The False vs True Gift Of Tongues

[Free]

The point of the passage is the giving of the Holy Spirit. God's holy church was born on that day, the feast of weeks.

Of course.

How so? What are we even fighting about?

You tell me. You brought it up initially.

Call it whatever you like, but by biblical definition according to this authoritative source, it's prophesying, for Peter was speaking on behalf of God.

That's a very broad definition which would include any and all biblical teaching. Here is how Albert Barnes defines "prophesy," based on its usage in the NT:

'The word “prophesy” does not mean only to foretell future events, although that is the proper meaning of the word, but also to declare anything that is unknown, or anything which cannot be known by natural knowledge or without revelation.'

Does any of that fit what Peter did, or was Peter simply quoting prophecy? Can you show any instance in the NT where it fits the definition you have given, or, can you show any instance in the NT where it doesn't fit Barnes's definition?

You demand I stick with the text, I oblige.

I asked what that has to do with anything I've said, which is to ask: what argument of mine are you addressing?

If you truly agreed that "speaking in unknown foreign language" is not necessary to be reproduced in every congregation, as you did in #6, then why must it be reproduced in this occasion?

Where is the congregation mentioned in this passage? What does the lack of necessity of tongues being reproduced in every congregation have to do with the text in question?

How many times is "tongues" mentioned in Acts? Are any congregations mentioned in Acts? Can you see any other reason for tongues being mentioned in Acts? Where is the one time that a congregation is mentioned using tongues in the NT?

You criticize me for defining "prophesying" and going beyond the text, and here you're doing exactly that, defining "tongues" and going beyond the text.

Acts 2 gives us a clear definition of what is meant by "tongues"--speaking in a language unknown to the speaker. Then, "tongues" are mentioned only two more times in Acts, with no other definition given. It follows that "tongues" carries the same definition throughout Acts and even the rest of the NT, which is only 1 Cor 12-14, where it is also mentioned as a spiritual gift.

So, how, exactly, have I gone beyond the text?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You tell me. You brought it up initially.

We're discussing whether speaking in tongue is turly a gift from God or deception from Satan. My point is simple, the answer lies within the contents, for "my sheep hear my voice."

Does any of that fit what Peter did, or was Peter simply quoting prophecy? Can you show any instance in the NT where it fits the definition you have given, or, can you show any instance in the NT where it doesn't fit Barnes's definition?

Yes, Peter was declaring what was unknown to the crowd, who mocked the disciples as "drunk with new wine", afterwards they were "cut to the heart." (2:37)

I asked what that has to do with anything I've said, which is to ask: what argument of mine are you addressing?

No, you questioned about my observation in post #27 and asked what the text says, which I obliged.

Where is the congregation mentioned in this passage? What does the lack of necessity of tongues being reproduced in every congregation have to do with the text in question?

How many times is "tongues" mentioned in Acts? Are any congregations mentioned in Acts? Can you see any other reason for tongues being mentioned in Acts? Where is the one time that a congregation is mentioned using tongues in the NT?

The congregation is the disciples at Ephesus whom Paul baptized in Acts 19:1-7. In your opinion it seems the same "tongues" at Pentecost must be reproduced in that occasion, which is not necessary.

So, how, exactly, have I gone beyond the text?

In Acts 2 there were foreign pilgrims from all nations, the Holy Spirit miraculously did a simultaneous translation for all of them, so they could hear God's word in their native tongues; in Acts 19, though, there was no such a crowd, just Paul and the local disciples, there's no need to speak in any foreign tongue, that wouldn't make any sense. And since 19:6 clearly states they "prophesied", they obviously knew the contents of their speech. If it were unknown to the speaker, then how did they know it was prophesying - instead of meaningless gibberish?

 

[Delete_me]

I feel like speaking in "angelic" tongue is one of those things I don't agree with, but I can let it go for the sake of unity with my Christian brothers. I've been prayed over before by people speaking these angelic tongues. They have good intentions. And isn't that what prayer is all about?

While you can learn a foreign language, being fluent enough in it to speak spiritual truths is quite a formidable task. Kudos to those who do it--especially to those who learn a language just to minister to others. For some people and some circumstances, they just can't. Or at least, not on time for them to do what God has called them. The people of Acts probably fit basically that category: they can't read, they don't have time, who is going to teach them, and all their time in the day is gobbled up just putting food on the table. Plus, how are they going to do "immersion"? Are they going to walk 5,000 miles to India, just to give them 5 years to "immerse" in the language? They just can't. But God provided. Yay God!

 

[Free]

We're discussing whether speaking in tongue is turly a gift from God or deception from Satan. My point is simple, the answer lies within the contents, for "my sheep hear my voice."

Please go back through the quotes and see what each one was addressing. This particular line of questioning had to do with a specific response you made to me, HERE.

Yes, Peter was declaring what was unknown to the crowd, who mocked the disciples as "drunk with new wine", afterwards they were "cut to the heart." (2:37)

I’m not going to address this point anymore, other than to say Peter himself was not prophesying; he was repeating prophecy from Joel 2 to explain what was happening.

No, you questioned about my observation in post #27 and asked what the text says, which I obliged.

No, this goes back to post #25, where you didn’t address my point, which is what I was pointing out in post #28.

The congregation is the disciples at Ephesus whom Paul baptized in Acts 19:1-7. In your opinion it seems the same "tongues" at Pentecost must be reproduced in that occasion, which is not necessary.

Where does it say “congregation”? Again, what does the text say in Acts 19:1-7? Who are the twelve men?

In Acts 2 there were foreign pilgrims from all nations, the Holy Spirit miraculously did a simultaneous translation for all of them, so they could hear God's word in their native tongues;

Again, what does the text say?

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (ESV)

What did the Holy Spirit do? Who did the Holy Spirit fall on?

in Acts 19, though, there was no such a crowd, just Paul and the local disciples, there's no need to speak in any foreign tongue, that wouldn't make any sense.

There wasn’t? Really? What happened in Acts 10:44-47 and why do you think it happened (Acts 15:15-18)?

And since 19:6 clearly states they "prophesied", they obviously knew the contents of their speech. If it were unknown to the speaker, then how did they know it was prophesying - instead of meaningless gibberish?

No idea, but the meaning of “tongues” is given in 2:4 as supernaturally speaking in an unknown language. There is nothing in the passage to even imply that the gift of the Holy Spirit was in the hearing. The Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, not the more than 3000, and enabled them to speak in the various languages that were represented by the numerous devout Jews. That is why all the other Jews understood them.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Please go back through the quotes and see what each one was addressing. This particular line of questioning had to do with a specific response you made to me, HERE.

I don't understand why this is controversial. The topic of this thread is "false vs true gift of tongues", and I'm simply telling you that the answer lies within the contents, not the form. You think the devil couldn't lie through a foreign language, or a seemingly "mysterious heavenly" language? That should be more suspicious than native language.

I’m not going to address this point anymore, other than to say Peter himself was not prophesying; he was repeating prophecy from Joel 2 to explain what was happening.

But by the definition you provided, that's prophesying, for Joel 2 was an unknown mystery to the crowd until Peter explained its fulfillment.

No, this goes back to post #25, where you didn’t address my point, which is what I was pointing out in post #28.

I did address that. 2:4 did not say the 120 disciples were "blabbing unintelligent with no understading". The crowd heard them praising God's mighty work (2:11), that's why they knew it's divine utterance given by the Holy Spirit. I'm not using 2:11 to contradict 2:4, quite the contrary, 2:11 is the proof of 2:4.

Where does it say “congregation”? Again, what does the text say in Acts 19:1-7? Who are the twelve men?

Isn't that a gathering of believers in the Lord's name? If so, that's a small congregation. You can go with another term you prefer, that doesn't matter.

Again, what does the text say?

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (ESV)

What did the Holy Spirit do? Who did the Holy Spirit fall on?

I'm not here to debate with you on the text of 2:4, we're here to discuss the topic proposed by the OP - "false vs true gift of tongues", and how can we tell the true from the false. What you're doing is avoiding this topic and instead hammering me with this one verse just because of our slight disagreement.

There wasn’t? Really? What happened in Acts 10:44-47 and why do you think it happened (Acts 15:15-18)?

In both occasions the Holy Spirit fell upon the gentiles, they were accepted into the sheepfold, that's the real miracle which the Jews marveled at. Previously they thought God was exclusively theirs, a Jewish God, but now God's grace was extended to the Gentiles, it was no longer their own privilege. You're missing the whole point by focusing on "tongues".

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No idea, but the meaning of “tongues” is given in 2:4 as supernaturally speaking in an unknown language. There is nothing in the passage to even imply that the gift of the Holy Spirit was in the hearing. The Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, not the more than 3000, and enabled them to speak in the various languages that were represented by the numerous devout Jews. That is why all the other Jews understood them.

Again, I'm not here to have a dabate with you on the text of 2:4. I'm simply telling you that this meaning doesn't necessarily apply to 10:46 or 19:6. You erroneously assumed that the same miracle must have been reproduced at these two occasions, and you're being adamant on it. In Acts 2 it was the 3000 Jews who were baptized, in 10 the Gentiles, in 19 John the Baptists' disciples, this shows that God's church is growing, the Holy Spirit only started with the 120, from there on, "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (2:47)

 

[Corinth77777]

Kjv

​

2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.


Have you ever saw cloven tongues like as of fire "sat upon" people. Has it sat upon you where others see?


4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

 Romans
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered

Also Unknown tongues in Corinthians is not the same as other tongues

 

[Corinth77777]

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,

There are other thing that Happened when one is filled. Watch

Act 4:8 - what Peter replies
Acts 13:9- stared straight at Him...
Luke 4:1- Zechariah prophesied
Acts 4:31- and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously.


And Im sure many more
Romanss 15:16

 

[Corinth77777]

How will someone argue this from Romans:

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered

 

[hawkman]

How will someone argue this from Romans:

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered

Have you ever prayed to the point that words would no longer there for you to say ?

 

[Corinth77777]

Have you ever prayed to the point that words would no longer there for you to say ?

Point Im trying to get one to look at is what scripture says for those who use this passage about a prayer language. The fact is the groanings cannot be uttered. And here we see the Spirit gives utterance. So are there really 2 different types of true tongues spoken of.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.


So the way I see it: in the above its the Holy Spirit that gives utterance.

Therefore who is giving utterance when one speaks in an unknown tongue in prayer.
When scripture says the Spirit interceeds with groanings that cannot be uttered.

So as I mentioned earlier about MacArthur stance on Corinthians, Paul could be being sarcastic when He speaks. I mean look at what He says even here:.

Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.





However

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered
Also Paul never said He Spoke a prayer language
Of the language of angels. It seems more like his use of teaching is Rhetoric full of hyperboles.

This is what He said : If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[ b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

"If" is a hypothetical word

Hypothetical means-"imagined or suggested but perhaps not true or really happening"

Do you believe that Paul also understood all mysteries Especially when Paul said- we know in part and prophesy in part?

 

[Corinth77777]

Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

HOW DO YOU SUPPOSE THEY WERE CARRIED AWAY BY DUMB IDOLS -

WHEN AFTER WORDS HE GOES DIRECTLY INTO SPEAKING ABOUT what one could not speak by the Holy Spirit, then goes directly into gifts and spends much time on tongues?
hawkman

My thought is they might have already practiced
Ecstatic utterance when carried away by their gods. And according to McAuthor's stance as noted earlier from kjv is the unknown tongue was the fake gift they tried to mimic, while in scriptures when Paul mentions true gift it is tongues with an " s" at the end.

 

[Corinth77777]

Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

HOW DO YOU SUPPOSE THEY WERE CARRIED AWAY BY DUMB IDOLS -

WHEN AFTER WORDS HE GOES DIRECTLY INTO SPEAKING ABOUT what one could not speak by the Holy Spirit, then goes directly into gifts and spends much time on tongues?
hawkman

My thought is they might have already practiced
Ecstatic utterance when carried away by their gods. And according to McAuthor's stance as noted earlier from kjv is the unknown tongue was the fake gift they tried to mimic, while in scriptures when Paul mentions true gift it is tongues with an " s" at the end.

So I wanted to look up if ecstatic tongues was something new. I WANT TO FIND IF THERE IS HISTORY OF THIS b4 Christ. I HAVEN'T READ IT ALL BECAUSE WORDS SMALL. BUT FROM WHAT I did see the practice existed b4 Christ.

Click on that below to read

Tongues in Paganism

Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Corinth77777]

One thing I will not dismiss is what God can do.

I believe God brings down angels to help people

I believe that if God wants to a person can speak in real tongues and another can receive

I believe God looks at the heart

Can can do what He wants...He can take what man use for evil and use it for good.

I believe God can give certain experiences

God can do what He wants in the way He wants. I see this
Especially becausese all cultues, all people and all our experiences are different.

 

[hawkman]

One thing I will not dismiss is what God can do.

I believe God brings down angels to help people

Yes He does .

I believe that if God wants to a person can speak in real tongues and another can receive

I have seen the gift of tongues in operation in the church among God's people just as proclaimed in the bible .

I believe God looks at the heart

Amen .

I believe God can give certain experiences

Dreams are one .

 

[hawkman]

Point Im trying to get one to look at is what scripture says for those who use this passage about a prayer language. The fact is the groanings cannot be uttered. And here we see the Spirit gives utterance. So are there really 2 different types of true tongues spoken of.

The only types of tongues in the spiritual sense that I know of are ...

The gift of tongues with the Holy Spirit giving the utterance .

False tongues .

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The only types of tongues in the spiritual sense that I know of are ...

The gift of tongues with the Holy Spirit giving the utterance .

False tongues .

But how do you know whether an utterance is given by the Holy Spirit or by the devil? It’s easy for you and me to judge with 20/20 hindsight, but if you read carefully, the crowd’s initial reaction to it was very different, they were mocking the disciples for being drunk (2:13) with new wine on nine o’clock in the morning! They didn’t know what happened until Peter explained to them.

 

[hawkman]

But how do you know whether an utterance is given by the Holy Spirit or by the devil?

Test the Spirits .

1 John 4​

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

It’s easy for you and me to judge with 20/20 hindsight, but if you read carefully, the crowd’s initial reaction to it was very different, they were mocking the disciples for being drunk (2:13) with new wine on nine o’clock in the morning! They didn’t know what happened until Peter explained to them.

An initial reaction to the initial outpouring , an explanation for the unknowing would be in order .

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Test the Spirits .

1 John 4​

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

An initial reaction to the initial outpouring , an explanation for the unknowing would be in order .

You know, we're not discussing this one outpouring of the Holy Spirit. If you believe that the bible is timeless and relevant, then there're modern applications. For example, last year there was this famous Asbury revival, there was a continuous, spontaneous worship session in a Kentucky school auditorium, was that a true revival or a cult? Was that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit or personal emotions?

 

[hawkman]

You know, we're not discussing this one outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Ok .

If you believe that the bible is timeless and relevant, then there're modern applications.

I certainly do that is why I gave you the verses above about testing the spirits . And here are some more verses , " prove all things " meaning test the spirts . Testing the spirts still works today !
1 Thessalonians 5

19 Quench not the Spirit.

20 Despise not prophesyings.

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

For example, last year there was this famous Asbury revival, there was a continuous, spontaneous worship session in a Kentucky school auditorium, was that a true revival or a cult? Was that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit or personal emotions?

For you answer to these two questions you needed to be there to test the spirits .
More about testing the spirits .
What does it mean to test the spirits?