptural and I make no apologies for it!

You acknowledge the disorderly conduct spoken of by Paul in 1 Corinthians. And yet you don't seem to mind the disorderly conduct regarding 'tongue-speaking' that is so typical in today's Pentecostal churches. What exactly IS your stand on this issue?

bmeasure: I have never seen someone bark, and don't understand why the Spirit of God would do that, but I'm not going to point out their "speck" when I've got beams in my own eye!

Sputnik: Yes, I agree with you about pointing the finger at others. But, as unavoidable as it may be NOT to target the individual in this case, it's the PRACTICE that is being questioned here. Big difference.

bmeasure: It is difficult to be a pastor of some pentecostal assemblies, because you have to be firm yet sensitive to people's feelings. I'm not well enough instructed by God to handle those decisions, yet. But I know that to ban the correct operation of the gifting from service just to stop the "other stuff" isn't the way to go. With your arrogance you presume to know more than many seasoned pastors.

Sputnik: The only way that I could know more than 'a seasoned pastor' is if THEY don't understand what the scriptures have to say about their own practice. While appearing to be arrogant - and I don't deny that I possibly DO come across in that way - arrogant is NOT what I'm intending to be. A 'label' alone does not necessarily a 'seasoned pastor' make. Do I know more about this issue than they do? One need not be bragging to say, 'in this case anyway, apparantly so'.

Last thing I can't believe I read was:

My own son (when 14) could 'speak in tongues' just like a pro. He would 'put on a show' at will just to expose the fakery of it all. This was not of the Holy Spirit but it sounded as genuine as others who 'spoke in tongues' in church

bmeasure: I'd stop worrying about what's going on in other churches and get your own home in order! Your son "putting on a show" is a personal insult to the Holy Spirits power.

Sputnik: This was some years ago. And it has nothing to do with getting my own home in order. This is about bogus tongues merely intended to profit the individual. It is also NOTHING to do with the Holy Spirit, period!

bmeasure: I'm not going to say that he has already commited the unpardonable sin, but I think he's flirting with disaster! Even if you don't believe the Spirit is grieved, your son is still insulting your fellow brothers and sisters who worship your Risen Lord and King. This is sin...period! Now you "allowing" or dare I say "promoting" this kind of behavior is an offense to God on your part!

Sputnik: While I do agree with you that my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ should not be insulted by me, it's the PRACTICE of today's 'tongues' that I have issue with. Advise me, please, as to how I can stand up so deliberately to expose an unscriptural practice without targetting the individual. I'm all ears. And again, bmeasure, exposing a fraudulent counterfeit (is it even that?) of the genuine tongues would not be grieving the Spirit. And, it would also certainly NOT be a sin or offensive to God!

bmeasure:

Matthew 18:6 says:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

I'd be very careful if I were you. God is not pleased with the proud of heart.[/quote:7a61a]

Sputnik: Very nice, bmeasure, but this has got NOTHING to do with this issue. Please let us keep scriptural texts in context.

 

[bmeasure]

And I repeat:

This guy sputnik is really crossing the line here! What has made you so superior to everyone else here, Sput? You've really think you've got it all figured out don't you? Be careful that you don't think more highly of yourself than you ought. (scripture)

I am curious to know everyones views on Speaking in Tongues then provide some scriptures on it. I will be elaving to work at camp again in a week so hopefully this topic will be hot before I leave.

This is what was what Julian wrote to start this post originally, so why would you be so arrogant to assume because you want it to change, it will be?
[quote:26055]Sputnik wrote:
Pentecostal tongues ...that IS what we're debating after all, right? Okay, then let me call a spade a spade. Poppycock and balderdash!

Where's the spade? Now you look foolish! Hope it was worth it.

And, if this phenomena is INDEED a gift of the Holy Spirit, why is it then that only Pentecostals (generally speaking again) are given this 'gift'. Why are not masses of Baptists, Lutherans, Adventists, Episcapalians, etc. honored with this 'gift of the Holy Spirit'?

First off, this argument is pretty weak before it even gets started. You say "only Pentecostals" then say "generally speaking". Which is it; Generally or "only"? For starters, I don't mess with being any denomination.....you could maybe calle me "inter- or non-denominational", but those are almost denominations themselves. I simply read the word of God and believe what it says, whithout feeling pressured to believe what a denomination believes. In fact I dropped my membership at an AG (Assemblies of God) church because they required me to believe that speaking in tongues is the "initial physical evidence" of being filled with the Spirit. Scripture has told me differently. I don't pick a church based on what denomination, but if they believe the Word of God. Minor differences in beliefs about things are common, but don't "require" me to believe something that isn't scriptural.

Another reason people that believe like you don't recieve that particular form of tongues is that YOU DON'T WANT IT! Do you give people gifts when you know they won't want it? I don't. Also, I know a Luthran pastor that told me that some of his congregation do speak in a "prayer tongue", but they don't consider it orderly to have this happen during a service....only quietly (I don't have a huge problem with this thinking). I also don't think it's orderly to be barking and shouting out of order in church. This is what 1 Cor 14 is addressing, disorderly conduct.

I have never seen someone bark, and don't understand why the Spirit of God would do that, but I'm not going to point out their "speck" when I've got beams in my own eye! It is difficult to be a pastor of some pentecostal assemblies, because you have to be firm yet sensitive to people's feelings. I'm not well enough instructed by God to handle those decisions, yet. But I know that to ban the correct operation of the gifting from service just to stop the "other stuff" isn't the way to go. With your arrogance you presume to know more than many seasoned pastors.

Last thing I can't believe I read was:

My own son (when 14) could 'speak in tongues' just like a pro. He would 'put on a show' at will just to expose the fakery of it all. This was not of the Holy Spirit but it sounded as genuine as others who 'spoke in tongues' in church

I'd stop worrying about what's going on in other churches and get your own home in order! Your son "putting on a show" is a personal insult to the Holy Spirits power. I'm not going to say that he has already commited the unpardonable sin, but I think he's flirting with disaster! Even if you don't believe the Spirit is grieved, your son is still insulting your fellow brothers and sisters who worship your Risen Lord and King. This is sin...period! Now you "allowing" or dare I say "promoting" this kind of behavior is an offense to God on your part!

Matthew 18:6 says:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

I'd be very careful if I were you. God is not pleased with the proud of heart.[/quote:26055]

 

[SputnikBoy]

Wow ...you're serious, aren't you? A repeat of the the exact same post. I won't respond again in detail, however. Just refer to my response above.